Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Saying that the fetus is a threat to the life of the mother is akin to saying motor vehicle drivers are threats to the lives of people in general. Yes, it's true technically, but the rate of occurance is exceedingly rare. In the United States, maternal death rate was roughly 13 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2006 (source .) In the same year, there were roughly 17 people killed by motor vehicles for every 100,000 registered vehicles (source.) By your reasoning, it should be reasonable & legal for me to pick up a gun and start putting bullets in the heads of drivers near me, just to be sure none of them kill me. Silliness to be sure.
Strawman.
And an absurd one, no less.
The cars on the road aren't a direct threat to me, personally unless they're coming at me head-on and gunning their accelerator. And guess what? If they're doing that, and I have possession of a gun and can see them coming, you're damn right I have the legal right to shoot them in the head. And I will not be convicted of murder for doing so. It's a thing called self-defense. Which is legal.
But thank you for pointing out the prevalence of maternal DEATH, even in our first-world country.
I'll once again remind you, you have no right to dictate what risks I should have to take with my own body.
In fact, I'll even use your strawman argument. If I'm afraid of being killed in a car accident, you cannot force me to drive and take the risk that I'll be one of those 17 in 100,000.
I have a question for the people that are pro this legislation. Would you be interested in follow through monitoring of this kid's life, or would that be too much government intrusion for you? Would you be interested in making sure the mother has the means to give this child a good life, or would you balk at the taxpayer expense?
In the event that the child is neglected, would you be interested in taking the child in yourselves, or would you leave it to the government to decide it's fate? In the event that the child is chronically impoverished, and grows up to exhibit extreme antisocial behavior, and murders somebody in the course of committing a crime - would you be interested in liberating the now adult child from death row? Or is saving the life only pertinent prior to it becoming an entity outside of it's mother?
Jill61 - Your response shows that you do not understand the concept of PROPERTY. You, as the possession of some man, do NOT HAVE A SAY. Why is this so difficult for you and all women to understand this concept? You are not FREE you are OWNED.
PS: This argument is for illustration ONLY. I do not believe or tolerate anyone owning ME or anyone else regardless of gender.
The cars on the road aren't a direct threat to me, personally unless they're coming at me head-on and gunning their accelerator. And guess what? If they're doing that, and I have possession of a gun and can see them coming, you're damn right I have the legal right to shoot them in the head. And I will not be convicted of murder for doing so. It's a thing called self-defense. Which is legal.
But thank you for pointing out the prevalence of maternal DEATH, even in our first-world country.
I'll once again remind you, you have no right to dictate what risks I should have to take with my own body.
In fact, I'll even use your strawman argument. If I'm afraid of being killed in a car accident, you cannot force me to drive and take the risk that I'll be one of those 17 in 100,000.
MY body, MY choice.
In case that wasn't clear,
MY body, MY choice.
No, the strawman was yours. You said that it was ok to kill a human being. And you justified it by saying that the human in question, the fetus, presents a significant risk to the life of the mother. That, of course, is not true. 14 out of 100,000 is less than 2 100ths of one percent. While sad, that's not, in my opinion, enough of a reason to allow human beings to be killed any more than is allowing pedestrians (who by the way are part of the 17 out of 100,000 killed by cars) to kill nearby motor vehicle drivers. And since you erroneously state that those people made a choice to put themsemves in the dangerous position that allows them to be killed by a car, I'll also point out that in the overwhelming majority of instances of a woman getting pregnant, she has indeed made a choice that led to that condition.
If, for some reason, it matters to you, I'll tell you this; I am not a particularly anti abortion guy. If there is going to be a discussion, I think it ought to be intellectualy honest. Categorizing a fetus as a significant threat to a womans life does not strike me as such. I agree that it's the womans choice to end a pregnancy if that's what she decides she needs to do. I have no interest in "controlling all women" as some of the zealots like to suggest. I also have no interest in banning abortions completely. But I think there needs to be a line somewhere. I recognize (perhaps BELIEVE is a more appropriate word here) that the collection of cells that exists 2 days after conception is not a human being. At the same time, I believe that the living, breathing, reacting being that exists at 25 weeks IS a human being, and as such deserves to be protected from ANYONE that wants to kill it, including it's mother. Now, this is mostly an acedemic and political issue, even though it fires up so many emotions, as the overwhelming majority (something like 90%, if I remember correctly) of abortions in the US are performed before the 13th week. I am troubled when the conversation comes up and I am reminded that something close to 1,000 "abortions" are performed every year when the woman is beyond the 24th week.
Jill61 - Your response shows that you do not understand the concept of PROPERTY. You, as the possession of some man, do NOT HAVE A SAY. Why is this so difficult for you and all women to understand this concept? You are not FREE you are OWNED.
PS: This argument is for illustration ONLY. I do not believe or tolerate anyone owning ME or anyone else regardless of gender.
I understood your sarcasm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan
No, the strawman was yours. You said that it was ok to kill a human being. And you justified it by saying that the human in question, the fetus, presents a significant risk to the life of the mother. That, of course, is not true. 14 out of 100,000 is less than 2 100ths of one percent. While sad, that's not, in my opinion, enough of a reason to allow human beings to be killed any more than is allowing pedestrians (who by the way are part of the 17 out of 100,000 killed by cars) to kill nearby motor vehicle drivers. And since you erroneously state that those people made a choice to put themsemves in the dangerous position that allows them to be killed by a car, I'll also point out that in the overwhelming majority of instances of a woman getting pregnant, she has indeed made a choice that led to that condition.
If, for some reason, it matters to you, I'll tell you this; I am not a particularly anti abortion guy. If there is going to be a discussion, I think it ought to be intellectualy honest. Categorizing a fetus as a significant threat to a womans life does not strike me as such. I agree that it's the womans choice to end a pregnancy if that's what she decides she needs to do. I have no interest in "controlling all women" as some of the zealots like to suggest. I also have no interest in banning abortions completely. But I think there needs to be a line somewhere. I recognize (perhaps BELIEVE is a more appropriate word here) that the collection of cells that exists 2 days after conception is not a human being. At the same time, I believe that the living, breathing, reacting being that exists at 25 weeks IS a human being, and as such deserves to be protected from ANYONE that wants to kill it, including it's mother. Now, this is mostly an acedemic and political issue, even though it fires up so many emotions, as the overwhelming majority (something like 90%, if I remember correctly) of abortions in the US are performed before the 13th week. I am troubled when the conversation comes up and I am reminded that something close to 1,000 "abortions" are performed every year when the woman is beyond the 24th week.
I'm going to keep this simple.
You're arguing against a statement I NEVER MADE.
Nowhere. Ever. In any post. Nowhere, did I say that pregnancy posed a "significant threat to a woman's life".
Nowhere.
I presented a list of SERIOUS risks of pregnancies. Serious /= Significant, even if you'd like to spin it that way to give your argument more credence.
And it matters not whether you think the risk is "insignificant". It only matters that the risk exists, and that the person who is at risk is the only person who should make the decision whether or not they're willing to take that risk.
I understood your sarcasm. I'm going to keep this simple.
You're arguing against a statement I NEVER MADE.
Nowhere. Ever. In any post. Nowhere, did I say that pregnancy posed a "significant threat to a woman's life".
Nowhere.
I presented a list of SERIOUS risks of pregnancies. Serious /= Significant, even if you'd like to spin it that way to give your argument more credence.
And it matters not whether you think the risk is "insignificant". It only matters that the risk exists, and that the person who is at risk is the only person who should make the decision whether or not they're willing to take that risk.
You
Cannot
Force
ME
To
Take
Risks
With
MY
Health
or
Life
No
Matter
How
Insignificant
YOU
Find
Those
Risks.
MY risk, MY choice.
Let me ask it this way then; are there other circumstances where you would feel it's ok for a person to kill another person who represents such a minor threat to their life? Less than two one hundredths of a percent of pregnancies result in the death of the pregnant woman. I've offered up one example of a roughly equivelant risk; motor vehicle drivers. I'm sure there are other situations where there is some risk. Is it always ok to kill the people who present that risk, or are unborn babies the only ones?
Let me ask it this way then; are there other circumstances where you would feel it's ok for a person to kill another person who represents such a minor threat to their life? Less than two one hundredths of a percent of pregnancies result in the death of the pregnant woman. I've offered up one example of a roughly equivelant risk; motor vehicle drivers. I'm sure there are other situations where there is some risk. Is it always ok to kill the people who present that risk, or are unborn babies the only ones?
Oh goodie, another strawman! Woo Hoo!
YES, as I've said before, it's ALWAYS okay to kill people who present a clear and present danger to your life, not just unborn ones!
Let me ask it this way; is there a level of risk you feel you have a right to force a woman to take with her own life, even if she doesn't want to? From any source? If, say, there's only a two one hundredths of a percent chance that the guy swinging at me with a knife, will actually make contact and kill me, should the law prohibit me from using deadly force to protect myself against that possibility?
This is the reality.
Bill Control is available everywhere. Bill Control is not used and also not always 100% effective.
People don't use Birth control and don't care.
Women who are raped and get pregnant from the rapist is RARE!
Major decisions based on how we control sexual activity "birth control" opens the door to how you control someones actions after the sex.
We have 2 groups of people actually those who seek to control sex and pregnancy and those who wish to control that person after the sex act and the pregnancy.
If its the woman's body and she had the option in most causes for birth control why are we paying for abortions as well. After all if your going to control a woman's choice and or not control it let her be responsible for the actions.
Listening to a heart beat is just as crazy as funding for condoms its either are just reactions to a problem and a proposed supposed solution.
How about close your legs and or pay the price, or is that not compassionate enough. Or would it hurt or be compassionate to let the person decide after hearing a heartbeat what the right course of action would be.
Women don't like guilt or remorse or shame and Christians and Catholics are the masters of guilt complexes.
Let me ask it this way then; is there a level of risk you feel you have a right to force a woman to take with her own life, even if she doesn't want to? From any source? If, say, there's only a two one hundredths of a percent chance that the guy swinging at me with a knife, will actually make contact and kill me, should the law prohibit me from using deadly force to protect myself against that possibility?
I can't wait to hear the answer to this one.
So you don't make a distinction for the intent of the person who presents the risk?
Why won't you answer my question? It's a simple one. You say it's ok to kill someone who represents a threat to you. I simply want to know if you think that's ok in EVERY case, or just the specific one.
YES, as I've said before, it's ALWAYS okay to kill people who present a clear and present danger to your life, not just unborn ones!
Let me ask it this way; is there a level of risk you feel you have a right to force a woman to take with her own life, even if she doesn't want to? From any source? If, say, there's only a two one hundredths of a percent chance that the guy swinging at me with a knife, will actually make contact and kill me, should the law prohibit me from using deadly force to protect myself against that possibility?
I can't wait to hear the answer to this one.
Of course the law should not prevent you from protecting yourself, with deadly force. Of course, this is not analagous to a woman getting an abortion because she believes her life is threatened by the fetus. The fetus is not a malicious being with the intent to kill the mother. Any threat to the mother by the fetus is purely accidental. And please note that I've never said that I believe a woman shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. In fact, I very clearly stated the opposite. Where we disagree is when the fetus has become a human being. I don't know when that happens, but surely it does, and it is before the baby is actually born. My thought on the matter is somewhere near the 20-22 week mark. And if a woman has made the DECISION to allow the baby to get to that age, then it's too late to allow her to suddenly change her mind and kill it. It is MY belief that once it's a human being, no one should be allowed to kill it. I'm more than a little surprised that, with the level of scientific knowledge we have, we have not yet established a baseline date at which we know it's a human being, and therefore afforded the same protections as the rest of us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
