re: Cleveland Clinic Performs Its First In Utero Fetal Surgery Stolen from O.T.

quote:

---

quote:

---

you would need to look pretty hard to find a supporter of abortion rights who would use that terminology to describe a 24 week fetus.

---

Lol. New York legislature
Vermont legislature
Illinois legislature

How hard was that?

---

I did not see every minute of every debate in those three states, but I do not recall anyone using the term “clump of cells” to describe a 24 week fetus. If you saw language to that effect, perhaps you could provide a link.

quote:

---

Only if you're a complete moron (you are).

---

I have seen you post, and I can read a normal distribution. Trust me, I have at least two standard deviations on you

quote:

---

Abortion lovers continue to dehumanize babies in the womb as science, morality, and common sense move in the complete opposite direction.

That baby is a human, and she is alive. She clearly has human ailments that can only form if the human is alive, and doctors can perform surgeries to cure those ailments. Anyone who reads that and still says the baby is not a living human is intentionally ignorant or a monster.

---

I have never asserted that A 24 week fetus is not a genetically-distinct living organism of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.

That is not remotely the question. The question is what “rights” does that organism have, at what point, and when do they vest? What rights should such an organism have, at what point, and when should they vest?

A part of that series of questions is “why“ such an organism should have those rights when another organism (such as a pig) does not?

What characteristics distinguish an adult human (which we all agree cannot be deprived of life without due process) from an 18 month old steer calf that we are perfectly content to slaughter and eat?

I submit that the answer is “sapience,“ a trait which has not yet developed in a 24 week fetus. You clearly feel that some other criterion is the important criterion, and I am not going to call you filthy names or question your ethics for holding that opinion.

I do, however, find it highly entertaining that the group which cannot seem to ever stop complaining about the Left thinking with its emotions (justifiably in most cases) cannot seem to set aside its own “feelz” to discuss This issue on a rational basis.

quote:

---

Why would you undergo surgery to save an insignificant clump of cells?

---

Why do some people spend tens of thousands of dollars preserving the life of an ailing dog? Emotion.

And before the entirely predictable chorus commences, I am not saying that a human fetus is the same as a dog. I am simply saying that emotion governs both responses

quote:

---

Yep. Abortion is murder and the millions of people that support it are ghouls.

---

Says the happy citizen and taxpayer of the sovereign entity who has sanctioned these millions of murders. YOU are the ghoul.

quote:

---

The ability to perform this sort of surgery is nothing short of amazing. It also has zero bearing whatsoever on the abortion debate.

---

Vast majority of times a spina bifida diagnosis results in an abortion...

quote:

---

I have seen you post, and I can read a normal distribution. Trust me, I have at least two standard deviations on you

---

OK, Simple Jack. I remember the times you've admitted that you had no response to my counter point to your ridiculous arguments. Those posts also made me laugh, because you thought that was a significant accomplishment.

quote:

---

I have never asserted that A 24 week fetus is not a genetically-distinct living organism of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.

That is not remotely the question.

---

You cannot stipulate an unborn child is a living human and continue to question where his or her rights begin.

Are you an OweO alter? I've noticed some similarities, especially the last week or so. Once again you're LARP is cracking.

quote:

---

The question is what “rights” does that organism have

---

If the surgery is botched and the Doctor's are negligent, what rights does the baby have?

quote:

---

couple of questions:

1. What is your definition of sapience?
2. How do you measure sapience?
3. At what point on the sapience scale is value (of the life) sufficient to demand the right to life?
4. Can you provide the sapience level (for comparison) of an unborn child at 4 weeks, 24 weeks, 4 months (post-birth), and 4 years?

---

A thorough answer to your series of questions would actually require several chapters in a rather complex book. Even a much less-detailed response would be several pages, and I do not have time for that just now. If I have the opportunity, I will try to answer in greater detail this evening, but I will provide a very shorthanded answer as follows

First, I have reached the conclusion that the abortion analysis is inherently a balancing of rights, as between the pregnant woman and the developing organism resident in her uterus. As such, we are not simply analyzing the “rights“ of the embryo or fetus, but also balancing those rights against the coexistent rights of the pregnant woman. When someone is considering abortion, it would seem that those rights are in conflict and some balance must be reached.

Sapience is the level of development one step above sentence. Sentience basically involves a certain amount of minimal self-awareness and awareness of one’s environment. Sapience takes the next step into the realm of higher thought processes, analysis, and reason.

If there is some objective, measurable unit of sapiens, I am not aware of it. I have never said otherwise. It is something that develops over time, on a sliding scale, not something that either exists or does not ... beginning or ending at a given point in time.

It is, of course, true that a newborn infant is not yet fully sapient. Neither is a two-year-old toddler. That is not the question. The question is when do we make a societal decision that the developing sapience of the offspring will override the self determinative rights of the woman. That is not a question which can be answered by science. It is a philosophical question, and for legal purposes can only be answered through the political process.

The answer to your third and fourth questions would be entirely dependent upon your definition of “right to life.“ I see that as being a negative right not to be killed, and inherently a right which must be balanced against the rights of the pregnant woman.

For instance, a pregnancy which will (guaranteed) kill a fully-sapient adult woman should, in my view, I ALWAYS be terminated if necessary to preserve her life. She is fully sapient, and the fetus is not. It is that simple. On the other hand, the same is not true for a purely elective/convenience abortion. The level of infringement upon the rights of the pregnant woman is significantly lower than the loss of her life, so the “burden of proof“ (if you will) to preserve the fetus is also lower.

By way of further example, let us look at a 30 week fetus. If necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman, I would submit that the fetus should always be terminated. If necessary to preserve the physical health of the woman, I would probably argue much the same, depending upon the degree of health risk. I would argue quite the opposite if the woman’s only reason for abortion at 30 weeks is inconvenience.

In answer to your fourth question, and as briefly addressed above, the level of sapience in a normally developing fetus (and later child) would indeed increase with each of the time points that you have listed.

quote:

---

Sapience is the level of development one step above sentence. Sentience basically involves a certain amount of minimal self-awareness and awareness of one’s environment. Sapience takes the next step into the realm of higher thought processes, analysis, and reason.

---

So you finally admit to being ok with murder. Babies in the wound one day olds, those undergoing surgery or in a coma make sure to have a guard with hank around