Ok... just wow. Some of the comments thus far have been... TMI. I understand the intention of comedy is to find that line and intentionally cross it, but you guys... you're at least a solid astronomical unit past it (not to say that there's no shock value in your comedy).

If you're trying to play with the results of any ongoing study... congrats you've tossed possible psycho/sociopath into the list of demographics. I really hope that's the goal. Most of the banter is far too absurd to take seriously (although, I am moderately disturbed by the remote possibility I'm wrong, so kudos?). I'm also starting to think that if we did have drinks kmikale, that it'd be blood wine and not beer. Qapla'!

I understand your "do over" stance, and I do think that applies to some degree. Girl ends up in a pickle (after vice versa), and has no idea what to do. Have it... don't have it... can I afford it? no (I paid 96$ for no insurance in return). There exists an option for a possible "do over". I don't believe that any legislation will be truly effective in curbing the occurrence, nor is enforcement really practical. I think some legislation will make some people feel better about themselves and the world, and who am I to deny them their fairy tale (afterall, would it not make me feel better to never hear about this topic again from our leaders?) The only things that would really make a difference are easy, cheap access to contraceptives and education. I've never been in the position, but I do recall hearing the ads for pregnancy hotlines ("pregnant and scared?"). I have no numbers concerning them presently (data, not phone).

No, video games are made like that because nobody wants to play a game that works like life: oh you're dead, that's it, no you can't start over, you're dead. Worst game ever.

My intention of attempting to skirt philosophical (perhaps more accurately moral) debate, was to focus on what it would take to actually apply the principle of "personhood" to a fetus. What sort of enforcement are we looking at? What potential consequences are we looking at (witch hunts come to mind)?

I had also hoped to avoid the obligatory, "where does it end" slippery slope fallacy, but we don't always get what we want. At least it was identified as absurd.

Yes, it's difficult, nigh impossible, to completely divorce morality from this particular topic (although, as has been said before, any law really). Everything boils down to a decision, the polarity of which depends on the lenses being used. "A person was murdered! That's OK, he was a murderer!" The day I heard about Osama being k**led (theories aside), my initial reaction was that of joy. Then I thought about it a little more, and thought, "wow... I'm... we're celebrating the death of another human being... am I any better than he?".

This is going to come off as a shocker B****sheep, you may want to sit down for this. You good? Swallow you beer before you read any further. I actually agree with you. I know, I was shocked and confused for a little while too. Life is not precious. Well, at least in the grand scheme of things. Your life is precious to you, and those that care about you. But what happens when you're gone? The world keeps spinning, everybody continues to live their lives, and you fade into memory (unless you were really awesome, then your memory gets turned into a statue to get crapped on by every damn rat with wings). Life cannot exist without death.

Government has indeed never had a problem with murder (nor has religion really, but that's another boat). The government signs off on the death of another human everyday (or at least seems like it): convicts of heinous crimes(some innocent of the charges despite being convicted by a jury of peers), "suspected terrorists" overseas (I facepalm every time I think about that), THEM, etc. We only get outraged at a few: the unplanned ones, the visible ones, the ones close to home (oh crap, I'm starting to sound like The Joker).

Rumitoid, I'm very happy things worked out for your family. I do have to wonder what the similarity here is though. The child was wanted, so much so that your daughter was willing to give up her life just for the chance at being a mother (wow, that sounded very biblical, have to stop that).


I do apologize if my thoughts come off sounding conflicted, because in t***h, they are... and I'm tired.

Before we get started, let's not turn this into a religious or philosophical debate about the merits of preserving life. I would like this to focus on the real world implications of a******n and fetal "personhood" (with some humor tossed in to lighten things up).

Children are a game changer. Relationships, crimes, lives in general become immediately more inflammatory when children are introduced. That's not to say they don't bring joy as well.

Pregnancy is full of wonders, mystery (well, more so to the man), and danger. A plethora of medical conditions arise during pregnancy that threaten the lives of both mother and child. But the one that has the greatest challenge to overcome is the child.

A baby starts out as a zygote, a merging of egg and sperm. To be viable, it needs 23 pairs of c********es (most of the time anyway, they can get away with having 45, 47, 48, 49, etc. on occasion). If a genetic replication problem occurs during the fury of cell division, it can, and does result in spontaneous a******n.

Adding onto this hurdle are environmental factors, primarily, Mom. Sometimes Mom is blissfully unaware of her state (yea, it happens), and behaves... irresponsibly considering. A coworker of mine discovered her pregnancy over halfway through it (no worries, everybody was healthy). Sometimes Mom is hostile through an immune response do to Rh factor incompatibility, or some other problem. Sometimes Mom is willfully hostile and poisons her system to flush the "parasite" out (biological definition).

Then we've got external environmental conditions to consider, things that Mom doesn't have control over.

All in all, a baby actually surviving to birth is a miracle unto itself.

If we apply "personhood", or the right to live, to an unborn child/fetus/zygote/embryo, then the manner of death will need to be investigated if a doctor won't sign off on the manner of death (how the doctor is selected I'm not certain, I'll have to ask my local crime scene techs and/or detectives). If a doctor says, "yea this thing happens all the time" and signs off on the death as natural, then it ends there. If the doctor doesn't sign off for wh**ever reason, then an investigation has to occur (forgive me if I've butchered the process, this is how it was described to me by a rep of my local PD) (now lets let the Police Line Do Not Cross wrapped around a woman image fade).

In order to conduct a thorough investigation, the government will be getting their grubby hands (ok, they're probably clean and gloved) up in the woman's business (euphemism) to determine if it was murder or not, along with toxicological screenings (all paid by taxes). The DA (or grand jury even) will then have to decide if there is enough evidence to indict.

The potential implications we run into are: suspicious doctors not signing off on miscarriages ("miscarriages"?), suspicious (or hardliner) DA's actively pursuing weak cases for political gains, more wasted tax dollars, more people needing welfare, and more kids becoming wards of the state.

This is not to say that a******n is good. A******n has been noted to cause psychological and physical damage to the mother (though I'm not as well versed in the psych department). The methods that get used on occasion are gruesome at best.

The implications of not ensuring the right to life: death on demand (presented by HBO) of a viable human (24 weeks is a common cutoff of viability I've read).

================================

If we're ever to achieve some semblance of harmony, it's going to have to be somewhere in the middle. Taking a hardliner position will not win you any traction with the opposite polarity hardliners.

We can't define a zygote as a person, as there are far too many complications that can result in an unknown death and a possible extensive, expensive investigation to tell us what the mother already tried to tell us. We also can't go around k*****g a child that's managed to survive almost to the point of birth.

I would be in favor of a ban on a******ns (save for medical emergencies) during the third trimester (with a strong preference to having the procedure done prior to week 24 as it appears most doctors won't bother trying to save a preemie arriving prior). The majority of risk of spontaneous a******n has passed, the mother has had a sufficient amount of time to decide while the child is a smallish collection of cells (although a woman being unaware complicates matters a bit, c'est la vie)(also accommodates rape victims), and we eliminate the most gruesome of practices.

Both sides achieve a small victory, everyone can walk away having gotten some of what they wanted.

Rational thoughts?

We're starting to go a bit off topic. I'll indulge in another thread.

I worked in industry under the purview of 21 CFR, pharmaceuticals.

And, I researched my position. I posted my findings a few pages ago.

Correct.

45 CFR would be the relevant regulations. However, using public information (given that no personal identification information is collected and tied to the data) is excluded from informed consent.

Well stated. I see that some here still don't get it. It's a little amusing and very disheartening.

There is no picking and choosing of laws.

Nobody has the right to discriminate against a person.

There are no civil liberties afforded to weapons because they are not people. You can legally own a dog, and not be permitted to bring the dog into the store (unless it's for a medical purpose) without violating any laws.

As far as I'm aware, a business has a right to not have a weapon in the store if they choose. This choice is indiscriminate of the person carrying the weapon (save law enforcement I would assume).

You are trying to equate discrimination against people to an object.

So the case is now, if you warn someone that discrimination will happen, that it is somehow ok? I'm guessing that is the angle you were trying to get at. Correct me if I'm wrong.

A sign proclaiming a business is Christian, does not necessarily indicate that they will not serve homosexuals. It merely indicates that the business is Christian according to Al.

No business open to the public has the right to discriminate against its clientele. If Al would like this right, then he needs to open a private Christian Bakery Club and only take orders from members. The exact details of how that would even work... I couldn't tell you, all I know is that private organisations can restrict their membership.

You bring up an interesting point.

Do the religious have a right to discriminate? In private, yes. In public, no.

The specific scenarios you mention have their own intricacies.

IIRC the Muslim barbers are forbidden to touch a woman other than his wife (maybe it's any woman?) (probably why they opened a barbershop, expecting only male clientele). The Muslim barbershop owner and the complainant came to a mutually acceptable agreement outside of court (the details were not shared publicly). The take away from this is that they were able to sit down, talk, compromise, and everyone walked away satisfied. His business continues to do well.

The bakery and the complainant were unable to find common ground (if any negotiation took place?). The take away here is that, no compromise lead to one party being kicked to the curb. The bakery closed up shop and moved into the couple's home where it is struggling.

Indiana residents must (a) reasonably believe the public servant is attempting to enter their home illegally and (b) use no more force than is reasonably necessary to dispel the threat to their lives or property.

They can't just go all Rambo on the PoPo all willy-nilly. Their lives must be in actual danger, meaning the police officer entered illegally (or reasonably believed they had), AND must be a clear threat to your safety. A gun drawn is not a clear threat as a (good) police officer will not shoot you (and will most likely have announced their presence either before entering or upon entering) unless you present reason for them to (such as opening fire).

Even if a homeowner asserts that they believed the police entered illegally AND presented a threat, a prosecutor may contend that the homeowner acted unreasonably and press charges.

Umm... because they don't work for the NSA? Maybe they were joking when they said that?

Black and white scenarios do not create harmony. A******n is a greatly debated topic because we have not established, legally, when life begins. Until we do, we will have religious debates with a few scientific sprinkles added in for color and nothing accomplished.

For hardliners, there is no compromise. In order to achieve harmony in a democratic nation (or in any relationship), you need to compromise. All "my way or the highway" will usually end with you... on the highway, and your crap thrown on the lawn (why is she always right?!).

All rights are subject to limitation based on public safety concerns, or where practice violates the rights of someone else. We already know about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater where no actual fire exists.


Your rights end where the rights of someone else begin.

Someone researching behavior is not likely to tell you the goals of any research while the study is being conducted (if at all). The "subjects" knowing the goal can willingly contaminate the results.

I'm more interested in the data if and when it's available.

Not supporting it. I just don't care. This is a public forum and information is being collected on us all the time.

The only ethics issue that I have discerned pertaining to the alleged activity, is the obfuscation of personally identifiable information from the data (which could result in legal issues if such was not the case). He has said that he is compliant with ethics issues as described by the APA although there is no need for him to be.

So either, he is not a member of the APA and is not beholden to their rules, or he's not conducting research.

There is, also, an exception to the APA ethics code you posted:

This forum is private property, meaning that the admin is the owner and can do with it as he/she sees fit. That does not mean that this forum exists outside of public domain.

Example: a business open to the public is still private property. You only have permission to be there during hours of operation or you are trespassing.