« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Arkansas

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 22 Mar 13 5:29 AM | 73 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix
Msg. 12986 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 12984 by DigSpace)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

hi dig,

i am not keen on any of the measures on the pregnancy side. it kinda makes me want morally to vomit to think along those lines.

so i prefer to think "how long is necessary to make a decision?" while taking care to be clearly outside the zone of sentience, at least.

i think a responsible, sexually-active person may take a pregnancy test in the bathroom and then have some time and make their choice within 12 weeks. since the science exists for this test and it seems reliable, i don't think that is too much for society to require against the sensitivities surrounding the choice.

i don't accept the position which some seem to take that it is only appropriate to consider the rights of the mother. at some point the state intrudes. tome it makes sense to exercise caution in favour of the foetus.


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Arkansas
By: DigSpace
in ALEA
Fri, 22 Mar 13 5:05 AM
Msg. 12984 of 54959

How much is enough time to decide?

I ask because while biology is quite firm in its measurement of 12 weeks gestation, humans vary considerably in when probative awareness of pregnancy happens.

Some women are like atomic clocks, if they are 1 second late ... they are pregnant.

Others are highly irregular, skip months all the time, don't get sick, get on a plane to Bermuda, think the sun is hotter than usual, go home, study for finals, feel tired and whallah, biologically they are into double digits (weeks-wise). It is uncommon, even rare, but where is the line so drawn.

It seems one needs to follow an order of events (if they are inclined to impose a time-limit) where one determines legally what constitutes enough time, somehow formulates when effectively all of the population would be aware, and then adds that time.

And of course there is the whole thing of children (pregnant children), genetic screening and so on and to what degree one maintains personal liberty in he context of these matters or is otherwise instructed that they have had enough time.

While the morality of affording live births full rights while an unborn fetus has none is by no means comfortable, I pretty much go with the viability argument. While live birth certainly does not define independence, it does much more so than, say, a "heartbeat".

As ARK seems to be using the heartbeat criteria, and having grown plenty of stems cells that spontaneously differentiate into "heart" cells owing to the fact that they are beating in the petrie dish, I am disinclined to recognize a heartbeat as a valuable metric. A heartbeat is more of a literary tool than a biological one in this case.

I certainly think killing is unfortunate, and usually bad, but I am uncertain if we are ever to separate ourselves from it. We do it in war, in prisons, in food distribution policies, through gun laws, in allowing the construction and use of automobiles and so on. We allow roads to be built next to schools that allow normal traffic, we recommend versus require all sorts of safety things, we allow parental control of vaccine policy in households and all of these things in aggregate kill. Reliably. Determinably. Given the variety of situations that can lead to pregnancy and the disproportionate burden placed on one gender, I am inclined to allow this killing.


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next