Jump to content

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


Fweethawt
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yes, because obviously investigating every death and murder would be ridiculously expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

Yes, the big difference between a late term fetus and a newborn is whether its self-supporting (with food and care, etc) or depending on the mother's body. I would be fine with legislation that says if it's a viable late term pregnancy and you want to end it, that "end" should be either inducing or C-section and then you can give it up for adoption and have nothing more to do with it. But what happens if someone's trying to end a late term pregnancy because the fetus isn't viable, if it's a certainty that after birth the baby would die? What if going through a birth would put the mother at risk of death? Aborting the pregnancy by killing the fetus and taking it out in pieces does a lot less damage to the mother's body than going through a full birth or cutting her open to take it out, and I'm perfectly fine with that option if the baby would never have survived anyway. Forcing a woman with a non-viable fetus to give birth to a live baby seems equivalent to keeping an elderly person on life support even when they're mentally not there any more. If they're dying anyway, why not make it as quick, painless, and as minimally harmful to others as possible? (Most late term pregnancies happen because the woman wanted a baby but something's going horribly wrong.)

 

The problem with that reasoning for younger fetuses is that there's no way for the mother to end a pregnancy without killing the fetus. Would you be ok with a woman deciding she wants to withdraw life support from the fetus by having it extracted whole (either induced or c-section), have nothing to do with the resulting child, and have the government or potential adoptive parents foot the bill for the NICU? That may or may not result in a living, healthy baby? And even earlier in a pregnancy, there's no hope of the fetus surviving outside the mother's body so that's not an option.

 

I don't see any point in having a right to life without a right to bodily autonomy; then we'd be ok with keeping women drugged and artificially inseminated as breeding stock. We're obvious not ok with that, so we do value the bodily autonomy of adults. No one, adult or fetus, has the right to use another person's body parts, even if that lack means they'll die. We've clearly established that in the laws about organ donation and blood donation. It's volunteers only. Why should birth be any different, especially when it requires so much time and resources from the mother's body? For a super contrived and silly example, if there was a blood drive going on next to a food place, and you were trying to go get lunch but accidentally got in the wrong line, should you be allowed to get out of line once you realize your mistake or should you be forced to donate blood anyway? Blood donation saves lives! Without your blood, someone may die. In every other case of lives vs bodily autonomy, we've legislated that someone else's bodily autonomy trumps your right to life.

 

As to the scientific consensus, I don't think that's a specific enough question. The consensus on when life begins? Sperm and eggs are alive - and a woman's eggs formed in-utereo before she was born. Blastocysts that never implant and get flushed out with the woman's next period are alive. Blastocysts that implant but have flawed DNA and spontaneously abort were alive. When the heart beat begins? When there's a functioning nervous system that can feel pain? When sentience begins? When the fetus can live on it's own without the mother's body? Science can answer all those questions (except maybe sentience and feeling pain; I think there's ongoing research on what exactly that means, which requires defining things like "sentience" and "feeling"). But science can't tell us which one of those questions should determine when that the fetus should have legal standing to compel the mother's actions. Society decides that. As I stated in my previous paragraph, our society values consent and bodily autonomy, so with that reasoning the relevant science question is when the fetus can survive without making use of the mother's body. Which is why we draw such a sharp line between fetuses and babies; one of them is living off the mother's body and the other is not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it a bad thing that women had babies? Is it because they were low income? 

 

Is it more noble to slaughter the offspring of the poor, or to support them and educate them so their generation doesn't make the same mistake and make babies they can't afford to raise?  

 

Not looking for an argument, I'm just throwing my two cents out there.

Lol, you make too much sense....

 

It really doesn't make sense....that women want control over their bodies yet choose abortions. What a win-win...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vacuum, your analysis that no one has a right to someone else's body is fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lilith, mm, and StillLooking,

 

Look around once in awhile. People die and are buried every day by the thousands with no police investigation. That argument is crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

In other news, people across the globe are shocked to find that a new study shows that people who refrain from having sex, whether low income or high income, do not need to worry about abortions or any type of birth control at all. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do assess the cause of death, though. People don't just die with the assumption that it was a natural cause. So women should be charged with murder if it looks like they may have ended the pregnancy? Or how about manslaughter, if they unintentionally or carelessly did something to kill the fetus? That is the logical conclusion of giving a fetus, etc. full rights as a person.

 

Furball! I'm surprised at you. Having sex is a natural human instinct. We can decide against it, but eventually people will give in to their wiring. "Just don't have sex" indefinitely is not a viable solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why is it a bad thing that women had babies? Is it because they were low income? 

 

Is it more noble to slaughter the offspring of the poor, or to support them and educate them so their generation doesn't make the same mistake and make babies they can't afford to raise?  

 

Not looking for an argument, I'm just throwing my two cents out there.

Lol, you make too much sense....

 

It really doesn't make sense....that women want control over their bodies yet choose abortions. What a win-win...

 

When a woman chooses an abortion she is in control over her body. Which part doesn't make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do assess the cause of death, though. People don't just die with the assumption that it was a natural cause. So women should be charged with murder if it looks like they may have ended the pregnancy? Or how about manslaughter, if they unintentionally or carelessly did something to kill the fetus? That is the logical conclusion of giving a fetus, etc. full rights as a person.

 

Furball! I'm surprised at you. Having sex is a natural human instinct. We can decide against it, but eventually people will give in to their wiring. "Just don't have sex" indefinitely is not a viable solution.

 

Someone might wonder if a woman mutilating her body in some way in order to kill and remove part of it isn't a candidate for a mental health exam more than a legal procedure.

 

Does it make sense to decide if something is right or wrong based not on the action itself, but on a possible outcome of the action?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Why is it a bad thing that women had babies? Is it because they were low income? 

 

Is it more noble to slaughter the offspring of the poor, or to support them and educate them so their generation doesn't make the same mistake and make babies they can't afford to raise?  

 

Not looking for an argument, I'm just throwing my two cents out there.

Lol, you make too much sense....

 

It really doesn't make sense....that women want control over their bodies yet choose abortions. What a win-win...

 

When a woman chooses an abortion she is in control over her body. Which part doesn't make sense?

 

Just doesn't make sense to kill...it's rather selfish I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kill what, end? A zygote? An embryo? A collection of cells that looks more like an extraterrestrial than a human? I'm not referring to late-term fetuses that are near birth, but anti-abortion people are against killing even a few weeks past fertilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why is it a bad thing that women had babies? Is it because they were low income?

 

Is it more noble to slaughter the offspring of the poor, or to support them and educate them so their generation doesn't make the same mistake and make babies they can't afford to raise?

 

Not looking for an argument, I'm just throwing my two cents out there.

Lol, you make too much sense....

 

It really doesn't make sense....that women want control over their bodies yet choose abortions. What a win-win...

When a woman chooses an abortion she is in control over her body. Which part doesn't make sense?
Just doesn't make sense to kill...it's rather selfish I believe.

Is being selfish wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Lilith, mm, and StillLooking,

 

Look around once in awhile. People die and are buried every day by the thousands with no police investigation. That argument is crap.

See Lilith's answer above.

 

 

 

Clearly duderonomy is trolling.  Maybe in third wold countries people get murdered and the police don't care.  In developed countries the police investigate murders.  Duderonomy cannot support his position with arguments so he resorts to parlor tricks and calls foul when his antics get no respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lil, SL,

 

I guess what females are challenged with is something that is going to become a human being...in the process of becoming. To me, it doesn't matter the stage.

 

Not sure I have thought out all the possibilities of killing for selfish reasons, but from the outset, it seems wrong. Don't know why we are allowed killing before birth when we consider it a crime post birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lil, SL,

 

I guess what females are challenged with is something that is going to become a human being...in the process of becoming. To me, it doesn't matter the stage.

 

Not sure I have thought out all the possibilities of killing for selfish reasons, but from the outset, it seems wrong. Don't know why we are allowed killing before birth when we consider it a crime post birth.

 

 

Well the solution is simple.  You are always free to not abort any fetus that grows in your body.

 

 

Look I didn't understand this when I was a Christian either but a fetus really is part of the mother's body.  The mother's body creates it cell by cell.  It is from her body, inside her body.  She should have complete control over a fetus growing in her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

End, others and I on this forum, such as mymistake, have explained the difference between a fetus and a person. I don't feel like explaining it again, but you can go back and read our posts if you like for further clarification.

 

Edit: Guess mm is more patient than I am, but yes, the fetus is attached to the mother. It is a part of her and bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right. That and the fact that the fetus is not developed enough to live well outside the mother's body - there are viable fetuses, but pregnancy takes nine months for a reason - are the essential differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Lilith, mm, and StillLooking,

 

Look around once in awhile. People die and are buried every day by the thousands with no police investigation. That argument is crap.

See Lilith's answer above.

 

 

 

Clearly duderonomy is trolling.  Maybe in third wold countries people get murdered and the police don't care.  In developed countries the police investigate murders.  Duderonomy cannot support his position with arguments so he resorts to parlor tricks and calls foul when his antics get no respect.

 

 

Not every death is a murder, whatever country it happens in, and when it comes to "resorting" to anything, that would be you with the name calling and pitiful accusations.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lil, SL,

 

I guess what females are challenged with is something that is going to become a human being...in the process of becoming. To me, it doesn't matter the stage.

 

Not sure I have thought out all the possibilities of killing for selfish reasons, but from the outset, it seems wrong. Don't know why we are allowed killing before birth when we consider it a crime post birth.

 

End, you have to remember that to some people a baby isn't a baby until air hits it.  Kind of like man didn't become a living soul until it received the breath of life in Genesis.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lil, SL,

 

I guess what females are challenged with is something that is going to become a human being...in the process of becoming. To me, it doesn't matter the stage.

 

Not sure I have thought out all the possibilities of killing for selfish reasons, but from the outset, it seems wrong. Don't know why we are allowed killing before birth when we consider it a crime post birth.

This means you have no issue with beinh selfish. What you have issue with is the killing part. What is your stance on death penalty? If you are not ok with state sanction killing then I have no issue with your stance because you are consistent. However if you support the death penalty then you are being inconsistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Lil, SL,

 

I guess what females are challenged with is something that is going to become a human being...in the process of becoming. To me, it doesn't matter the stage.

 

Not sure I have thought out all the possibilities of killing for selfish reasons, but from the outset, it seems wrong. Don't know why we are allowed killing before birth when we consider it a crime post birth.

This means you have no issue with beinh selfish. What you have issue with is the killing part. What is your stance on death penalty? If you are not ok with state sanction killing then I have no issue with your stance because you are consistent. However if you support the death penalty then you are being inconsistent.

 

No, I have issues with being selfish. I can imagine a difference between ending a person's life prior to them exacting any evidence against their life as opposed to a jury deeming evidence against them so egregious that the consensus opinion is to eradicate them from the current social standard. I will say the older I get, the less inclined I am towards the death penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Lil, SL,

 

I guess what females are challenged with is something that is going to become a human being...in the process of becoming. To me, it doesn't matter the stage.

 

Not sure I have thought out all the possibilities of killing for selfish reasons, but from the outset, it seems wrong. Don't know why we are allowed killing before birth when we consider it a crime post birth.

This means you have no issue with beinh selfish. What you have issue with is the killing part. What is your stance on death penalty? If you are not ok with state sanction killing then I have no issue with your stance because you are consistent. However if you support the death penalty then you are being inconsistent.

 

No, I have issues with being selfish. I can imagine a difference between ending a person's life prior to them exacting any evidence against their life as opposed to a jury deeming evidence against them so egregious that the consensus opinion is to eradicate them from the current social standard. I will say the older I get, the less inclined I am towards the death penalty.

 

Do you have any issue with other type of selfishness? Let say, the US federal tax rate where taxable interest income is at 15% while taxable regular income can go up to 39.6%. Isn't it being selfish for anybody to pay less taxes for doing nothing while the ones who work hard get taxed more? Isn't it selfish for church goers to spend money to renovate their buildings while there are hungry poor people? Are you also against all of the above selfishness? Or do you see those things as not being selfish?

 

Your statement above means you are okay with the death penalty to some degree. You are being inconsistent. It doesn't matter that death penalty cases are decided by jury. Death is death. Also, were / are you against sales of firearms to other countries by US companies? Are you against the US foreign policies that cause killing in around the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Lil, SL,

 

I guess what females are challenged with is something that is going to become a human being...in the process of becoming. To me, it doesn't matter the stage.

 

Not sure I have thought out all the possibilities of killing for selfish reasons, but from the outset, it seems wrong. Don't know why we are allowed killing before birth when we consider it a crime post birth.

 

End, you have to remember that to some people a baby isn't a baby until air hits it.  Kind of like man didn't become a living soul until it received the breath of life in Genesis.

 

Are these the same?

stock-photo-green-sprout-from-a-pumpkin-pumpkinvine02.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have any issue with other type of selfishness? Let say, the US federal tax rate where taxable interest income is at 15% while taxable regular income can go up to 39.6%. Isn't it being selfish for anybody to pay less taxes for doing nothing while the ones who work hard get taxed more? Isn't it selfish for church goers to spend money to renovate their buildings while there are hungry poor people? Are you also against all of the above selfishness? Or do you see those things as not being selfish?

 

Your statement above means you are okay with the death penalty to some degree. You are being inconsistent. It doesn't matter that death penalty cases are decided by jury. Death is death. Also, were / are you against sales of firearms to other countries by US companies? Are you against the US foreign policies that cause killing in around the world?

Yes, anyone that would abuse a child is worthy of death imo...and I'm sure I could find other examples. I think per my theology, Jesus would have us defer to His judgment, but this doesn't mean we are always capable nor willing to do what Christ has done.

 

With regard to selfishness, might we please just stick to the conversation at hand for a post or two. It's ok that I am not consistent. They are not consistent judgments with regard to our limited perspective. As I was saying, the older I get, I'm not sure the more just punishment is for people to remain alive. Maybe this IS consistent with what Jesus teaches in the fact that the person being punished is moving towards a new understanding, as well as those who are called to judge. In other words, how can the one that aborts a baby have learned anything from the life of the unborn if it was not allowed to live by God's appointment. That is where we intercede. I think this is different than concluding by some of the most wise among us that certain people need to be executed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do you have any issue with other type of selfishness? Let say, the US federal tax rate where taxable interest income is at 15% while taxable regular income can go up to 39.6%. Isn't it being selfish for anybody to pay less taxes for doing nothing while the ones who work hard get taxed more? Isn't it selfish for church goers to spend money to renovate their buildings while there are hungry poor people? Are you also against all of the above selfishness? Or do you see those things as not being selfish?

 

Your statement above means you are okay with the death penalty to some degree. You are being inconsistent. It doesn't matter that death penalty cases are decided by jury. Death is death. Also, were / are you against sales of firearms to other countries by US companies? Are you against the US foreign policies that cause killing in around the world?

Yes, anyone that would abuse a child is worthy of death imo...and I'm sure I could find other examples. I think per my theology, Jesus would have us defer to His judgment, but this doesn't mean we are always capable nor willing to do what Christ has done.

 

With regard to selfishness, might we please just stick to the conversation at hand for a post or two. It's ok that I am not consistent. They are not consistent judgments with regard to our limited perspective. As I was saying, the older I get, I'm not sure the more just punishment is for people to remain alive. Maybe this IS consistent with what Jesus teaches in the fact that the person being punished is moving towards a new understanding, as well as those who are called to judge. In other words, how can the one that aborts a baby have learned anything from the life of the unborn if it was not allowed to live by God's appointment. That is where we intercede. I think this is different than concluding by some of the most wise among us that certain people need to be executed.

 

 

 

The problem is that Jesus is the greatest abortionist of them all.  And God doesn't stop just with the unborn.  God is constantly torturing all kinds of children to death.  If you create this imaginary person and attribute all the power to him then he must be responsible for all that happens.  It makes far more sense to accept that there is no God, or at least not any kind of God that Christians imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.