Seeking Clean Discussion and to Understand Pro-Choice Stance (1 Viewer)

[minnie616]

Other people have also claimed it is different by state. That seems reasonably correct. Are you claiming that in all states the unborn has no rights?

In all states the unborn do not have rights.

States have rights.
In fact states can even even take a compelling interest and ban elective abortions after viability.

 

[vegas giants]

You don't prove negatives. If you find yourself needing to do that then your argument is most likely flawed. Lets stick with the facts. Show me the research on pregnancy disease and how those afflicted can prevent it.

Its listed in the ICD 10.

You claimed it not being a disease is fact. That is not a fact

 

[AlphaOmega]

I really do not care about the code.

I care that if I did not have decent insurance, housing security, and strong social bonds....the pregnancy could have cost me my kidneys or my life in short order.

Pregnancy may be a normal biological process...but it is one that women have serious complications up to and including death every day.

It is not for you or me to decide what she is willing to risk.

The claim was normal pregnancy is a disease. Please show me one medical book that claims normal pregnancy is a disease. I'd be most curious in reading this.

 

[vegas giants]

the claim was normal pregnancy is a disease. Please show me one medical book that claims normal pregnancy is a disease. I'd be most curious in reading this.

icd 10

 

[AlphaOmega]

Its listed in the ICD 10.

You claimed it not being a disease is fact. That is not a fact

The IDC10 does not list it as a disease anywhere. It lists the diagnosis code. You can be diagnosed with a medical condition without it being a disease. It is your claim. Please cite the code where it claims normal pregnancy is a disease.

 

[AlphaOmega]

icd 10

Please cite the section and code where it says this.

 

[vegas giants]

The IDC10 does not list it as a disease anywhere. It lists the diagnosis code. You can be diagnosed with a medical condition without it being a disease. It is your claim. Please cite the code where it claims normal pregnancy is a disease.

Why do you think they call it the international classification of disease if it lists no diseases? Lol

Asking for a friend

 

[vegas giants]

Please cite the section and code where it says this.

In the title of the book

 

[year2late]

The claim was normal pregnancy is a disease. Please show me one medical book that claims normal pregnancy is a disease. I'd be most curious in reading this.

It is not a disease, but it certainly is responsible for many deaths and severe complications.

Deaths and complications that frequently appear out of nowhere.

Pregnancy is certainly a risk factor for many serious health complication.

 

[Logician Man]

Because he is.

I'm wrong for the reasons Minnie stated in her post # 276, ( state's rights, as opposed to unborn's rights, which don't exist ) Thank you Minnie for clearing up my misspeak.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Sure there is. It's the identical reason she had just prior to it coming out.

How so? Once it comes out, it's no longer inside her against her will.

 

[AlphaOmega]

In the title of the book

I have asked you repeatedly to cite where a normal pregnancy is listed as a disease. This is my last attempt to get you to post your factual citation.

 

[AlphaOmega]

How so? Once it comes out, it's no longer inside her against her will.

Her original reason still stands. She doesn't want to bear the responsibility of the child. What has changed when the head comes out?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Other people have also claimed it is different by state. That seems reasonably correct. Are you claiming that in all states the unborn has no rights?

I can't speak for your country as I do not know. I do know that they don't have rights anywhere in my country.

 

[vegas giants]

I have asked you repeatedly to cite where a normal pregnancy is listed as a disease. This is my last attempt to get you to post your factual citation.

Buh bye then

 

[AlphaOmega]

It is not a disease, but it certainly is responsible for many deaths and severe complications.

Deaths and complications that frequently appear out of nowhere.

Pregnancy is certainly a risk factor for many serious health complication.

Your fellow pro choicers are saying it is a listed factual disease. Who is correct you or them?

 

[AlphaOmega]

I can't speak for your country as I do not know. I do know that they don't have rights anywhere in my country.

Seems a lot of pro choicers have conflicting answers on the facts of this. Lets tally personal opinions then. In your personal opinion is it murder if someone assaults a woman and her unborn dies?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Seems a lot of pro choicers have conflicting answers on the facts of this. Lets tally personal opinions then. In your personal opinion is it murder if someone assaults a woman and her unborn dies?

No, it is not. At least not in my country.

 

[AlphaOmega]

No, it is not. At least not in my country.

I asked for your personal opinion not what is allowed in your country.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Buh bye then

Have a nice day. It was fun debating this with you. Really fun.

 

[minnie616]

Other people have also claimed it is different by state. That seems reasonably correct. Are you claiming that in all states the unborn has no rights?

The unborn has never had rights in the United States.

States may protect their interest in an unborn who is a non person but they can only take a compelling interest in abortion at viability.

Some states protect the parent’s interest in the unborn.

At most , the law represents the potentiality of life.



From Roe vs. Wade section IX:

Appellee argues that the State's determination to recognize and protect prenatal life from and after conception constitutes a compelling state interest. As noted above, we do not agree fully with either formulation....

some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. 65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. G Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. 66 Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth.

In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

 

[AlphaOmega]

The unborn has never had rights in the United States.

States may protect their interest in an unborn who is a non person but they can only take a compelling interest in abortion at viability.

Some states protect the parent’s interest in the unborn.

At most , the law represents the potentiality of life.



From Roe vs. Wade section IX:

In the scenario I posted...is it murder or not. Someone on the pro choice side please formulate a consensus answer.

 

[minnie616]

In the scenario I posted...is it murder or not. Someone on the pro choice side please formulate a concensus answer.

Already answered.

As I said some states have feticide laws that protect the states interest and perhaps the woman’s/ parents interest in the potential life of the unborn who is not a person. So the unborn has no rights.

If you are thinking of the famous Scott Person case.

Californian made killing a fetus a crime.

They said a human being or a fetus.
They clearly denoted the fetus is not a human being.

According to US Code only the born are a person/ human being/child/ individual.

Here is the California fetibcide law.

Cal. Penal Code § 187 (a) defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought.

Of course, medical abortions are excluded from both the murder and enhancement statutes, so long as the pregnant woman consented to terminating the pregnancy.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Already answered.

As I said some states have feticide laws that protect the states interest and perhaps the woman’s/ parents interest in the potential life of the unborn who is not a person. So the unborn has no rights.

If you are thinking of the famous Scott Person case.

Californian made killing a fetus a crime.

They said a human being or a fetus.
They clearly denoted the fetus is not a human being.

According to US Code only the born are a person/ human being/child/ individual.

Here is the California fetibcide law.

Cal. Penal Code § 187 (a) defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought.

Of course, medical abortions are excluded from both the murder and enhancement statutes, so long as the pregnant woman consented to terminating the pregnancy.

Logician man...a fellow pro choicer said otherwise. I am waiting for the consensus.

 

[minnie616]

There is disagreement and there is contradiction. I'm trying to find out from pro choicers when the unborn has rights and when it doesn't. What I am hearing is it is the mother's choice as to whether or not the defenseless human is 1) even considered a human "being" and 2) whether or not it has the right to not be killed by her or anyone else for that matter.

It appears when the unborn needs a death sentence we call it a lump of cells with no rights and when we want it to be born it suddenly becomes a human being with rights under our law. Which of you is correct as far as the law goes on this scenario?

It is not a human being and does not have rights. That is FACT.

I have never called it a lump of cells.

Logician man said it does. Why is he wrong?

Because he is.

Logician man...a fellow pro choicer said otherwise. I am waiting for the consensus.

You must have missed his post #285 on this thread.

I'm wrong for the reasons Minnie stated in her post # 276, ( state's rights, as opposed to unborn's rights, which don't exist ) Thank you Minnie for clearing up my misspeak.