Ohio State Sen. says if men are so worried about wombs, then turnabout is fair play

[Minoosh]

That's not what I asked but I assume you are answering my question. A person in a persistent vegetative state who is on life support. Why is that person a person?

Because generally they aren't brain-dead. I've read, don't know if it's true, that a genuinely brain-dead person will not "live" very long on life support. Even autonomic reflexes start to deteriorate. Despite some high-profile battles there has been movement toward humanely allowing massively brain-damaged people to die. If they're rushed to the ER protocol is to save their lives. Once ventilators, feeding tubes, IV feeding etc. have been introduced, the question becomes what is the process for removing them. I guarantee, it happens every day as doctors and families reach consensus. Advance directives help. The short form is a refrigerator-magnet DNR order.

ETA: I meant to put in an acknowledgement that your question wasn't addressed to me.

As far as I know we don't transplant organs from people in a persistent vegetative state. Only if that person is brain-dead. Brain-dead people will be kept "alive" for a time so their organs can be harvested.

I've also suspected that sometimes they are quietly used for medical research into things like artificial hearts. I'm thinking of a particular case I was privy to.

The problem is that until the question is addressed you have not intellectually dealt with the question of what it means to be human. You are relying on your feelings of what it means to be human.

This statement wasn't directed at me, but I think historically that's been the norm. In some cultures you aren't really dead until you've been dead for a year. At other times, some people weren't considered human by other people. New World Indians weren't officially enslaved (much) partly due to papal directives saying such people were ensouled. Africans not so much.

 

[RandFan]

Because generally they aren't brain-dead.

I don't know why that is an answer.

've read, don't know if it's true, that a genuinely brain-dead person will not "live" very long on life support. Even autonomic reflexes start to deteriorate. Despite some high-profile battles there has been movement toward humanely allowing massively brain-damaged people to die. If they're rushed to the ER protocol is to save their lives. Once ventilators, feeding tubes, IV feeding etc. have been introduced, the question becomes what is the process for removing them. I guarantee, it happens every day as doctors and families reach consensus. Advance directives help. The short form is a refrigerator-magnet DNR order.

As far as I know we don't transplant organs from people in a persistent vegetative state. Only if that person is brain-dead. Brain-dead people will be kept "alive" for a time so their organs can be harvested.

People in a persistent vegetative state can have their life support removed. Once that happens their organs can be harvested.

This statement wasn't directed at me, but I think historically that's been the norm. In some cultures you aren't really dead until you've been dead for a year. At other times, some people weren't considered human by other people. New World Indians weren't officially enslaved (much) partly due to papal directives saying such people were ensouled. Africans not so much.

IMO: Public policy ought to be informed by science and reason. I realize that in a Democracy we are going to have people who will base their votes primarily on superstition and cultural inculcation and thus influence our elected leaders to ignore science and reason. Which is why it is so important that we have a Supreme Court that relies more on science, logic and reason. Sadly that's a sketchy proposition at the moment.

 

[Minoosh]

I don't know why that is an answer.

I was making a distinction between "brain dead" and "persistent vegetative state." The flip answer to "Why is that person a person?" is to point out the tautological nature of the question. My other answer is that people generally accept "brain-dead" as dead, but in the case of PVS it is easier to harbor irrational hope, making the person more of a person.

From the American Medical Society Journal of Ethics:

http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2007/05/cprl1-0705.html

The open eyes and presence of autonomic function can be both confusing and bothersome for families and health care personnel and can lead to false expectations and flawed decisions.

Next,

IMO: Public policy ought to be informed by science and reason.

Absolutely, it ought. But because people do have biases, reaching consensus (without a war) requires respectful dialog, a degree of introspection and at least tentative agreement on valid sources of evidence. People on this forum generally, with a grain of salt, accept Wikipedia as a starting point. Its tone is neutral and statements of fact without citations are flagged. Most JREF posters don't accept the Bible as reliable evidence. Yet many people do and it may be more fruitful to counter their biblical arguments with other citations from the Bible. Like Martin Sheen on "The West Wing." Debate that generates more heat than light is useless at best. To bring this back closer to the topic, the GOP seems determined to generate heat and smother the light. Re, abortion, IMO the Ohio lawmaker was attempting to cool things down with an ironical analogy.

 

[Morrigan]

Aghast or not, if you're coming in for contraception, it makes sense to find out if you're pregnant.

"It makes sense" is not a good excuse to deny a woman contraception until she proves she's not already pregnant.

Now you claim you weren't endorsing making this a law, but you still keep defending this. So, do you think it should be mandatory to test a woman for pregnancy before giving her contraception? It's a simple yes or no question.

I don't know if it's already mandatory in some places. Silly Green Monkey seemed to suggest that it was, which is what started the debate in the first place with you defending this notion. Now you're backpedalling and saying there is no such law (okay, maybe?) whilst still insisting it "should be done" and that "it makes sense".

Many women have very light periods on the pill, to the point of "spotting," which can also be a sign of pregnancy. If the pill is taken continuously it can suppress periods all together. You get a period because you stop taking it. That's the point of 21-day packs: Take it for three weeks, stop taking it, period starts. However it can also be prescribed for use every day, if suppression of periods is the desired result. The 21-day cycle seemed more "natural" when the pill was introduced. Placebos were included to promote daily pill-taking habits.

What? The 28 packs are, as you said, the exact same thing as 21 packs but with placebos to promote the habit. It's not to stop periods from occurring altogether. Or are you saying that if you skip the placebo week and keep taking pills from another pack during that week, that your period won't happen? In any case, it's not how you're supposed to take the pill, and my point was that a woman on the pill will still have regular periods every month. Whereas a woman on the shots will stop having periods for as long as she's getting the shots. I've never heard of any pill that suppress the periods completely like the shots do. Maybe some rare brands that do that exist, but I've been on at least 4 different types of pills and none of them did that at all, so I object to your claim that it's a common feature of the pill.

As far as my facts: I've used pills, sponges, shots, condoms, cervical caps, spermicide, Plan B, alternative sexual practices, consorting with sterilized men, abstinence and even at times the rhythm method to keep from getting pregnant, precisely because I never wanted to have to make a decision re: abortion. I may even have douched (Coca-Cola recommended by some). I researched birth control from the time I was 13, during my first pregnancy scare. At 14 I took a bus 20 miles and lied about my age to get the pill. I wanted the most effective means.

I guess I should be impressed by your in-depth knowledge and research, but admitting to having tried douching kind of puts a damper on that. Might as well say "I've tried rain dancing and voodoo"...

 

[RandFan]

I was making a distinction between "brain dead" and "persistent vegetative state."

It's not much of a distinction. If we can take away life support then the difference is simply technical. But I will grant you that people can have different perceptions about the distinction.

The flip answer to "Why is that person a person?" is to point out the tautological nature of the question.

The vagaries of language. I refer to dead people as persons. I often speak of my dead father as though he were alive. In my mind he is a person. But I will grant you that semantically the phrase can be seen as tautological even if it conveys a message (boys will be boys is technically a tautology but conveys an unspoken and understood message). If you haven't read Pinkers Language The Stuff Of Thought I would highly recommend it. Human language is not a computer language. It's not formal logic. To say "my ******* car broke down" is illogical as cars don't have sexual intercourse but no one familiar with the epithet has any confusion.

My other answer is that people generally accept "brain-dead" as dead, but in the case of PVS it is easier to harbor irrational hope, making the person more of a person.

A perception but I accept your premise.

Absolutely, it ought. But because people do have biases, reaching consensus (without a war) requires respectful dialog, a degree of introspection and at least tentative agreement on valid sources of evidence. People on this forum generally, with a grain of salt, accept Wikipedia as a starting point. Its tone is neutral and statements of fact without citations are flagged. Most JREF posters don't accept the Bible as reliable evidence. Yet many people do and it may be more fruitful to counter their biblical arguments with other citations from the Bible. Like Martin Sheen on "The West Wing." Debate that generates more heat than light is useless at best. To bring this back closer to the topic, the GOP seems determined to generate heat and smother the light. Re, abortion, IMO the Ohio lawmaker was attempting to cool things down with an ironical analogy.

No disagreement.

 

[Minoosh]

"It makes sense" is not a good excuse to deny a woman contraception until she proves she's not already pregnant.

Quite a few doctors prefer to verify that the patient is not pregnant.

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/combined-oral-contraceptive-pill-first-prescription

It (the pill) can be started at any other time IF THE PATIENT IS SURE SHE IS NOT PREGNANT, but additional protection, eg condoms/abstinence, will be needed for the first seven days.

This link does not go precisely to the point, but many doctors insist on tests far more invasive than peeing in a cup:

http://contraception.about.com/u/ua/thepill/Pill-Prescription.htm

Now you claim you weren't endorsing making this a law, but you still keep defending this.

I'm defending the practice of verifying that patients are not pregnant.

So, do you think it should be mandatory to test a woman for pregnancy before giving her contraception? It's a simple yes or no question.

No, I would not be in favor of such legislation. Yes, if I were a provider I would include it as part of a routine workup.

I don't know if it's already mandatory in some places. Silly Green Monkey seemed to suggest that it was, which is what started the debate in the first place with you defending this notion. Now you're backpedalling and saying there is no such law (okay, maybe?) whilst still insisting it "should be done" and that "it makes sense".

Do you care at all whether you quote people accurately? I said a pregnancy test would be prudent and people went off on me and "this law." Repeated request for evidence of such a law, or bill, were ignored as far as I can tell.

What? The 28 packs are, as you said, the exact same thing as 21 packs but with placebos to promote the habit. It's not to stop periods from occurring altogether.

Oral contraceptives are sometimes prescribed to suppress menstruation altogether. In such cases a woman takes an active pill every day.

Or are you saying that if you skip the placebo week and keep taking pills from another pack during that week, that your period won't happen? In any case, it's not how you're supposed to take the pill ...

Seriously? Now you're telling doctors how they're "supposed" to prescribe?


How to stop periods with birth control & is it safe?

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/no-more-periods

... I've never heard of any pill that suppress the periods completely like the shots do.

Nevertheless ...

Might as well say "I've tried rain dancing and voodoo"...

I doubt if I did it. It doesn't sound like me. It's conceivable.

 

[Luisss]

This bill is ridiculous, because not only is the argument it's making incorrect (The bills she disagree with are aimed at regulating the killing of human beings, not simply "her pieces"), but because the government would have to have a legitimate purpose aimed at regulating the way, and the process associated with a man taking medications.

 

[Travis]

If she has had sex in the past several months, IMO a pregnancy test would be prudent. STD test as well.

So then why subject someone that has never had sex to both a pregnancy test and an std test?

Isn't it the case that the law is schizophrenic when it comes to defining human life? I seem to remember that an abortion could legally occur for a fetus, that if killed as the result of an assault, would be counted as a murder.

Do I have that right? One circumstance under the law where death is allowed and another where it's a crime - for the same fetus?

It isn't about the fetus. If the woman intends to birth the fetus then she has a certain emotional attachment to it. If that is forcibly taken away then she has been harmed.

Republicans only care about the sacred right to life of a fetus before it's born. After it's born, it becomes just an excuse for those lazy 47%-ers to take undeserved money from the Job Creators, which is why SNAP and WIC need to be eliminated and the ACA/Medicaid have to be done away with.

Exactly. They claim to be in favor of "life" and yet they care nothing about quality of life. They don't want abortions but they also don't want sex education. They want the child born but they want no social programs that might help that child if it is born to poor parents.

It is proven that sex education helps stop unwanted pregnancies and yet they oppose it.

It is proven that a strong social safety net makes women less likely to want abortions and yet they oppose it.

This disconnect can be easily explained if you realize that the entire abortion debate isn't about life it is instead about the desire to stop people from having sex.

I haven't found evidence that the practice of giving a pregnancy test before providing contraception has anything to do with current GOP efforts to harass women seeking abortions. It's just been assumed, because Republicans are evil. My position is, it makes sense to do a pregnancy test before prescribing contraception.

No, not really. It is unnecessary and I have yet to see any good arguments against that idea.

That's now how the pill works (and I've tried no less than 4 different types in my lifetime). You're thinking of the shots. We still have periods when on the pill, in fact, the pill helps the periods become more regular. You might want to get your facts straight before coming up with ridiculous scenario to justify forcing unnecessary tests on patients.

I'm glad you brought that up. Some women have terrible periods that are also unpredictable. Taking the pill helps them control when the period happens and lessens the bleeding. It is not unknown for a woman to take the pill for many years before she ever has sex.

Now imagine she has to take a pregnancy test every time she wants a refill even though she is still a virgin. Ridiculous.

This bill is ridiculous, because not only is the argument it's making incorrect (The bills she disagree with are aimed at regulating the killing of human beings, not simply "her pieces"),

Do you have some evidence that it killed any human beings?

but because the government would have to have a legitimate purpose aimed at regulating the way, and the process associated with a man taking medications.

And what is the legitimate purpose in all the new anti abortion laws?

 

[Luisss]

Scientifically speaking, an unborn baby is by definition a human being.

The legitimate purpose of anti-abortion laws is the protection of human lives. The only reason is even allowed is because of the arbitrary state of "personhood" created by SCOTUS because they were in over their heads.

 

[RandFan]

Scientifically speaking, an unborn baby is by definition a human being.

[citations missing] A.) Argument by assertion is a fallacy. B.) You are equivocating the word "baby". It's not a baby. It's a fetus.

The legitimate purpose of anti-abortion laws is the protection of human lives. The only reason is even allowed is because of the arbitrary state of "personhood" created by SCOTUS because they were in over their heads.

[citations missing] Argument by assertion.

You are entitled to an opinion. If these are simply your opinions then fine but you said "scientifically speaking". That calls for evidence. Do you have any?

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Minoosh]

It's not much of a distinction. If we can take away life support then the difference is simply technical.

Slightly more than that. There are objective criteria for declaring a person brain dead. You are or you aren't. Vegetative states have more of a continuum. Karen Ann Quinlan was taken off a ventilator in a public legal battle and lived for another 9 years. She was "artificially fed" during that time. Her parents were Catholic and felt it was playing God to keep her breathing, but apparently not to keep feeding her. The only upside I see for the feeding is that allowing her to die of dehydration might have made her organs less useful for transplant.

Interesting link re: all the issues involved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Ann_Quinlan

But I will grant you that semantically the phrase can be seen as tautological even if it conveys a message (boys will be boys is technically a tautology but conveys an unspoken and understood message).

At a job I hope to get, I want to start a high school debate club. I'm not formally trained and have learned a lot from this site (and from constant Googling for evidence). I didn't know what tautology even meant until about a year ago. Thanks for the Pinker ref, any others would be appreciated. I have "Logical and Contemporary Rhetoric: the Use of Reason in Everyday Life." Have you read it, and are there any other titles you would suggest as a basic text?

ETA: Does anyone know what biblical passages indicate that abortion is wrong? I can't recall any but my Bible knowledge is incomplete.

 

[RandFan]

Slightly more than that. There are objective criteria for declaring a person brain dead. You are or you aren't. Vegetative states have more of a continuum. Karen Ann Quinlan was taken off a ventilator in a public legal battle and lived for another 9 years. She was "artificially fed" during that time. Her parents were Catholic and felt it was playing God to keep her breathing, but apparently not to keep feeding her. The only upside I see for the feeding is that allowing her to die of dehydration might have made her organs less useful for transplant.

Interesting link re: all the issues involved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Ann_Quinlan

Fair enough. Thank you.

At a job I hope to get, I want to start a high school debate club. I'm not formally trained and have learned a lot from this site (and from constant Googling for evidence). I didn't know what tautology even meant until about a year ago. Thanks for the Pinker ref, any others would be appreciated. I have "Logical and Contemporary Rhetoric: the Use of Reason in Everyday Life." Have you read it, and are there any other titles you would suggest as a basic text?

ETA: Does anyone know what biblical passages indicate that abortion is wrong? I can't recall any but my Bible knowledge is incomplete.

Pinker is most on point but Don't Sleep There Are Snakes is an excellent insight into linguistic peculiarities of the indigenous Piriaha people of South America that is changing some of our assumptions about language. Deacon's The Symbolic Species is also great (though I should point out it is a bit dated, worth it but I believe some of the concepts are no longer in vogue). But again, Pinker is most germane. I will definately add your suggestion to my reading list. I'm currently re-reading Sophie's World, an excellent introduction to Philosophy. I enjoyed it much more than Philosophy for Dummies. I never even finished that book.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

So then why subject someone that has never had sex to both a pregnancy test and an std test?

Slut-shaming.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Slut-shaming.

While they may call it that, it's more like shaming any woman that wants to have sex without getting pregnant. So, woman-shaming is the more appropriate term.

 

[Hawk one]

While they may call it that, it's more like shaming any woman that wants to have sex without getting pregnant. So, woman-shaming is the more appropriate term.

Not to mention any woman that wants to take birth control for non-pregnancy-related causes, of which there are several.

 

[Luisss]

[citations missing] A.) Argument by assertion is a fallacy. B.) You are equivocating the word "baby". It's not a baby. It's a fetus.

[citations missing] Argument by assertion.

You are entitled to an opinion. If these are simply your opinions then fine but you said "scientifically speaking". That calls for evidence. Do you have any?

Welcome to the forum.

What is the definition of a human being? Really?

A human being is any member of the race known as homosapien. By virtue of having that race's DNA, and being alive, a fetus is a human being.

Also, what makes you think a fetus isn't a baby? We don't call humans that lack their faculties something other than human. By that same token, we shouldn't call babies something other than babies simply because they lack the developed body parts that other babies have due to time.

 

[A'isha]

What is the definition of a human being? Really?

A human being is any member of the race known as homosapien. By virtue of having that race's DNA, and being alive, a fetus is a human being.

No, it's an undeveloped, unviable organism. It's neither a human being nor a person.

Also, what makes you think a fetus isn't a baby?

It's a medical term describing a specific stage in gestational development.

 

[thaiboxerken]

A human being is not a just a member of the species known as homo-sapient. A human being actually has sapience, the ability to think. Sperm and ovum has homosapien DNA, but they are not human beings.

A fetus is not a baby for the same reason that a tree is not a seed. They may be of the same genetic make-up, but they are not the same life form. If a zygote is a fetus is a baby, then a baby is a toddler, a toddler is a child, a child is a teenager, a teen is an adult. We should be serving zygotes cocktails, if this is true.

 

[marplots]

Also, what makes you think a fetus isn't a baby? We don't call humans that lack their faculties something other than human.

We do actually. We call them "vegetables" to reflect their lack of cognitive function - something many think essential to what it means to be human. But there are more too. Someone who acts so far outside the pale of human morality is called "a monster."

These labels (and others) are meant to highlight aspects of these biological humans which remove them from the general definition. "Fetus" is just such a discriminator.

Without these kinds of terms, we'd have a hard time treating a toddler different than an adult. Instead, we recognize that "human being" isn't a very useful catchphrase, unless you mean something specific to biology. It works if you are actually checking DNA, for example. "Was this ferret bitten by a tiger or a human being?"

All this is exactly why the definition of a "person" matters under the law. Certain rights adhere to the definition and it isn't strictly a biological definition, because biology isn't discrete, whereas the law has to be. I think this point led to a lot of griping when corporations were deemed persons under the law. But if you accept this, why wouldn't you accept that a fetus, at some point, could be legally defined as not a person?

ETA: Here's the rabbit hole you go down when you try for a firm definition:
1) A fetus is a human being
2) A fetus is a living human being
3) A fetus is a living human being that is not currently on Pluto
4) A fetus is a living human being that is not imaginary
5) A fetus is a living human being that has human DNA
6) A fetus is a living human being that has human DNA although the DNA may be unique in specifics
7) A fetus is a living human being that has mostly human DNA but may share some DNA with chimps and apple trees.
8) A fetus is a human being that was alive the last time I checked.
9) A fetus is a living human being who's birth may kill this other currently living human being.
10) A fetus is a living human being that is not sentient, has no free will and cannot assert its rights.
11) A fetus is a living human being that has a parasitical relationship to another human being, taking resources without permission.
12) A fetus is a living human being who is a criminal, unless it has no ill intent, nor mens rea to form such an intent.

 

[Arcade22]

By virtue of having that race's DNA, and being alive, a fetus is a human being.

Using that definition human cell cultures are in fact people. Now that's just silly if nothing else.