| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/17/2012 05:47:37 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The pregnancy-associated mortality rate in the United States from 1998-2005 among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion, and overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion. |
With abortions between 1998-2005, the mortality rate was 100,000.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. I'd say that's a higher rate (one person is killed 100% of the time with an abortion).
|
|
|
|
02/17/2012 05:49:47 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I can think of at least one bill about the definition of a word that's actually about anything but. Perhaps you've heard of it? |
Medical marijuana? But that's two words... :P |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 06:10:28 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
With abortions between 1998-2005, the mortality rate was 100,000.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. I'd say that's a higher rate (one person is killed 100% of the time with an abortion). |
...which of course is premised on your skewed view as to what constitutes a person. Would you consider the normal unaided abortion process a crime...it happens all the time you know.
There exist countless examples where an undeveloped fetus died without medical intervention... would you hold the women accountable for those instances also.
You don't believe that the pill should be used, no abortions and the church is not in favour of the use of condoms... ask yourself how many of the people you see in church every week really adhere to these tenets of the church.
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-02-17 18:10:53. |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 06:56:47 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm in the pro-choice camp myself, actually; I don't think abortion should be a crime. But I think there have to be limits; I think there has to be a point beyond which it is NOT an OK thing to terminate that life.
R. |
I think the overwhelming majority of pro-choice folks agree with you. |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 06:58:16 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Nullix:
With abortions between 1998-2005, the mortality rate was 100,000.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. I'd say that's a higher rate (one person is killed 100% of the time with an abortion). |
...which of course is premised on your skewed view as to what constitutes a person. Would you consider the normal unaided abortion process a crime...it happens all the time you know.
There exist countless examples where an undeveloped fetus died without medical intervention... would you hold the women accountable for those instances also.
You don't believe that the pill should be used, no abortions and the church is not in favour of the use of condoms... ask yourself how many of the people you see in church every week really adhere to these tenets of the church.
Ray |
The thing growing in a woman's womb is a separate living human being. Show me otherwise and I'll agree abortion should be legal. I'll even abort my next child (if it isn't a living human, what's the point).
We don't criminalize SIDS and other problems children have that cause death.
My church is full of sinners. Does that mean we should throw away what we belief or stand up for what we believe is wrong and harmful to others.
I'm gone for the weekend, please don't take my silence as approval |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 07:13:22 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Nullix:
With abortions between 1998-2005, the mortality rate was 100,000.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. I'd say that's a higher rate (one person is killed 100% of the time with an abortion). |
...which of course is premised on your skewed view as to what constitutes a person. Would you consider the normal unaided abortion process a crime...it happens all the time you know.
There exist countless examples where an undeveloped fetus died without medical intervention... would you hold the women accountable for those instances also.
You don't believe that the pill should be used, no abortions and the church is not in favour of the use of condoms... ask yourself how many of the people you see in church every week really adhere to these tenets of the church.
Ray |
The thing growing in a woman's womb is a separate living human being. Show me otherwise and I'll agree abortion should be legal. I'll even abort my next child (if it isn't a living human, what's the point).
We don't criminalize SIDS and other problems children have that cause death.
My church is full of sinners. Does that mean we should throw away what we belief or stand up for what we believe is wrong and harmful to others.
I'm gone for the weekend, please don't take my silence as approval |
These arguments are so silly. If it was a separate living human being, it could survive all on its own. Period. But it can't. So it's a parasite, feeding off of it's host. At some point, it becomes human. But not until it's capable of living without being inside a host.
You're never going to convince someone who believes the opposite of what you believe that you're right and they're wrong. So it's silly. We just go through these same arguments over and over. ;D |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 07:38:42 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
These arguments are so silly. If it was a separate living human being, it could survive all on its own. Period. But it can't. So it's a parasite, feeding off of it's host. At some point, it becomes human. But not until it's capable of living without being inside a host.
You're never going to convince someone who believes the opposite of what you believe that you're right and they're wrong. So it's silly. We just go through these same arguments over and over. ;D |
You and Nullix need to go look at my Cliff's Notes post on the Abortion debate.
1) "human being" like "life" is a scientific terms. A fetus is definitely, 100% a human being.
2) "personhood" is when human rights are granted. Nullix thinks they should be granted earlier and you think later. THAT argument is the key.
BTW, "surviving on it's own" is not a key to being human. We wouldn't be human for a number of years after birth otherwise. Or we would cease to be human when we get very old or have severe handicaps.
Message edited by author 2012-02-17 19:41:56. |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 07:42:09 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
These arguments are so silly. If it was a separate living human being, it could survive all on its own. Period. But it can't. So it's a parasite, feeding off of it's host. At some point, it becomes human. But not until it's capable of living without being inside a host.
You're never going to convince someone who believes the opposite of what you believe that you're right and they're wrong. So it's silly. We just go through these same arguments over and over. ;D |
You and Nullix need to go look at my Cliff's Notes post on the Abortion debate.
1) "human being" like "life" are scientific terms. A fetus is definitely, 100% a human being.
2) "personhood" is when human rights are granted. Nullix thinks they should be granted earlier and you think later. THAT argument is the key.
BTW, "surviving on it's own" is not a key to being human. We wouldn't be human for a number of years after birth otherwise. Or we would cease to be human when we get very old. |
I was going to needle that definition a bit as well. While I *think* I understand what you are saying, there are many people who cannot survive "on their own."
Young babies as Doc pointed out, but older people as well. My father had a heart attack and due to the subsequent brain damage, was in a semi-comatose state. He relied on a feeding tube for nutrition and hydration. He absolutely could not have survived on his own even though he was in his 60s, so it is not an age-based determination. (of course, we also had family members that felt the feeding tube was "life support" and should remove it, but that is another rant altogether).
Message edited by author 2012-02-17 19:43:17. |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 08:02:25 PM · #259 |
| I'm not going to do the nit picking word game. I'm sure you knew what I meant, but I'll be more specific. A baby that can survive, with care, not connected to an umbilical cord is a person, in my opinion. Also, in my opinion, an elderly person or a person of any age that needs a machine to function are people. An embryo is not a person. It's survival depends solely on the survival of it's host. |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 08:15:00 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'm not going to do the nit picking word game. I'm sure you knew what I meant, but I'll be more specific. A baby that can survive, with care, not connected to an umbilical cord is a person, in my opinion. Also, in my opinion, an elderly person or a person of any age that needs a machine to function are people. An embryo is not a person. It's survival depends solely on the survival of it's host. |
You are certainly entitled to that opinion Kelli and it is shared by many people. Personally I find it more satisfying if examples like this can be tied together with simple rules which would allow one to predict the answer for a future scenario. Right now you "an embryo is not a person" sticks out as being unpredictable based on your other assertions. It sounds arbitrary. This is one of the advantages (despite other possible ramifications) of the "person at fertilization". It is clear and consistent. (Don't read from this that this is my own personal opinion.) |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 08:27:55 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'm not going to do the nit picking word game. I'm sure you knew what I meant, but I'll be more specific. A baby that can survive, with care, not connected to an umbilical cord is a person, in my opinion. Also, in my opinion, an elderly person or a person of any age that needs a machine to function are people. An embryo is not a person. It's survival depends solely on the survival of it's host. |
You are certainly entitled to that opinion Kelli and it is shared by many people. Personally I find it more satisfying if examples like this can be tied together with simple rules which would allow one to predict the answer for a future scenario. Right now you "an embryo is not a person" sticks out as being unpredictable based on your other assertions. It sounds arbitrary. This is one of the advantages (despite other possible ramifications) of the "person at fertilization". It is clear and consistent. (Don't read from this that this is my own personal opinion.) |
There's nothing arbitrary about it. If it has to be connected to my body to survive, then if I choose to end my own life, it also dies. Therefore, it cannot survive without me. If I was 7 months pregnant and they removed it from my body before I drew my final breath, and it survives, it's a person. If I was 6 weeks pregnant and they removed it from my body, it wouldn't survive.
Here's the thing, in a fairy tale scenario I would say if I got pregnant and didn't want the baby, but someone else did and if they could remove it from my body and "grow" it else where, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I'm a realist though, the fact that there are thousands (or maybe hundreds of thousands) of kids that are unwanted in the foster care system shows just how much these people actually care about the kids once they're no longer in some woman's body. They'll never be adopted. I certainly understand the view point of people who don't believe in abortion. I have no problem with them not getting one. Even if they plan on throwing the child away later at some point. It's a shame for the unwanted child. But it's their choice. All I'm saying is I didn't make your choice so don't try to make mine.
eta: And I didn't mean you, as in you. LOL!
Message edited by author 2012-02-17 20:31:48. |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 08:44:10 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'm not going to do the nit picking word game. I'm sure you knew what I meant, but I'll be more specific. A baby that can survive, with care, not connected to an umbilical cord is a person, in my opinion. Also, in my opinion, an elderly person or a person of any age that needs a machine to function are people. An embryo is not a person. It's survival depends solely on the survival of it's host. |
I promise I wasn't trying to nitpick or get into one of those hair-splitting discussions -- I have no interest in that, either. That is why I said I thought I knew what you meant. |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 08:48:17 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'm not going to do the nit picking word game. I'm sure you knew what I meant, but I'll be more specific. A baby that can survive, with care, not connected to an umbilical cord is a person, in my opinion. Also, in my opinion, an elderly person or a person of any age that needs a machine to function are people. An embryo is not a person. It's survival depends solely on the survival of it's host. |
I promise I wasn't trying to nitpick or get into one of those hair-splitting discussions -- I have no interest in that, either. That is why I said I thought I knew what you meant. |
That was directed at the good doc. LOL! He loves to pick out a word and go to town on it. |
|
|
|
02/17/2012 08:50:50 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'm not going to do the nit picking word game. I'm sure you knew what I meant, but I'll be more specific. A baby that can survive, with care, not connected to an umbilical cord is a person, in my opinion. Also, in my opinion, an elderly person or a person of any age that needs a machine to function are people. An embryo is not a person. It's survival depends solely on the survival of it's host. |
I promise I wasn't trying to nitpick or get into one of those hair-splitting discussions -- I have no interest in that, either. That is why I said I thought I knew what you meant. |
That was directed at the good doc. LOL! He loves to pick out a word and go to town on it. |
hehe. okay. :) |
|
|
|
02/18/2012 09:38:00 AM · #265 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm in the pro-choice camp myself, actually; I don't think abortion should be a crime. But I think there have to be limits; I think there has to be a point beyond which it is NOT an OK thing to terminate that life.
R. |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I think the overwhelming majority of pro-choice folks agree with you. |
As you well know I do, Robert.
My point is that within a reasonable time frame, that choice should be the woman's, and the woman's alone.
Obviously, the whole time frame concept is arguable, but that's another thing entirely.
I'm also in the camp that has an issue with the irresponsibility at this point of unlimited procreation. And I also question the validity of those who scream long and hard against abortion but who are not willing to adopt the unwanted children whose lives may have little hope. It's definitely no black and white topic, but in this day and age to be against contraception isn't exactly a responsible stance for the future of the Earth....
|
|
|
|
02/18/2012 09:59:32 AM · #266 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are being too emotional about it. If there is medical necessity, then yes, otherwise no. If it's just a ploy and wasted procedure then I'm not going to defend it. If there's reason for it, then there's reason for it no matter who you are or what happened.
Let's not forget if something goes wrong the poor old doctor gets sued so if they have to make sure X,Y, and Z are in order before or after the procedure, what are you going to do? |
Come now doc. My first 2 were logical appeals and you ignored them. Too emotional about it? Come on. Don't be insulting here. It IS an emotional matter. You keep falling back on this "if there is a medical necessity" without bothering to back up that there is, and with what I've seen of the discussion that followed, there isn't.
And yes, I know all about stupid lawsuits. I work at a private school for rich kids in Korea and the parents threaten to sue for every little injury. But don't try to swing this about something it's not. Those "poor old doctors" don't HAVE to probe a woman's vagina to do the procedure. Even if they did, why make the law? Wouldn't that be an obvious given then? They don't need a law to tell people they need x-rays before surgery, they just do it.
There was an obvious attempt at hiding an agenda here. Don't play coy. |
|
|
|
02/18/2012 10:43:42 AM · #267 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... I also question the validity of those who scream long and hard against abortion but who are .... |
... in favor of capital punishment. |
|
|
|
02/18/2012 12:40:26 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... I also question the validity of those who scream long and hard against abortion but who are .... |
... in favor of capital punishment. |
and war. |
|
|
|
02/18/2012 01:44:33 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... I also question the validity of those who scream long and hard against abortion but who are .... |
... in favor of capital punishment. |
and war. |
Or those that are for abortion but against capital punishment or war. . . . (sorry, figured SOMEONE was going to say it).
|
|
|
|
02/18/2012 02:10:26 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... I also question the validity of those who scream long and hard against abortion but who are .... |
... in favor of capital punishment. |
and war. |
Or those that are for abortion but against capital punishment or war. . . . (sorry, figured SOMEONE was going to say it). |
ah but the difference is... anti-abortion folks think they're both killing a human life. With pro-choice people, that is not the usual consensus. In either case I don't think anyone is particularly "for abortion". Most are for choice, as a last resort. I'm for sex education and widely available contraceptives... which brings us back to this birth control nonsense. |
|
|
|
02/18/2012 02:46:00 PM · #271 |
| nonononononn, whatever you do, DON'T bring this thread back on topic. :P |
|
|
|
02/18/2012 03:51:15 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by karmat:
nonononononn, whatever you do, DON'T bring this thread back on topic. :P |
Ha. Bottom line as I see it, is this isn't about birth control. It's about control. Period. And sex is something you just can't, and shouldn't control.
Sexual repression leads to all sorts of disasters. I'd question why we haven't figured this out yet, but I fear the people leading the fight already have, and want it that way.
People with healthy sex lives are generally happier. Happier people don't follow like sheep as easily. Desperate and unhappy people do. To condemn sex is to try to squelch free thinking. |
|
|
|
02/18/2012 06:00:16 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
...People with healthy sex lives are generally happier. Happier people don't follow like sheep as easily. Desperate and unhappy people do. To condemn sex is to try to squelch free thinking. |
Fine. Go ahead and blame my wife. But she is just SO HOT ! :-)
|
|
|
|
02/18/2012 11:33:47 PM · #274 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
People with healthy sex lives are generally happier. Happier people don't follow like sheep as easily. Desperate and unhappy people do. To condemn sex is to try to squelch free thinking. |
Whoa! That was a tour de force of connections... ;) |
|
|
|
02/18/2012 11:44:31 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
People with healthy sex lives are generally happier. Happier people don't follow like sheep as easily. Desperate and unhappy people do. To condemn sex is to try to squelch free thinking. |
Whoa! That was a tour de force of connections... ;) |
Go ahead. I dare you to say sex doesn't make you happy! ;D |
|
