But some do. ALL of those women whose lives are threatened by continuing a pregnancy and thus chose abortion, chose it for that reason.
The reality of personhood is about as far from ephemeral as anything could possibly be; and it behooves pro-lifers to be aware that conceptualization serves as a device for obscuring a good many in the pro-death crowd from that reality. Here's hoping you do not perish by this rhetorical sword as the Jews did in the Holocaust, even though you wield it with such sang froid in defense of this sacred cow of yours.
You link to an article talking about the decrease since 1994, strange that martial rape did not become fully illegal in all states until 1993, so is it really a surprise that the domestic violence crime rate went down in 1994 - The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape became a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes Why is it no surprise that you link to an article composed by a religious organisation in order to try and prove your point, and still it doesn't actually prove your initial point about marriage, can one assume that you concede your initial point was, in fact, wrong. I find it amazing that you still defend marriage as the "golden" ideology given the facts surrounding its history and the obvious discrimination against the female during and right up until the 90's. and you are wrong We have 7 billion for a number of reasons, one of them being that women choose to accept the damages done to their bodies during pregnancy, as they have done from the beginning. Yep better medical care and better dietary conditions have helped, never have I said any different. You do realise that every pregnancy cause injury don't you, injuries that if you were to suffer you would do all in your power to try and fix. These are the things that occur in EVERY pregnancy. 1. A new organ is grown 2. base hormone levels increase by upto 400 times normal levels 3. respiratory system drastically changes, causing a 40 percent increase in cardiac volume 4. 15 percent increase in blood pressure 5. her entire circulatory system is rerouted in order to make her blood supply usable for the growing fetus 6. immune system is suppressed 7. chemicals released into the blood stream affect the brain. 8. the implantation is done through the destruction of uterine wall cells You are only looking at things that might happen, yet ignoring all the things that happen in every pregnancy. The items listed above more than meet the requirements for a woman to use deadly force in self-defence as laid down by the law, and even now some pregnancies are deemed serious literal injuries in law. ALL women who go through pregnancy are injured. Do you know the actual risks involved in a woman getting breast cancer, here they are - Risk up to age 29, 1 in 2,000. Risk up to age 39, 1 in 215. Risk up to age 49, 1 in 50. Risk up to age 59, 1 in 22. Risk up to age 69, 1 in 13. As you can plainly see the highest risk are for women who a pretty much passed their reproductive stage of life. There is also no conclusive evidence to support that pregnancy helps to reduce the risk of breast cancer. The hormonal changes that occur during pregnancy may influence a womans chance of developing breast cancer later in life. Some factors associated with pregnancy may reduce a womans chance of developing breast cancer later in life. Some factors associated with pregnancy may increase a womans chance of developing breast cancer. Induced abortion and miscarriage have not been shown to increase a womans chance of developing breast cancer. - http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/reproductive-history and as you can also see some factors in pregnancy may in fact increase the risk of beast cancer. and these are damages we have very little control over, I'm sure if the time comes when we can medically treat these damages most, if not all, people will do their upmost to combat them .. A woman already has the choice to accept the injuries from pregnancy or not, yet you would deny her the opportunity to avail herself of them. The only time that is going to happen is if, or when, we develop an artificial womb when that happens abortion will be a moot subject. So whose morals do we judge it by, yours, mine or any other person, do we judge it on religious morals, secular morals or individual morals. Laws are put in place to maintain order, they are not based upon the moral judgements of a particular group, hence why you have a separation of church and state, Any government that enforces a particular moral viewpoint will be discriminating against those who follow a different set of morals .. The US was founded by people who were escaping discrimination based on their religious (and so moral) beliefs. Any person is free to live by their own individual moral choices until such time it adversely affects society as a whole. and you are perfectly entitled to that opinion, but to date you have provided nothing to substantiate it.
Actually that post is factual, wall to wall. And held in disdain even though you don't understand it, because you don't dare.
Please tell me you are kidding and are not this ignorant - please Had a patient a while ago where the placenta had grown out of the uterus and onto the bladder - she was an emergency Cesarian and we literally ran out of blood for her Tell me that is NOT life threatening?
And it is only ONE complication. But even in it's reasonable rarity (and are you aware that the incidence of this is increasing in Western Societies?) it still remains a risk and a very serious one.
Can you be any more of a pseudo-intellectual? Good god. It's like you wrote a couple of sentences and then slapped them with a thesaurus.
Considering that I don't much care to be thought of as an intellectual, and bearing in mind that everything I said is true, I'd have to say yes, if I were so inclined. You are more than welcome to your opinion of my writing style, but all you've really accomplished is to indicate that you can't find substantive fault with a syllable of it - which is not particularly remarkable, seeing I know damn well none of your pro-death pals can either.
What a well thought out and competent evaluation of my post....truly your ability to present valuable and useful rebuttal is an asset to discussion. I will explain to my 4 children that It was pure luck that prevented them from being killed shortly after conception.....now excuse me while I attend to the flowers.
Quote Originally Posted by yguy View Post The reality of personhood is about as far from ephemeral as anything could possibly be; and it behooves pro-lifers to be aware that conceptualization serves as a device for obscuring a good many in the pro-death crowd from that reality. Please point out the "Factual" aspects of the above....I am particularly interested in your unique understanding of the Personhood" concept, and how something with no agreed upon definition might be considered fact. The Holocaust connection you need not bother with, as the underlying theories are too flawed to be used as anything even bordering on "Fact".
Sorry but posting an article from the Daily Mail (or Daily Fail as it is known in the UK) is about as creditable as saying "my mothers sister, husbands, best friend, told me so it must be true" Not strictly correct, there is now an operation that renders the male impotent for around 10 years, it is a 45 min procedure that is 100% effective, 100% of the time and is completely reversible with NO side effects. http://www.newmalecontraception.org/vasalgel/ http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff_vasectomy/ Perhaps instead of forcing women to go through pregnancy we should consider forcing men to have this done until such time as they have settled into a long term relationship or in your case marriage .. but I bet that the right-wing men will scream about their bodily rights if it were ever suggested .. go figure on that. Gosh, guess what the same applies to women as well and it happens earlier than in a man. The biological fact is that men (under normal circumstances) produce sperm from the time of puberty until they die . women are only reproductive until they reach and pass the menopause.
Despite your own personal position the idea of consent to sex is consent to pregnancy has already been blown out of the water on numerous occasions, if you wish to willfully ignore that then that is your decision .. however to state the opposite is just plain lying. Tell me what is righteous, moral or justified in forcing a woman by law to undergo a 9 month incursion and injury to her body? The only morons are those that insist that they know what is better and right for another person, imposing their moralistic values onto others, trying to enforce laws based on primarily religious dogma when your country specifically disallows that. That has already been disproved. Again, nothing to support it apart from your opinion. The views on circumcision are changing Circumcision of adults who grant personal informed consent for the surgical operation is not at issue and is unquestionably lawful. In the United States, non-therapeutic circumcision of male children has long been assumed to be lawful in every jurisdiction provided that one parent grants surrogate informed consent, however Adler (2013) has recently challenged the validity of this assumption. As with every country, doctors who circumcise children must take care that all applicable rules regarding informed consent and safety are satisfied. Alder (2013) - http://rjolpi.richmond.edu/archive/Adler_Formatted.pdf You should add "in my opinion" to that because you haven't given a single creditable piece of evidence to support it, in fact everything you have tried to bring forward has been thoroughly debunked.
I need to go on record and fess up. I misread your post. I thought you were implying children could be considered subhuman till the age of 6 months. missed the fetus part. an entirely different argument. serves me right to be wrong posting with a severe cold. sorry.
Correct .. however yet again pro-lifers miss the elephant in the room, any payments made after the birth are for the benefit of the that child not for the woman, and it is not the woman who forces the man to pay it is the courts, unless he makes an agreement to do so prior to the involvement of the courts, and this works the other way, if the man is the custodian of the children the woman can also be made to pay towards the costs of the children. On a personal note I would be more than happy to allow the "sperm donor" to relinquish parental rights and so require no payment from them .. I just hope the conservatives can swallow the marked increase in welfare to support these children.
Irrelevant to whether or not abortion is moral or should be legal. Either way, you just proved my point that (at least some) women who have abortions are irresponsible and selfish jerks.
Me too. All of it. You're really not paying attention. As applied to what I said, the objection is incoherent. If you mean to say the veracity of my assertion is undermined by some disagreement on the definition of personhood, that sword cuts every which way, and nobody can say anything factual about it. If you're the sort of creature who can't tell a person from a non-person absent an "agreed upon definition" of personhood, you can't possibly understand anything I said - or, for that matter, anything else of value, as you are content to let others do your thinking for you. There are no theories underlying anything I said, only self-evident truths.
Lol .. you call my post irrelevant when it is dealing with the subject matter at hand by posting something that has nothing at all to do with the subject matter at hand .. now which is irrelevant. In case you missed it the subject matter is the (inferred) inequality between men and women concerning the woman's sole choice in whether to continue the pregnancy and a man having little to no choice to pay for any child born .. please try to keep up, or even read the comments before posting drivel. how so
Only it is true, I find it hypocritical that on one end, you'd argue that the fetus is a "blob", and yet on the other hand have the gall to also argue that it's your body. Well, with a Vasectomy it's not even an argument, the sac IS our body. We can no more detach it than any of our other organs. And yes, I can imagine it's physically painful and excruciating. I once accidentally hit my hand against it, worst pain I ever felt personally in my life. We have a greater argument than you ever would for "it's our body", we don't have to twist and squirm, it's an observable fact. And I'm not doing it unless absolutely necessary. To be honest, I may never do it. For us, it's real, it's observable. It's personal. What consequences do you have when having an abortion? Well, when people bring those up you tend to reject them so let's go with your rejections: Nothing. You face no consequences, it means absolutely nothing to you. Well, it does to us. You can call that fake if you'd like. This item isn't even in the clinical phase yet it would appear, and I grow weary of anything that we would inject into our bodies. I think it's a pretty safe bet for chemical reactions, etc. And of course we would object, like I said this is personal, it's real. What you propose here is nothing less than castration. http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/shelby-woman-castrates-man-bare-hands-police-say/nPNpS/ [video=youtube;jvEJfN-jiS4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvEJfN-jiS4[/video] I am well aware of the Sexual Politics. And as I said before, the great notorious lie is that there was a "war on women", preposterous in that women were a politically protected class. If there really was a war on women, then men would not be politically castrated. And if there was a war on women, you never would've had politically protected status. The fact that most men still want to enshrine women with politically protected status(IE: Most men object to women entering the military) should show just what a miserable failure, or even a non-existent front by men on this so-called war. If we wanted to fight this war, then there's something simple we could do that you brag that you want us to do anyway: Take away the politically protected status. Have every woman sign up on the National Service List. If we have a draft, draft every woman we can find that's physically able.(I won't be so cruel as to take the few "soccer moms" we have left.). I wonder how well would that go along? After all, it's equal isn't it? Which means it's even more suicidal for women to "family plan" in this manner. Let's say you focus primarily on your career and you're in your mid-30's and *now* you want children. Aren't the complications that much more severe?
Sorry the Daily Mail is well known for its inaccurate reporting, so unless you can come up with some other evidence to support your assertion then the Daily Mail article can be treated with the distrust it deserves. Please point to any post of mine that states a fetus is a blob, you can't so that is a lie. Yet again you are confusing items, I have never said that the fetus is part of the woman's body . .what is true is that the womb IS part of her body and as such she should have the same right as you do to protect any part of her body from injury. Also the fetus is attached to the woman's body, please show me any legal status where it states that a person must by law sustain anothers life. and the womb is a part of a woman's body, she can no more detach it than any of the other organs she posses, the death of the fetus is just an unfortunate consequence of a woman maintaining her bodily right to control HER organs. No more so than a woman has. and you think an abortion is not personal to the woman, your objections have no more merit than a woman wanting to control her womb in her body. I would face no consequences at all, I'm male. Then you obviously didn't read both links provided, this procedure has already been used on males in India after being under development for 30 years. extract from the second link - But heres the thing: RISUG is not the product of some global pharmaceutical company or state-of-the-art government-funded research lab. Its the brainchild of a maverick Indian scientist named Sujoy Guha, who has spent more than 30 years refining the idea while battling bureaucrats in his own country and skeptics worldwide. He has prevailed because, in study after study, RISUG has been proven to work 100 percent of the time. Among the hundreds of men who have been successfully injected with the compound so far in clinical trials, there has not been a single failure or serious adverse reaction. The procedure is now in late Phase III clinical trials in India, which means approval in that country could come in as little as two years. Do you even know what castration is, because from your hyperbolic statement above it would seem you do not, here let me help you out - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/castrate - remove the testicles of (a male animal or man). please show me ANYWHERE in either article that the removal of the testicles is part of the procedure. I find it hypocritical that you would "grow weary of anything that we would inject into our bodies" and yet you dismiss the 400 times base level increase in hormones that occur in a woman, along with the immune suppressants and the mood altering chemicals released by the fetus. Oh there is a war going on, one only has to look at your comments to see the evidence of that. So why would you not allow a procedure, assuming it is found to be perfectly safe, that would mean abortion becoming basically moot and yet you are happy to force a woman to go through 9 months of body intrusion and injury? This is something cooked up in your own imagination. Fully agree, if a man has to be on the National Service list so should any able woman . .I would support than notion 100%. Here comes the kicker .. that is the choice made by those individual people, why should they not be able to make that choice . .so far you have offered nothing as to why the choice should not be theirs and theirs alone.
