Printable View
You are the master.... :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
A woman decides over her own body. A child is not in her body, thus no longer a part of hers. An "abortion" at 39 weeks is actually called a ceasarian birth, and will render a child as a result. All for you to pick up and take responsibility for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
A relief.... ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Well, the view on womens are very different. A woman does not (in reality) have equal rights with a man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Further more, sex outside marriage is punishable with up to 2 years in prison.
I don't read New York Times, so no I am not defending the woman you describe. Regardless, she is still in charge over her own body. Doesn't matter how arrogant she is, that is just a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I don't understand this statement. :embarassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zharakov
You do relise that this type of birthing was done in the originally to save the life of the baby and that it usually caused the death of the mother. Just the opposite of abortion.Quote:
A woman decides over her own body. A child is not in her body, thus no longer a part of hers. An "abortion" at 39 weeks is actually called a ceasarian birth, and will render a child as a result. All for you to pick up and take responsibility for.
In Indonesia, they very well may perform a cesarian section delivery on a woman if she decides in week 38 she no longer wants to deliver the child and wants an abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
In the United States, that is not what is done. An extraction and dilation procedure is done. First, through a series of speculums, the woman is opened very wide. Then, the abortionist inserts a forceps to turn the fetus so that it is presented for birth. He guides it partway down the birth canal. The skull is then punctured with a scalpel and a vaccuum is inserted to evacuate the cranial contents. When the skull implodes due to the vaccuum pressure, the doctor then uses a scalpel to partition the rest of the fetus's body (cut the arms & legs off of the torso, if large enough, possibly cuts the torso into multiple pieces). Next, he inserts a vaccuum to suck out all of the fetus body fragments and the sections of the placenta. Finally, her uterus is bathed in a saline solution to prevent infection.
There is no child that is produced by this process to be given to an adoption agency. Just a large sack of bio-waste (limbs, organs and blood) to be given to the incinerator. Why, you ask? Because most abortionists (not people who support the right, I mean the people actually in the business) claim that the process of delivering a child for adoption is too traumatic & stressful for women, always knowing the child is out there. They claim that only the finality of an abortion can end that. In reality, the reasoning behind it that such a procedure is a veritable gold mine for the doctor performing it. He makes about $15K US directly (not counting what the clinic & staff makes) and it's covered by insurance.
One more time, I am not saying that women should the right to choose stripped away from arbitrarily. While I abhor the process, I cannot justify banning earlier term abortion on legal grounds prior to ~week 18. "I" am trying to end the barbaric practice I just outlined above that happens
Yes maybe Zharakov will care to explain a little...Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
I totally agree with this, it's a gold mine and that justification is totally stupid. But this doesn't proove anything against our point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Well, again barbaric from your point of view. If i tear down my televesion ot pieces and it doesn't feel anything, why should i care. It's not barbaric it's just a damn thing.Quote:
One more time, I am not saying that women should the right to choose stripped away from arbitrarily. While I abhor the process, I cannot justify banning earlier term abortion on legal grounds prior to ~week 18. "I" am trying to end the barbaric practice I just outlined above that happens
Science, law and medicine are against you on this one. Despite what you happen to think, no miracle happens when the baby proceeds out of the vagina. It can feel pain long, long before it's viable, let alone before it's actually born. I'm still waiting for you or Bmolsson to offer me any sort of explanation as to what is different, physically between a 38 week old fetus in the womb (which it is okay to chop up and vaccuum) and a 35 week old prematurely born baby (that is a human being with legal rights). There must be some defining characteristic the two of you are using to soothe your consciences to allow you to endorse murder. I'd love to know what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
I thought it was obvious. One is INSIDE the woman, the other one is OUTSIDE the woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Regulating a business practice have nothing to do with the right for a woman to make decisions concerning her own body.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
And that is enough of a difference to give one the full rights that society grants a human being while for the other one life or death could depend on whether the mother likes to go out clubbing on a Saturday night?Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
How so?
Incorrect, he and i already offered you a answer. The individual is just another person when it's separate from the body of the mother, period. If he borns in a laboratory then he's never considered a person. Though the baby may feel pain, i doubt that with a brain that functions similar to a monkey, he can really notice it like a grown person. Anyway the point doesn't turns arround the pain here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Yes because the discussion here is turning arround wheter the fetus is already a person at a determinated time. I don't give full rights to my dog.Quote:
And that is enough of a difference to give one the full rights that society grants a human being while for the other one life or death could depend on whether the mother likes to go out clubbing on a Saturday night?
How so?
Huh? please be a bit more specific - where is a prematurely born baby not considered a person? Personally I am not aware of any country where this would not be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Are you trying to tell me that the mother of a prematurely born baby in Argentina could legally decide to kill the baby?
Regarding the last part of the quoted statement - the same could be said about a "regular" newly born baby. Is a 5-day-old baby a person in your opinion or not?
I am fully aware what the subject of the discussion is (I believe I said something along those lines in an earlier response to Zharakov).Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
What I would like to understand is where you see the decisive difference between a baby/fetus one day before birth and one day after birth. It certainly isn't a difference in the anatomy or the nervous system.
In your opinion the same being is a "dog" inside the womb and a "person" as soon as it leaves the womb.
What constitutes a person in your opinion?
If he borns prematurely then it's ok, you missed some of my responses, the critical moment is the separation of the two bodies, wich determines a new and partially independent human being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Here? In my zealous christian country? Yes....in a millon year maybe. Not it will be wrong because following my own logic it's a different person with full rights.Quote:
Are you trying to tell me that the mother of a prematurely born baby in Argentina could legally decide to kill the baby?
Yes but again you missed the point here, separation of body is what matters, this I did to answer Don Corleone who called the practice of abortion "barbaric", it has little to do with my possition.Quote:
Regarding the last part of the quoted statement - the same could be said about a "regular" newly born baby. Is a 5-day-old baby a person in your opinion or not?
No you're not aware, because i already said what was my possition on the matter. The person exists there where it doesn't depends anymore of the organs of the host, but this person should be concibed or should grow in the womans belly, outside it (that's by artificial maners) a date could be fixed to determine if the grown fetus has adquired full rights as a person, it will make no difference because in this case probably the fetus will not live enough to become one. About your question in legeslation well: here the fetus is protected as a willtobe person right from the conception (respecting the treaty of Costa Rica for human rights), in France it's the samem in Itally too, well i think that this conception is well spreaded world wide. The critical differencial point is not on the previous, but in when it's considered a person. To us it has to born and take a breath at least, or take the doctor's or the mom's hand, to the french it has to live by sometime, maybe hours. As you see no legislation that i know protects the fetus as a person, but as a will to be person. The problem is that following my logic this is totally ad-hoc, and false. If you only protect the person with full rights then you cannot give the same rights to the will to be, that you don't consider a person (with all reason), but in many legislations, if the baby borns death or doesn't lives for enough time it's considered as if he/she has never existed, as you see this position is no longer foundable, even more because it causes obstacles to evolution and freedom. But if you want to protect the fetus as a person from the begining...then well i think all will resolved (freedom aside) but i don't see how anybody will grant some proof to that position.Quote:
I am fully aware what the subject of the discussion is (I believe I said something along those lines in an earlier response to Zharakov).
What I would like to understand is where you see the decisive difference between a baby/fetus one day before birth and one day after birth. It certainly isn't a difference in the anatomy or the nervous system.
In your opinion the same being is a "dog" inside the womb and a "person" as soon as it leaves the womb.
A child relys on its parents to survive...
So does a child have no rights untill it cn live on its own?
The difference, the egg box, the incubator, is actually a woman, a human with it's own rights. A mother doesn't require a permit to do clubbing on a Saturday night as simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
We could of course restrict all people right to have sexual relationships, stone people conducting sex outside marriage and make womens the possession of men with the main function to produce children. That would certainly not create the problems you describe. By the way, I think I heard of a few societies that actually practice this........ ~;)
No, a child doesn't rely on its parents to survive. In a modern society parentless children is cared for either through adoption, foster parents or special homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zharakov
No and yes, a child have limited rights until the day it reaches the age of consent. The age of consent differs in different societies.
The point is it cant live on its own. It must have parents or some type of step parent to take care of it or it will die.Quote:
No, a child doesn't rely on its parents to survive. In a modern society parentless children is cared for either through adoption, foster parents or special homes.
In fact I would say for the first 18 to 22 years kids are more of a parasite as they grow older ~D
Ok Zharakov the key word here is "organic", organic dependence, what you're saying has nothing to do with the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zharakov
You got me there..... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Quite a strawman you are putting up there - has anybody in this thread suggested that this should be done?Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
It seems to me that things here work quite well with a limit to abortions during the first trimester ... at least I haven't seen people being stoned for sex outside marriage that often here in Frankfurt.
At least in Western societies it shouldn't be a major problem to
a) avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place
b) get an abortion during the first trimester should an "accident" happen
The "case" you are making above falls into the same category as the gory 9th months abortion pictures that are used to condemn all abortions - even early-stage ones - nice shock-effect, but nor really based on reality.
No, but I thought your post required some push-ups in response.... :embarassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Maybe they are not clubbing on Saturday night ?? ~:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
You are right. I am sorry..... ~:grouphug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Okay, with the exception of Soulforged & Bmolsson, I'm actually quite pleased to learn that folks agree that a fetus with the ability to live independently should have the right to. I don't know what happened in their lives to make these two so bloodthirsty, but hey, that's not my concern. While I was doing some research, I found a baby picture of Bmolsson.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...0/a357_004.jpg
Wasn't he cute?
Nothing happened saint, i just reason in a different manner. Many jurist remain in my position, here in Argentina one called Orgaz. And let me make a correction, to France and almost all western Europe the fetus is considered a person after born and live for 24 hs. Hey when you ascend to heaven say hello to God, i'll watch you from hell with a banner "i supported abortion bla,bla,bla". :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I have been told so, but there might be different opinons on me today. Specially with a 0 policy on salary increases this year........ ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Ohh so when a Baby is done Brest Feeding...
And what I am saying has lots to do with the subject... Just some don't want to hear another view...
[QUOTE=Zharakov]Wrong because the mother could use accesories for breeding. The individual is one new and separate, it doesn't matter if the medical arguments are different because this is a matter of law.Quote:
Ohh so when a Baby is done Brest Feeding...
Well i readed all your posts, but you didn't add nothing to the subject just sentimentalism and religiuos irracionality. You might want to know that i'm not the only one defending this position there're many jurists that defend it. I found an interesting quote today in a book of Civil Rights, the author (Jorge Joaquín Llambias) gave from one side the possition of Orgaz (the one that defines the person from the birth, giving the same arguments that bmolsson and i gave), from the other side he tried to refute it saying this: we cannot separated the humanity, given by the soul (totally uncomprobable argument with large quotes of irracionality) who already lives in the fetus from the moment of conception and his body wheter it's separate from the host body or not. That's the only argument possible but it's irracional. So if you want to add some argument from your side do so, but don't say that i didn't read yours because is not true.Quote:
And what I am saying has lots to do with the subject... Just some don't want to hear another view...
And because of the medical arguments, the law is wrong!Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Laws change. Those of you who are defending it from a legal point of view are correct. You have the right to get an abortion in any trimester as long as you have an insignificant or significant reason. You can get an abortion as birth control or as a life saving surgery and be within the law. You must also understand that the actions legality wasn't always so. Many of us do not believe that the current laws are ethical or in logical continuum with other laws in this nation and we want or countries abortion laws re-defined and, in some cases, repealled. Anyone who refuses the majority the right to decide this issue on a state or federal level is both appealing to thier own morality and the idea that they know better than the majority and should have more of a say in the government than others.
Correct laws change and this point above abortion must change.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I don't understand this part, but even so you can't abort at least in my country even with the consense of the mother.Quote:
You have the right to get an abortion in any trimester as long as you have an insignificant or significant reason.
No, if you look at the fetus like a person then saying birth control is totally proposterous and wrong.Quote:
You can get an abortion as birth control or as a life saving surgery and be within the law.
What do mean by this?Quote:
You must also understand that the actions legality wasn't always so.
Let's see this. A long while ago a man named Kelsen separated forerever moral and law, why because, though they're not mutually exclusive, they're totally different, one rules over the caracter and life of the individual as a human, a person (the unity in itself), the other rules over the relationships between persons or humans, my arguments has nothing of ethical, it has more to be with rationality and with freedon, ironically the defenders of the human rights for the fetus offer the same argument before the law.Quote:
Many of us do not believe that the current laws are ethical or in logical continuum with other laws in this nation and we want or countries abortion laws re-defined and, in some cases, repealled.
If you're talking about me, again i don't appeal to my morality (in fact it's very reduced in me), and i base my opinion on my study and perception of society, i think that the grown person should not see his freedom reduced because of it's binds to a thing that is just idealized like an human, or from a civil law point of view, the person after the thing.Quote:
Anyone who refuses the majority the right to decide this issue on a state or federal level is both appealing to thier own morality and the idea that they know better than the majority and should have more of a say in the government than others.
I suppose that you come from a common law system, then i'll not tell why your statement is wrong, given the presumption that everybody under that system knows the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlazanderthePrettyGood
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
you don't understand my post?
i don't understand yours.
You are using Argentinian law to influence your opinion on American law without actually knowing what Roe v. Wade actually does. It is simply abortion upon polite request. You are saying that as birth control it is wrong? Why is that? If it is not a human being than how could that possibly be any more wrong than any form of contraception if the woman decides to abort early on? How does that follow logically?