Abortion

[palerider]

And once again, you demonstrate that you simply aren't able to understand the words that you read. You went to some lenght to point out that I said " "the decision is always made because if surgury is not performed, both will die." and then you post this:

[
[/COLOR]The harrowing decisions which surgeons have to make when faced with conjoined twins have been highlighted by the recent case in Manchester, England. Separating conjoined twins is not only technically challenging; it can involves life and death decisions about whether one twin should be sacrificed in the hope of saving the other.

Tell me, are you really unable to understand what these words mean? When I read them, it is obvious that the doctors are in a situation in which both are going to die if they don't perform the surgury. So obvious, in fact, that I took a moment to verify my reading by taking just a minute (a minute you obviously couldn't spare) to look a bit more deeply into the case.

It seems, that the courts ruled that the twins would be separated, against the parent's wishes, because both were going to die if the surgury were not performed. Here is a clip from a news article that got their facts together a bit more accurately than your source:

On 25 August Mr Justice Johnson ruled that the operation should take place against the parents' wishes, sacrificing the weaker twin to save the stronger. Doctors from St Mary's told the judge that both twins—given the false names of “Jodie” and “Mary” to protect their anonymity—would die within three to six months unless the operation was performed, but that an operation could save Jodie's life.


Now tell the truth top gun, the reason you don't like to respond to me is that it invariably leads to you getting your a$$ kicked around the board just like you got it kicked around this time.

The fact is that separation surgury rarely takes place unless the surgeons are confident that both twins have a very high likelyhood of survival after the surgury as is the case when they share no organs or major systems, or when both are going to die if the surgury is not performed.

 

[palerider]

Pale has no problem killing innocent people as long as there's been a trial. And it's a documented fact that trails are often in error. People on death row have been released for being innocent. So it's not the killing that pale has problems with. He's actually fine with the killing. It's the trial thing.

He proposes fetus court.

OHHHHHHHH Lordy, Lordy!

Tell me top gun, which situation would you rather be in? Would you want to get your day in court even though there is a small chance that you would be wrongly convicted, or would you prefer that you not have your day in court and your fate be left to someone who intends to kill you?

Be honest, if it is in you, which senario would you prefer for yourself?

And the idea of an unborn being represented in court isn't unusual at all. There are people in jail today who were charged and convicted of killing an unborn. Someone represented them in order for the charges to be laid and the conviction achieved. There is no law that says that a defendent must speak on his own behalf or even appear in court.

 

[palerider]

Except - you ARE giving another person absolute right over another - no matter how you look at it. I can see in all other cases where by consenting to sex you are consenting to the risk of pregnancy (both he and she) and it's consequences and responsibilities.

No. You are giving another person limited rights over another. Absolute rights describes the situation as it stands now, the right to kill the other without legal consequence for any, or no reason at all. Requiring mom to carry the child to term so that it can have the chance to live its one and only life is not giving the child absolute rights over her. She still has the right to defend herself if her life is threatened, and she can give the child up for adoption upon its birth if she doesn't want to be further "inconvenienced" by it.

If a situation were to come up where your convenience was in conflict with my right to live, the courts would always grant me limited rights over you because the right to live outweighs the right to not be inconvenienced.

 

[palerider]

That's what I thought. You don't care if they were rapped by their father or not. Inbreeding craziness means nothing to you. It's all about 2 cells on having more rights than the woman. I understand your position totally. I just disagree.

We have been through this before and you lost as well. Inbreeding doesn't result in crazyness, or any other debilitation. The fact is that breeders of animals very often inbreed their stock to improve whole lines. The whole inbreeding crazyness is a myth fabricated by the people who tell you what to think. The only time inbreeding becomes a problem is when whole lines are inbred for generation upon generation upon generation.

 

[palerider]

Well that's fine. Maybe you can help set that up. It's beyond reality... but in a free country you have a right to beat your head against the wall.

I support that.

As with the case of the conjoined twins in manchester, it becomes more clear all the time that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Beyond reality, huh? Why don't you ever bother to learn something before you speak up. Here, ONCE AGAIN, palerider is going to kick your a$$ all over the board.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7DD163CF93BA35750C0A961948260

clip:
In January, Judge Edward J. Januszewski of the New Britain Probate Court named Ms. Fuller's mother, Betty L. Fuller of Waterbury, as her daughter's conservator, or guardian. The judge also appointed a lawyer to represent Ms. Fuller and another to represent the fetus.

Imagine that. A judge appointed a lawyer to represent the fetus in court. And guess what? The fetus won. And guess what else, this isn't the first time that a fetus has been represented in court, and it isn't the first time that a fetus has won in court.

 

[Coyote]

No. You are giving another person limited rights over another. Absolute rights describes the situation as it stands now, the right to kill the other without legal consequence for any, or no reason at all. Requiring mom to carry the child to term so that it can have the chance to live its one and only life is not giving the child absolute rights over her. She still has the right to defend herself if her life is threatened, and she can give the child up for adoption upon its birth if she doesn't want to be further "inconvenienced" by it.

No, requiring a mother to carry a child to term against her will - when she had no say in it's conception is not "limited rights" - it's absolute rights by an outside agency over her body for 9 month with her ONLY right in that period of time being the right to defend herself - assuming she can. And it does nothing to address what she may be left with - physically, financially, emotionally and medically when all is said and done (what I think you term "inconvenience").

If a situation were to come up where your convenience was in conflict with my right to live, the courts would always grant me limited rights over you because the right to live outweighs the right to not be inconvenienced.

Inconvenient: not convenient especially in giving trouble or annoyance.

Annoyance. Getting pregnant and bearing a child is much more then an annoyance and inconvenience. When you claim a woman has an abortion because pregnancy is "inconvenient" then you are likewise paring down the whole act of childbirth and raising to one of convenience.

Using that logic, if I am on dialysis and dying of kidney failure and you have two healthy matching kidneys then I would think the courts should give me limited rights over you because my right to live outweighs your right to not be inconvenienced.

 

[Coyote]

Tell me top gun, which situation would you rather be in? Would you want to get your day in court even though there is a small chance that you would be wrongly convicted, or would you prefer that you not have your day in court and your fate be left to someone who intends to kill you?

Be honest, if it is in you, which senario would you prefer for yourself?

And the idea of an unborn being represented in court isn't unusual at all. There are people in jail today who were charged and convicted of killing an unborn. Someone represented them in order for the charges to be laid and the conviction achieved. There is no law that says that a defendent must speak on his own behalf or even appear in court.

The idea of an unborn being having equal rights to it's parents is a potential legal nightmare isn't it?

It could sue (or, I should say, money grubbing lawyers could) for damages if it were born with defects and there is any remote possibillity the parent (usually the mother) did something, ate something or drank something that could even remotely be causal or made medical choices that led to a bad outcome or any number of things. It has the potential to reducing the mother - during the nine months of pregnancy - into little more then maternal housing. Not a person.

 

[palerider]

No, requiring a mother to carry a child to term against her will - when she had no say in it's conception is not "limited rights" - it's absolute rights by an outside agency over her body for 9 month with her ONLY right in that period of time being the right to defend herself - assuming she can. And it does nothing to address what she may be left with - physically, financially, emotionally and medically when all is said and done (what I think you term "inconvenience").

Call it absolute if you like, but the fact that the woman retains the right to defend her life if it is threatened is testament to the fact that the child does not have absolute rights over her. Emotional lament doesn't equal factual argument.

Using that logic, if I am on dialysis and dying of kidney failure and you have two healthy matching kidneys then I would think the courts should give me limited rights over you because my right to live outweighs your right to not be inconvenienced.

Is your condition the result of my actions? Or perhaps, is there a third party who is responsible for your condition but for some reason or other you have decided that I should be punished?

 

[palerider]

The idea of an unborn being having equal rights to it's parents is a potential legal nightmare isn't it?

No more of a nightmare than acknowledging anyone else's right to live.

It could sue (or, I should say, money grubbing lawyers could) for damages if it were born with defects and there is any remote possibillity the parent (usually the mother) did something, ate something or drank something that could even remotely be causal or made medical choices that led to a bad outcome or any number of things. It has the potential to reducing the mother - during the nine months of pregnancy - into little more then maternal housing. Not a person.

Women have been charged and convicted for taking deliberate actions that threatened the life or health of their unborn child. It is no different than taking deliberate action that threatens the life or health of a child that has already been born. Reckless endangerment is reckless endangerment and a legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of those who are too weak to defend themselves.

Oh, by the way. Suggesting that mom becomes nothing more than maternal housing is no more, and no less than emotional handwringing.

 

[top gun]

Is a Fetus Part of a Woman's Body?

Yesterday's Best of the Web Today expressed puzzlement about the difference between a "baby" and a "fetus." Andrew Coulson of The Ganteloupe wrote in to offer an answer:

Many supporters of abortion rights consider self-ownership to be the most elementary and inviolable right of all: We are all the owners of our own bodies. The difference between a fetus and an infant is that a fetus is a part of a pregnant woman's body whereas an infant is not. Libertarians do not want the very visible hand of government rooting around in women's uteruses, telling them what they can or can't do with any fetuses that happen to reside there. Any rights of a fetus are secondary because its existence is secondary to (and until late in the pregnancy, entirely dependent on) the woman in whose womb it is located.

 

[palerider]

Is a Fetus Part of a Woman's Body?

You just keep walking into doors. You should either learn something or abandon this debate as it is becoming very embarassing for you?

The child may be inside, but inside does not constitute part of. Such logic would lead to the idea that you are a part of your car when you are inside it. Or if you have a living creature inide of your body, that it is part of your body?

The parts of your body are easily identifiable as parts of your body by their DNA. If it is part of your body, it has your DNA. The child, in every way, is easily identifiable as a distinct entity, separate from its mother. Separate DNA, separate blood, and half the time, a different sex.

This is not rocket science top gun. You really should be able to work the basics out for yourself.

By the way, why no comment on your obvious faux pas with regard to both the conjoined twins issue and legal representation for the unborn?

 

[Izz]

It's like a perfect circle. No one can change anyone else's mind. So why do we try?

 

[palerider]

It's like a perfect circle. No one can change anyone else's mind. So why do we try?

Of course minds can be changed. The minds of thinking people anyway. Ask coyote if minds can be changed. Check his position on the early debates on abortion and ask him is position now. He hasn't gotten over the rape issue yet, but give him time, he is a thinker and eventually will come to realize that it is just wrong to punish a child for the crimes of its father.

 

[Izz]

..thank you for that totally unnecessary soapbox moment.

 

[Pidgey]

..thank you for that totally unnecessary soapbox moment.

It's a squeaky-clean thread.