"Person-hood" is not the defining factor in abortion

so now even when someone is discussing something they find important , you derail their opinion and not only you yourself call it irrelevant you decide it's not what we are discussing.

what is up your tucks anyway….it was a valid point and others here have the same view...

i would ask the mods to delete this insult…

Sam has a lot to say even if some of it i don;t agree with…insulting behaviour such as this fugazi begs to be deleted...

 

Per your injury comment here, you know as well as I do that I have already provided several examples of when pregnancy has been deemed a serious literal injury and I have also quoted state laws that say a pregnancy is a serious injury.

 

Abortionist never admit that the main reason , outside of rape, and a few other reasons, that it's all about convenience .

the time is not right, i'm single, financial burdens, religious reason for it would be embarrassing to be pregnant out of wedlock(so lets commit the sin of thou shalt not kill anyway), embarrassment issues over who the father is…

i mean you tell me honestly why people abort..
for every reason that even i as a pro lifer has for an abortion i can give you a plethora of honest solutions due to matters of convenience.

>>>Off Topic Removed<<<

 

This is the same old tired leftist M.O. of demonizing the person who opposes your opinion, and like with every other time this methodololgy is used, it is pure manure!

The truth is that there are two human beings in the picture whose lives are directly affected when abortion is contemplated. The mother and the unborn child. There is a conflict of rights between the two. In my opinion, and in keeping with how our laws typically work in general, the weaker and less able to defend him/herself person's right to life should take precedence over the mother's inconvenience for 9 months or so.

All thinking people know that the fetus is a human being and that "personhood" is a terribly flawed and unworkable argument to defend abortion.

Here is a thought, why not defend your position with logic and reason instead of adopting the childish tactic of demonizing the people who are arguing against your position using logic and reason?

 

Its pure BS. We all know that a pregnancy is not life threatening in the overwhelming majority of cases!
It is humorous though to watch pro abortion folks waffle and duck and dodge as their illogical positions are struck down one after another. First it is "the fetus is not a human being", then when that is proven wrong (fairly easy to do actually) it becomes "pregnancy is a life threatening injury".

 

Perhaps you would care to show where the OP even states that a pregnancy in the majority of cases is life threatening .. I know you won't because it doesn't say it, nice of you (as usual) to misrepresent (lie about) what is written.

It's also highly amusing to watch anti choice folks waffle and duck and dodge as they can't dispute the premise.

and again we see the usual stance of sliding off topic in order to try and move away from the items they can't answer .. typical behavior.

 

So it seems the issue here is just the fact that the fetus is killed while it is still in the womb by the physician.

Ok, well let's say for arguments sake if the placenta (also does the placenta belong to the woman or the fetus?) is removed whole and intact along with the fetus. Neither is harmed in the process. The embryo/fetus is removed from the life support of the woman but is not suctioned out or anything like that. It is then attempted to rescucitate or keep the embryo/fetus alive through modern medical technology but since it is not developed enough it dies on it's own, as in, it was not actively killed by anyone.

Do you think that a woman does or does not have the right to remove the placenta from her own body, along with the contents within it (the embryo/fetus) because it may result in the death of the embryo/fetus since it cannot survive without life support from her body? Do you think she should be forced to keep the placenta inside her body even if the embryo/fetus is not actively harmed or killed in the process of it's removal?

 

Pot, kettle, black

 

Consent to sex is assuming the risk of responsibility, regardless of whether or not the woman wanted to get pregnant. Just because she didn't want to get pregnant, doesn't mean that she didn't consent to responsibility. If somebody is in a boxing match, the other person is not held viable for them taking a risk. You can't sue another person for "injuries" that you got in a boxing match. You can't assume risks and hold other people responsible. If you assume a risk, then YOU are the one responsible for any possible consequences.

 

That's right, you accept that your injuries are a result of your actions. That's accepting responsibility. Then you deal with those injuries, and no one would deny the injured person medical treatment. Risk-taking does not preclude medical treatment. It's ridiculous to say that it does.

 

Irrelevant crap. I'm not saying that women should be denied medical treatment because they took a risk. I'm saying that you cannot hold another person viable if you took a risk and got injured (the boxing match analogy.) You're not taking certain factors into consideration.

 

The pregnant woman is not holding "another person" liable for her actions. She accepts that her actions led to the pregnancy. That IS accepting responsibility. For you to insist that she be denied preventative medical treatment for her injury is an attempt to punish her.

 

False. Saying that the fetus loses the right to life, because of the woman's "rights" is holding the fetus viable.

 

No, you want to give rights to the fetus, and take rights away from the woman. How can you justify that?

 

Does that consent in the confines of the boxing match imply that your opponent can punch you after the match has finished, because that is what you are alluding to as far as pregnancy is concerned. Sexual intercourse is one act (the confines of the boxing match), the pregnancy is akin to the opponent hitting you after the match has finished, and to add further evidence to refute your assertion, even if consent is given in a boxing match and one of the participants is injured, do we refuse medical treatment due to assuming the risk of responsibility?

 

That is EXACTLY what you are saying, abortion IS medical treatment, it IS a medical surgical procedure. - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002912.htm so by denying an abortion you are in fact denying her medical treatment.

You can if those injuries are sustained when consent is no longer present, ie if one boxer throws in the towel and the other continues to hit him he can be held liable for any injuries incurred after the match is conceded, or if one hits the other in the car park after the match.

 

You obviously didn't read the rest of the comment.

 

and which part would that be given that I quoted your comment verbatim as follows;

 

That's irrelevant crap. Most pregnancies don't cause horrible physical injury. Having a new organ is not "a severe physical injury".

 

A new stock answer?

That's something that someone who has never been pregnant might say. It takes a full YEAR for a woman's body to return to normal, and even then, there is always permanent damage, sometimes requiring surgical repair later in life.

 

According to Nebraska & Michigan state law it is (as you well know from a previous thread) -

Nebraska, which defines &#8220;serious personal injury&#8221; as &#8220;great bodily injury or disfigurement, extreme mental anguish or mental trauma, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.&#8221; Nebraska&#8217;s statute can be read as stating not simply that pregnancy is like a serious personal injury, but rather that pregnancy is a serious personal injury: pregnancy is an injury

Michigan&#8217;s statute does the same work, defining &#8220;personal injury&#8221; as &#8220;bodily injury, disfigurement, mental anguish, chronic pain, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.&#8221; Case law establishing that pregnancy could be considered a &#8220;substantial bodily injury&#8221; that aggravates the sexual assault and increases the sentence imposed performs the same work as statutes that explicitly define pregnancy as a substantial bodily injury.

Then of course you have to add in the other injuries that occur in EVERY pregnancy;

Hormones may rise to 400 times their base levels.
A woman's respiratory system drastically changes, causing a 40 percent increase in cardiac volume and a 15 percent increase in blood pressure.
A new organ is grown in a woman's body, the placenta,
Her entire circulatory system is rerouted in order to make her blood supply usable for the growing fetus.
The fetus releases hormones into the females system that alter her mental state
The fetus releases hormones that restrict her immune system

 

1-Why are hormone fluctuations "serious injuries"?
2-What's wrong with having a new organ?
3-Interview 700 women who have had abortions. I bet you that not a single woman would say, "my immune system was weak", was the reason they had an abortion. Besides, a slightly weakened immune system isn't a serious physical injury.

 

So are you now admitting that states do have laws that say a pregnancy is a serious injury?

1 - It is more than just "fluctuations", hormones rising by up to 400 times base level is not a fluctuation, on its own an increase in hormones may not be a serious injury, but when it happens alongside the other injuries pregnancy causes the overall result is serious.

2 - Nothing if you consent to it.

3 - What difference does your question make, remember the self-defence scenario is based on the hypothetical situation where abortion is illegal. Reducing the efficiency of the immune system leave the female open to infections such as molds - If you have a weakened immune system, you may be at higher risk for getting a mold infection. These infections can lead to being hospitalized, or even dying. The risk of getting a mold infection depends on the strength of your immune system.

when taken individually these injuries would not be seen as serious, but when taken all together they can cause very serious problems indeed.

 

You still didnt explain exactly how having a new organ is a serious injury.

 

I didn't say having a new organ is a serious injury on its own, when all the other injuries are added in that is when it becomes a serious injury, its called a cumulative effect.

EG. A single cut to your torso is not a serious injury, 200 cuts to your torso is.

As posted in the OP

Given the quantity and quality of the effects of a fetus on a woman's body..., if a woman does not consent, that fetus is massively harming her.