"...except in the case of rape or incest."

quote:

---

Do the risks increase if the mother-to-be is obese or morbidly obese?

---

Yes.Why do you ask?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-15-2006 12:10 PM

Well, I’m not sure that I really know but I'll lend a helping hand. My first thoughts are that this is the source of your misunderstanding. I think you are looking deeper into what these people are saying than they are themselves. I think when they say rape and incest they mean rape and involuntary incest and are just being redundant.But if they aren’t . It probably comes from a double standard. The pro-lifers consider incest to be despicable and sinful. This coupled with the increase in the chance for genetic complications lets them rationalize their double standard. I think they are considering the ”dirty conception’ above the genetic undesirability. The genetic undesirability is just the icing on the cake, so to speak. The difference is that incest is known to increase the chance of a genetic problem. If other behaviors were found to cause problems, I think they would be abhorred as well. Like having sex on the nuclear reactor or something . Like I said at the top, this is most likely the case.

I'm not sure if this can be said to be "the hypocrisy of the right wing", especially in light of recent events. I've known people that were against abortion under all circumstances and the South Dakota legislation banning almost all abortions, did NOT allow it for rape or incest.And on the subject of SD's legislation, there were people on the left who were decrying the fact that they did not allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest. That is to say at the very least that should be allowed along with cases to save the mothers' life.I think the question is valid (what criteria is being used to allow abortion in those cases but not others?), yet it seems to be a feeling shared on both sides in this debate.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I look at it not that it is OK to kill them, but it is less bad (better) than forcing a girl who was forcefully impregnated to give birth. It is lesser of two evils, not that it becomes OK.

Hy Chiroptera "So the idea that a fetus is a human being isn't even Biblical."Not necessarily. The passage you are talking about is Exodus 21:22-25. in the KJV it reads (using the Scofield KJV):"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."But more modern versions are clearer, better, and different in the rendering. THe Updated NASB renders verse 22 as:"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide."And then in the next verse it states in the beginning:"But if there is any further injury,"It says in the footnotes that the literal translation of verse 22 where it says "she gives birth prematurely" can also be rendered "an untimely birth occurs" and literally means "Her children come out" it seems more like a premature birth than a miscarraige, since it says "yet there is no injury" after that.THe ESV states it about the same in Exodus 21:22 ;"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine"THe TNIV renders it:" if people are fighting and a pregnant woman is hit and gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the courts allow."And in the footnotes, it says that "Gives Birth prematurely" can also be translated as "and has a miscarraige""The Message" a paraphrase, tends to take the latter translation.Now to translate scripture with scripture, it seems that the Bible would take the former view.In Psalm 139:13-16 it says (using NIV version)"For you created me my inmost being; you knit me together in my Mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the Earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." (Compare ESV, Updated NASB,TNIV,KJV,JPS,NAB, etc)This shows that we do have an existence before we where born, and God seemed to care about us during this time even "knitting us together" molding us if you will. So it seems that "premature Birth" is the better reading than "miscarraige" since if God was caring so much for the unborn in this fashion, in his character he would order punishment for ending the life of something he both cared about and was working on (as he seems to do in Exodus 21:23 and so forth)THere is another verse that shows this in the psalms, but I have to dig for it. IT still doesn't matter to some here though. Not everybody goes by the Bible, or the same interpretation of the Bible, but it seems to show what God thinks about it.Not meaning to stir up debate. Just giving the info.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

Fair enough. I used the term "right wing" because that was the term used in the post I replied to. (The term "hypocrisy" was admittedly intended to be loaded. )

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

He Schrafinator Thanks for the source I asked about the obese-pregnancy risk factor becuase one time I heared on Oprah (My Mom was watching it. Pipe down LOL) a woman who was 350 pounds (starred in "Shallow Hal" as one of the ugly ladies that "Hal" started dancing with. Da big one) and she was saying that one day she was talking to a nurse about one day having a kid when the Nurse went ape bonkers on her. Something like "You wont survive! You'll die! You cannot have a kid now!" or something like that.I also saw on the Maury povich show that a 150 pound guy married or was dating a 600 pound woman, and she ended up pregnant. Daytime talk shows are not really my cup of tea, but they are amusing to watch every now and again.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

BTW: Hi Ringo, and all the others that have jumped on this thread

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

I don't think that's worse; I think that's better. Better that a child should be raised in America by someone who could afford the 100 grand the adoption requires than into the grueling poverty and homelessness of their home country.My brother-in-law was adopted from the Philipines. We expect to have a child the old-fashioned way and adopt a child, as well, as my wife's parents did. I think that's a great example as well as an entirely appropriate response to overpopulation.But, look. I'm sorry that you found my reply harsh. But the implication that a woman should just bear the risky consequences of pregnancy and then just hope that her child is one of the lucky few who gets adopted is callous. It's out of touch with reality. And people who find the reality of unintended pregnancy scary and life-wrecking deserve better than the sort of callous disregard for the issue that you've been displaying in your post.

I agree with you.My point is that I have heard pro-lifers say, "Abortion is absolutely wrong, no matter what...except in the case of rape or incest." The attitude exists and it is at least inconsistent, if not hypocritical.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Unfortunately, our hippie leftist society frowns upon the idea of purchasing humans.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

word.

Hey Crashfrog For the children of the third world, adoption by Americans is a good thing. I agree with you there. But the more children adopted overseas by Americans leaves more and more children here left unadopted. It's bad for them. I guess it's one of those double edged swords, yin-yang, weighing the issues kind of thing.Callous disregard? Nah, I have regard for both. If I had a female freind that was frightened with an unintended pregnancy and having her life wrecked by it, I would help her out. I would be the Lamaze coach, go with her to the hospital, and even be with her in the delivering room if she wanted.Now if you're angry at how I'm carefree with the subject, Im sorry. With all the bile and hatred given and taken on both sides, I thought that I could just liven things up a bit. With this subject, as well as others, I just dont let it get me angry when it comes to debates like this. I try to put a little humor, that's all.And dont worry: I like everybody on here, no matter their beliefs on subjects. Including you

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

I think for a lot of people in the debate, on both sides, these phrases are just stuff they toss out without really thinking. These exemptions and restrictions are just a standard set of bulwarks in the debate. Like, critical points on a battlefield that are fought and taken and defended and lost and taken again, without anybody really thinking about whether or not that position is really beneficial to women or to the babies or what. Like a series of nested defenses to be breached:1) No abortion at all, which is worse than
2) Abortion only for medical necessity, which is worse than
3) Abortion for medical reasons, or in the case of rape or incest, which is worse than
4) Abortion for medical reasons, rape, or incest up until the third trimester, which is worse than
5) Abortion at will up until the third trimester, which is worse than
6) Abortion at will up until the third trimester; after that, only for medical reasons, rape, or incest, which is worse than
7) Abortion at will at any time until birthAnd it's just back and forth (usually between the 4th, 5th, and 6th layers) without anybody actually reviewing these bulwarks to see if the battle could be taken somewhere else.You know what I mean? The whole debate is so very polarized that even the people who take the time to think clearly about their position don't think about the terms they frame it in, and they simply wind up taking arms at one of these arbitrary, pre-defined positions.

What is it about American babies that you think nobody wants? Because, thank god, her responsibilites and duties vis-a-vis the infant end once it passes through her vagina. Oh, wait. No, they don't.Question - would you drive her to another state for an exam and an abortion? (That's two trips.) Would you let her stay at your house if your house was nearer to the abortionist than where you lived?Does your benevolence stretch that far?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-15-2006 12:49 PM