Abortion

[Coyote]

Do you have the right to kill another human who might cause you inconvenience?

Your argument only carrys weight if you include the death involved in the choice and can apply it equally across all classes of human beings and not just one.

I have the right to control decisions involving my own body - any human being that is growing within my body does not have equal rights to make that choice - my rights supercede it's. My own rights come first because it is my body. Even if it is housing another - it is still mine. The other - in a sense, is little more then a parasite.

 

[Coyote]

So you favor killing them because they "might" be disabled, or they "might" not get adopted, or they "might have any number of problems? Which newborn from any economic class "might" not grow up to live a perfect life?

Did I say that?

 

[palerider]

No, that is incorrect. Birth control pills work by preventing ovulation.

Better do your research. I wouldn't have said it if I weren't pretty sure I knew what I was talking about.

http://uffl.org/vol10/colliton10.pdf

http://www.ethicalhealthcare.org/articles/larimore_birth_control.pdf

I can provide more but these are thoroughly referenced and most of what I could provide will be found in the references. You can find most in any med school library.

That is also not entirely correct and deceptive. For one thing - what the fertilized egg, blastocyst, embryo etc. does is mindless and mechanical there is no will behind it whatsoever - it is an automated process no different then a rabbit's or a mouse's. In addition it does not completely control the mother's body. In times of stress, the mother's body can shut it down and abort or reabsorb the fetus.

I never claimed that there was intelligence behind it. The fact remains, that the child is in control of the pregnancy. The stress case you describe is a failing on the part of the mother's body, not the child's.

Typically, they both have a shared organ - a choice is made end one's life prematurely - it's not a matter of one defending his or her life because left unchanged they would both live for a period of time - short or long.

When this sort of separation is performed, it is known that both will die in short order. It is a very serious operation and some legality is involved because the surgury is killing a human being. The case has to be made for self defense.

 

[palerider]

Should the woman have to pay for the crimes of the father?

What do you mean "pay"?

 

[Coyote]

What do you mean "pay"?

By having control of her body taken away from her without her consent?

 

[palerider]

It is not threatened. It may have a shorter life expectency but it would still be longer then the one that was murdered.

No. If one dies, they both die. If they are in danger because they share an organ and it is not strong enough to support both, the organ fails and both die.

Tell me a situation that does not involve someone besides the woman trying to control decisions made about her own body?

Every single abortion involves the woman hiring a hit man to kill her child. It isn't about her body, it is about the dead child she leaves at the clinic.

 

[palerider]

I have the right to control decisions involving my own body - any human being that is growing within my body does not have equal rights to make that choice - my rights supercede it's. My own rights come first because it is my body. Even if it is housing another - it is still mine. The other - in a sense, is little more then a parasite.

Should I describe the difference between parasites and unborns to you? That line of logic is a loser.

Explain how your right to live supercedes the right of another human being who is not threatening your life. And explain it so that it applies to all humans and not just one class of humans.

 

[palerider]

By having control of her body taken away from her without her consent?

Control of her body? You mean she can't decide what to eat? Or she can't go to the mall? Or can't paint her fingernails? Exactly what control is she losing that outweighs the right of the child (who is innocent in all of this) to live?

Got to go to bed. I will pick up tomorrow. Good night all.

 

[Coyote]

Better do your research. I wouldn't have said it if I weren't pretty sure I knew what I was talking about.

http://uffl.org/vol10/colliton10.pdf

http://www.ethicalhealthcare.org/articles/larimore_birth_control.pdf

I can provide more but these are thoroughly referenced and most of what I could provide will be found in the references. You can find most in any med school library.

You cite two articles from 2000 - both writing from a strongly religious perspective?????? Their ideas don't seem to mesh with the mainstream scientific consensus and they are not definate.


I did do my research.

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/sexual_health/ssc/bcps.htm
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/youth/health/contraceptives/pill.htm
http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/femalehormone1.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PWH/is_2005_March_16/ai_n17209756

I never claimed that there was intelligence behind it. The fact remains, that the child is in control of the pregnancy. The stress case you describe is a failing on the part of the mother's body, not the child's.

No, it's not a failing - it's the ability of the mother to control it in order to preserve her own life OVER that of the fetus in times of need.

 

[Coyote]

Control of her body? You mean she can't decide what to eat? Or she can't go to the mall? Or can't paint her fingernails? Exactly what control is she losing that outweighs the right of the child (who is innocent in all of this) to live?

Got to go to bed. I will pick up tomorrow. Good night all.

Are you trying to say that a pregnancy is the equivalent of peircing your navel and that rape is the nothing more then consensual sex?

Night

 

[Coyote]

This is a guess on my part, and it might be grossly unfair of me but I have to wonder and I have to ask.

Rape is a horrible and violent crime - should a woman be forced to bear a pregnancy that comes out of it if she neither wants it nor can afford it, nor psychologically handle it?

This is a situation that a man will never encounter - oh men can get raped, but they will never become pregnant from it and have the constant reminder of it for the duration of the pregnancy and maybe even after - not to mention the attendent health risks and possibility of mortality.

I don't think I have ever heard many women saying that they would NOT support an abortion in the event of rape or incest.

Is it mainly men who feel thus?

 

[Coyote]

For heaven's sakes - here is a quote from one of your articles....this is hardly scientific and it includes biblical books in it's list of sources...

Simple logic demands that those who respect the sanctity of human
life from fertilization until natural death should also respect those actions
which give rise to that life. They were designed by the same Creator who
infuses the soul into each and every new conceptus. As 1 Samuel 2:6
informs us, “The Lord puts to death and gives life.”​

I also found this in regards to the idea that BC pills are abortion:

http://www.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s1-1-93-35-4130-1-P,00.html

Anti-Pill doctors and pharmacists base their stand on the fact that the Pill isn't perfect: Although it is designed to suppress ovulation and prevent fertilization, both can--and do--occur in rare cases. About 1 woman in every 1,000 who takes the Pill exactly as directed becomes pregnant in a given year. But while mainstream experts say ovulation happens only 2 to 3 percent of the time and fertilization is rare, anti-Pill groups claim both happen frequently. They say most of these fertilized eggs--in their view, nascent human lives--are unable to attach to the hormonally altered uterine lining. Instead of implanting and growing, they slough off. This theoretical action, which scientists can't confirm, is called the post-fertilization effect.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

No explanation huh? Exactly what I thought. Double talk. Shuck and jive. Evasion. But no explanation. And there is nothing theoretical about my position and I don't have to shuck and jive around issues to explain it.

You should review your posts on this thread. A psychiatrist could make a case study out of you. He could write his thesus based entirely on you. You absolutely crawl with cues. It's more than obvious that you don't even like women. Let alone understand anything about them. I wonder how you imagine you can speak for them?

 

[palerider]

You cite two articles from 2000 - both writing from a strongly religious perspective?????? Their ideas don't seem to mesh with the mainstream scientific consensus and they are not definate.

And they are scholarly in nature. Where they come from is completely irrelavent to the fact. It was not my intent to bring religion into the discussion. Here is some further reading:

http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1294/2/

If you know someone who is on the pill, ask if you may read the package inserts and also check the Physicians Desk Reference. They both say explicitly that one of the mechanisms of action is to prevent implantation. Preventing implantation leads to the death of a living human being.

I did do my research.

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/sexual_health/ssc/bcps.htm
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/youth/health/contraceptives/pill.htm
http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/femalehormone1.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PWH/is_2005_March_16/ai_n17209756

Really you didn't. Three of your links don't even mention the subject and the 4th glosses over it but does admit that it interferes with implantation which results in the death of a living human being.

No, it's not a failing - it's the ability of the mother to control it in order to preserve her own life OVER that of the fetus in times of need.

I didn't say it was a conscious failing, but failing is failing. If you have a heart attack, your heart has failed the rest of your body.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

And the wheel keeps going around and around...nothing being said in this thread is going to convince anyone to change their mind.