Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion

No, they are still trying to get that law reversed. If they use other laws to argue that point, then it's proper definition must apply, otherwise people will tear it apart. In other words, I am right, thanks.

So what if people are trying to get the laws under discussiom reversed? I don't understand how you can say a legal definition exists so there on one hand, and then another legal definition does not count despite existing because you (and other with your viewpoint) want to change it. About what? You had a huge section quoted and it dealt with different things.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

quote:

---

Isn't that just life?
please...

---

So, if chance circumstances lead to non-implantation or miscarriage, you have no problems at all, but if exactly the same result occurs through deliberate action, you are against it?So, it's not the actual abortion you are against, but the ability for the woman to choose it.

I asked: Rat answered:

quote:

---

Life?

---

This makes no sense.She is not at risk of "remaining alive".What are the risks to a woman's health during and after carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth?Is she at increased risk of ingrown toenails? Split ends? What?Please make a list.I'll even let you restrict your list to the health risks faced by women in the US, which are still somewhat greater than most other First World countries, but far less than in Third World countries.I mean, since you are generally against abortion, I thought you should show that you know what women go through in carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth, and also what can and does go wrong, and how often.I think you should also compare those health risks with the health risks of abortion.

I am having sever problems with my computer it keeps crashing while I am typingThis message took multiple reboots with word by word saves to compile.I will answer posts when I can.

That doesn't sum it up. The choice is in having sex. If your forced into having sex, then it wasn't a choice. If a fetus is going to be still born, or severely deformed, the truth lies in how we determine that. It has to be 100% certain in order for me to support it.It's like saying hey, smoking pot is bad for you because it kills brain cells. Even though it feels good, and everyone is not going to stop smoking pot, let's make it legal to remove peoples brains then.
(that was funny, come on)

Wow, if it's that bad, then don't have sex. You expect to change the laws of nature or something. Let's start engineering men to carry the child now, in his balls or something.When I say life, I mean everything, and anything. There are way to many possibilities for me to sum up here on this forum, and many more that I don't even know about.I think I have to keep mentioning that if a woman is in danger, outside of the normal risks, then I am for saving the woman.The bible teaches me that the God comes first, then my woman, then my kids. My wife and I are one.Let me ask you a question, do you think it's ok to make a baby if you don't really want to?

That doesn't sum it up either. First of all people can diligently use protection and have it fail through no fault of their own. Second, conditions for initially desiring a child may have changed such that it is later determined that trying to have a child is not a good risk. This appears to be a double standard.We cannot know about deformations completely, for some conditions not up till very close to birth (because that is when they form). Remember the being is not fully formed and so deformations, including life affecting ones, are possible throughout the gestational period. Thus it appears according to your rules we will rarely if ever be able to allow abortion despite there being a reasonably known risk. And these rules of course would also effect the usage of some birth control pills and IUDs.On the flip side we cannot know whether any pregnancy will result in risk to the mother, including right up till the moment of birth. That is to say sometimes we may be able to accurately say the woman's life is at stake, but other times we will not be able to know. In any case, waiting until the odds are known certainly places the mother at greater risk.Since you care about life, and the mother is certainly 100% alive, while the gestational being will not 100% live, wouldn't it be more reasonable to allow women the option of abortion unless it is 100% certain there will be no complications to the child or the mother?Otherwise you are favoring an unborn unknown entity over a well known living entity. That seems to be the definition of not protecting life.This message has been edited by holmes, 02-07-2005 11:57 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Don't know the answer really. Case by case basis, it's not cut and dry. I do care for the mother over the unborn child.

Okay, so then we are in agreement that 100% certainty that there will be problems is not a useful, nor desirable limit on abortions. Right?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

quote:

---

Wow, if it's that bad, then don't have sex.

---

I'm not saying "it's so bad that nobody should ever do it".I am saying that you are making the error of casually dismissing carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth as some kind of walk in the park that carries no or very few health risks or other risks to a woman.It is just not a trivial thing to do.

quote:

---

You expect to change the laws of nature or something.

---

No, I don't. I simply want you to realize that there are significant risks to a woman, including maiming, future infertility, and death, during pregnancy, during childbirth, and postpartum.

quote:

---

Let's start engineering men to carry the child now, in his balls or something.

---

Yeah, and I'll bet men everywhere would be lining up for that privilage.Where's that list, hon?What adverse affects can happen to a woman's health during pregnancy, childbirth, and post partum?Women don't want men to give birth unless you want to.What we do want is for you to not trivialize what women's bodies go through and what the risks to our health and lives are.

quote:

---

I think I have to keep mentioning that if a woman is in danger, outside of the normal risks, then I am for saving the woman.

---

What are those "normal" risks, rat?

quote:

---

The bible teaches me that the God comes first, then my woman, then my kids. My wife and I are one.

---

Actually, I think that the Bible also teaches that you come before after God, before your wife, then your children.

quote:

---

Let me ask you a question, do you think it's ok to make a baby if you don't really want to?

---

I don't equate a fertilized egg, zygote, blastocyst, or fetus with a "baby". A "baby" has been born.But, if you meant to say "Do you think it's ok to get pregnant if you don't really want to?", I think that depends upon the circumstances.If someone is irresposible and has a lot of sex, knowing full well that they could get pregnant or get someone else pregnant, then I don't think it's good. Prevention of unwanted pregnancy requires lots of education, from an early age, and lots of readily-available contraception, positive attitudes towards sex, and the promotion of equality between the sexes.If someone takes careful precautions to not get cause pregnancy but the contraception fails, then I have no judgement on their behavior.Too much unprotected teenage sex goes on in this country because of the taboo and "dirtyness" we associate with it, and also because of the disrespect of women and girls. If sex was considered more of a natural part of growing up, and if women (and men these days!) were repected and not sexualized/comodified/objectified so early, then people would prepare better and not "stumble into" sexual encounters that go farther than they want them to. People wouldn't be ashamed to get and use contraception.

Kinda like poor Hermie in
'The Summer of 42'.

I see holmes covered the issues. pretty much as I would have.

Yes, depends on the problem.

I really don't agree with that one. I have seen the damage done to our youth when they thought they were in love, and got used. There is so much bad associated with people having sex outside marraige, that I cannot agree with this. Unfortunatly for me, I had to learn the hard way.