House Republicans submit HR586 - Human Life begins at fertilization - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;51719234]I thought it was generally agreed upon that you start becoming a person when your neural connections actually connect. I could be wrong though.[/QUOTE] medical definition is 22-24 weeks when brainstem activity (brain birth) begins. Fetal brain impulses begin at around 9 (?) weeks.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51719250]medical definition is 22-24 weeks when brainstem activity (brain birth) begins. Fetal brain impulses begin at around 9 (?) weeks.[/QUOTE] See exactly, it's been discussed to death and this is the only real difference I've heard of while everything else is always emotional. Let's all move on, retaining our better world because we prevented the needless suffering of forcing children on people who do not want them.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51719250]medical definition is 22-24 weeks when brainstem activity (brain birth) begins. Fetal brain impulses begin at around 9 (?) weeks.[/QUOTE] Brain birth itself is even somewhat of a contentious issue. What sort of brainstem activity do we measure? Do we look for general brainstem activity at 22-24 weeks? Do we simply wait for TC fibers to develop at 24-28 weeks, or do we wait for synchrony in the EEG signals ~2 weeks after the development of the TC fibers? It's messy business trying to tie developing scientific benchmarks to law. As a corollary, internationally brain death is a pretty well recognized thing, but the standards and measures used to determine brain death vary wildly from country to country, with some places having no measures at all.

It's at least a much better standard than "the heart begins beating at X weeks!!!"

[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;51719400]It's at least a much better standard than "the heart begins beating at X weeks!!!"[/QUOTE] Oh absolutely. I generally agree with the 23 week mark ruling. We've chosen that benchmark somewhat arbitrarily, but it's probably the best we've got for now.

[QUOTE=Snowmew;51717258]If you don't attribute economic value to peoples' lives in this determination, you have absolutely no justification to ascribe any exceptions or specific limits to abortion beyond "ban it entirely" or "allow it entirely", because your threshold would be completely arbitrary.[/QUOTE] Why are "ban it entirely" and "allow it entirely" the only 2 options? Say that we came to a consensus that human life starts between 22nd and 24th week, depending on how well the fetus is developing and we set abortion laws so that they are available to everyone in the first 21 weeks and then later only in cases of medical complications? You do realize that there are countries where laws permit abortion for medical reasons, whereas otherwise it's illegal, right? It's not something impossible to put into law.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51719521]Why are "ban it entirely" and "allow it entirely" the only 2 options? Say that we came to a consensus that human life starts between 22nd and 24th week, depending on how well the fetus is developing and we set abortion laws so that they are available to everyone in the first 21 weeks and then later only in cases of medical complications? You do realize that there are countries where laws permit abortion for medical reasons, whereas otherwise it's illegal, right? It's not something impossible to put into law.[/QUOTE] If we come to such a consensus things will undoubtedly be easy. We aren't there yet though. Biology doesn't really care so much about our legal definitions unfortunately.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;51719583]If we come to such a consensus things will undoubtedly be easy. We aren't there yet though. Biology doesn't really care so much about our legal definitions unfortunately.[/QUOTE] Yeah I understand we don't have that consensus yet. I'm just asking why he thinks there are only 2 options and there can't a point up to which everyone can get an abortion and after which it's legal only for specific reasons like medical complications.

so realistically, how likely is this to pass and become law and what effect will this have on the general populous, is this a type of thing your people will riot over?

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;51719719]so realistically, how likely is this to pass and become law and what effect will this have on the general populous, is this a type of thing your people will riot over?[/QUOTE] Realistically? Not a high chance of passing.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51719659]Yeah I understand we don't have that consensus yet. I'm just asking why he thinks there are only 2 options and there can't a point up to which everyone can get an abortion and after which it's legal only for specific reasons like medical complications.[/QUOTE] If we make medical exceptions then we have to define what is an appropriate medical condition to make an exception for. Simply leaving late-term abortions open for 'medical complications' without an appropriate definition is really arbitrary, and that's bad for laws. Survivability is a difficult index for the reasons snowmew laid out. Do we factor in the mental health of the woman? Do we adhere to WHO standards and add socio-economic factors into consideration as well? These restrictions don't even do anything to actually change the rate of late-term abortions. They just replace high-quality providers with low-quality providers. We aren't about to unlearn how to do these medical procedures anytime soon.

Buh. Really hoping this doesn't pass. It's fucking ludicrous.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;51719828]If we make medical exceptions then we have to define what is an appropriate medical condition to make an exception for. Simply leaving late-term abortions open for 'medical complications' without an appropriate definition is really arbitrary, and that's bad for laws. Survivability is a difficult index for the reasons snowmew laid out. Do we factor in the mental health of the woman? Do we adhere to WHO standards and add socio-economic factors into consideration as well?[/QUOTE] I know that there are laws that say that if continuing the pregnancy with a medical complication puts a woman in more risk than a standard pregnancy then it's legal. Or when the fetus is seriously damaged. I don't think you can put every possible scenario into law. You use medical experts to look at the individual case. [QUOTE=1legmidget;51719828]These restrictions don't even do anything to actually change the rate of late-term abortions. They just replace high-quality providers with low-quality providers. We aren't about to unlearn how to do these medical procedures anytime soon.[/QUOTE] Well aren't about to unlearn how to throw a baby out of window and I don't see murder of infants being legalized anytime soon. You're making it sound like I want to ban abortion altogether.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;51718913]"put them up for adoption if they can't/don't want to take care of them" Would do you well to read my post lol [editline]24th January 2017[/editline] Obviously it's the woman's choice, and nobody should decide what anyone else does with their body, but there's also someone [I]else's[/I] body inside there. Someone who isn't born yet, though. I'm pro choice but also anti-death. The mother is deciding what that child will do, or not do, with their body by aborting them. Same thing, dude :v think abstract. It's ending the possibility for that life, what they could be or do. Killing their potential. No different than killing a child imho [editline]24th January 2017[/editline] being in the middle fucking sucks[/QUOTE] Ending a life is not the same as preventing one, its deciding what shouldn't be, not what shouldn't have.

[QUOTE=Splash Attack;51717044]This link is for state legislature. Here is the link for your U.S. House Representative. [url]http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/[/url] May want to update the OP with this.[/QUOTE] Not sure what the point is when most of Congress is Republican and most likely for it. Who knows, contacting them about this may even drive it forward.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;51718913]Same thing, dude :v think abstract. It's ending the possibility for that life, what they could be or do. Killing their potential. No different than killing a child imho [/QUOTE] Cancerous cells are cells that refuse to die out and instead continuously replicate themselves even if they create deformed and defunct cells in the process. During early stages of pregnancy, it's not something even remotely identifiable as a fetus, let alone as humanoid. It's a collection of cells dividing and replicating. Just because someone is pregnant doesn't mean that the potential child has been gestating for long enough to have brain activity or even resemble a human shape. People have this mental image of a pregnant woman with a large bump and assume that an abortion is just killing a developed fetus. When the reality is much less noticeable. If a fertilized egg is considered a human, that makes a miscarriage into manslaughter. Hell, it's possible for ovulation and fertilization to occur normally but the pregnancy won't occur unless the egg implants itself into the uterus wall -- this is the point where you realize that these people making the decisions don't fully understand sexual anatomy and how babies are actually made. Doesn't matter if you're pro-pregnancy or pro-choice at this point, their proposition should be thrown out the window since they're trying to legislate something they don't have an actual grasp on.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51719998]I know that there are laws that say that if continuing the pregnancy with a medical complication puts a woman in more risk than a standard pregnancy then it's legal. Or when the fetus is seriously damaged. I don't think you can put every possible scenario into law. You use medical experts to look at the individual case.[/QUOTE] If we're deferring to medical experts anyway why bother with the rest of the legal restrictions? Why not treat abortion as a medical procedure and leave these decisions between healthcare providers and patients? [QUOTE] Well aren't about to unlearn how to throw a baby out of window and I don't see murder of infants being legalized anytime soon. You're making it sound like I want to ban abortion altogether.[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to assume any position on your part, sorry that it came off that way to you. The reality of a lot of these laws requiring third-party authorization, mandatory counselling etc. etc. is that the actual rate of abortion remains unchanged. People just end up with more hoops they have to jump through and lower quality of care. I get that people have strong feelings about the matter and that there are lots of ethical and moral questions that have complicated answers, but the people drafting most of these laws aren't well versed in the subject matter even if they mean well. [URL="http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/9789241548434/en/"]WHO data[/URL] shows that people end up with the best care when abortion is allowed simply on a basis of request. That's what actually works in practice and that's what I was trying to get at.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51719773]Realistically? Not a high chance of passing.[/QUOTE] And many of us thought/said the same of a trump presidency. With a republican supermajority, I'd place this at a 50-50 bet. Its going to be down to constituents badgering the hell out of their representatives if they begin to show support for it.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;51720198]If we're deferring to medical experts anyway why bother with the rest of the legal restrictions? Why not treat abortion as a medical procedure and leave these decisions between healthcare providers and patients? [/QUOTE] Wait this is after we came to the hypothetical consensus that human life starts between 22nd and 24th week though. If you can justify being free to kill a baby past the point where we consider it human life, you can justify killing infants using the same argument. [QUOTE=1legmidget;51720198]I'm not trying to assume any position on your part, sorry that it came off that way to you. The reality of a lot of these laws requiring third-party authorization, mandatory counselling etc. etc. is that the actual rate of abortion remains unchanged. People just end up with more hoops they have to jump through and lower quality of care. I get that people have strong feelings about the matter and that there are lots of ethical and moral questions that have complicated answers, but the people drafting most of these laws aren't well versed in the subject matter even if they mean well. [URL="http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/9789241548434/en/"]WHO data[/URL] shows that people end up with the best care when abortion is allowed simply on a basis of request. That's what actually works in practice and that's what I was trying to get at.[/QUOTE] Yeah but I'm talking about a situation where everyone can do it up to the end of first trimester. So if you want the abortion you can do it before that. Your model isn't really different than mine. Taking your model, even if it was that everyone is free to do the abortion for any reason they want during the entire pregnancy, you still have this line after which the fetus becomes a baby and it's illegal to kill it after that. The only real difference between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about is 6 months.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51720442]Wait this is after we came to the hypothetical consensus that human life starts between [B]22nd and 24th week[/B] though. If you can justify being free to kill a baby past the point where we consider it human life, you can justify killing infants using the same argument. Yeah but I'm talking about a situation where everyone can do it [B]up to the end of first trimester[/B]. So if you want the abortion you can do it before that. Your model isn't really different than mine. Taking your model, even if it was that everyone is free to do the abortion for any reason they want during the entire pregnancy, you still have this line after which the fetus becomes a baby and it's illegal to kill it after that. The only real difference between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about is 6 months.[/QUOTE] Oh how lovely scientific and medical jargon is to deal with! The first trimester ends at ~13 weeks. I'm pretty sure you and I are in agreement on the ~23 week mark and that you aren't suggesting that access to abortion starts having extra restrictions added to it at ~13 weeks. Really what we need is a way to measure fetal EEG signals reliably so that we can get rid of these arbitrary benchmarks based on [I]time[/I]. If we can measure their brain activity more directly we don't have to quibble about dates and all of that nonsense. That's part of what I was getting at earlier with discrepancies in determining where we ought to draw the line for brain birth. I guess simplifying my views down into a couple points: 1. Abortion should be freely accessible up to the point where the developing fetus has the capacity for consciousness 2. Current laws use an [I]indirect[/I] measure for neural development (time) when we should be tying things to something more [I]direct[/I] (like EEG signals) and we should be focusing on developing the tools we need to measure this 3. Until we develop the tools needed to measure these brainwaves, governments ought to err on the side of being more permissive when it comes to abortion simply because you can absolutely [I]prove[/I] that the mother is a human being (duh) where as the developing child has a higher degree of uncertainty. You'd be [I]definitely[/I] protecting the rights of the mother while only [I]probably[/I] protecting the rights of a potential child if that makes sense.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;51720839]Oh how lovely scientific and medical jargon is to deal with! The first trimester ends at ~13 weeks. I'm pretty sure you and I are in agreement on the ~23 week mark and that you aren't suggesting that access to abortion starts having extra restrictions added to it at ~13 weeks. Really what we need is a way to measure fetal EEG signals reliably so that we can get rid of these arbitrary benchmarks based on [I]time[/I]. If we can measure their brain activity more directly we don't have to quibble about dates and all of that nonsense. That's part of what I was getting at earlier with discrepancies in determining where we ought to draw the line for brain birth. I guess simplifying my views down into a couple points: 1. Abortion should be freely accessible up to the point where the developing fetus has the capacity for consciousness 2. Current laws use an [I]indirect[/I] measure for neural development (time) when we should be tying things to something more [I]direct[/I] (like EEG signals) and we should be focusing on developing the tools we need to measure this 3. Until we develop the tools needed to measure these brainwaves, governments ought to err on the side of being more permissive when it comes to abortion simply because you can absolutely [I]prove[/I] that the mother is a human being (duh) where as the developing child has a higher degree of uncertainty. You'd be [I]definitely[/I] protecting the rights of the mother while only [I]probably[/I] protecting the rights of a potential child if that makes sense.[/QUOTE] Right so you just pretty much did not refer to my last post at all except for the remark about my inconsistency of weeks and trimesters, which has no effect on what I'm saying whatsoever because I'm not proposing any certain date. It was a thought experiment on what would happen if we had come to that hypothetical consensus when human life begins. And you just contradicted yourself a lot: [QUOTE=1legmidget;51720839]1. Abortion should be freely accessible up to the point where the developing fetus has the capacity for consciousness [by measuring fetal EEG signals reliably and drawing the line at brain birth][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=1legmidget;51720198]If we're deferring to medical experts anyway why bother with the rest of the legal restrictions? Why not treat abortion as a medical procedure and leave these decisions between healthcare providers and patients?[/QUOTE] Why draw the line and not make it just a medical procedure and leave these decisions between healthcare providers and patients for the entire duration of the pregnancy? [QUOTE=1legmidget;51720839]2. Current laws use an [I]indirect[/I] measure for neural development (time) when we should be tying things to something more [I]direct[/I] (like EEG signals) and we should be focusing on developing the tools we need to measure this[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=1legmidget;51720198]The reality of a lot of these laws requiring third-party authorization, mandatory counselling etc. etc. is that the actual rate of abortion remains unchanged. People just end up with more hoops they have to jump through and lower quality of care. [/QUOTE] You want to measure fetal EEG signals of every individual fetus to determine if we can go though the abortion and we were criticizing me for creating hoops. You also said the actual rate of abortions will not change when I proposed drawing a line and now you want to draw a line yourself. The only difference is you want to draw the line for every single fetus individually and not draw the same one for everyone. [QUOTE=1legmidget;51720839]Really what we need is a way to measure fetal EEG signals reliably so that we can get rid of these arbitrary benchmarks based on time. If we can measure their brain activity more directly we don't have to quibble about dates and all of that nonsense. That's part of what I was getting at earlier with discrepancies in determining where we ought to draw the line for brain birth.[...] 3. Until we develop the tools needed to measure these brainwaves, governments ought to err on the side of being more permissive when it comes to abortion simply because you can absolutely [I]prove[/I] that the mother is a human being (duh) where as the developing child has a higher degree of uncertainty. You'd be [I]definitely[/I] protecting the rights of the mother while only [I]probably[/I] protecting the rights of a potential child if that makes sense.[/QUOTE] Or like in case of statutory rape you set the bar to the lower part of the range just to be safe. You don't have to draw the line for individual fetus. If you know that the consciousness begins between 22nd and 24th week, then just draw the line at 22nd week. And now we come back to all the arguments you have raised against me before this post because they effect you as well now. I really don't understand why you have raised all those issues if the only thing we don't agree on is where we draw the line.

[QUOTE=paindoc;51720371]And many of us thought/said the same of a trump presidency. With a republican supermajority, I'd place this at a 50-50 bet. Its going to be down to constituents badgering the hell out of their representatives if they begin to show support for it.[/QUOTE] Not the same deal. This violates Roe v. Wade, which, being a constitutional interpretation, supersedes all other laws. It will continue to be as such until Roe v. Wade is overturned, regardless of whether or not it's actually passed. And because the Supreme Court rarely tries cases of original jurisdiction, it would take some time for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. A matter of decades, at least. That is opposed to Judicial Review, which happens quite rapidly, and often kills unconstitutitional laws within a year or two of their passing. Marbury v. Madison in 1803 allows the Supreme Court to try new laws against court precedent to determine constitutionality, which leads to fast and expedient trials.