Equating "women's rights" with abortion is I don't have the word for the injustice it does to women. All "prochoice" does is put all the weight on women, give the man his way out. "Hey, it's your body, you decide. It's not my problem.
It's such a sick and cruel lie.
As opposed to banning abortion which doesn't obligate women at all.....
Liquid breathing began to be used by the medical community after the development by Alliance Pharmaceuticals of perfluorooctyl bromide, a fluorochemical that was given the generic name perflubron. Useful as a blood substitute (see Miscellaneous Notes) and for liquid ventilation, perflubron (under Alliance Pharmaceutical's brand name LiquiVent) is instilled directly into the lungs of patients with acute respiratory failure (caused by infection, severe burns, inhalation of toxic substances and premature birth), whose air sacs have collapsed. Once inside the lungs, perflubron enables collapsed alveoli (air sacs) to open and permits a more efficient transport of oxygen and carbon dioxide. Current tests are focussing on "preemies," but trials with adults are ongoing.
so people can breathe liquid. does that mean now they aren't human and we can kill them? i'm asking a serious question, why the tripe answer?
Maybe my answer was "tripe" (I think you mean "trite") because the analogy you established--physical location of the fetus/baby--is reductive. It's like saying that the physical location of a human being determines whether or not they're alive or dead. "Well, he's in a casket. Must be dead!"
These are complex medical, philosophical, epistemological, theological, and otherwise metaphysical issues. Physical location doesn't cover it.
same exact baby two minutes later outside the womb is a full fledged human being with rights.
it's all in their location.
For you, that may be the case, but there are other cultures out there that don't hold your, and my, point of view. China, and Japan for instance. A baby isn't a baby until it is born. Also, one of the stumbling points here is a fetus 2 minutes from being born can still die during delivery. There is no guarantee that a fetus will make it through child birth alive. Modern medicine has greatly lowered the number of still births here in the modern world, but there is still a chance for the last minute problem.
Also as midwinter has pointed out at what point does the mothers rights end and the rights of the child begin?
except that what you believe a mother's rights to be will hinge on whether or not you consider a fetus a child.
but yeah, this is probably relatively off track.
of course, when you consider a fetus a child all depends on how you define a human being. which i guess sounds stupid but when you get right down to it it's not that easy.
right now we use physical location as the defining characteristic which i disagree with.
By definition, the fetus, embryo, etc, is an individual at the moment the it gains a complete DNA fingerprint. This is only a question of how long the mother (not the father---an important point) can kill the unwanted individual.
Semantic arguments abour viability are not sound, since a the infant, with out aid and constant care by the mother simply insn't viable on a basic level until hours and/or days after birth.
This boils down to giving the mother a ruling option in procreation----a powerful thing, something the west has discounted, and may no longer even grasp.
If you control the means of procreation, you control the future, the long history of fertility cults hearken back to a time when this fundamental priniciple was understood by far less educated cultures.
In the end, the fracturing of the marraige structure, with the woman controling legal death rights over the children, combined with the consumerism and selfishness of the west, puts it in the undesireable postiion of extinguishing the very impulses that drive it.
Never fear, history always leaves these suicidal impulses, and the people who foster them, behind. The future doesn't belong to those who refuse to build for it.
I'm not sure if you're talking to me or not, but it would seem that you think supreme court decisions don't get overturned from time to time or that precedents established in the courts aren't used to determine whether or not laws passed by congress are constitutional.
Brown v Board of Education overturns Plessy v Ferguson, for example.
Roe, on the other hand, comes out of (the case is escaping me at the moment) another case that essentially established a right to privacy (since it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution). Roe privileges the woman's right to control her body over the needs of the fetus, and so just as a woman (or a man) cannot be compelled by law to undergo a medical procedure to save the life of someone else (say, donate a kidney), neither can a woman be forced to carry a baby to term by rendering the medical procedure illegal.
This law calls into question that privilege (established in Roe) and thus threatens the core of the decision.
Cheers
Scott
I have to ask how you think it calls into question Roe when it has an exception for abortion and never once claims to give the fetus rights over the mother?!?
I mean to me it only give the mother basically the right to determine how the killing of the fetus is legally processed. One poster used that twin example, and while it sounds absurd, it is exactly how the law would work. Someone punching a woman is the stomach and causing the death of her desired 8 month fetus is guilty of more than assault by the view of that woman.
There is nothing hard to understand about the view of the woman changing how the law is applied. Rough consentual sex = great and legal. Rough unconsentual sex = rape for example.
In the end, the fracturing of the marraige structure, with the woman controling legal death rights over the children, combined with the consumerism and selfishness of the west, puts it in the undesireable postiion of extinguishing the very impulses that drive it.
This sounds paranoid to me. A woman doesn't control legal death rights, even over herself. She can have an abortion though.
This sounds paranoid to me. A woman doesn't control legal death rights, even over herself. She can have an abortion though.
You see, bunge, even in a working marriage, "it's the womans right to choose" whether to procreate. The West is in the position now of talking out of both sides of it's mouth in order to make the dynamics of society work---out of one side of it's mouth the kids in public schools are told the world is overpopulated--and are encourage to feel guit if they have children, out of the other side, we have panzi schemes like social securtiy that do not function without a growing population base.
The West is allowing immigration to do the pragmatic work of growing the local economy, while the real effects of these philosophies come to bear in the form of a stagnate economies and endagered pension systems. Whites in America are in decline, and not for abstract reasons, history is leaving them behind.
i just don't understasnd the idea that your physical location is what designates you as either human or fetus.
i don't think it is location, but rather can this fetus survive without the mother, hence the 24 week limit in termination in most states...once the baby is able to take breaths and survive outside the womb then it has the potential to be a separate human, until then it is just an extension of the mother, like an extra toe or boil... either that or a freeloader on the mother's system kinda like a tapeworm... the mother has complete say over what happens to her body and what is in it until the time this fetus can survive on its own...so the important part is not location (though location is important, without the uterus the fetus won't survive, the fetus can only survive in the female, the male has no real role after fertilization, etc) but self-survivial by the fetus (and even this is only semi true, no fetus at 24 weeks can survive without about 2 million dollars of medical care and months in the intensive care nursery.
...but self-survivial by the fetus (and even this is only semi true, no fetus at 24 weeks can survive without about 2 million dollars of medical care and months in the intensive care nursery.
so we define humanity by self survival? what do we use for folks who were in car accidents, comas etc.?
because they could survive at some point on their own, it's ok for us to treat them as humans now that they can't?
ps...as a husband of 19 years and as a father for 16 years i can say that in a GOOD and Healthy relationship, it is not only the woman that decides on abortion, that in a good and healthy relationship, both man and woman, husband and wife, spouse and spouse, both parties will have a say...only in unhealthy and bad relationships will the woman make these decisions without the other person involved, and perhaps this is for the best...afterall she has the carry the child and we can not force women to be incubators for someone else against their will...if you are a man and a woman does this without your consent, without having hours and hours of talks about it, without tears from both of you being shed night after night...then go find yourself a better, healthier relationship...a woman never makes this decision alone unless something is terribly wrong with the relationship (or lack of relationship) she has with the man involved....
I have to ask how you think it calls into question Roe when it has an exception for abortion and never once claims to give the fetus rights over the mother?!?
I thought Faust9 and I had covered this, honestly. At the moment, to my knowledge, a fetus has no rights enumerated by the constitution. Because of that, and because of SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade, the mother's right to privacy trumps those of the fetus.
As Faust and I have pointed out a couple of times already, the law, on its face, seems good and reasonable. (This is of course by design; it makes those who oppose it seem like lunatics). But the problem is that once the fetus has been granted rights enumerated by law, the courts may argue that the rights of the fetus do not trump those of the mother (the Roe decision hinges on whether making abortion illegal except in certain cases violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment and thereby violate the mother's right to privacy). Once a fetus has rights, it is entitled to due process. Once it's entitled to due process, it cannot be aborted. I'm not going to get dragged into discussing hypothetical scenarios, since that's really not what this law is about--however much it may seem to be. This is a law that is designed to enumerate the rights of a fetus, and once that's in place, Roe is in danger. NB: the relevant section of Roe v Wade is here. It's worth noting that R v W does not assert a blanket right to an abortion at any time, and in fact respects the state's ability to limit when they might be procured. It's a very, very small step to use that thinking to overturn the decision and, finally, challenge the legality of abortion altogether.
Comments
Originally posted by Fangorn
Equating "women's rights" with abortion is
It's such a sick and cruel lie.
As opposed to banning abortion which doesn't obligate women at all.....
Liquid breathing began to be used by the medical community after the development by Alliance Pharmaceuticals of perfluorooctyl bromide, a fluorochemical that was given the generic name perflubron. Useful as a blood substitute (see Miscellaneous Notes) and for liquid ventilation, perflubron (under Alliance Pharmaceutical's brand name LiquiVent) is instilled directly into the lungs of patients with acute respiratory failure (caused by infection, severe burns, inhalation of toxic substances and premature birth), whose air sacs have collapsed. Once inside the lungs, perflubron enables collapsed alveoli (air sacs) to open and permits a more efficient transport of oxygen and carbon dioxide. Current tests are focussing on "preemies," but trials with adults are ongoing.
From how stuff works.
so people can breathe liquid. does that mean now they aren't human and we can kill them? i'm asking a serious question, why the tripe answer?
Originally posted by alcimedes
From how stuff works.
so people can breathe liquid. does that mean now they aren't human and we can kill them? i'm asking a serious question, why the tripe answer?
Maybe my answer was "tripe" (I think you mean "trite") because the analogy you established--physical location of the fetus/baby--is reductive. It's like saying that the physical location of a human being determines whether or not they're alive or dead. "Well, he's in a casket. Must be dead!"
These are complex medical, philosophical, epistemological, theological, and otherwise metaphysical issues. Physical location doesn't cover it.
baby in womb right now = not human.
same exact baby two minutes later outside the womb is a full fledged human being with rights.
it's all in their location.
Originally posted by alcimedes
sorry. trite.
baby in womb right now = not human.
same exact baby two minutes later outside the womb is a full fledged human being with rights.
it's all in their location.
For you, that may be the case, but there are other cultures out there that don't hold your, and my, point of view. China, and Japan for instance. A baby isn't a baby until it is born. Also, one of the stumbling points here is a fetus 2 minutes from being born can still die during delivery. There is no guarantee that a fetus will make it through child birth alive. Modern medicine has greatly lowered the number of still births here in the modern world, but there is still a chance for the last minute problem.
Also as midwinter has pointed out at what point does the mothers rights end and the rights of the child begin?
Originally posted by faust9
Also as midwinter has pointed out at what point does the mothers rights end and the rights of the child begin?
Come on! Don't get this thread back on track! Let's keep debating hypotheticals!
but yeah, this is probably relatively off track.
of course, when you consider a fetus a child all depends on how you define a human being. which i guess sounds stupid but when you get right down to it it's not that easy.
right now we use physical location as the defining characteristic which i disagree with.
Originally posted by dviant
So it doesn't matter until its born then?
Do you consider it a feteus until it's out of the body?
Semantic arguments abour viability are not sound, since a the infant, with out aid and constant care by the mother simply insn't viable on a basic level until hours and/or days after birth.
This boils down to giving the mother a ruling option in procreation----a powerful thing, something the west has discounted, and may no longer even grasp.
If you control the means of procreation, you control the future, the long history of fertility cults hearken back to a time when this fundamental priniciple was understood by far less educated cultures.
In the end, the fracturing of the marraige structure, with the woman controling legal death rights over the children, combined with the consumerism and selfishness of the west, puts it in the undesireable postiion of extinguishing the very impulses that drive it.
Never fear, history always leaves these suicidal impulses, and the people who foster them, behind. The future doesn't belong to those who refuse to build for it.
Originally posted by midwinter
I'm not sure if you're talking to me or not, but it would seem that you think supreme court decisions don't get overturned from time to time or that precedents established in the courts aren't used to determine whether or not laws passed by congress are constitutional.
Brown v Board of Education overturns Plessy v Ferguson, for example.
Roe, on the other hand, comes out of (the case is escaping me at the moment) another case that essentially established a right to privacy (since it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution). Roe privileges the woman's right to control her body over the needs of the fetus, and so just as a woman (or a man) cannot be compelled by law to undergo a medical procedure to save the life of someone else (say, donate a kidney), neither can a woman be forced to carry a baby to term by rendering the medical procedure illegal.
This law calls into question that privilege (established in Roe) and thus threatens the core of the decision.
Cheers
Scott
I have to ask how you think it calls into question Roe when it has an exception for abortion and never once claims to give the fetus rights over the mother?!?
I mean to me it only give the mother basically the right to determine how the killing of the fetus is legally processed. One poster used that twin example, and while it sounds absurd, it is exactly how the law would work. Someone punching a woman is the stomach and causing the death of her desired 8 month fetus is guilty of more than assault by the view of that woman.
There is nothing hard to understand about the view of the woman changing how the law is applied. Rough consentual sex = great and legal. Rough unconsentual sex = rape for example.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Rough unconsensual sex = rape for example.
Why does it have to be rough?
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Why does it have to be rough?
Why do you spend more time parsing a reply than thinking about and addressing the subject?
Nick
Originally posted by dmz
In the end, the fracturing of the marraige structure, with the woman controling legal death rights over the children, combined with the consumerism and selfishness of the west, puts it in the undesireable postiion of extinguishing the very impulses that drive it.
This sounds paranoid to me. A woman doesn't control legal death rights, even over herself. She can have an abortion though.
Originally posted by bunge
This sounds paranoid to me. A woman doesn't control legal death rights, even over herself. She can have an abortion though.
You see, bunge, even in a working marriage, "it's the womans right to choose" whether to procreate. The West is in the position now of talking out of both sides of it's mouth in order to make the dynamics of society work---out of one side of it's mouth the kids in public schools are told the world is overpopulated--and are encourage to feel guit if they have children, out of the other side, we have panzi schemes like social securtiy that do not function without a growing population base.
The West is allowing immigration to do the pragmatic work of growing the local economy, while the real effects of these philosophies come to bear in the form of a stagnate economies and endagered pension systems. Whites in America are in decline, and not for abstract reasons, history is leaving them behind.
Originally posted by alcimedes
i just don't understasnd the idea that your physical location is what designates you as either human or fetus.
i don't think it is location, but rather can this fetus survive without the mother, hence the 24 week limit in termination in most states...once the baby is able to take breaths and survive outside the womb then it has the potential to be a separate human, until then it is just an extension of the mother, like an extra toe or boil... either that or a freeloader on the mother's system kinda like a tapeworm... the mother has complete say over what happens to her body and what is in it until the time this fetus can survive on its own...so the important part is not location (though location is important, without the uterus the fetus won't survive, the fetus can only survive in the female, the male has no real role after fertilization, etc) but self-survivial by the fetus (and even this is only semi true, no fetus at 24 weeks can survive without about 2 million dollars of medical care and months in the intensive care nursery.
g
...but self-survivial by the fetus (and even this is only semi true, no fetus at 24 weeks can survive without about 2 million dollars of medical care and months in the intensive care nursery.
so we define humanity by self survival? what do we use for folks who were in car accidents, comas etc.?
because they could survive at some point on their own, it's ok for us to treat them as humans now that they can't?
g
Originally posted by trumptman
I have to ask how you think it calls into question Roe when it has an exception for abortion and never once claims to give the fetus rights over the mother?!?
I thought Faust9 and I had covered this, honestly. At the moment, to my knowledge, a fetus has no rights enumerated by the constitution. Because of that, and because of SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade, the mother's right to privacy trumps those of the fetus.
As Faust and I have pointed out a couple of times already, the law, on its face, seems good and reasonable. (This is of course by design; it makes those who oppose it seem like lunatics). But the problem is that once the fetus has been granted rights enumerated by law, the courts may argue that the rights of the fetus do not trump those of the mother (the Roe decision hinges on whether making abortion illegal except in certain cases violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment and thereby violate the mother's right to privacy). Once a fetus has rights, it is entitled to due process. Once it's entitled to due process, it cannot be aborted. I'm not going to get dragged into discussing hypothetical scenarios, since that's really not what this law is about--however much it may seem to be. This is a law that is designed to enumerate the rights of a fetus, and once that's in place, Roe is in danger. NB: the relevant section of Roe v Wade is here. It's worth noting that R v W does not assert a blanket right to an abortion at any time, and in fact respects the state's ability to limit when they might be procured. It's a very, very small step to use that thinking to overturn the decision and, finally, challenge the legality of abortion altogether.
Cheers
Scott