I am antiabortion because I am an atheist

Chris:

No, that's ridiculous and brings on so many complications. Many women abort simply because it poses a health risk to the mother. That would spiral out of control and there would be so many doctors, wives, and husbands ending up in courts because someone accused them of conspiracy to kill among other things.

People have the right to choice, if you take away choice then you become a dictatorship.
Extrauterine people are protected by laws, and nobody considers that protecters are "dictatorships" but honest governators.

Kiefer:

I don't really know how anyone can call early term abortions "wrong". As Chris stated above, that's like getting mad at a woman for not staying pregnant their entire lives so as they never have a period.

Strawman`s fallacy.

I'm a firm believer that until the fetus has two things, it should not be illegal to abort it. They are, thought and the ability to survive after detachment from the mother. This means that the fetus must be able to think and have a developed brain, and if it were to be c-section removed it could survive. Obviously this does not included fetus's showing developmental problems or that pose a serious risk to the mother.

Science is making that younger and younger fetuses may survive out of a womb.
Viability is a useless parameter.

But you said something cesar_noragueda that just fired off in my head.

This, coupled with your mentioning that English is not your first language leads me to believe that you are from Latin America. It also exposes one the reasons that Latin America continues to lag so far behind the developed world. The people there get so strung up over moral issues, that the real issues just pass over them. Before anyone goes spending massive amounts of money to restrict peoples freedoms on the grounds of "moral" disagreement, don't you think there are other issues that need to be addressed?

No. Here in Latin America it has a wide acceptation the idea that "in a civilized country, intrauterine children are the most important".

Penguin:

Why a registry?

And how would you accomplish this? Would you have women checked regularly to see if they're pregnant?

If in your country a health system exists, doctors are caring for pregnant women. They whould have the duty to report, using Internet, to Civil Registration office, the existence of a 13 month fetal person.

Why? According to Passport Canada, children's passports are required to prevent things like kidnapping and human trafficking. The same issues aren't present before the child is born - how can you kidnap a fetus separate from its mother?

Precisely that would be one additional benefit: kidnappers would have a difficult job if a Fetal Civil Registration were required to obtain a Birth Certificate.

Also, what country would issue the passport? If a fetus is already a person, then I assume that they'd be citizens of the country where they were conceived.

That country should provide that passport, and the receiver country should demand it.

Hmm. This sounds like an awful limitation on personal freedom to me, even if you assume that a fetus actually is a person.

Even if? No, because newborn have that right, and nobody says that its parent have an "awful limitation on personal freedom". It is accepted right now that delivered, "born", children should be protected, even against their parents.

Yes, but when a child becomes a teenager, he doesn't suddenly become conscious and self-aware, does he? This is what happens with a baby's first breath.

You are using a religion-based theory. You believe that there is a soul that penetrates with the first air breathing. But I am an atheist and I believe that Governments should have laws based on science.

It triggers a major number of physiological changes. IMO, we can't assume that a baby just before birth can be treated the same morally or legally as a baby just after birth.

Why? an oldman also is suffering "a major number of physiological changes". There is not reason to discriminate an intrauterine person for reasons that we would not use to discriminate extrauterine persons.

Why? I thought you based your judgement of the value of a fetus on the fact it has a brain. An embryo, zygote or blastocyst doesn't have a brain. Why protect them in the same way?

An embryo has a tiny brain. But in Argentina, even blasocysts have been protected.

I consider lying and adultery to be morally wrong, but I don't want them illegal. Also, I don't consider it to be morally wrong to drive through a red light in the middle of the night with no traffic around, but I agree that it should stay illegal. Morality and legality aren't the same thing. Even if you show that something is immoral, this doesn't mean that you've shown it needs to be illegal.

Why do you consider that adultery is morally wrong? If it really hurts children, it should be a legal offense. If it does not hurt anybody, you would not have a non religious basis to consider it morally wrong.

Let's say you get your wish. Abortion is prohibited and some sort of "fetus registry" is set up. This means a few things happen:

- legal abortions stop.

OK.

- the police and justice system work to enforce the law. This takes money, effort and resources that could've been used for other things.

Other things? In some countries (some people have said that it occurs in Canada), men are being severely punished even for butt slaping a woman, or even for looking at her.

If punishments toward men were less severe, justice system could criminalize women who deserve it.

- the women who would've had legal abortions do one of several things:
-- carry the fetus to term, then raise the baby.
-- carry the fetus to term, then give the baby up for adoption.
-- get an illegal abortion without complications and get away with it.
-- get an illegal abortion, get caught and go to jail.
-- get an illegal abortion, but have some sort of complication... maybe they even die.

The goal of a Justice system is to make criminal decisions difficult.

- your registry system is set up. This takes a huge amount of money, effort and resources that could've been used for other things.

Also, when black people were considered citizens it took money, effort and resources, but they deserved it. Right now, current technology would make easier to register fetal persons.

So... when you consider the number of abortions you would prevent vs. the number of women who would die in back-alley illegal abortion clinics and the sheer cost in money (which translates into a cost in lives when you think about the things like hospitals or fire trucks it could've paid for), what makes you think that things would be better the way you want it than they are right now?

You are referring to that women regarding them "no criminal" persons. Otherwise, your argument would be ridiculous, because it would be similar to say: "If armed robbers have to commite their crimes out of law, some of them will be shot by Police, locked in jail, etc., andit will imply a cost in money and lives".

The law allows you to kill a dog or cat as long as you don't do it with excessive cruelty

.

Depending on the country..., but fetuses are killed with cruelty.

Extrauterine, born, babies are protected, for example, against pederastian rapists. Would it be logical to accept that a doctor who has commited a more brutal aggresion be unpunished?

Yes, because it's not an "agression" because it's not committed against a person.

I a premature baby was conceived 8 months ago, and was born 1 month ago, and it is raped, people is angry against the rapist, but if another baby conceived 8 months ago is intrauterine, that persons accept that a doctor sucks its brain in a "partial birth abortion". That double standard is schizoid.

Originally Posted by cesar_noragueda

If in your country a health system exists, doctors are caring for pregnant women. They whould have the duty to report, using Internet, to Civil Registration office, the existence of a 13 month fetal person.

Women don't go to the doctor every day. If a woman plans to get an abortion anyhow, she could just avoid going to the doctor until afterward.

Originally Posted by cesar_noragueda

Precisely that would be one additional benefit: kidnappers would have a difficult job if a Fetal Civil Registration were required to obtain a Birth Certificate.

Please explain how a fetus can be kidnapped.

Originally Posted by cesar_noragueda

That country should provide that passport, and the receiver country should demand it.

That would have major implications in terms of law and immigration. If the place of conception determines citizenship, then I imagine that plenty of countries would put major restrictions on who they grant visas to for honeymoons.

Originally Posted by cesar_noragueda

Even if? No, because newborn have that right, and nobody says that its parent have an "awful limitation on personal freedom". It is accepted right now that delivered, "born", children should be protected, even against their parents.

You're talking about forcing the mother to sign documents and automatically notifying the father (and presumably determining the father, if you're going to notify him). None of these things happen now.

Originally Posted by cesar_noragueda

You are using a religion-based theory. You believe that there is a soul that penetrates with the first air breathing. But I am an atheist and I believe that Governments should have laws based on science.

No I'm not, and no I don't. Here's a bit about what changes at birth: http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb135e/fetal.html

Along with these circulatory and respiratory changes, there are major neurological and mental changes as well. Mental function is extremely diminished until the circulatory system switches from fetal mode to postnatal - a fetus doesn't even have the reflex to breathe until this occurs.

Originally Posted by cesar_noragueda

Why? an oldman also is suffering "a major number of physiological changes". There is not reason to discriminate an intrauterine person for reasons that we would not use to discriminate extrauterine persons.

None of the physiological changes that come with age affect the personhood of that old man.

Tell you what: give us your criteria for what makes something a person. First we can evaluate whether they're reasonable and then we can see if they apply to fetuses.

Originally Posted by cesar_noragueda

An embryo has a tiny brain.

It has the precursor to a brain. What level of mental function do you think should be needed before we deem something to be a person?

If we say that the "brain" of an embryo warrants protection, what about the much more complex and functional brain of an adult cow? Does the cow's brain imply that the cow's life should be protected?

Originally Posted by cesar_noragueda

But in Argentina, even blasocysts have been protected.

Should a blastocyst be protected? It certainly doesn't have a brain.

Originally Posted by cesar_noragueda

Why do you consider that adultery is morally wrong? If it really hurts children, it should be a legal offense. If it does not hurt anybody, you would not have a non religious basis to consider it morally wrong.

Adultery does hurt people, but any law against it would be ineffective. Laws must be justified by their effects, and an ineffective law is an arbitrary constraint on liberty, and therefore unjust. IMO.

Originally Posted by cesar_noragueda

Other things? In some countries (some people have said that it occurs in Canada), men are being severely punished even for butt slaping a woman, or even for looking at her.

If punishments toward men were less severe, justice system could criminalize women who deserve it.

That's a separate (and somewhat bizarre and inaccurate) issue, and even though what you've said is very inflammatory, I'm going to let it go because it's irrelevant. We're just looking at prohibiting abortion. If you make abortion illegal and are actually interested in enforcing the law, then it will require the resources of police - this costs money. It will require the time of lawyers, judges and courts - this also costs money. It will require space in prisons for people to serve their sentences - this also costs money.

If you really do think that less money should be spent on prosecuting assault and domestic abuse, let's go with that. You've suddenly freed up some amount of money. You can either put it toward your plan or to, say, pay for more hospital beds. Is your plan the best use of the money it would cost?

Originally Posted by cesar_noragueda

The goal of a Justice system is to make criminal decisions difficult.

Ah - so it's not your goal to actually save lives, just to make the consequences as unpleasant as possible when people do what you don't do.

Originally Posted by cesar_noragueda

Also, when black people were considered citizens it took money, effort and resources, but they deserved it. Right now, current technology would make easier to register fetal persons.

Making black people citizens did not require a "black person registry" like you're suggesting.

Originally Posted by cesar_noragueda

You are referring to that women regarding them "no criminal" persons. Otherwise, your argument would be ridiculous, because it would be similar to say: "If armed robbers have to commite their crimes out of law, some of them will be shot by Police, locked in jail, etc., andit will imply a cost in money and lives".

So? Criminals getting shot is a cost of the law. I hope that it's minimized, but personally, I think this cost is outweighed by the benefits of the law. In your case, you haven't shown that the benefits of the law would outweigh the costs.

Originally Posted by cesar_noragueda

Depending on the country..., but fetuses are killed with cruelty.

No, they're not. You're projecting.

Originally Posted by cesar_noragueda

I a premature baby was conceived 8 months ago, and was born 1 month ago, and it is raped, people is angry against the rapist, but if another baby conceived 8 months ago is intrauterine, that persons accept that a doctor sucks its brain in a "partial birth abortion". That double standard is schizoid.

It's also misleading. What relevance do you think it has for whether a first-trimester abortion should be legal?

Penguin:

Women don't go to the doctor every day. If a woman plans to get an abortion anyhow, she could just avoid going to the doctor until afterward.

That would be a method to force women to decide an abortion early, in the first trimester, because when their embryo became a fetus (month 13), it would be legally protected.

Please explain how a fetus can be kidnapped.

Some fetuses have been kidnapped by C section, but really I am referring to newborns: if they were registered since fetal stage, it would be more difficult to kidnap a newborn: kidnappers should obtain not only a birth act, but also a fetal registration. Also, if the genetic codes of is parents were registered and confrontated to the ADN of the child, it would be even more difficult to kidnap babies.

at would have major implications in terms of law and immigration. If the place of conception determines citizenship, then I imagine that plenty of countries would put major restrictions on who they grant visas to for honeymoons.

Precisely, that is one of reasons because I am proposing 13 month as a starting point: a man who would have traveled to another country, could be sued for the pregnant woman if he has not left the country. That measure would be protecting women, really.

You're talking about forcing the mother to sign documents and automatically notifying the father (and presumably determining the father, if you're going to notify him). None of these things happen now.

Precisely, I am proposing that those things begin to happen.
The father should be forced to pay money to buy aliments for his fetal son/daughter.

No I'm not, and no I don't. Here's a bit about what changes at birth: http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb135e/fetal.html

Along with these circulatory and respiratory changes, there are major neurological and mental changes as well. Mental function is extremely diminished until the circulatory system switches from fetal mode to postnatal - a fetus doesn't even have the reflex to breathe until this occurs.

I reviewed that link, but I did not find anything about that mental changes. I suggest you to search in your google Janet diPietro and Fetal psychology.

None of the physiological changes that come with age affect the personhood of that old man

Are you sure? Memory, humor, etc., have prominent changes. Even, senile demencies are common, such as Alzheimer`s disease.

If elderly persons are protected, why intrauterine persons should not?

Tell you what: give us your criteria for what makes something a person. First we can evaluate whether they're reasonable and then we can see if they apply to fetuses.

I believe that:
a) An animal that has a human genetic code is a person
b) An animal begins to exist when organogenesis appears (in human, when a blastocyst is implanted).

It has the precursor to a brain. What level of mental function do you think should be needed before we deem something to be a person?

Here in my country, even a minimal brain function determines personhood. But internationally, I am suggesting the month 13, when a fetus may even suck its thumb.

If we say that the "brain" of an embryo warrants protection, what about the much more complex and functional brain of an adult cow? Does the cow's brain imply that the cow's life should be protected?

We are talking about humans. But I comment that I would support even laws to protect insects. If a cruel man is ripping the wings of a butterfly and is laughing, why should not he past at least two weeks in jail?

Should a blastocyst be protected? It certainly doesn't have a brain.

Some persons believe that a brain is not necessary to be a person. In USA, for example, blastocysts have defenders. I believe they are extremists.

Adultery does hurt people, but any law against it would be ineffective. Laws must be justified by their effects, and an ineffective law is an arbitrary constraint on liberty, and therefore unjust. IMO.

No. Laws against adultery are effective in some Middle Eastern countries.
But in Europe, it is considered that anti-adlutery laws consider a married person a slave.

That's a separate (and somewhat bizarre and inaccurate) issue, and even though what you've said is very inflammatory, I'm going to let it go because it's irrelevant. We're just looking at prohibiting abortion. If you make abortion illegal and are actually interested in enforcing the law, then it will require the resources of police - this costs money. It will require the time of lawyers, judges and courts - this also costs money. It will require space in prisons for people to serve their sentences - this also costs money.

I repeat: laws to protect women are spending excessive resources that could be applied to protect fetal persons.

If you really do think that less money should be spent on prosecuting assault and domestic abuse, let's go with that.

No. Abortion is a kind of domestic abuse. Abortion is intrafamiliar violence because a fetus is a part of a family.

You've suddenly freed up some amount of money. You can either put it toward your plan or to, say, pay for more hospital beds. Is your plan the best use of the money it would cost?

Hospital beds? Have you listened about fetal surgery? Fetal persons deserve all their rights warranted, not only the right to life, but health right.

e goal of a Justice system is to make criminal decisions difficult

Ah - so it's not your goal to actually save lives, just to make the consequences as unpleasant as possible when people do what you don't do.

Are not both issues correlated? If persons feel fear to be punished, they won`t commit an antifetal attack.

king black people citizens did not require a "black person registry" like you're suggesting.

Are you sure? Don`t they have birth certificate, right to vote, etc., etc.

So? Criminals getting shot is a cost of the law. I hope that it's minimized, but personally, I think this cost is outweighed by the benefits of the law. In your case, you haven't shown that the benefits of the law would outweigh the costs.

The benefits would be for intrauterine population, for fetal children.

Depending on the country..., but fetuses are killed with cruelty.

No, they're not. You're projecting.

Do you know what is a D & E* abortion method? Use your Google images to learn.

I a premature baby was conceived 8 months ago, and was born 1 month ago, and it is raped, people is angry against the rapist, but if another baby conceived 8 months ago is intrauterine, that persons accept that a doctor sucks its brain in a "partial birth abortion". That double standard is schizoid.

It's also misleading. What relevance do you think it has for whether a first-trimester abortion should be legal?

Remember: we are not talking about first trimester abortions, because I am promoting a fetal registration that automatically would forbid SECOND and third trimester abortions.

If 7, 8 or 9 extrauterine babies are protected against rapists, why not intrauterine babies of that ages should be protected too?

Kiefer:

You said:

It's called sexual harassment. If your country still allows it, it's very clear that your country is more backwards. A woman never deserve to feel unsafe in her place of work because of horny men. Never.

But you said too:

Real may have been to harsh a term, I was implying that moral issues should never take precedence over things like economy, health care, education, etc.

There is a contradiction in your words.

The most important? Wow, that really is incredibly backwards. I will never count a bunch of cells as being more important then a fully grown human life. The same goes for a fetus.

Then, you consider a fetus as black people was considered some years ago: as a second class citizen.

Secondly, what European country considers its husbands/wives to be slaves? Certainly not any developed one like England, France, Germany or the like.

You misundertood me. I wrote:

But in Europe, it is considered that anti-adultery laws consider a married person a slave.

Europe does NOT accept to punish adultery precisely because they believe that a husband or a wife can`t be a property.

But Middle Eastern countries even punish with lapidation adulters.

In this global world, there are different point of view.