Horseshit. History informs us that in fact we have been reducing men’s rights over the helpless newborn since two thousand years ago when the Roman infant was not legally alive until the Roman father had accepted it. In fact, we have now reached the point where a man owes more obligation to the sperm he ejaculated five minutes ago than a woman does to the 24-week foetus. So the above assertion is not well supported by the facts. It’s just a nasty piece of rhetoric aimed at shaming into silence men who would disagree with the speaker.
That’s true.
I fail to see how it’s relevant, since I am not remotely advocating a conclusion that forcing a woman to undergo an ectopic pregnancy is necessary, desirable, beneficial, or useful at all.
Then I’m not sure why you’re asking for a distinction as to whether or not the fetus in an ectopic pregnancy is considered a human being. It’s also irrelevant whether or not it’s a “person” (it isn’t, IMO). Ectopic pregnancies pose huge risks to the pregnant woman, and there’s a procedure available which would not only lessen her suffering, but would not render her sterile.
Bricker I don’t think so, this thread despite a few sidelines is about El Salvador and what it means in real world, real life to women, when the life begins at conception belief is backed by the state.
It’s frightening.
Self hatred is quite common.
Yep.
Then you’re not following the argument.
I asked: “How do you know it’s not a human being?”
My answer: “How does that prove it’s not a human being?”
I ask where the definition of “human being” excludes “something that can kill you from the inside.”
So why am I asking whther it’s a human being? Because if you assume it isn’t a human being, then the entire analysis on what sorts of procedures are morally acceptable revolves around what sorts of procedures will best benefit the mother.
If you acknowledge that the embryo or the fetus is a human being, then you must balance the health and welfare of one human being against another.
I argue that such balancing is morally required, because we’re talking about two human lives here.
Ah, I understand.
See if this helps.
From a medical standpoint*, an ectopic pregnancy is a medical condition because the fetus will never develop beyond a certain point. There is no way for it to be re-implanted in utero and develop the organs necessary for it to become a person. It isn’t even a potential person. Once it adhered to the wall of the fallopian tube, it ceased to be a potential person and (unfortunately) became a complication and a risk to the woman’s health. Allowing that complication to develop to the point that it causes the infertility of the woman is just blind stupidity on the part of the El Salvadoran government.
Then you’re not following the argument.
I asked: “How do you know it’s not a human being?”
My answer: “How does that prove it’s not a human being?”
I ask where the definition of “human being” excludes “something that can kill you from the inside.”
So why am I asking whther it’s a human being? Because if you assume it isn’t a human being, then the entire analysis on what sorts of procedures are morally acceptable revolves around what sorts of procedures will best benefit the mother.
If you acknowledge that the embryo or the fetus is a human being, then you must balance the health and welfare of one human being against another.
I argue that such balancing is morally required, because we’re talking about two human lives here.
Yes, I agree.
Here, I disagree. I don’t agree that developing organs is a necessary step in being a person, or a human being.
Well, I’m arguing against the claim made that this is the logical conclusion of extant pro-life views. If the person who made that claim wishes to withdraw or modify it, that’s fine. If not, then it seems a perfectly valid topic for discussion.
Of course it is. The brain and brain stem are organs, and unless they are allowed to develop, there is no self awareness. No self awareness, no personhood.
As I posted above, the laws in question seem to be in no small part the result of the extant pro-life views of the RC hierarchy in El Salvador. Why should we not take the Salvadoran RC hierarchy as representing the RCC as a whole? Is Archbishop Lacalle a conservative renegade pushing for a position that goes far beyond that countenanced by the Vatican? Has the Vatican uttered a single word distancing itself from Lacalle? I’m having a little trouble with your “this isn’t the logical conclusion of extant pro-life views” when this bloody well is the logical conclusion of one particular batch of extant pro-life views.
How is the situation in El Salvador not the result of the pro-life views of the Catholic church?
Okay, Bricker so please explain how my support of abortion rights, will or can force death upon your family…keeping in mind that when I talk about the state, I mean El Salvador, not what another poster may have said.
But it’s a democratic republic with no official religion. So if the majority of people chose to vote for the legislation, it’s representative government, not state religion.
Many thanks, Maureen for saying so succinctly what I was trying to say.
I look somewhat askance at Bricker’s remarks, not at all sure if he is sincere in them or just trying to score debate points. If he is sincere, than I feel for him–life must be difficult if conditions such as ectopics can lead to this degree of moral examination and/or conflict. (that’s not supposed to sound snarky-I’m in a hurry to the orthodontist).
And LHOD -those are excellent points and I am willing to compromise my stance for one so reasonable as you postulated. I also meant “sapient” but cannot find words today (must be the change in the weather 
).
Except that the church hierarchy played an active role in the political process. I never said it was state religion anyways. I am saying that the legal situation in El Salvador is a consequence of the views of the Catholic hierarchy there. The Church told its members what to believe on the matter, and those members then voted it into law (more or less). The abortion laws in El Salvador are the consequence of the pro-life views of the RCC. Or are you going to tell me that the people of El Salvador would have voted the same way even if the Church had taken a different stance?
I don’t agree that self-awareness is a necessary characteristic of humanity or “personhood.” Consider a coma patient, or someone in a persistent vegetative state. Would you argue they are definitively no longer persons?
In this case, it doesn’t matter-this person, or fetus, or whatever you want to call it, is a ticking time bomb. So “killing” the person in this case would be self-defence.
And would you want to defend yourself in such a way that leaves the victim wounded (complete removal of the Fallopian tube), or where the victim is unharmed (the less invasive removal of the fetus itself)?
I would say that’s totally dependent on specific cases. I would say that Terri Schaivo was dead and had lost her personhood long before her feeding tube was removed.
It’s not really an apt analogy, though, because coma patients and patients that suffer trauma which put them in a PVS all have something that a 6 week fetus does not; namely a brain stem. There’s a big difference between losing functionality of one’s higher brain functions and not having the neural pathways in place in order to use them. I repeat: there is no chance for a fetus implanted in a fallopian tube to develop those functions. None.