| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/30/2009 11:58:56 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Does it make you feel good to try to twist people's words and make it sound like they say rotten things? Does that get your rocks off? |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Wow...I just don't know how to respond to that, so I won't. I'm done responding to you until you grow up. |
Okay......let's do this.....let's stipulate that you're the mature one here.
How about answering the questions as to how it is that you play such a large part in your wife's pregnancy?
You seem to want to take cheap shots and try to engage in petty comments.
Either put up, or shut up.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2009 10:12:02 AM · #152 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Matthew:
[...]It is far more sensible to consider "when" not "if" abortion may be acceptable, balancing the growing sentience of the foetus with the rights of the mother. Incidentally, I would never want to be in the situation to contemplate abortion (like most people) and I have a lot of sympathy for those who oppose late term abortion. |
I don't know what the law is in the U.K. with respect to third-trimester abortion (and I'm curious if you know), but in the U.S. it is illegal in every state, except where the life or health of the mother is at risk. So when you oppose late-term abortion in the U.S., it means that you support forcing a woman to carry to term a child that has extremely little or no chance of survival, or forcing a woman to carry to term a pregnancy which may threaten her life. In most states in the U.S. a woman must get two physicians to sign off on a late-term abortion, and they are very rarely done. There seems to be a misconception that third-trimester abortions are "elective" in the same way that early abortions are, and that's just not the case.
My Late-Term Abortion |
The UK law is broadly similar in effect. Paraphrasing it, abortion before 24 weeks is only available if two doctors agree that the threat to the woman's mental or physical health is greater if she carries to term than to have an abortion (but this is almost always very easy to establish). After 24 weeks it can only happen in cases of grave danger or serious handicap.
I probably miswrote a bit - I was thinking of the debate as to when the elective period should end - 24 weeks is quite late, potentially postdating viability, and I would have some sympathy for bringing that date forwards by a few weeks. The article was illuminating - for which thanks.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2009 10:15:37 AM · #153 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Prenatal development is so explosive that by the end of the 43rd day, every unborn child has a heart that is beating and a brain that is producing brainwave activity. Since few abortions take place prior to week six every child abortion kills has a functioning heart and brain. |
I think that the morning after pill is used significantly more often than any other form of abortion. It is usually used within a few days of conception. For other types of abortion in the UK in 2006, nearly 20% of other abortions were at under 6 weeks and 68% were at under 10 weeks.
You appear to have moved your goalposts if your true objection only arises 6 weeks after conception. It is far more sensible to consider "when" not "if" abortion may be acceptable, balancing the growing sentience of the foetus with the rights of the mother. ... |
Just to check - should I accept silence as acquiescence?
|
|
|
|
07/31/2009 10:41:19 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by crayon:
due to anti-abortion laws, some women died because they are forced to do abortion by non-legal doctors. |
In 1972, the year prior to legalization of abortion, the CDC recorded 39 deaths from illegal abortion. These abortions weren't preformed by doctors with rusty coat hangers, they were physicians in good standings.
I don't want to discount the deaths due to abortion, but this is a very small number. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 10:51:49 AM · #155 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Prenatal development is so explosive that by the end of the 43rd day, every unborn child has a heart that is beating and a brain that is producing brainwave activity. Since few abortions take place prior to week six every child abortion kills has a functioning heart and brain. |
I think that the morning after pill is used significantly more often than any other form of abortion. It is usually used within a few days of conception. For other types of abortion in the UK in 2006, nearly 20% of other abortions were at under 6 weeks and 68% were at under 10 weeks.
You appear to have moved your goalposts if your true objection only arises 6 weeks after conception. It is far more sensible to consider "when" not "if" abortion may be acceptable, balancing the growing sentience of the foetus with the rights of the mother. Incidentally, I would never want to be in the situation to contemplate abortion (like most people) and I have a lot of sympathy for those who oppose late term abortion. |
Sorry, there is so much going on with this thread and I do have to work.
It is more sensible to consider when abortion is acceptable. It comes down to if you believe the union of sperm and egg is a person. When the supreme court decided on Roe vs Wade, it was unknown when life began. That was 36 years ago. Science has shown that the zygote is a human. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 11:30:42 AM · #156 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Just curious, do you believe in the death penalty as it stands now? |
With the death penalty, a person is given a trial with evidence against them. A judgment is made and the court convicts them to death. Then a long drawn out process of appeals is made. The death usually occurs long after the trial.
Yes, some innocent victims are put to death, but I hope it's rare.
What happens with abortion, mother has a choice. If she chooses abortion, some innocent child dies. No evidence, no long drawn out appeals, it's done.
(Sorry, I dodged the question. Start another thread about the death penalty. I don't want to over tax this thread with other important tangents. Now I need to earn some money.)
|
|
|
|
07/31/2009 11:41:16 AM · #157 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Just curious, do you believe in the death penalty as it stands now? |
With the death penalty, a person is given a trial with evidence against them. A judgment is made and the court convicts them to death. Then a long drawn out process of appeals is made. The death usually occurs long after the trial.
Yes, some innocent victims are put to death, but I hope it's rare.
What happens with abortion, mother has a choice. If she chooses abortion, some innocent child dies. No evidence, no long drawn out appeals, it's done.
(Sorry, I dodged the question. Start another thread about the death penalty. I don't want to over tax this thread with other important tangents. Now I need to earn some money.) |
I'm not trying to take the thread off track, it's just that usually the most zealous anti-abortion people are pro-death penalty. I don't get it. I was just looking to confirm what I thought. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 12:37:00 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
It is more sensible to consider when abortion is acceptable. It comes down to if you believe the union of sperm and egg is a person. When the supreme court decided on Roe vs Wade, it was unknown when life began. That was 36 years ago. Science has shown that the zygote is a human. |
I think it's pretty clear that you're strongly against abortion.
That's fine.
I'm still looking for an answer from you that in any way justifies your stance that the man is relevant in the pregnancy that would empower him to have any right to require the female carrying his sperm to risk her life.
It's been proven that state of mind is important for any condition that causes stress, but this isn't specific.......a trusted companion can provide the same thing as the father of the child as far as feelings of comfort and well being.
Truth be told, other than some righteous indignation, nobody, including the males in this discussion seem to have anything going on this topic.
I guess what I find so intriguing is how well the relationship of a man and a woman work when a family is the plan, and yet how much of the responsibility ends up in the hands of the mother, whether intentional or not.
The choice to be a parent for the mother is pretty much a foregone conclusion.......the choice of the male relies almost exclusively on the desire to *BE* a parent, and his actual willingness and participation once the child is here.
Moms are pretty cool! I live in a constant state of admiration and respect for the female of the species, and it all started because of the amazing person my Mom was.
Oh.....and just to throw another weird little twist to it, I was adopted at five months of age......my Mom is the wonderful woman who raised me and taught me evrything that is good and decent about me.
I never sought out my "Real" mother.......my Mom was my real mother in every possible way that a woman can raise, nurture, and teach a child.
Message edited by author 2009-07-31 12:41:24. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 12:47:55 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'm not trying to take the thread off track, it's just that usually the most zealous anti-abortion people are pro-death penalty. I don't get it. I was just looking to confirm what I thought. |
I don't understand it either. Maybe I'm not a zealous anti-abortionist.
One thing I also don't get are Vegans/Vegetarians are pro-choice (at least the ones I talk to). It's okay to save a cow, duck, or any other animal, but it's not okay to say save a human.
edit: say => save
edit:
I also don't like any zealous group. They aren't open minded. I'm also hoping this thread doesn't go off track and fall into Godwin's Law.
Message edited by author 2009-07-31 14:29:15. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 12:59:00 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'm not trying to take the thread off track, it's just that usually the most zealous anti-abortion people are pro-death penalty. I don't get it. I was just looking to confirm what I thought. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I don't understand it either. Maybe I'm not a zealous anti-abortionist.
One thing I also don't get are Vegans/Vegetarians are pro-choice (at least the ones I talk to). It's okay to save a cow, duck, or any other animal, but it's not okay to say save a human.
edit: say => save |
Do you understand what the term pro-choice means?
It doesn't mean kill every known fetus.
It means having the right to make your own decision about your body.
It's a common, and not particularly attractive trait of rabid anti-abortionists to portray pro-choice advocates as soulless murderers.
That however, is a blatant misconception. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 01:12:44 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That however, is a blatant misconception. |
Right on a par with your portrayal of all women as saints and all men as parasites...
Now, before you get your knickers in a twist, I do realize that's not what you're saying, but, brother, that's how it's coming across... I have been reading your polemics against nullix with my jaw dropping in astonishment; I can't imagine why you're being so hard on him as to, apparently, deny the validity of the hard-won partnership he has seemingly forged with his wife. Hey, if it works for them, why rain on his parade?
R. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 01:23:55 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's a common, and not particularly attractive trait of rabid anti-abortionists to portray pro-choice advocates as soulless murderers. |
Yeah. Last October in the overheated atmosphere leading up to the US presidential election, my hometown newspaper printed a letter-to-the-editor that referred to Democrats as "baby butcherers."
Apropos of this thread... Did anyone else see the Bill Moyers Journal segment last week about inflammatory speech on the airwaves? If interested, the video and the transcript are available here.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2009 04:50:24 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by crayon:
due to anti-abortion laws, some women died because they are forced to do abortion by non-legal doctors. |
In 1972, the year prior to legalization of abortion, the CDC recorded 39 deaths from illegal abortion. These abortions weren't preformed by doctors with rusty coat hangers, they were physicians in good standings. |
Considering that, at the time, making such a report would be tantamount to admitting a felony, I suspect there were perhaps just a few such deaths which went unreported, and the ones by non-physicians (probably the majority of illegal abortins) would almost certainly not have been reported to CDC.
I'm sure women will occasionally die from complications of a legal abortion as well -- it is not a risk-free procedure -- and neither is pregnancy/childbirth. I guess I don't see the relevance of your statistic at this point. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 05:00:53 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That however, is a blatant misconception. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Right on a par with your portrayal of all women as saints and all men as parasites...
Now, before you get your knickers in a twist, I do realize that's not what you're saying, but, brother, that's how it's coming across... I have been reading your polemics against nullix with my jaw dropping in astonishment; I can't imagine why you're being so hard on him as to, apparently, deny the validity of the hard-won partnership he has seemingly forged with his wife. Hey, if it works for them, why rain on his parade? |
If you read my post talking about things we do for our families, my points were simply that whatever two people do for each other in the way of help & comfort is as a part of the relationship and should not be confused with having any bearing on the woman's carring a child through the gestation period.
The things that nullix was talking about doing are simply part of the give and take of any couple as they go through life.
Pregnancy is a physiological change in a woman's body and there is NOTHING that a man do to assume any part of that.
How is this hard to understand?
If you want to extrapolate that as being worthless, or invalidating the man as a part of a relationship, that's your choice.
My wife and I have been together for 31 years.....we still genuinely like each other after all these years, and I can pretty much guarantee you that you'd be hard pressed to find a couple who is as in tune with each other as we are.
We were together for 16 years before our daughter came along......we were married, had lived in our house for ten years, had the business for 7 years, and were comfortably settled in such a manner that we were able to completely concentrate on what was involved in becoming new parents.
We had quite teh advantage over most people as we were able to afford to have my wife quit her job; I closed my sports car shop for two months in case I was needed, I was, and we had enough money to comfortably take care of pretty much any contingency that may crop up during initial parenthood.
It was an absolutely spectacular point in our life, and I am ever so grateful forhow blessed to have it work out so well for us. It was probably as close as it could get to being the perfect start under the most ideal of circumstances.
But make no mistake.....my wife carried our daughter, and nothing that I did affected how the pregnancy went other than the obvious efforts I put forth to make her comfortable and happy as I would anyway because I love her. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 05:10:41 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by crayon:
due to anti-abortion laws, some women died because they are forced to do abortion by non-legal doctors. |
In 1972, the year prior to legalization of abortion, the CDC recorded 39 deaths from illegal abortion. These abortions weren't preformed by doctors with rusty coat hangers, they were physicians in good standings. |
Considering that, at the time, making such a report would be tantamount to admitting a felony, I suspect there were perhaps just a few such deaths which went unreported, and the ones by non-physicians (probably the majority of illegal abortins) would almost certainly not have been reported to CDC. |
Prosecutors didn't go after the women, they went after the doctors who performed the abortions. The women where granted immunity if they turned in the doctors.
You also speak about non-physician abortions. If I get my girlfriend pregnant and I try to abort the child (won't got into detail) and my girlfriend dies, who's at fault for my girlfriend's death? The state that didn't allow her to get an abortion or me? |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 05:20:53 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
You also speak about non-physician abortions. If I get my girlfriend pregnant and I try to abort the child (won't got into detail) and my girlfriend dies, who's at fault for my girlfriend's death? The state that didn't allow her to get an abortion or me? |
I assume they would prosecute you for both murder/manslaughter and for performing the illegal medical procedure, and maybe for practicing medicine without a license if they really want to pile on. You didn't mention how old she was at the time you impregnated her -- there could be other charges as well.
However, I think it was/is relatively rare for the sire to be involved in an illegal abortion -- I'm sure it usually involved an "underground" medical provider of some sort, or women attempting the procedure on themselves. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 10:00:34 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
If I get my girlfriend pregnant and I try to abort the child (won't got into detail) and my girlfriend dies, who's at fault for my girlfriend's death? The state that didn't allow her to get an abortion or me? |
Why do you insist on asking bizarre and absurd questions instead of having a reasonable discussion?
|
|
|
|
08/01/2009 02:19:39 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Truth be told, I'm curious as to the OP's motinve in starting the thread.
Has all the earmarks of being inflammatory..... |
Which is why you've stuck around for the entire thing.
:rolleyes |
|
|
|
08/01/2009 06:44:30 AM · #169 |
Message edited by author 2009-08-01 08:39:00. |
|
|
|
08/02/2009 08:33:12 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
It is more sensible to consider when abortion is acceptable. It comes down to if you believe the union of sperm and egg is a person. When the supreme court decided on Roe vs Wade, it was unknown when life began. That was 36 years ago. Science has shown that the zygote is a human. |
Hardly - we've known for a very long time that a zygote was alive and composed of human cells. However, it is a matter of judgement as to when it is substantial enough to attract meaningful rights.
Out of interest, why not extend the protection to gametes?
|
|
|
|
08/02/2009 09:09:22 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
At no time have I ever mentioned a belief system. It's pretty straight forward and doesn't matter what or who you believe in; don't kill. |
How does a fish describe water? He knows what the air overhead is because it is different, but we can see he lives in water while he is blind to it.
Your belief system is so much a part of your view of this subject (and others I'm sure) that you can't see it at all.
You have given the status of a human being to a lump of tissue and potential, that has fewer hallmarks of humanity than any creature that would end up on your dinner plate. When that potential human is treated as a human being is a gradual accretion during gestation. You only see it as simple because you view it through the lens of your faith. |
|
|
|
08/02/2009 10:39:13 PM · #172 |
A few details that the original article glossed over or omitted completely...
The court heard Rupert's father, Lee Barrett, suffered from congenital heart problems and his maternal grandmother was born with spina bifida. The family's lawyers said Rupert's parents were concerned throughout the pregnancy that he might be born disabled and did not want to see him suffer in the way his father had done. ...the NHS had "admitted liability" in 2006... Women are routinely offered an ultrasound scan at around 20 weeks’ gestation, to check that the baby is developing normally. Unless any concerns are discovered this is the last scan they will receive before the birth. Abortion is allowed in Britain up to the 24th week of pregnancy. Beyond this a termination can only be sanctioned if the fetus has a severe disability, or of the mother’s life is at risk.
Life itself isn't necessarily living. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 01:27:54 AM · #173 |
The whole case is, to my mind total BS. As anyone who and is over the age of 35 (or is in any high risk group like this woman who is suing) has had a child knows, as soon as you are aware that you are pregnant, you are offered the choice of having an amneocentecis test. This test gives you the karyotype of your child in short a genetic snapshot. If your child has genetic problems or will have downs syndrome you will be able to make an informed choice to continue with the pregnancy. If you don't consider abortion an option, then skip this test, since inserting a needle into the amniotic fluid carries a significant risk of miscarriage. If you are a responsible adult and consider abortion a responsible choice, and you rely on an ultra sound rather than risking the amneocenticis, then you took a risk and ought to deal with the results of your choice.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2009 04:26:04 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Nullix:
At no time have I ever mentioned a belief system. It's pretty straight forward and doesn't matter what or who you believe in; don't kill. |
You have given the status of a human being to a lump of tissue and potential, that has fewer hallmarks of humanity than any creature that would end up on your dinner plate. |
Hallmarks of humanity:
DNA of a human
Mother and father are human
I don't think it'll turn into a fish or cow.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
When that potential human is treated as a human being is a gradual accretion during gestation. You only see it as simple because you view it through the lens of your faith. |
So when is a potential human become human? It's not a newborn baby, they cannot thrive without some care and yet it's against the law to kill it. Maybe it's when a child becomes self aware or independent from their parents?
|
|
|
|
08/03/2009 04:29:53 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Life itself isn't necessarily living. |
But who makes the decision?
Kid: The unborn can't make that decision
Mother: That's the main question isn't it.
HealthCare: It would get pretty scary if your insurance company started making this decision.
State: Well, there are countries that make this decision. It's not too pretty.
|
|
