Abortion

[Coyote]

I don't think that the constitution address biological functions. Given the nature of our law though, unless life or long term health are being threatened, killing is not a legal option.

I once had a long discussion with a fellow who went down the trespassing/slavery route and according to the law, you can't kill trespassers even if they are causing you great inconvenience unless they are threatening your life or long term health. The slavery issue opens up a can of worms for you because in order for the woman to kill the child, which is undeniably a human being, without legal consequence, she would have to own it and it is patently unconstitutional to own another human being. You would have a hard time establishing any sort of logical argument that a very immature child could actually "own" its mother as well.

The law allows you to kill if you believe your life or property or family to be in danger. That can be looked at in a fairly broad way.

But none of this really answers the question: does the constitution give one human being the right to control another human beings body against it's will? By giving it equal rights to the host's body - whether intentional or not - there is an "ownership" implied because one party has no rights in the matter.

When you argue about situations where a particular class of human beings (the unborn) are not treated the same way as other human beings you also have to recognize that there is a very unique and odd situation in the matter of rights. No other class of human beings USES another human beings body for it's well being and survival - in some cases, against that "hosts" will.

Given that there is always the risk of mortality with childbirth, and that there is always the risk of serious health complications - is it right to force the host to bear this unwillingly and possibly risk her life in the process?

 

[palerider]

Apply equally to everyone? You just don't get it. Do you? That would be impossible since only women get abortions. As for motivation, I question your integrity and intellectual honesty. I am being charitable refering your insipid diatribe in those terms. I refer you to almost any of your posts on this thread. Lot's of verbage for distration, laced with comments that reveal a severe emotional disfunction. You clearly do not like women. And that fact taints what ever argument you could make.

Still no argument on the topic? Why am I not surprised. It is clear that you aren't up to defending your position. Thanks for playing though.

 

[palerider]

In this case, you are punishing an innocent party regardless.

So in one instance, an innocent party gets inconvenienced for 9 months and can, without consequence give up the child to someone who has probably been waiting on a list for years and in the other instance an innocent party is simply killed. Which makes more sense?

What, in those reasons amounts to mere "convenience"? Inconvenient is a missed ride, an ingrown toenail, a failed physics exam. Drastically life altering circumstances are not "inconveniences" - perhaps you need to recheck your definition.

Convenience - noun - 1. anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort, etc. 2. a convenient situation or time 3. freedom from effort or difficulty 4. advantage or accommodation.

Convenience means what convenience means. Tell me a situation in which the mother's life or long term health is not in danger that does not meet the definition of convenience.

Not logic - just your particular argument of logic combined with law.

Logic is what logic is. Your concept of personhood is unknowable, unprovable, and undefinable. It is outside the bounds of logic. It belongs in the realm of faith and faith certainly isn't logical.

I've never ever seen a scientific paper using religious text as part of it's documentation and footnotes.

Answer the question. Was the writer using religious references to prove the science or to substantiate the point he was using the science to prove?

It's also a fertilized egg - now you're playing semantics. Face it - reproductive freedom is only a big load of crap when you are a man because men have always enjoyed reproductive freedom. If you consider the pill to be taboo, then you are basically condemning women to the status of broodmares. You are setting up two different standards. Married woman who are otherwise responsible but want to limit the size of their families. Condoms are not as reliable, neither are diaphrams. [/quote'

There is no such thing as a fertilized egg.

"Often,this morula is inaccurately referred to as a ‘fertilized egg’ because the blastomeres remain inside the female parent’s oocyte outer cell membrane. That is an incorrect characterization, because the 23 -chromosome oocyte no longer exists; all the cells within the morula have the unique genome—46 chromosomes and a complement of mitochondrial DNA —of the newly conceived individual life."
The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 6th ed., (p. 43)


Like I said. Reproductive freedom is code for sex without responsibility.

My bet is that if abortion is outlawed, and a profit motive develops, the pharmaceutical industry will develop the perfect contraceptive.

Is it deliberate killing to create an inhospitable environment to a creature you do not want to reside in you?

I suspect that you are climbing my fence at night and going into my storage building. I run a lethal current through my fence. You climb my fence the next night and receive a lethal shock. Your body is found at my fence the next morning. According to the law, I am a murderer.

I would be equally guilty if I had filled my storage building with poisonous gas which kiled you only after you were in a place on my property that I had not authorized you to enter.

Can you prove any fertilized eggs died as a result of the pill? I doubt it. It's theoretically possible. Just as it's theoretically possible that innocent people have been executed via the death penalty.

Can you prove that they haven't? The science and numbers puts it beyond theory.

That's irrelevant. If the issue is that innocent human beings deserve to live - then all innocent human beings deserve to live and the supporting death penalty can not be reconciled to that belief.

The issue is, and always has been that human beings, in this country, should not be put to death until they have recieved due process, their day in court. I thought you understood my position by now. That was the impression that you gave me when you said:

"I see where you are coming from now."

In response to a thorough explanation of my position to 9sublime.

 

[palerider]

But none of this really answers the question: does the constitution give one human being the right to control another human beings body against it's will? By giving it equal rights to the host's body - whether intentional or not - there is an "ownership" implied because one party has no rights in the matter.

The answer to your question lies in the hirearchy of our rights as laid out by our founding documents. The right to live comes first. The right to be free is secondary to the right to live. The right to pursue happiness (whatever that means to you) is secondary to both the right to live, and the right to be free.

When you argue about situations where a particular class of human beings (the unborn) are not treated the same way as other human beings you also have to recognize that there is a very unique and odd situation in the matter of rights. No other class of human beings USES another human beings body for it's well being and survival - in some cases, against that "hosts" will.[/quote[

Refer to the hirearchy of our rights. The right to live is first. All other rights take a back seat to the right to live unless law is legislated that enumerates specifically which right is being denied, from whom it is being denied, and for what reason it is being denied. This whole issue could be worked out by our elected lawmakers but they choose to do nothing and allow the unconstitutional slaughter to continue.

Given that there is always the risk of mortality with childbirth, and that there is always the risk of serious health complications - is it right to force the host to bear this unwillingly and possibly risk her life in the process?

There is always a "risk" in taking a shower. The large majority of serious issues arise when a woman is cautioned to terminate a pregnancy for health reasons and she opts to try and carry the child.

Is it fair? Refer to the hirearchy of our rights. Do you believe we should be able to kill another human being who statistically won't cause us any harm but could concievably hurt us, or should we wait until there is an actual threat?

 

[Coyote]

So in one instance, an innocent party gets inconvenienced for 9 months and can, without consequence give up the child to someone who has probably been waiting on a list for years and in the other instance an innocent party is simply killed. Which makes more sense?

Convenience - noun - 1. anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort, etc. 2. a convenient situation or time 3. freedom from effort or difficulty 4. advantage or accommodation.

Convenience means what convenience means. Tell me a situation in which the mother's life or long term health is not in danger that does not meet the definition of convenience.

Childbirth carries with it a small but significant risk of mortality and serious health issues. Is death an inconvenience?

Like I said. Reproductive freedom is code for sex without responsibility.

Not necessarily. Reproductive freedom is something men have always enjoyed and women have only recently gained. The "responsibility" part, is up to the individual. It also ignores the issues within a family - such as being able to limit family size. Women should not have to be broodmares.

My bet is that if abortion is outlawed, and a profit motive develops, the pharmaceutical industry will develop the perfect contraceptive.

My bet is, you can't be sure. The pill is now safe and effective. I would hate to be a guinea pig on a whole new range of contraceptives.

I suspect that you are climbing my fence at night and going into my storage building. I run a lethal current through my fence. You climb my fence the next night and receive a lethal shock. Your body is found at my fence the next morning. According to the law, I am a murderer.

I would be equally guilty if I had filled my storage building with poisonous gas which kiled you only after you were in a place on my property that I had not authorized you to enter.

On the other hand if you caught me breaking into your house, you'd be within your rights to shoot me, even if I was unarmed.

Can you prove that they haven't? The science and numbers puts it beyond theory.

As does the killing of innocents via the death penalty. Consider the sheer number of people only now being exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence, a technique only recently available.

The issue is, and always has been that human beings, in this country, should not be put to death until they have recieved due process, their day in court. I thought you understood my position by now. That was the impression that you gave me when you said:

"I see where you are coming from now."

In response to a thorough explanation of my position to 9sublime.

I do see where you are coming from but - I don't see, however, how you can logically reconcyle any technique that puts an innocent life to death with your pro-life views even given due process - it's still murder. This seems like an inconsistensy. Surely - if you know that innocent people get executed even with due process you can't ethically support a death penalty?

 

[Coyote]

The answer to your question lies in the hirearchy of our rights as laid out by our founding documents. The right to live comes first. The right to be free is secondary to the right to live. The right to pursue happiness (whatever that means to you) is secondary to both the right to live, and the right to be free.

When you argue about situations where a particular class of human beings (the unborn) are not treated the same way as other human beings you also have to recognize that there is a very unique and odd situation in the matter of rights. No other class of human beings USES another human beings body for it's well being and survival - in some cases, against that "hosts" will.

Refer to the hirearchy of our rights. The right to live is first. All other rights take a back seat to the right to live unless law is legislated that enumerates specifically which right is being denied, from whom it is being denied, and for what reason it is being denied. This whole issue could be worked out by our elected lawmakers but they choose to do nothing and allow the unconstitutional slaughter to continue.



There is always a "risk" in taking a shower. The large majority of serious issues arise when a woman is cautioned to terminate a pregnancy for health reasons and she opts to try and carry the child.

Is it fair? Refer to the hirearchy of our rights. Do you believe we should be able to kill another human being who statistically won't cause us any harm but could concievably hurt us, or should we wait until there is an actual threat?

You can choose to take a shower should you feel the risk excessive.

If you are raped and impregnated - what choice do you have?

No other class of human beings uses another human's body against that human's will. That creates competing rights and no matter what you say - no one has a right to use another person's body against their will. No one has the right to make them face the risk of death against their will. In our society today - the rights of the born over rule the rights of the unborn, and that is not something new - its ancient, and it has been upheld across human cultures. That doesn't imply that the unborn have NO rights - but someone's rights must take precedence.

One person perhaps, will choose to protect that life within her regardless of it's origins - the other may choose to abort it. Both are fully within their rights. Perhaps science - rather than creating the perfect contraceptive, should concentrate on creating an artificial womb.

Look at a pregnancy where, at delivery only one may live: the mother or the baby. You can't argue self defense - because both entities can use the same argument. How do you choose and why?

 

[palerider]

Childbirth carries with it a small but significant risk of mortality and serious health issues. Is death an inconvenience?

Once again. Do you believe you should be allowed to kill someone who represents a slight risk to you, or wait until the risk materializes before you take action against them?

Not necessarily. Reproductive freedom is something men have always enjoyed and women have only recently gained. The "responsibility" part, is up to the individual. It also ignores the issues within a family - such as being able to limit family size. Women should not have to be broodmares.

The "individual" is the one who decides to kill another human being rather than face the responsibility associated with her actions. A human being is killed because another refuses to accept the responsibility of her actions.

Law certainly could be written that would place a hefty load of responsibility on men. With DNA identification, it is easy to prove paternity.

My bet is, you can't be sure. The pill is now safe and effective. I would hate to be a guinea pig on a whole new range of contraceptives.

Have you ever looked at the insert found in a package of pills. Read the risks section before you say safe and effective.

On the other hand if you caught me breaking into your house, you'd be within your rights to shoot me, even if I was unarmed.

Are you saying that the unborn "broke in". In order to break in, you must first be outside. If you are going to analogize, make them accurate.

As does the killing of innocents via the death penalty. Consider the sheer number of people only now being exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence, a technique only recently available.

So. Because someone might have been executed after exausting all of the options available to them in our legal system, it is OK to kill someone whom we know beyond even the merest shaddow of a doubt is innocent without legal consequence? Is that what you are saying?

I do see where you are coming from but - I don't see, however, how you can logically reconcyle any technique that puts an innocent life to death with your pro-life views even given due process - it's still murder. This seems like an inconsistensy. Surely - if you know that innocent people get executed even with due process you can't ethically support a death penalty?

My views aren't pro life. My views are centered in the law and logic. I don't make a single argument that can not be applied equally to every human being in this country. It is not necessary for me to single out any particular group in order to argue my position. Any argument that separates one group from all others in order to justify doing them harm is flawed and no different in character from the arguments made by stalin, lenin, pol pot, and every other monster in history who managed to dehumanize a particular group so that they could be killed without legal consequence.

And as I have said, I would gladly support a higher standard of evidence in cases in which capital punishment is a possibility.

 

[palerider]

If you are raped and impregnated - what choice do you have?

Again, refer to the hirearchy of our rights. Do you think it is ok to kill another human being who represents a very small statistical risk to you or should you wait until that risk becomes a reality?

No other class of human beings uses another human's body against that human's will. That creates competing rights and no matter what you say - no one has a right to use another person's body against their will. No one has the right to make them face the risk of death against their will. In our society today - the rights of the born over rule the rights of the unborn, and that is not something new - its ancient, and it has been upheld across human cultures. That doesn't imply that the unborn have NO rights - but someone's rights must take precedence.

Historically, everyone who set out to dehumanize a particular group with the intent of doing that group grevious harm has attempted to make the case that the group he has targeted is different from all the rest of us.

And I agree, someone's rights must take precedence. If a woman's life is seriously being threatened and not some vague statistical risk, then it is obvious that she has the right to defend herself. If no threat is present, then the childs right to live is first in the hirearchy.

One person perhaps, will choose to protect that life within her regardless of it's origins - the other may choose to abort it. Both are fully within their rights. Perhaps science - rather than creating the perfect contraceptive, should concentrate on creating an artificial womb.

Once, owning a black and beating him or her to death in the field with a shovel would have been completely within your rights. We are talking about a miscarriage of the law here.

And if creating an artifical womb or the perfect contraceptive is the result of outlawing abortion, I would welcome either. The first issue, however, is to either stop the killing, or write law that makes it legal.

Look at a pregnancy where, at delivery only one may live: the mother or the baby. You can't argue self defense - because both entities can use the same argument. How do you choose and why?

Describe such a situation in 2007.

 

[palerider]

going to bed. talk to you tomorrow. same time...same channel.

 

[Coyote]

going to bed. talk to you tomorrow. same time...same channel.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming...


Night

 

[Coyote]

Again, refer to the hirearchy of our rights. Do you think it is ok to kill another human being who represents a very small statistical risk to you or should you wait until that risk becomes a reality?

By the time that risk became a reality, I could be dead. I should at least have a choice since it's my body that is being used against my will.

Historically, everyone who set out to dehumanize a particular group with the intent of doing that group grevious harm has attempted to make the case that the group he has targeted is different from all the rest of us.

Can you name any other group of human's that uses another human's body as a host - even, occassionally, causing it's death?

And I agree, someone's rights must take precedence. If a woman's life is seriously being threatened and not some vague statistical risk, then it is obvious that she has the right to defend herself. If no threat is present, then the childs right to live is first in the hirearchy.

I disagree - not if the child is placed there through an act of violence against the woman's will.

Once, owning a black and beating him or her to death in the field with a shovel would have been completely within your rights. We are talking about a miscarriage of the law here.

Is that black person using my body?

And if creating an artifical womb or the perfect contraceptive is the result of outlawing abortion, I would welcome either. The first issue, however, is to either stop the killing, or write law that makes it legal.

No...the first issue is to make the killing unnecessary. Legislating it has never stopped it. Look at history.

Describe such a situation in 2007.

 

[Coyote]

Describe such a situation in 2007.

Do you mean find actual cases? Specific examples aren't exactly readily available - do you doubt it could happen?

Consider the following from CDC:

The pregnancy-related mortality ratio increased from 10.3 in 1991 to 12.9 in 1997. An increased risk of death was found for black women, older women, and women with no prenatal care. The leading causes of death were embolism, hemorrhage, and medical conditions, although the percentage of death from hemorrhage decreased from 28% in the early 1980s to 18% in the current study period.

The reported pregnancy-related mortality ratio has increased, probably because of improved identification of pregnancy-related deaths. Black women continue to have an almost 4-fold increased risk of pregnancy-related death, the greatest disparity among the maternal and child health indicators.

Pregnancy-related maternal mortality decreased from 850 per 100,000 live births in 1900 to 7.5 in 1982. Since then, it has increased slightly, averaging 11.5 in the years 1991 to 1997. During this interval, racial disparity continued: black women had a mortality ratio of 29.6 compared with 7.9 for white women -- a ratio of 3.7 to 1.0. This ratio increased with age, from 2.8 at ages 15-19 to 5.6 above age 39.

Embolism, hemorrhage, and pregnancy-induced hypertension were the leading causes of death for both white and black women. However, the risk of death from cardiomyopathy and complications of anesthesia was 6 times higher for black women.

 

[palerider]

By the time that risk became a reality, I could be dead. I should at least have a choice since it's my body that is being used against my will.

Do some research.

Just for future reference, in case the subject comes up on another topic, are you saying that you favor taking preemptive action against others if a small statistical threat exists? Or are you separating out this particular group to take preemptive action against.

Can you name any other group of human's that uses another human's body as a host - even, occassionally, causing it's death?

Like I said, everyone who has set out to do harm to a particular group has had their reasons for separating their particular target from the herd so that they could be killed without consequence. Your "host" argument is just your particular way of separating them from the herd.

Review the hirearchy of our rights and apply them equally to all human beings and see if if you are able to make a logical case against the unborn.

I disagree - not if the child is placed there through an act of violence against the woman's will.

So. If I place you in a position where you are not wanted and not welcome and manage to do it while comitting a crime, have I effectively erased your right to live? Arguments that can't be applied across the board to all human beings are simply not valid arguments Coyote.

Is that black person using my body?

Like I said, this is just the reason you are giving to separate this particular group from the herd in order to justify killing them.

And using is what a parasite does, the unborn is not using its mother's body. They are in a partnership since entire portions of her biology are devoted expressly for this purpose.

No...the first issue is to make the killing unnecessary. Legislating it has never stopped it. Look at history.

Spoken like a true utopiest. Do you also argue that we should first strike all laws with regard to murder and manslaugher off the books and set about making all violence un-necessary? After all, making the killing of your wife or neighbor, or complete strangers illegal has never stopped it so why bother writing law that protects your right to live in the first place?

If you can't apply your argument equally to all human beings Coyote, it isn't valid.

 

[palerider]

Do you mean find actual cases? Specific examples aren't exactly readily available - do you doubt it could happen?

Sure they are. Medical school libraries are full of books explaining every aspect of pregnancy and developmental biology.

Consider the following from CDC:

The pregnancy-related mortality ratio increased from 10.3 in 1991 to 12.9 in 1997. An increased risk of death was found for black women, older women, and women with no prenatal care. The leading causes of death were embolism, hemorrhage, and medical conditions, although the percentage of death from hemorrhage decreased from 28% in the early 1980s to 18% in the current study period.

So for future reference, you do favor preemtive violence against others even if they only represent a very small statistical risk to you. If that is your position, then that is your position but if this is your position only as it applies to this particular group of human beings, then your position is at very best, hypocritical, and something tells me that you don't favor preemtive action against others at all, under any circumstance except this one.

 

[vyo476]

Spoken like a true utopiest. Do you also argue that we should first strike all laws with regard to murder and manslaugher off the books and set about making all violence un-necessary? After all, making the killing of your wife or neighbor, or complete strangers illegal has never stopped it so why bother writing law that protects your right to live in the first place?

What do you think the outcome of banning abortion would be?