Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?[W:150

[JayDubya]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

There is not a shred of evidence that an embryo or pre-viable fetus has its own life apart from the life of the woman.

No evidence that a living organism is alive with its own body? Hrm. Did you mean aside from the entire field of biological science?

You're just on a roll with the most ridiculous lies today.

 

[choiceone]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

No evidence that a living organism is alive with its own body? Hrm. Did you mean aside from the entire field of biological science?

You're just on a roll with the most ridiculous lies today.

If you want to call me a liar, you have to prove your case with evidence, and you can do that only by removing the embryo/fetus from the woman's body. That can be done by disconnecting the placenta and pre-viable embryo/fetus from the woman or by disconnecting the pre-viable embryo/fetus from the placenta - your choice. Go ahead and prove me a liar. I dare you.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

If you want to call me a liar

You'll note I did not such thing. Your statement, however, was a lie.

you have to prove your case with evidence, and you can do that only by removing the embryo/fetus from the woman's body. That can be done by disconnecting the placenta and pre-viable embryo/fetus from the woman or by disconnecting the pre-viable embryo/fetus from the placenta - your choice.

I noticed you never answered my question - if I denied you air or nutrition, or if I ground your body into bloody bits, or if I impaled the back of your head repeatedly with medical scissors (all of which happens in different types of abortions); you will die. Does that mean you're also not a living organism with your own body?

Now granted, it's a rhetorical question, but then rhetorical questions can be good at pointing out flaws in others' rhetoric.

 

[choiceone]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

You'll note I did not such thing. Your statement, however, was a lie.

If I make a statement and you, knowing I made the statement, say the statement was a lie, you are least saying by implication that I am a liar. It's cool. I'm not reporting you even though you did it.

I noticed you never answered my question - if I denied you air or nutrition, or if I ground your body into bloody bits, or if I impaled the back of your head repeatedly with medical scissors (all of which happens in different types of abortions); you will die. Does that mean you're also not a living organism with your own body?

Now granted, it's a rhetorical question, but then rhetorical questions can be good at pointing out flaws in others' rhetoric.

My answer is this. You do not have the power to deny me air or nutrition, because my intake of air and nutrition do not depend on you, your body, or your life. You do not have control of the publicly available air and nutrition. Nature has given me the capacity to intake air and nutrition in complete separation from you. I don't have to be anywhere near you. If you try to come after me to control my body to deny me air or nutrition, I can run away. An embryo isn't like that.

Sure, I would probably die if you impaled the back of my head repeatedly, but this is not a procedure common to all abortions. The mere removal of the placental connection to the endometrial tissue of the woman aborts a pregnancy and results in the woman's body expelling the disconnected embryo+placenta. But I have no placenta and am not biologically connected to any other organism: I'm a free-standing organism, and one who could run away if you tried to impale the back of my head. An embryo isn't like that.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

First of all, do not alter my quote as you did above. It never contained the line "If I make a statement and you..."

You typed that sentence, obviously.

My answer is this. You do not have the power to deny me air or nutrition, because my intake of air and nutrition do not depend on you, your body, or your life. You do not have control of the publicly available air and nutrition. Nature has given me the capacity to intake air and nutrition in complete separation from you. I don't have to be anywhere near you. If you try to come after me to control my body to deny me air or nutrition, I can run away. An embryo isn't like that.

My, how droll. If it needs to be spelled out for you explicitly, abduction is something that can happen, yes? Your ability to potentially run away is irrelevant to the point at hand - if someone else comes along and makes a point of doing violence to you, if you are strangled and denied oxygen, you will die. Does that mean you weren't alive? Of course not. Does that mean you didn't have your own body? Of course not.

Sure, I would probably die if you impaled the back of my head repeatedly, but this is not a procedure common to all abortions.

It's one possibility where abortion is concerned.

The mere removal of the placental connection to the endometrial tissue of the woman aborts a pregnancy and results in the woman's body expelling the disconnected embryo+placenta.

The shearing forces in an early abortion tear a human being's body apart violently.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

So what was the consensus on the thread topic? Can we all agree that it's reasonable for the state to protect the interests of the expectant child, if the mother has clearly expressed intent on live delivery and engaging in behavior where there is a high degree of potential harm to it's development?


For me, it's still hard for me to see this as anything more than a case of child welfare, since the mother clearly intends to give birth, and we are discussing issues that will effect it long past the point of delivery.

In fact, I would say the intent on live delivery makes my views concerning abortion completely irrelevant to the topic

 

[joko104]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

So what was the consensus on the thread topic? Can we all agree that it's reasonable for the state to protect the interests of the expectant child, if the mother has clearly expressed intent on live delivery and engaging in behavior where there is a high degree of potential harm to it's development?


For me, it's still hard for me to see this as anything more than a case of child welfare, since the mother clearly intends to give birth, and we are discussing issues that will effect it long past the point of delivery.

In fact, I would say the intent on live delivery makes my views concerning abortion completely irrelevant to the topic

I agree that if a woman intends to carry a child to birth then she has a duty to not deliberately or clearly recklessly harm the fetus. However, I would severely limit the ability of the government to intervene because that quickly would become religious rightwing and moralists using that to control the woman's life style. Liberals wanting her weekly tested for nicotine and religious right-wingers wanting her tested for pot and a Baptist dominated state wanting her tested for alcohol.

But I also think that MORAL duty applies to men. As example, when I had a chest X-ray, my wife had them pile probably 100 pounds of lead vests over my midsection because X-ray radiation can damage DNA and it takes 2 to make a healthy baby. Yet, I have noticed that prolife men of the forum rage and ridicule at suggesting it is a joint moral duty and instead want everything put on the woman only - as always.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

But I also think that MORAL duty applies to men. As example, when I had a chest X-ray, my wife had them pile probably 100 pounds of lead vests over my midsection because X-ray radiation can damage DNA and it takes 2 to make a healthy baby. Yet, I have noticed that prolife men of the forum rage and ridicule at suggesting it is a joint moral duty and instead want everything put on the woman only - as always.

It's amazing that you continue to confuse sex cells with a fertilized embryo.

 

[joko104]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

That's what I find particularly disgusting about the abortion debate in general. Everyone with a tighter timeline than you is "a religious nut job trying to turn women into cattle", and everyone with a looser timeline is a "a baby killing godless monster".

I try to keep such hyperbole out of my speech, and I'm glad you tend to do the same. Some people around here just can not stop. Joko actually called me the most radical pro-lifer on DP.... with a 12 week elective cutoff and a plethora of exceptions...

I've based my views on abortion based on the biological definition of human life. To me, if it has brain activity and a unique heart beat, it is a human being. This happens around 8 weeks. 12 weeks is my compromise (which I'm not happy about but will accept), due to the fact that many women can't know they're pregnant by 8 weeks. I don't see a 12.1 week fetus as more important than a 12 week one. I see the death of both as equally sad and horrific. However, there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

You keep bringing up how rare these abortions are, yet that argument cuts both ways. If late term elective abortions are as rare as you say they are, there's no reason to just keep it legal anyway, or to argue as passionately as you do. I don't see any benefit whatsoever to that. I'd rather focus on structuring a system so that the women who are the few exceptions are able to have the abortion after 12 weeks if there's a medical reason to do so.

We live in a society, and we've formed a government to structure and protect that society. I personally don't believe the government should have many roles, but justice is the most fundamentally important role of government. Does it effect my life when someone I don't know gets shot in the face? No, not one bit, but we still as a society expect a certain level of justice, and expect protection for those that can not protect themselves. The argument you're making, whether you intend to or not, is that I shouldn't care when someone else is murdered, because it doesn't impact my life. I think it would be hard for you to structure that statement to show less compassion for your fellow man.

If you link to the message and thread I posted that in relation to I'd explain it contextually. Actually, the most generally radical is JayDubya for his language choices.

I do not fall into your range. I "accept" that society could draw a line at "viability" to be born AND without premie birth damage and a few other exceptions - but only because I think social moral sensibilities on balance in this democracy makes such a level of control tolerable. However, I have no problem if abortions were allowed up to birth. My only insistence would be the fetus is "destroyed/killed" with certainty prior to removal. ALL RULES CHANGE 100% upon birth in my opinion.

 

[joko104]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

It's amazing that you continue to confuse sex cells with a fertilized embryo.

What is amazing is that you selfishly claim that if the man is the source of a birth defect then it doesn't matter. So obviously your concern isn't in the slightest about the "unborn child" whatsoever and for you it is SINGULARLY about controlling women for the sake of control - and on a moral declaration of which you spit at the concept of that moral standard you demand upon women also applies to you.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

So what was the consensus on the thread topic? Can we all agree that it's reasonable for the state to protect the interests of the expectant child, if the mother has clearly expressed intent on live delivery and engaging in behavior where there is a high degree of potential harm to it's development?


For me, it's still hard for me to see this as anything more than a case of child welfare, since the mother clearly intends to give birth, and we are discussing issues that will effect it long past the point of delivery.

In fact, I would say the intent on live delivery makes my views concerning abortion completely irrelevant to the topic

Chuck...on this thread topic or any other thread topic in the Abortion Forum...I don't think we can ever anticipate a "consensus" will ever be achieved. That would throw the thread in the religious forum under a thread topic of "modern day miracles".

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

What is amazing is that you selfishly claim that if the man is the source of a birth defect then it doesn't matter.

Joko, on one side of the question you have sex cells (that are supplied by men and women and may one day be joined to produce a fetus that some might decide to deliver), on the other we have a fetus someone is deciding to deliver.

There are some very key differences between the two that at times can be difficult to tease a part. But they are there

So obviously your concern isn't in the slightest about the "unborn child" whatsoever and for you it is SINGULARLY about controlling women for the sake of control - and on a moral declaration of which you spit at the concept of that moral standard you demand upon women also applies to you.

you do understand women have unfertalized sex cells, as well?

 

[joko104]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Joko, on one side of the question you have sex cells (that are supplied by men and women and may one day be joined to produce a fetus that some might decide to deliver), on the other we have a fetus someone is deciding to deliver.

There are some very key differences between the two that at times can be difficult to tease a part. But they are there





you do understand women have unfertalized sex cells, as well?

Yes. What's your point?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Yes. What's your point?

that if you recognize such that there is no logic to your argument

 

[onlinebackgroun]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?[W

This is looking so nice post thank you very much sharing nice information with us

 

[cpwill]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Gee, what an objective thread title, clearly looking for honest discussion. :roll:

If you're asking if we should just start tossing pregnant women in jail, absolutely not. What if she is early on and didn't even know she was pregnant? What if she is mentally ill?

You would definitely have to demonstrate either intent or willful negligence.

I can't imagine this would be an easy charge to make stick to anyone.

To employ laws like that is to say that the woman's body belongs to that state.

well, no. It is to say that women are limited in their legal ability to use their bodies to do damage to others.

 

[Grand Mal]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Yes because the question is ridiculous. Unless you think women don't have the same rights men have.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Re: Should women have a right to brain-damage their fetuses (e.g. with substances)?

Yes because the question is ridiculous. Unless you think women don't have the same rights men have.

lol, what?