Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

After Texas Stopped Funding Planned Parenthood, Low-Income Women Had More Babies


Fweethawt

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

 

That sounds like a plan Biblegod would come up with. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something seems a little wrong with that.

 

 

Oh I know.  It's a ridiculous comparison you created out of mockery.

 

 

I honestly (I say "honestly" because you've called me a liar) have no idea what you are trying to say here. 

 

 

 

You are not contributing anything to the conversation.  Mischaracterizing others or the situation doesn't make abortion wrong.  

 

 

I am the conversation, or hadn't you noticed? I didn't mischaracterize anyone or anything. You say I did, but that's just your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

 

 

The ones inside the womb are dead? When do they magically come to life? 

 

 

She didn't say any of that nor imply it.  You are using the loaded question fallacy.  If you use too many fallacies you might give people the impression that your position has no legitimate foundation.

 

 

Of course Lilith didn't say it or imply it. That's why I was asking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The ones inside the womb are dead? When do they magically come to life? 

 

 

She didn't say any of that nor imply it.  You are using the loaded question fallacy.  If you use too many fallacies you might give people the impression that your position has no legitimate foundation.

 

 

Of course Lilith didn't say it or imply it. That's why I was asking. 

 

 

 

You shouldn't ask questions based on false assumptions.  The fact that she didn't say it or imply it is what makes your question a fallacy.

 

Did you stop beating your wife?  Come on, yes or no?

 

That is why the loaded question fallacy is bad.

 

 

Nobody said a fetus is dead or needs to come to life.  That is absurd.  The general view of the pro-abortion rights camp is that a living human fetus is not a person.  That doesn't make it some other species or not alive.  I'm sure I explained it before but in my view the key difference between the living human fetus and a person is separation from the mother's body, experience of birth and knowledge of the outside world.  When those three things happen together we extend the full protection of the law and recognize personhood.  There are a lot of all the social issues the anti-abortion rights camp likes to ignore; things that happen after birth.  You mock teen mothers but we have millions of them because our system is not working.  Planed Parenthood, and organizations like them, do not just provide abortion.  They also provide discreet access to birth control when in some parts of our country the preaching says that birth control is a sin.  We have to break the cycle of poverty and the attitudes you express about responsibility is part of that problem.  While it is unpleasant, abortion is necessary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The ones inside the womb are dead? When do they magically come to life? 

 

 

She didn't say any of that nor imply it.  You are using the loaded question fallacy.  If you use too many fallacies you might give people the impression that your position has no legitimate foundation.

 

 

Of course Lilith didn't say it or imply it. That's why I was asking. 

 

 

 

You shouldn't ask questions based on false assumptions.  The fact that she didn't say it or imply it is what makes your question a fallacy.

 

Did you stop beating your wife?  Come on, yes or no?

 

That is why the loaded question fallacy is bad.

 

 

Nobody said a fetus is dead or needs to come to life.  That is absurd.  The general view of the pro-abortion rights camp is that a living human fetus is not a person.  That doesn't make it some other species or not alive.  I'm sure I explained it before but in my view the key difference between the living human fetus and a person is separation from the mother's body, experience of birth and knowledge of the outside world.  When those three things happen together we extend the full protection of the law and recognize personhood.  There are a lot of all the social issues the anti-abortion rights camp likes to ignore; things that happen after birth.  You mock teen mothers but we have millions of them because our system is not working.  Planed Parenthood, and organizations like them, do not just provide abortion.  They also provide discreet access to birth control when in some parts of our country the preaching says that birth control is a sin.  We have to break the cycle of poverty and the attitudes you express about responsibility is part of that problem.  While it is unpleasant, abortion is necessary.

 

 

Well, MM, my question to Lilith was more of a rhetorical one. You know, to make my point. 

 

Why you go on to say I'm mocking teen mothers, and tell me my attitudes toward responsibility is part of the problem (as if I'm personally making teens pregnant by actually calling for personal responsibility) is a mystery to me. 

 

To me, there isn't any difference in a two pound baby that's in it's mother's womb and a two pound preemie that's in a hospital incubator. They are both being kept alive by machines, and killing one is no different than killing the other one.

Also the idea that humans don't breed humans, and people only become a human person when they are exposed to air is the absurd one.

According to medical science, life ends when there is no more heart and brain activity in a person. Certainly then, it follows that life begins, at a minimum, when there is heart and brain activity in a person, and any doctor can tell you that happens long before birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to medical science, life ends when there is no more heart and brain activity in a person. Certainly then, it follows that life begins, at a minimum, when there is heart and brain activity in a person, and any doctor can tell you that happens long before birth.

 

My grandma was "gone" long before she died. With the right meds at just the right time, she might know who and where she was, and who you were, for a few minutes each day. We wanted to hold on to those moments for as long as possible, but they kept slipping away. When her body died, it was something of a relief to know that it was all over - that the husk that used to contain grandma wasn't going to be taunting us with memories of someone we'd never see again, and that whatever was left of the person we'd known was no longer suffering the fear and confusion of being trapped in a body that no longer responded to her commands. To me, it felt like her soul was gone well before her body died. I certainly grieved at the finality of her bodily death, but I'd been grieving for her mental death a long time before then. So no, I don't think that medical science's measurement of heart and brain activity is the only thing that matters when talking about the value of a human life, and I don't think that it's a single moment in time, either. Grandma faded away from life gradually with her bodily death being the end of a slow decline. It seems equally natural to me that at the start of life there's a similar gradual transition that starts at conception and grows more "ensouled" (for lack of a better term) over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to dude's earlier question about why pregnant women avoid teratogens if the fetus is not a person, I'd like to add that women prepare for pregnancy long before becoming pregnant, if they plan to have a child. They avoid alcohol, drugs, and get in shape to provide the best environment. There's no baby yet, but they plan for it. It's not dependent on whether the zygote/embryo/fetus has personhood status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, MM, my question to Lilith was more of a rhetorical one. You know, to make my point. 

 

Why you go on to say I'm mocking teen mothers, and tell me my attitudes toward responsibility is part of the problem (as if I'm personally making teens pregnant by actually calling for personal responsibility) is a mystery to me. 

 

To me, there isn't any difference in a two pound baby that's in it's mother's womb and a two pound preemie that's in a hospital incubator. They are both being kept alive by machines, and killing one is no different than killing the other one.

Also the idea that humans don't breed humans, and people only become a human person when they are exposed to air is the absurd one.

According to medical science, life ends when there is no more heart and brain activity in a person. Certainly then, it follows that life begins, at a minimum, when there is heart and brain activity in a person, and any doctor can tell you that happens long before birth.

 

 

 

If you have to use a fallacy to make your point then perhaps your point is not valid.

 

I'm happy to solve the mystery.  For generations society has told women "be responsible" and it just doesn't work.  (We tell men too but since men don't get pregnant often the men sneak away.)  We might as well tell cats to stop having kittens or tell dogs to stop having puppies.  Humans are mammals.  We can't make our instincts go away through willpower.  What we can do is make birth control and abortions available to all who need them.  It's a solution that actually works.

 

I've already explained the difference between a person and a fetus.  If you don't want to see it then feel free to not abort any fetus growing in your body.  But if you want to tell other people what do to with their body then you should come up with something better than ignoring the details.  Again you bring up life when that is irrelevant.  Lots of things have life but that doesn't make them people.  Most abortions are natural.  Would you like the police to investigate every woman who loses a baby?  We can't grant people status halfway.  If a fetus is a person then we are all in and women go to jail for losing a pregnancy unless she can prove it was a natural cause.  And of course most of the time there will be no evidence that it was natural.  But some of them will be intentional procedures.  So how long would you throw a woman in prison for having an abortion?  Of course the DA won't be able to convict them all but that would easily be tens of thousands of extra felonies every year.  Every year the number of free women would shrink.  But they should have thought about that before they decided to be born female, right?  

 

The human reproductive system was designed to throw numbers.  We evolved to compensate for unstable pregnancy by flinging fetuses at the problem.  Eventually some of them get born.  Most don't.  So it is unreasonable to elevate all the failures to "person" status.  But the ramifications don't stop at birth.  Every time a woman is forced to give birth to a child she doesn't want or can't support this creates a social problem.  And that attitude "be responsible" is the excuse society uses to leave that woman and child on their own.  This creates suffering that is far worse than abortion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

According to medical science, life ends when there is no more heart and brain activity in a person. Certainly then, it follows that life begins, at a minimum, when there is heart and brain activity in a person, and any doctor can tell you that happens long before birth.

 

My grandma was "gone" long before she died. With the right meds at just the right time, she might know who and where she was, and who you were, for a few minutes each day. We wanted to hold on to those moments for as long as possible, but they kept slipping away. When her body died, it was something of a relief to know that it was all over - that the husk that used to contain grandma wasn't going to be taunting us with memories of someone we'd never see again, and that whatever was left of the person we'd known was no longer suffering the fear and confusion of being trapped in a body that no longer responded to her commands. To me, it felt like her soul was gone well before her body died. I certainly grieved at the finality of her bodily death, but I'd been grieving for her mental death a long time before then. So no, I don't think that medical science's measurement of heart and brain activity is the only thing that matters when talking about the value of a human life, and I don't think that it's a single moment in time, either. Grandma faded away from life gradually with her bodily death being the end of a slow decline. It seems equally natural to me that at the start of life there's a similar gradual transition that starts at conception and grows more "ensouled" (for lack of a better term) over time.

 

 

"With the right meds at just the right time, she might know who and where she was, and who you were, for a few minutes each day"

 

I see what you're saying here VF, and I don't want to seem mean. That isn't my intention. I'm sorry about your grandma. After my grandma got sick, she insisted that she heard me a lot on country radio which is what they played, I guess, at the adult foster care home where she lived.  I assure you that my songs were never played on any radio. Grandma used to play guitar for the local Baptist church, and she knew I played guitar too. Somewhere, I guess things got messed up in her brain. It's damn sad, but she was still my grandma. I would no sooner put a knife in her heart than I would that of my niece (closest that I have to a daughter) or my unborn baby, should I ever have one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to dude's earlier question about why pregnant women avoid teratogens if the fetus is not a person, I'd like to add that women prepare for pregnancy long before becoming pregnant, if they plan to have a child. They avoid alcohol, drugs, and get in shape to provide the best environment. There's no baby yet, but they plan for it. It's not dependent on whether the zygote/embryo/fetus has personhood status.

 

A planned pregnancy is far different than Planned Parenthood.

 

But still, if the thing inside of a woman is no more important than a toe, why avoid drinking? Why would a woman prepare so much to bring life into the world if it isn't life until it's born? I mean, let the little shaver do it's own workouts, and drink it's own health shakes. It isn't human until air hits it, so who cares until then? 

 

Teratogens. That's rich. What does "fetus" mean?  Offspring? It's ok to kill the offspring? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, MM, my question to Lilith was more of a rhetorical one. You know, to make my point. 

 

Why you go on to say I'm mocking teen mothers, and tell me my attitudes toward responsibility is part of the problem (as if I'm personally making teens pregnant by actually calling for personal responsibility) is a mystery to me. 

 

To me, there isn't any difference in a two pound baby that's in it's mother's womb and a two pound preemie that's in a hospital incubator. They are both being kept alive by machines, and killing one is no different than killing the other one.

Also the idea that humans don't breed humans, and people only become a human person when they are exposed to air is the absurd one.

According to medical science, life ends when there is no more heart and brain activity in a person. Certainly then, it follows that life begins, at a minimum, when there is heart and brain activity in a person, and any doctor can tell you that happens long before birth.

 

 

 

If you have to use a fallacy to make your point then perhaps your point is not valid.

 

I'm happy to solve the mystery.  For generations society has told women "be responsible" and it just doesn't work.  (We tell men too but since men don't get pregnant often the men sneak away.)  We might as well tell cats to stop having kittens or tell dogs to stop having puppies.  Humans are mammals.  We can't make our instincts go away through willpower.  What we can do is make birth control and abortions available to all who need them.  It's a solution that actually works.

 

I've already explained the difference between a person and a fetus.  If you don't want to see it then feel free to not abort any fetus growing in your body.  But if you want to tell other people what do to with their body then you should come up with something better than ignoring the details.  Again you bring up life when that is irrelevant.  Lots of things have life but that doesn't make them people.  Most abortions are natural.  Would you like the police to investigate every woman who loses a baby?  We can't grant people status halfway.  If a fetus is a person then we are all in and women go to jail for losing a pregnancy unless she can prove it was a natural cause.  And of course most of the time there will be no evidence that it was natural.  But some of them will be intentional procedures.  So how long would you throw a woman in prison for having an abortion?  Of course the DA won't be able to convict them all but that would easily be tens of thousands of extra felonies every year.  Every year the number of free women would shrink.  But they should have thought about that before they decided to be born female, right?  

 

The human reproductive system was designed to throw numbers.  We evolved to compensate for unstable pregnancy by flinging fetuses at the problem.  Eventually some of them get born.  Most don't.  So it is unreasonable to elevate all the failures to "person" status.  But the ramifications don't stop at birth.  Every time a woman is forced to give birth to a child she doesn't want or can't support this creates a social problem.  And that attitude "be responsible" is the excuse society uses to leave that woman and child on their own.  This creates suffering that is far worse than abortion.

 

 

Next, there will be thousands of shadowy figures running out of the darkness of the alleyways, with coat hangers in their fists, and it's all going to be my fault. I understand, MM, let's keep it emotional.

 

I've found the "Police Investigate Miscarriage" trope to be particularly hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I understand, MM, let's keep it emotional.

 

 

 

 

I've done nothing of the kind.  However I do need to stop feeding the troll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

According to medical science, life ends when there is no more heart and brain activity in a person. Certainly then, it follows that life begins, at a minimum, when there is heart and brain activity in a person, and any doctor can tell you that happens long before birth.

 

My grandma was "gone" long before she died. With the right meds at just the right time, she might know who and where she was, and who you were, for a few minutes each day. We wanted to hold on to those moments for as long as possible, but they kept slipping away. When her body died, it was something of a relief to know that it was all over - that the husk that used to contain grandma wasn't going to be taunting us with memories of someone we'd never see again, and that whatever was left of the person we'd known was no longer suffering the fear and confusion of being trapped in a body that no longer responded to her commands. To me, it felt like her soul was gone well before her body died. I certainly grieved at the finality of her bodily death, but I'd been grieving for her mental death a long time before then. So no, I don't think that medical science's measurement of heart and brain activity is the only thing that matters when talking about the value of a human life, and I don't think that it's a single moment in time, either. Grandma faded away from life gradually with her bodily death being the end of a slow decline. It seems equally natural to me that at the start of life there's a similar gradual transition that starts at conception and grows more "ensouled" (for lack of a better term) over time.

 

 

"With the right meds at just the right time, she might know who and where she was, and who you were, for a few minutes each day"

 

I see what you're saying here VF, and I don't want to seem mean. That isn't my intention. I'm sorry about your grandma. After my grandma got sick, she insisted that she heard me a lot on country radio which is what they played, I guess, at the adult foster care home where she lived.  I assure you that my songs were never played on any radio. Grandma used to play guitar for the local Baptist church, and she knew I played guitar too. Somewhere, I guess things got messed up in her brain. It's damn sad, but she was still my grandma. I would no sooner put a knife in her heart than I would that of my niece (closest that I have to a daughter) or my unborn baby, should I ever have one.

 

 

Ok, so you wouldn't put a knife in her heart, but would you stop the medication and disconnect the machines if you knew they were keeping her body functioning but not her mind? With my other grandma we had to make that decision. She'd been unconscious for over a month, maybe it was two months? We'd thought that maybe she was doing some of the hand squeezing and stuff when we talking to her, but for medical purposes, she has to be able to do that twice in a row and she never did manage that. So we might have been fooling ourselves and she'd been completely gone the whole time. So we choose to let her die, to take away the machines that were running her body for her, because there was no hope of "her" ever coming back to that body. In retrospect we wondering if we'd made that decision later than we should have, if our hopes for recovery clouded our minds and we'd put her through more pain and suffering than necessary (she did have the paperwork in place that said she didn't want her life dragged out unnecessarily by machines, so her wishes might have been to have it all end sooner).

 

So... fetuses. How much of that personhood that my grandmothers lost at the end do they even have yet? They haven't had enough brain development to know who they are, know who other people are, to know what life feels like. They haven't been using their own bodies long enough to understand that their fingers and toes are their own. If they even have finger and toes and neurons yet - early pregnancies are just a mass of stem cells that haven't split into specific functions yet. At what point does the fetus have enough personhood to override the bodily autonomy of the fully formed woman who's hosting the fetus?

 

I've found the "Police Investigate Miscarriage" trope to be particularly hilarious.

 

Why? It's already happened. Woman goes to ER due to all the bleeding from a miscarrage or stillbirth, which she freaked out about and disposed of the body, she can't prove it wasn't an abortion (she did talk to a friend about ordering abortion drugs online, but there were no records of her ever doing so and no traces of them in her blood), and now she's in prison for 20 years (on charges both of killing an unborn fetus and abandoning a living, post-birth child).

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/indiana-has-now-charged-two-asian-american-women-feticide-n332761

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-13/indiana-jury-says-purvi-patel-should-go-prison-what-she-says-was-miscarriage

 

Pregnant woman falls down the stairs after an argument with her husband over the phone. Woman goes to ER, says she wanted to make sure the baby's ok. Cops arrest her for attempted abortion, say she told the nurse that she threw herself down the stairs on purpose to try cause an abortion. The result of the ER visit was that the baby's fine, but she still got charged with attempted abortion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-christine-taylor-take-abortion-into-her-own-hands/

http://www.thegazette.com/2010/01/22/iowa-woman-accused-of-trying-to-kill-unborn-baby-in-fall-down-stairs-charged-with-attempted-feticide

 

Woman pregnant with twins refuses a c-section the doctors say is medically necessary, and after giving birth without the c-section, only one of the twins survives. She's charged with murder for the other one.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mom-arrested-after-utah-stillbirth/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But still, if the thing inside of a woman is no more important than a toe, why avoid drinking? Why would a woman prepare so much to bring life into the world if it isn't life until it's born? I mean, let the little shaver do it's own workouts, and drink it's own health shakes. It isn't human until air hits it, so who cares until then? 

 

 

The thing inside of a woman is sometimes as important as her liver according to her and sometimes not important at all according to her. My dad has a liver condition so that he is better not drinking at all. Is his liver alive? Is his liver a living being?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, I already explained women prepare for pregnancy and provide the best environment for the soon-to-be child because what happens during pregnancy can and often does affect that person for the rest of his or her life. The developing baby is more vulnerable the younger it is, long before it looks remotely like a human - lack of personhood status doesn't dull the effects on the future person of harm while inside the uterus. Fetal alcohol syndrome causes facial deformities and cognitive impairments like learning disabilities and mental retardation. Low birth weight results from smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. Children whose mothers use cigarettes, alcohol or drugs can be born addicted to those substances and have to go through extremely painful withdrawal as soon as they are born, and then need special services and not be as able to function normally due to the problems that the mother's addiction caused. We care what happens to the fetus because if it isn't cared for properly, the person that fetus becomes will have to deal with the consequences as long as s/he lives.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate the government. It has too much control. However, I do believe the government should be inside women's uteruses. Because it's the duty of government to legislate morality. Except I always argue, in every other case, the government should not legislate morality. 

 

Libertarianism is a mental disorder. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how libertarianism conflicts with allowing women to make their own personal decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate the government. It has too much control. However, I do believe the government should be inside women's uteruses. Because it's the duty of government to legislate morality. Except I always argue, in every other case, the government should not legislate morality. 

 

Libertarianism is a mental disorder. 

 

Is this aimed at me? Because if it is, I should point out that everytime there is legislation, it's someone's morality getting legislated.

 

I think you have me confused with someone else on the Libertarian thing...that's not me.

 

If this wasn't aimed at me, then oops, nevermind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I understand, MM, let's keep it emotional.

 

 

 

 

I've done nothing of the kind.  However I do need to stop feeding the troll.

 

 

And there you go again. "Liar", "troll"...you're going to need to come up with some new names to call when someone disagrees with you, these are getting a bit old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

According to medical science, life ends when there is no more heart and brain activity in a person. Certainly then, it follows that life begins, at a minimum, when there is heart and brain activity in a person, and any doctor can tell you that happens long before birth.

 

My grandma was "gone" long before she died. With the right meds at just the right time, she might know who and where she was, and who you were, for a few minutes each day. We wanted to hold on to those moments for as long as possible, but they kept slipping away. When her body died, it was something of a relief to know that it was all over - that the husk that used to contain grandma wasn't going to be taunting us with memories of someone we'd never see again, and that whatever was left of the person we'd known was no longer suffering the fear and confusion of being trapped in a body that no longer responded to her commands. To me, it felt like her soul was gone well before her body died. I certainly grieved at the finality of her bodily death, but I'd been grieving for her mental death a long time before then. So no, I don't think that medical science's measurement of heart and brain activity is the only thing that matters when talking about the value of a human life, and I don't think that it's a single moment in time, either. Grandma faded away from life gradually with her bodily death being the end of a slow decline. It seems equally natural to me that at the start of life there's a similar gradual transition that starts at conception and grows more "ensouled" (for lack of a better term) over time.

 

 

"With the right meds at just the right time, she might know who and where she was, and who you were, for a few minutes each day"

 

I see what you're saying here VF, and I don't want to seem mean. That isn't my intention. I'm sorry about your grandma. After my grandma got sick, she insisted that she heard me a lot on country radio which is what they played, I guess, at the adult foster care home where she lived.  I assure you that my songs were never played on any radio. Grandma used to play guitar for the local Baptist church, and she knew I played guitar too. Somewhere, I guess things got messed up in her brain. It's damn sad, but she was still my grandma. I would no sooner put a knife in her heart than I would that of my niece (closest that I have to a daughter) or my unborn baby, should I ever have one.

 

 

Ok, so you wouldn't put a knife in her heart, but would you stop the medication and disconnect the machines if you knew they were keeping her body functioning but not her mind? With my other grandma we had to make that decision. She'd been unconscious for over a month, maybe it was two months? We'd thought that maybe she was doing some of the hand squeezing and stuff when we talking to her, but for medical purposes, she has to be able to do that twice in a row and she never did manage that. So we might have been fooling ourselves and she'd been completely gone the whole time. So we choose to let her die, to take away the machines that were running her body for her, because there was no hope of "her" ever coming back to that body. In retrospect we wondering if we'd made that decision later than we should have, if our hopes for recovery clouded our minds and we'd put her through more pain and suffering than necessary (she did have the paperwork in place that said she didn't want her life dragged out unnecessarily by machines, so her wishes might have been to have it all end sooner).

 

So... fetuses. How much of that personhood that my grandmothers lost at the end do they even have yet? They haven't had enough brain development to know who they are, know who other people are, to know what life feels like. They haven't been using their own bodies long enough to understand that their fingers and toes are their own. If they even have finger and toes and neurons yet - early pregnancies are just a mass of stem cells that haven't split into specific functions yet. At what point does the fetus have enough personhood to override the bodily autonomy of the fully formed woman who's hosting the fetus?

 

I've found the "Police Investigate Miscarriage" trope to be particularly hilarious.

 

Why? It's already happened. Woman goes to ER due to all the bleeding from a miscarrage or stillbirth, which she freaked out about and disposed of the body, she can't prove it wasn't an abortion (she did talk to a friend about ordering abortion drugs online, but there were no records of her ever doing so and no traces of them in her blood), and now she's in prison for 20 years (on charges both of killing an unborn fetus and abandoning a living, post-birth child).

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/indiana-has-now-charged-two-asian-american-women-feticide-n332761

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-13/indiana-jury-says-purvi-patel-should-go-prison-what-she-says-was-miscarriage

 

Pregnant woman falls down the stairs after an argument with her husband over the phone. Woman goes to ER, says she wanted to make sure the baby's ok. Cops arrest her for attempted abortion, say she told the nurse that she threw herself down the stairs on purpose to try cause an abortion. The result of the ER visit was that the baby's fine, but she still got charged with attempted abortion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-christine-taylor-take-abortion-into-her-own-hands/

http://www.thegazette.com/2010/01/22/iowa-woman-accused-of-trying-to-kill-unborn-baby-in-fall-down-stairs-charged-with-attempted-feticide

 

Woman pregnant with twins refuses a c-section the doctors say is medically necessary, and after giving birth without the c-section, only one of the twins survives. She's charged with murder for the other one.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mom-arrested-after-utah-stillbirth/

 

 

VF, again I'm sorry you had to go through that. I don't have an answer for that kind of end of life issue, myself. I guess if someone doesn't want the machines and says so, then there comes a time to pull the plug. It's horribly sad.

 

As to fetuses, a lot of the stuff you use to describe them could also be applied to newborns. I'm not trying to be ridiculous here, but I think life begins at least when heart and brain activity begin. The fetus already has it's own DNA...not mom's or dad's.

I actually don't know if there is a scientific consensus on the matter or not. That's what interests me, not religious or legal opinions, and I think that's where other people don't always get me when this issue comes up.

 

I've heard of cases where a murderer got charged with two counts of murder if the person killed was pregnant. The cases you cite contain some kind of illegal activity or attempted murder.

The ones I think of when the "you don't want police investigating every miscarriage, do you" comes up are the, for lack of better words, every day miscarriages that usually involve a doctor. At any rate, no one thinks every miscarriage should be investigated, except maybe some nutters. I think that's thrown out as another entry in the parade of 'what if' horrors that surround the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But still, if the thing inside of a woman is no more important than a toe, why avoid drinking? Why would a woman prepare so much to bring life into the world if it isn't life until it's born? I mean, let the little shaver do it's own workouts, and drink it's own health shakes. It isn't human until air hits it, so who cares until then? 

 

 

The thing inside of a woman is sometimes as important as her liver according to her and sometimes not important at all according to her. My dad has a liver condition so that he is better not drinking at all. Is his liver alive? Is his liver a living being?

 

 

I'm sorry to hear about your dad.  

 

Does a liver have it's own unique DNA? Does it have heart and brain activity all it's own? Will a liver someday grow up and fall in love?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, I already explained women prepare for pregnancy and provide the best environment for the soon-to-be child because what happens during pregnancy can and often does affect that person for the rest of his or her life. The developing baby is more vulnerable the younger it is, long before it looks remotely like a human - lack of personhood status doesn't dull the effects on the future person of harm while inside the uterus. Fetal alcohol syndrome causes facial deformities and cognitive impairments like learning disabilities and mental retardation. Low birth weight results from smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. Children whose mothers use cigarettes, alcohol or drugs can be born addicted to those substances and have to go through extremely painful withdrawal as soon as they are born, and then need special services and not be as able to function normally due to the problems that the mother's addiction caused. We care what happens to the fetus because if it isn't cared for properly, the person that fetus becomes will have to deal with the consequences as long as s/he lives.

 

Ok, you overcame my have another Virginia Slim and a dash of bourbon argument. We still don't agree if the little one is a person or not, but at least we can agree that the prep is important.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And with all of the above, I think I'm done in this thread.  The same stuff comes up every time the abortion issues is brought up, and it always goes nowhere.

I do look at the issue from both sides and the middle, whether anyone wants to believe that or not. It's just that none of the arguments I've heard convince me that I'm wrong.

Thanks for the discussions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude thinks that police who want to investigate a person's death are nutters. (Since he also believes that a fetus/embryo/zygote is a person.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude thinks that police who want to investigate a person's death are nutters. (Since he also believes that a fetus/embryo/zygote is a person.)

 

 

Perhaps some just want murder de-criminalized.   GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Dude thinks that police who want to investigate a person's death are nutters. (Since he also believes that a fetus/embryo/zygote is a person.)

 

 

Perhaps some just want murder de-criminalized.   GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

 

 

So a fetus is a person but s(he) doesn't have all the rights granted by law to a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.