Octopus Overlords

Ohio Legislature Approves Ultra-Strict ‘Heartbeat Bill’ on Abortion

Is a fetal heartbeat (around 6 weeks) enough to prevent you from turning on the vacuum?

Not really, no. And you don't need a vacuum at 6 weeks. Just a pill, and the female body will expel something the size of a lentil bean.

From your own article:

Article wrote:Ohio Governor John Kasich has not indicated whether he will sign the measure, according to the Associated Press. Though Kasich is pro-life, he’s also shared his reservations about outlawing abortions so early in a pregnancy, given that such a measure would likely be found unconstitutional. Similar laws in Arkansas and North Dakota have failed when challenged in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court also effectively affirmed the lower court’s decision by declining to hear an appeal. In fact, even the state’s largest anti-abortion organization, Ohio Right to Life, does not support the current legislation because it will likely be struck down by the courts, according to cleveland.com.

And later...

Article wrote:The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court established a nationwide right to an abortion, but allowed states to restrict abortions once a fetus has a reasonable chance of surviving outside the womb. The court didn’t offer a legal definition of viability, instead only stating that it could range between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy.

I actually didn't know the details, but have said myself that my own personal feelings revolved around the ability to survive outside the womb.

Sofía Vergara’s Ex-Fiancé: Our Frozen Embryos Have a Right to Live

So the guy is fighting for the embryos to live, releasing her of all parenting obligations. Does the woman still have the sole right to have them killed?

Moliere wrote:Sofía Vergara’s Ex-Fiancé: Our Frozen Embryos Have a Right to Live

So the guy is fighting for the embryos to live, releasing her of all parenting obligations. Does the woman still have the sole right to have them killed?

That's a really interesting dilemma, and I'm not sure I know the right answer. I'd also be interested to hear her side of the story in why she is choosing not to release them.

IVF is the big gray area in all of this abortion discussion which rarely, if ever, gets mentioned. As the parent of three IVF kids - including one "popsicle baby" from a frozen embryo - I wish it would get taken into more consideration. All of the "life begins at conception" laws that I've seen pushed by various groups would essentially outlaw in vitro fertilization, eliminating the opportunity for hundreds of families to have their own biological children. That seems - to me anyways - to be a rather significant issue.

Moliere wrote:Sofía Vergara’s Ex-Fiancé: Our Frozen Embryos Have a Right to Live

So the guy is fighting for the embryos to live, releasing her of all parenting obligations. Does the woman still have the sole right to have them killed?

What is the definition of female and male - when we look across All life, Animals - Insects, Trees, etc.

The female is defined as the entity that contributes the larger biological deposit on the offspring. In short, they are the ones that are more committed, more the owner. The male is always the one that contributes less.

Generally, I tend to give women enormous leverage on this subject. I certainly love the idea of "oh, but what if the man wants to take it all on", but I still side with the woman I think. It's not about 'fair', it's about biology.

Unagi wrote: The male is always the one that contributes less.

The Emperor Penguin would like to strongly object to your suggestion.

Smoove_B wrote:

Unagi wrote: The male is always the one that contributes less.

The Emperor Penguin would like to strongly object to your suggestion.

As would the seahorse.

Yeah, I was about to edit that back in as it's probably a bit closer to what he was going for.

Isgrimnur wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:

Unagi wrote: The male is always the one that contributes less.

The Emperor Penguin would like to strongly object to your suggestion.

As would the seahorse.

Oh I KNEW that those would be thrown back at me.

I am talking about their contributions at conception - not the FACT that they take on the fertilized eggs, etc. Hell - I think I could give HUMAN examples of the Seahorse and Emperor Penguin, right???
a lot of good dads out there....

I am talking about how we define Male and Female.

Unagi wrote:I am talking about how we define Male and Female.

I thought we lived in an age where we can't define "male" and "female". I self-identify as xe.

Moliere wrote:

Unagi wrote:I am talking about how we define Male and Female.

I thought we lived in an age where we can't define "male" and "female". I self-identify as xe.

It doesn't matter how the individual self-identifies, for purposes of reproduction it only matters how science identifies his or her body parts.

gilraen wrote:

Moliere wrote:

Unagi wrote:I am talking about how we define Male and Female.

I thought we lived in an age where we can't define "male" and "female". I self-identify as xe.

It doesn't matter how the individual self-identifies, for purposes of reproduction it only matters how science identifies his or her body parts.

Trigger warning! You can't say "science" without warning us. My self-identification transcends your science.

Unagi wrote: What is the definition of female and male - when we look across All life, Animals - Insects, Trees, etc.

The female is defined as the entity that contributes the larger biological deposit on the offspring. In short, they are the ones that are more committed, more the owner. The male is always the one that contributes less.

Technically, the definition of male and female comes down to gamete size. The individuals with the larger gametes are female, the smaller gametes male. And while one ovum is more energetically costly to produce than one sperm, males never just release one sperm. So I would disagree with your conclusion that the male is always the one that contributes less from an energetics perspective.

And, of course, there are plenty of organisms where gametes are just released into the water/air (i.e. external fertilization). In those cases, the males and females generally contribute relatively equally to the offspring.

Unagi wrote:I am talking about their contributions at conception

Yeah, I kind of figured that. I think we have a horseshoe crab sperm expert handling some of it, but I think your use of "deposit" here is likely the cause of my confusion. I think what you're trying to argue (again correct me if I'm wrong) is that you believe that as a society we (ideally) should side with the woman's choice because from the point of implantation of the fertilized egg in her uterine wall, she's now going to be "invested" for the next ~9 months in the development of another human life (possibly more) - sometimes at the expense of her own health (or life).

I am talking about how we define Male and Female.

I'm not going to touch this one with a 10 foot pole.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:

Unagi wrote: What is the definition of female and male - when we look across All life, Animals - Insects, Trees, etc.

The female is defined as the entity that contributes the larger biological deposit on the offspring. In short, they are the ones that are more committed, more the owner. The male is always the one that contributes less.

Technically, the definition of male and female comes down to gamete size. The individuals with the larger gametes are female, the smaller gametes male.

Yes, this was exactly what I was trying to say. Gamete. Gamete size was what I meant with my awkward phrase "biological deposit". (sorry bout that Smoove)


And, then I went on to sorta say that because their gamete was bigger -they get first claim to the fertilized egg.

Look, it was a cheap 'shoot from the hip' contribution to the thread and I realized that!

And Smoove, while I certainly agree with what you described with what you said I was trying to argue, I wasn't really trying to argue that specifically here - because in this case it seems more about the Dad wanting to claim the embryos and he doesn't want the women to have any roll....

So, if I was forced to give 'ownership' to a frozen embryo to 1 of the 2 individuals that created it - I was just sorta saying I would give the nod to the larger gamete, philosophically - as in our human case, it does absolutely normally result in the female's total commitment, and not the male's. I suppose King Solomon would just suggest they were split in two and everyone can have half.

Ah, ok. Everything is clearer now. From a distance, I'm actually fascinated with the Sophia Vergara case (and all the philosophical elements), but I can't actually imagine personally being in that situation and at the point where a court needs to decide what's happening.

Apparently on a visit to TODAY last year, Loeb revealed to Hoda Kotb that when he and Vergara started trying to have children, he signed an agreement that any embryos could be brought to term only with both parties consent...


Also, this is her 'ex-fiancé'... Is it just me, or is it odd to start IVF with a fiancé ?

Seems like the easy answer would be for any clinic to require that parental rights be agreed to prior to any work as well as agreed arbitration for any challenge to such.

Well that ain't helping Vergara.

Rip wrote:Seems like the easy answer would be for any clinic to require that parental rights be agreed to prior to any work as well as agreed arbitration for any challenge to such.

Part of the legal paperwork before we started the IVF process was to sign an agreement for what would happen to the frozen embryos should we separate, one of us died, etc. There were about a dozen different scenarios we had to designate. I'd have to go back and look, I can't remember what the exact options were though.

The place we went through only did married couples, but I know there was another place in town that didn't require that.

Smoove_B wrote: Yeah, I kind of figured that. I think we have a horseshoe crab sperm expert handling some of it

Hey, don't sell me short - I've also worked on insect and ctenophore sperm!

As the BBC reports it, the embryos are suing for the right to be born...

Modern Family star Sofia Vergara is being, in effect, sued by two frozen embryos she conceived with the partner she split from, US media report.

The embryos, named Emma and Isabella, are listed in Louisiana court documents obtained by the New York Post.

She and Nick Loeb separated in 2014 and he has already tried unsuccessfully to sue for the embryos' custody.

The new lawsuit argues that the embryos are being deprived of their inheritance from a trust by not being born.

The trust is reported to have been created for them in Louisiana, although the embryos are located in California.

Louisiana is considered a "pro-life" state and under its law a fertilised egg is seen as a "juridical person".

The Louisiana case names a trustee as plaintiff, but not Mr Loeb himself. The suit asks that the embryos be transferred to Mr Loeb so that they can be born and receive their inheritance.

Of course it's about the money in a trust fund.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:Hey, don't sell me short - I've also worked on insect and ctenophore sperm!

Noted!

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:

Smoove_B wrote: Yeah, I kind of figured that. I think we have a horseshoe crab sperm expert handling some of it

Hey, don't sell me short - I've also worked on insect and ctenophore sperm!

So it could be said that you are a sperm connoisseur?

Zarathud wrote:Of course it's about the money in a trust fund.

If I understand it correctly, it's a ploy. It sounds like he created the trust fund in order to manufacture the basis for the suit.

Moliere wrote:Ohio Legislature Approves Ultra-Strict ‘Heartbeat Bill’ on Abortion

Kasich vetoed the 'Heartbeat bill', signed 20-week ban instead

At least it's something.

Isgrimnur wrote:At least it's something.

It's not as that was the point of submitting two bills to a moderate.

Here's where things stood in 2013.

And December 1st.

Looks like 20 weeks is the floor, as previous attempts at 6 weeks (North Dakota) and 12 weeks (Arkansas) have fallen to court challenges.

Anything to chip away at Roe V Wade, that's for sure. I hope no one suggests limiting barrel length or the number of bullets your gun can hold in Ohio because then it's Molon labe. But 20 weeks? We can restrict your Supreme Court affirmed right.

Smoove_B wrote:Anything to chip away at Roe V Wade, that's for sure. I hope no one suggests limiting barrel length or the number of bullets your gun can hold in Ohio because then it's Molon labe. But 20 weeks? We can restrict your Supreme Court affirmed right.

Yeah, I don't understand why there is a group of people that might get emotional over the killing of unborn babies. Weirdos. After all, the Supreme Court said it was ok, so there is that to justify it.

Come up with a public policy justification that doesn't breach the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the first amendment, and perhaps we can have a political discussion about it.

People getting emotional about something is no justification for public policy applied to a substantial portion of the population, be that medical procedures, internment, or prohibition.

Moliere wrote:Yeah, I don't understand why there is a group of people that might get emotional over the killing of unborn babies.

Depends entirely on your perception. Somewhere, someone wants to ban the unborn holocaust of your man batter getting tossed into a trashcan or flushed down the toilet. We just don't let them decide policy for the rest of us.

Edit: rant that was unecessary and impulsive.

I apologize if that triggered something. I was trying to be excessive intentionally because "unborn baby killing" bothers me as a term for abortion. In my view, it's not. Babies are tiny humans that can survive with care without mothers, not a growth of cells that is entirely dependent on the host's body not rejecting it in some fashion (which does happen too frequently - my wife suffered three miscarriages before her first successful pregnancy resulting in a tiny human).

As someone who has been in a relationship, discovered an unwanted pregnancy, and had the freedom to agree with my girlfriend at the time that we were in no way prepared for parenthood together, it's a sensitive topic for me. If abortion wasn't an option, both of our lives would have been completely thrown into disarray. As a footnote, she was the first one to suggest abortion while I was still sitting there dumbfounded and reeling.

I might add that I'm also an atheist, and the concept of "souls" never enters into it - so I don't assume that a creator has bestowed "life" upon a thing and I'm just waiting for it to come blessedly to fruition or robbed from me by fate. I see an entirely biological process.

Paingod wrote:I apologize if that triggered something. I was trying to be excessive intentionally because "unborn baby killing" bothers me as a term for abortion. In my view, it's not. Babies are tiny humans that can survive with care without mothers, not a growth of cells that is entirely dependent on the host's body not rejecting it in some fashion

That's flawed reasoning. A baby at birth (and for quite a while afterwards) can no more survive by itself than a baby in the womb survive by itself. Not to mention that there are other handicapped individuals that require constant care and cannot survive without. If you want to justify abortion, you'll need another reason, I think, other than "can't survive on it's own".

You misread his statement.

Grifman wrote:Babies are tiny humans that can survive with care without mothers

The participation of the mother in the care is not required.

Isgrimnur wrote:You misread his statement.

Grifman wrote:Babies are tiny humans that can survive with care without mothers

The participation of the mother in the care is not required.

Why is who cares for it relevant? He was actually pivoting there in his example. He was talking about the unborn child as "growth of cells dependent upon it's mother", then pivoted to say but after birth it can survive without it's mother with care.

I'm not sure how that's even relevant as to whether abortion is ok or not. Either way the child is not self sufficient. Maybe Paingod can explain further?