Anti-LGBT/Religious Freedom Laws

Everything is open, I took no offense. I was elaborating my position.

What do you mean, the legal cut off for abortions in the US? I've been told women have been deciding on a whim to get abortions at 8 months. Surely people wouldn't be arguing something that's already illegal.

I think it is a deeply personal question, and should be left up to individuals to navigate.

 

To me, pretending like something that has never been conscious and is devoid of intelligence is a person is not just silly but an erosion of what being a human being is. We are not just hunks of flesh with 23 chromosomes.

 

Same with a human vegetable on life support, as I already mentioned. I'm not sure why folks who don't think health care is a right for human beings would change their mind when it's a fetus. How old is the cut off on that right to critical care? Seemed to be sometime before the age of 6, given how the immigrant children who were coming across the border a few years ago were all shipped back.

 

I will be honest, I was unaware of a legal cutoff prior to that Google search. I would assume the law is malleable in the case of the mother's safety and the viability of the fetus.

I do believe that, at the minimum, as means are made to allow earlier and earlier fetuses to survive early birth, that the law should slide the scale closer and closer to that time frame.

 

What are we, then? You're making the definitions, go for it.

 

The legal cutoff required by Roe v Wade is viability, which I thought was generally considered 24 weeks. But that's not a cutoff in the sense of "it's illegal after the cutoff," but in the sense of "it's federally required to be legal before the cutoff"

 

Consciousness, cognition, self awareness, etc.

 

Presumably you don't mean actually being conscious or self-aware, or else we'd have a problem with sleep and concussions. Is it something like "the capacity for consciousness/self-awareness"?

 

Should a conscious, cognitive and self aware individual that has full sovereignty of their own body still not be allowed to sell their labor under an artificial wage floor

 

At what age, on average, does a human become a human being? As before, I think using this a measuring stick to decide when a human being is protected by rights is dangerous.

And comparing a fetus to human vegetable is also faulty, imho. Baring a miracle, which I am sure you agree with me isn't going to happen, a human vegetable has a 0% chance of recovery. The human brain just doesn't heal like the rest of the body does. A fetus, however, has a pretty damn good chance of "recovery", given enough time in the incubator (mom or industrial egg).

 

I get the parallel here, although I would say that both are people (I don't have a robust philosophical definition for person that doesn't involve religious concepts). I would even agree with pulling the plug on the vegetable. The disanalogy between the two cases is the chances of (re)gaining consciousness in the future. If the vegetable is being kept alive only by machines but has a brain that is repairing itself, so that the vegetable would gain consciousness if left on the machines long enough for repair, then I would say that we ought to keep the machine on. If they can't live without a machine, are not conscious, and will not gain consciousness after a period of machine-supported living, then go ahead and pull it.

 

Link to where you were told women were getting abortions on a whim at 8 months?

 

What? You're talking about rights then bring up non-citizens?

 

Humans have innate inalienable rights as people. It is what the country is founded upon. The Declaration of Independence said "all people."

 

If I had said this, I'd be reamed.

 

And it is up to our country to ensure that its citizens have those inalienable rights. I don't think we'll be invading some of these South American countries because they've outlawed abortion.

 

I've already consulted the elder members of the anti-IP coalition. We have vitriolic response prepared.

 

Preparing a dose of Geritol now.BRB

 

Mississippi Governor signed their "Religious Freedom Act" today. Apparently the law is very specific and uses language to keep it from spilling outside of gays. But I find it interesting:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/05/473107959/mississippi-governor-signs-religious-freedom-bill-into-law

"The law is not a broad religious-protections law, such as many recent controversial state laws. As we reported last week, the Mississippi legislation protects only three beliefs or convictions: that marriage is between a man and a woman, that sex is "properly reserved to such a marriage," and that words like "male" and "female" are "objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at birth.""

Bolded part is what I find interesting, as scientifically, this is not always possible. Yes, you can say "do you have a Y chromosome? You are a man! Next!", but that is not always true. This ignores completely a lot of genetic variances that can cause a person to be formed without sexual organs, with both, some of both, etc. What then?

It seems short sighted, ignorant and completely irrational.

That said, I think it would be interesting to let this law sit for a while, and see what happens. Try out the libertarian/conservative ideal of non-interference and see if it works.

 

My post was concerning having an abortion out of convenience.