Abortion Ban kills teenager

[4a6c1]

Pregnant teen dies after abortion ban delays her chemo treatment for leukemia

(CNN) -- The mother of a pregnant leukemia patient who died after her chemotherapy was delayed over anti- abortion laws is accusing doctors of not putting her daughter's health first.

The 16-year-old's plight attracted worldwide attention after she had to wait for chemotherapy because of an abortion ban in the Dominican Republic.

Doctors were hesitant to give her chemotherapy because such treatment could terminate the pregnancy -- a violation of the Dominican Constitution, which bans abortion. Some 20 days after she was admitted to the hospital, she finally started receiving treatment.

She died Friday, a hospital official said.

At the time the treatment started, Rosa Hernandez, the girl's mother, said she tried to convince doctors and the Dominican government to make an exception so that her daughter's life could be saved.

"My daughter's life is first. I know that (abortion) is a sin and that it goes against the law ... but my daughter's health is first," Hernandez said.

The teen died from complications of the disease, said Dr. Antonio Cabrera, the legal representative for the hospital.

"They have killed me, I'm dead, dead. I'm nothing," her mother said. " She was the reason for my existence. I no longer live. Rosa has died. Let the world know that Rosa is dead."

The patient was 13 weeks pregnant.

Her body rejected a blood transfusion and did not respond to the chemotherapy, and her condition worsened overnight, Cabrera said.

She then suffered a miscarriage early Friday, followed by cardiac arrest, and doctors were unable to revive her.

Representatives from the Dominican Ministry of Health, the Dominican Medical College, the hospital and the girl's family had talked for several days before deciding to go forward with the chemotherapy.

The case sparked renewed debate over abortion in the Dominican Republic, with some lawmakers calling on officials to reconsider the abortion ban.

According to Article 37 of the Dominican Constitution, "the right to life is inviolable from the moment of conception and until death." Dominican courts have interpreted this as a strict mandate against abortion. Article 37, passed in 2009, also abolished the death penalty.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/18/world/americas/dominican-republic-abortion/index.html

----------------------

Dominican Republic is heavily Roman Catholic and Christian.

[ClydeR]

Abortion came up in an intereview today from Missouri.

Appearing on the Fox affiliate in St. Louis (http://fox2now.com/2012/08/19/the-jaco-report-august-19-2012/), the Republican nominee for US Senate for Missouri addressed the issue of abortion. Like Paul Ryan, Mr. Akin opposes abortion in the case of rape. When asked about an exception for rape, Mr. Akin said,

[QUOTE]"First of all, from what I understand from doctors that's really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."

It starts at 4:00 on the second video at the above link.

[Jarvan]

I personally don't believe in abortion except to save the mother's life. Which in this case would certainly have been the case.

But.. I am also a man, and thankfully, will never have to worry about getting pregnant. So I don't think I have much say in the matter, since if I were to get a GF pregnant it's not like I can force her to keep the child, I couldn't even take her to court to prevent her from having the kid. It's a Woman's choice. All us men can do is offer our opinion.

That all being said, I find it funny that some people think it's perfectly fine to kill an unborn child, but oh no.. don't hurt the sicko bastard that raped 20 people and killed 10. He deserves the right to live.

[Parkbandit]

ZOMG THIS IS WUT PAUL RYAN WANTS TO DO TO ALL WOMANZ!

[ClydeR]

Abortion came up in an intereview today from Missouri.

From what I understand, Akin's statement on rape and abortion will be the main thing in the news all of this coming week. I should have started a separate thread instead of messing up RojoDisco's thread. Sorry about that.

[Liagala]

From what I understand, Akin's statement on rape and abortion will be the main thing in the news all of this coming week.
I'm not surprised honestly. Politicians say dumb crap all the time, but that was just amazing in the depth of stupidity required. The media would have a field day.

[Bobmuhthol]

That all being said, I find it funny that some people think it's perfectly fine to kill an unborn child, but oh no.. don't hurt the sicko bastard that raped 20 people and killed 10. He deserves the right to live.

I don't think anyone credible thinks that it's "perfectly fine to kill an unborn child." Luckily, undeveloped cells are not children.

[Androidpk]

I believe Mr. Akin was talking about Pillow Pants.

[Jarvan]

I don't think anyone credible thinks that it's "perfectly fine to kill an unborn child." Luckily, undeveloped cells are not children.[/COLOR]

Explain second trimester abortions.

[Androidpk]

Explain second trimester abortions.

Parental rights.

[Bobmuhthol]

Explain second trimester abortions.
I wouldn't feel bad if second trimester abortions were given the same treatment (ban with exceptions) as third trimester abortions, so I don't have to explain nothing.

[Jarvan]

I stand by my beliefs.

Just because someone doesn't want to have a kid is no reason to have an abortion. I can understand, not agree with all but some -there is a difference-, abortions in some cases.

I just don't understand how people can think aborting a baby is perfectly fine, but asking those same people to pay for their own damn birth control is morally wrong.

Thankfully we all have different views and opinions.

On a side note to the person that sent rep saying I was a moron for feeling that basically a Fetus was an unborn child and I was a moron, guess it's to bad your mother didn't abort you huh... or.. did she try and fail and that's how we ended up with you?

[TheEschaton]

I just don't understand how people can think aborting a baby is perfectly fine, but asking those same people to pay for their own damn birth control is morally wrong.


Again, I don't know anyone who thinks abortion is "perfectly fine." But in a society where women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes, and where having children is a detrimental thing to one's career, or is a financial burden a person can't afford, or is something a person isn't emotionally ready to commit to - then abortion is and should be an option.

Which is even moreso a reason why birth control should be provided for free to anyone who wants it.

Next question? I'm sure they'll continue to be retarded, but I'll try against my better judgment to engage you in reasonable debate.

[Liagala]

Which is even moreso a reason why birth control should be provided for free to anyone who wants it.
Sure, as long as no one is going to argue the fact that condoms are birth control and should therefore be free.

[Warriorbird]

Sure, as long as no one is going to argue the fact that condoms are birth control and should therefore be free.

The same enforced multiplication people argue against that too. It is equally stupid.

[ClydeR]

I stand by my beliefs.

Just because someone doesn't want to have a kid is no reason to have an abortion. I can understand, not agree with all but some -there is a difference-, abortions in some cases.

I just don't understand how people can think aborting a baby is perfectly fine, but asking those same people to pay for their own damn birth control is morally wrong.

Well said, sir.

[Androidpk]

Which is even moreso a reason why birth control should be provided for free to anyone who wants it.

Someone has to pay for it though and that shouldn't be the government's responsibility.

[TheEschaton]

That being said, if we get to the day when women are cherished for giving birth, aren't treated as second class citizens, and aren't hindered, socially or financially (even if they dare to give birth while outside the sanction of some religious assholes), then I wouldn't have a problem with more severe limitations put on abortion.

But if I believed that day could happen without both the left and the right's heads spontaneously exploding, I'd be really naive.

[TheEschaton]

Someone has to pay for it though and that shouldn't be the government's responsibility.

but your health care provider certainly should provide access to birth control, even if it's just optional, and that's what the argument has been about so far, not about the government providing it.

[Androidpk]

but your health care provider certainly should provide access to birth control, even if it's just optional, and that's what the argument has been about so far, not about the government providing it.

The question wasn't about access it was about cost. It's a product. There is a cost behind that product. If health care providers give it out for free they are still passing that cost along to someone.

[TheEschaton]

Except they're not arguing about the cost, they're arguing that they morally disagree with giving out BC.

[~Rocktar~]

If and when the idiot nutjobs that want to ban abortion can fund and guarantee 100% adoption into stable homes, equal opportunity in life, then I may agree to a ban. Until then, they should fuck off. All bans do is force it underground so our daughters that find themselves in a bad situation have to seek a worse one where they may be maimed or die because some religious zealot wants to use it as another form of manipulation and power hording.

[Androidpk]

Except they're not arguing about the cost, they're arguing that they morally disagree with giving out BC.

I don't know if you noticed so I'll refresh your memory.




Which is even moreso a reason why birth control should be provided for free to anyone who wants it.

me responding to your statement


Someone has to pay for it though and that shouldn't be the government's responsibility.

[msconstrew]

The question wasn't about access it was about cost. It's a product. There is a cost behind that product. If health care providers give it out for free they are still passing that cost along to someone.

Well, you (ie, the government with your tax dollars) are paying for it either way. If the feds don't pay for contraception and education, then they get to pay for little Johnny and Suzy through social welfare programs. I would much rather pay for bcps, condoms, and etc, than I would pay for a kid and his parent(s).

That being said, your economic argument is a red herring in this particular discussion because the ban is due to religious mores, and is an excellent example of how anti-abortion laws are, in fact, violative of the First Amendment because they are an (apparently successful) attempt to legislate religious beliefs.

[msconstrew]

Have I told you lately how much awesome you possess? You make me wish I did the whole traditional lawyer bit so we could fix the world over lunch (lunch with beer, like a lawyer.)

Right back atcha, WB. Also, come visit your family and I will take you out for as many beers as you want!

[Latrinsorm]

The question wasn't about access it was about cost. It's a product. There is a cost behind that product. If health care providers give it out for free they are still passing that cost along to someone.How do you feel about an analogy to drinking water? Water has costs too, it's not like it falls out of the sky. You know what I mean.

[Jarvan]

Except they're not arguing about the cost, they're arguing that they morally disagree with giving out BC.

No, They are arguing that the Church - Catholic - Doesn't feel they should have to pay for it and even offer it.

You do understand how insurance works, don't you? You pay a premium for the plan, that Premium covers the estimated costs of the services potentially provided. When you ADD something, that premium increases, it doesn't stay the same. You add birth control, and abortion, and you are making someone pay for something they may find objectionable, EVEN if they don't use said service, they will STILL be paying for it.

[Androidpk]

How do you feel about an analogy to drinking water? Water has costs too, it's not like it falls out of the sky. You know what I mean.

I am more favorable to clean water being made available at no cost than birth control products. Are there any studies out there that show that if birth control is free and widely available it will dramatically cut down on unwanted pregnancies?

[Warriorbird]

I am more favorable to clean water being made available at no cost than birth control products. Are there any studies out there that show that if birth control is free and widely available it will dramatically cut down on unwanted pregnancies?

There's entire countries that show it and oodles of research. It may be one of the biggest current factors behind recent Indian success.

Thailand's another good example (believe it or not). Their standard of living has improved insanely from the 1970's.

[TheEschaton]

No, They are arguing that the Church - Catholic - Doesn't feel they should have to pay for it and even offer it.

You do understand how insurance works, don't you? You pay a premium for the plan, that Premium covers the estimated costs of the services potentially provided. When you ADD something, that premium increases, it doesn't stay the same. You add birth control, and abortion, and you are making someone pay for something they may find objectionable, EVEN if they don't use said service, they will STILL be paying for it.

If the Church wants to dabble in health care - they have to provide the health care the government sees fit to provide. And i say this as a lifelong Catholic.

[Bobmuhthol]

You do understand how insurance works, don't you? You pay a premium for the plan, that Premium covers the estimated costs of the services potentially provided. When you ADD something, that premium increases, it doesn't stay the same. You add birth control, and abortion, and you are making someone pay for something they may find objectionable, EVEN if they don't use said service, they will STILL be paying for it.
I'll defer to msconstrew and just say, "You do understand how general equilibrium works, don't you?"

[msconstrew]

I'll defer to msconstrew and just say, "You do understand how general equilibrium works, don't you?"

The possibility that I don't understand how insurance works is laughable, especially for those of us who know what I do for a living.

[Warriorbird]

The possibility that I don't understand how insurance works is laughable, especially for those of us who know what I do for a living.

But, but, Jarvan is more expert than experts because he bought insurance once!

[Showal]

No, They are arguing that the Church - Catholic - Doesn't feel they should have to pay for it and even offer it.

You do understand how insurance works, don't you? You pay a premium for the plan, that Premium covers the estimated costs of the services potentially provided. When you ADD something, that premium increases, it doesn't stay the same. You add birth control, and abortion, and you are making someone pay for something they may find objectionable, EVEN if they don't use said service, they will STILL be paying for it.

You are so Smart - And I think you should Start calling everyone libtards. Your posts make me hope that your posts are just your way of practicing for when you get reincarnated as an infant with anencephaly.

[4a6c1]

Summary: Showal and Bob are major meanieheads with their academic snobbery :heart:. Impressed and suprised with Rocktar in this thread. Quick say something Republican so I can rid myself of the discomfort. Condoms should be free. Parkbandit typing in all caps is pretty awesome but avoiding the issue is not. :( The E is such a bleeding heart, he makes me want to hug everyone. The church is scary shit these days. Pk just wants to legalize pot. Jarvan dude...I just don't know...penis ponds man. WB brings in the level head and msconstrew is a brainiac goddess, as usual.

[Androidpk]

A+

[4a6c1]

And then Pk pre-ejaculated and aborted his unwanted words in agreement.

[Merala]

If and when the idiot nutjobs that want to ban abortion can fund and guarantee 100% adoption into stable homes, equal opportunity in life, then I may agree to a ban. Until then, they should fuck off. All bans do is force it underground so our daughters that find themselves in a bad situation have to seek a worse one where they may be maimed or die because some religious zealot wants to use it as another form of manipulation and power hording.

This is because pregnancy is used as a punishment. You die or get maimed getting an illegal abortion? You should have kept your legs closed. You get pregnant and have to raise a child for the next 18+ years? You should have kept your legs losed.


I think the biggest problem here is people who are against mandatory coverage for birth control are tripping over dollars to grab pennies.

On an annual basis, that means the Pill costs between $160 to $600.
(source: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2012/03/05/the-real-cost-of-birth-control)

For patients not covered by health insurance, the typical cost of a vaginal delivery without complications ranges from about $9,000 to $17,000 or more, depending on geographic location and whether there is a discount for uninsured patients. The typical cost for a C-section without complications or a vaginal delivery with complications ranges from about $14,000 to $25,000 or more.

(source: http://children.costhelper.com/baby-delivery.html)

All this being said, I cannot imagine a situation aside from my life and/or the life of my unborn child being at risk for having an abortion. However, until wage and social equality are real, birth control is easily available, and unwanted children can be put into safe and productive homes, I support a woman's right to choose.

[Androidpk]

And then Pk pre-ejaculated and aborted his unwanted words in agreement.

See, if medicinal marijuana were legal in my state that wouldn't be an issue.

[4a6c1]

^I wish you would do more to fix that.

On this issue I pretty much line up with the hippies. I think human life is special and beautiful and should be cherished at all steps of the process from conception to death but until we have a society that appreciates human beings and treats life with the general regard it deserves at all levels and stations with equality for every human across the board - WOMEN deserve the RIGHT to choose. There are so many medical reasons to get an abortion it's not even funny. Right down to something as simple as conflicting blood types, environmental factors, family history of illness etc. Men who think they deserve a pro-life stance on the issue should spend one year in a foreign hospital volunteering with underage HIV positive rape victims.

[Androidpk]

I actually wrote a letter to Governor Lynch a few years ago, shortly before he vetoed a mmj bill. He actually responded to it and sent a letter back to me. What a dick head.

[Tgo01]

Impressed and suprised with Rocktar in this thread.

I don't understand why you keep acting surprised whenever a Republican expresses their more "liberal" views, other than Jarvan and to a lesser extent crb the only people around here who seem to toe the party line are Democrats.

[msconstrew]

I don't understand why you keep acting surprised whenever a Republican expresses their more "liberal" views, other than Jarvan and to a lesser extent crb the only people around here who seem to toe the party line are Democrats.

PB does, too, though I admit he is on my "Ignore" list so if he's recently changed then I would not know. As far as Democrats having a party line, that's pretty laughable because our major flaw is that cannot seem to adopt a party line. Instead we're all touchy-feely, hippies: "Hey, man, whatever makes YOU feel good."

[Tgo01]

Instead we're all touchy-feely, hippies: "Hey, man, whatever makes YOU feel good.

Exactly. You sicken me you hippie. So, boobs?

[Parkbandit]

PB does, too, though I admit he is on my "Ignore" list so if he's recently changed then I would not know. As far as Democrats having a party line, that's pretty laughable because our major flaw is that cannot seem to adopt a party line. Instead we're all touchy-feely, hippies: "Hey, man, whatever makes YOU feel good."

I realize you can't read this because I hurt your girl feelings and all.. but I'm probably the most often not toeing the Republican line.. Especially with social issues.

[msconstrew]

Exactly. You sicken me you hippie. So, boobs?

Sorry, man, you can't touch my boobs. The costs associated with such touching are astronomical.


I realize you can't read this because I hurt your girl feelings and all.. but I'm probably the most often not toeing the Republican line.. Especially with social issues.

I can, and did, read it. You didn't hurt my "girl feelings". I just loathe it when you go off-topic and off-issue and make ad hominem attacks (kind of like you did just there, where you called them my "girl feelings") as soon as someone disagrees with you. I like to read and participate in intelligent debate (where I think I might find that here is another issue altogether). You don't offer intelligent debate, hence I don't read your posts.

[Parkbandit]

I can, and did, read it. You didn't hurt my "girl feelings". I just loathe it when you go off-topic and off-issue and make ad hominem attacks (kind of like you did just there, where you called them my "girl feelings") as soon as someone disagrees with you. I like to read and participate in intelligent debate (where I think I might find that here is another issue altogether). You don't offer intelligent debate, hence I don't read your posts.

My favorite posts are from very thinned skinned people who claim to be innocent victims of my punishing personal attacks... that end with a personal attack of their own.

Awesome.

[msconstrew]

My favorite posts are from very thinned skinned people who claim to be innocent victims of my punishing personal attacks... that end with a personal attack of their own.

Awesome.

Then I guess you love some of mine! More seriously, you do offer intelligent commentary. However, if and when someone disagrees with you, if often goes right to ad hominem attacks. I don't like that, and the forum tools here don't force me to read it, so I don't. I did not mean to imply that none of your commentary is worthy of consideration or that it is unintelligent.

[Tisket]

I think human life is special and beautiful and should be cherished at all steps of the process from conception to death but until we have a society that appreciates human beings and treats life with the general regard it deserves at all levels and stations with equality for every human across the board - WOMEN deserve the RIGHT to choose. There are so many medical reasons to get an abortion it's not even funny. Right down to something as simple as conflicting blood types, environmental factors, family history of illness etc.

Although I am conservative, I am also pro choice. I'm not going to try and justify my position with arguments about when life begins, because I believe those kind of arguments are wholly arbitrary. They are made up with no scientific proof to indicate it happens at conception or at four months of pregnancy.

Women want control of their bodies, and I support that. That's the best I can do when justifying my position. But let's face it, compared to "all life is inviolate and has inherent rights" it is at best a weak argument. It's a terrible idea that a woman who was raped should have to carry a resulting pregnancy to term, but it's ABSOLUTELY not more terrible than murdering an innocent.

So we pretend that's not what happens. We just arbitrarily decided when life begins because we are too cowardly to articulate the real reason: women should have the right to kill their own children while those children reside inside of their bodies. I support their right to choose because I believe women will end these pregnancies regardless of legal consequences, restricting access to doing so safely does not benefit society at all.


Men who think they deserve a pro-life stance on the issue should spend one year in a foreign hospital volunteering with underage HIV positive rape victims.

I know it fucks with your feminist sensibilities but most men agree with you. So stop trying to make it about that war on women shit. Trying to make men feel defensive when most agree with your stance makes you look cartoonish.

[msconstrew]

Although I am conservative, I am also pro choice. I'm not going to try and justify my position with arguments about when life begins, because I believe those kind of arguments are wholly arbitrary. They are made up with no scientific proof to indicate it happens at conception or at four months of pregnancy.

Women want control of their bodies, and I support that.

You just reminded me of my mother. She is now dead, but when she was alive she was a doctor and she always characterized pregnancy as a host/parasite relationship. She was a republican, but 100% pro-choice because she had to undergo an illegal abortion when she was in medical school without anesthesia.

If you couldn't tell, I am 100% pro-choice, basically until the woman is giving birth, and the reason for that is because you cannot have a slippery slope where you say a fetus can be aborted on 27 weeks, six days, but not on 28 weeks, day 1. There's no real difference between those fetuses. So it either needs to be legal and accessible for all women, at all times (known as a woman having complete bodily autonomy), or it needs to be illegal. Obviously I fall on the side of legal and accessible because I think women should be able to make decisions about their own bodies, period, the end.

[Liagala]

Although I am conservative, I am also pro choice. I'm not going to try and justify my position with arguments about when life begins, because I believe those kind of arguments are wholly arbitrary. They are made up with no scientific proof to indicate it happens at conception or at four months of pregnancy.
We had an interesting debate in an ethics class I took a few years ago. The topic was a paper we read in which the author put forth the view that children are not actually "people" until roughly 3 months after birth. The argument was in the definition of "person" - this person argued that the defining characteristic of humans is our ability to reason - to learn, to problem-solve, etc. A child doesn't develop this capability until somewhere around 3 months. Prior to that they operate purely on instinct. They said that an unborn child or one who hasn't yet acquired the ability to reason is more on the level of a beloved pet. They are certainly loved and valued by their people, but they are not people themselves. I can't really refute the "reason is what sets us apart" argument, but I can't look at a newborn and be all, "Dude... you're like a puppy. Cute, but whatever."

The other side we debated is that the only point in the development of a person that you can point to and say, "This is it. .5 seconds ago this wasn't a person, and now it is," is conception. Since everything else is constant, gradual development, drawing a line at any other point is arbitrary. I enjoyed the hell out of that class.

[Tgo01]

If you couldn't tell, I am 100% pro-choice, basically until the woman is giving birth, and the reason for that is because you cannot have a slippery slope where you say a fetus can be aborted on 27 weeks, six days, but not on 28 weeks, day 1. There's no real difference between those fetuses.

Isn't that a slippery slope as well though? What is the difference between a baby in the womb 24 hours prior to birth and a baby who has just been birthed?

[Parkbandit]

Then I guess you love some of mine! More seriously, you do offer intelligent commentary. However, if and when someone disagrees with you, if often goes right to ad hominem attacks.

I won't deny it... but I also don't complain about it when I do it, because that would make me look like a gigantic hypocrite.. wouldn't it...



I don't like that,

You must be a pretty big self loather... or are you of the mind set that if someone does it to you, that's wrong.. but when you do it its somehow justified?



and the forum tools here don't force me to read it, so I don't.

Except when you do like in this thread? What forum tool works like that?

[/quote]
I did not mean to imply that none of your commentary is worthy of consideration or that it is unintelligent.[/QUOTE]

You didn't imply anything.. you stated it flat out.

[msconstrew]

Isn't that a slippery slope as well though? What is the difference between a baby in the womb 24 hours prior to birth and a baby who has just been birthed?

Depends how you look at it, I guess. On the one hand, yes, there's no difference between 40 weeks in utero vs. 40 weeks and one day, ex utero. On the other hand, there is a clear difference because the ex utero baby is a baby and is no longer inside the mother. If the issue in abortion is a woman's right to have bodily autonomy, then the difference is even clearer: if it's still inside the mother, then the mother has the right to choose because she has the right to complete bodily autonomy.

[Showal]

I just don't feel like it's appropriate that medical decisions for women should be between the woman, their doctor, and a politician. Most politicians are not women or medical professionals so their opinion is based on theory and rhetoric. I have the luxury of being able to do quite literally anything to my body up to the point of asking someone to kill me. Women are in a medical system that is severely lacking in knowledge of how to care for women specific health demands.

[crb]

Unless you're a sociopath you must believe murder is wrong, that human life is worth protecting. So, arguing from the standpoint of you not being a sociopath, which is yet to be proven, the question is NOT "What are a woman's rights?" unless you believe mothers have a right to murder (which would make you a sociopath, by the way). The question is "When does life begin?" And at that point or any point thereafter abortion should be illegal.

Is it legal to walk into a NICU and sever the spinal cord of a 24 week premie in an incubator? No, that would be murder, and doing that would make you a sociopath. So why should it be okay to do that exact same thing if the baby is inside a uterus. Are you saying life beings when a baby leaves a uterus? That is defining human life based on location, which would make you a retarded sociopath. There is no biological basis to say a life form in X location is alive but an exact duplicate life form in Y location is not. You cannot define the beginning of life based on an external factor like that, location, or to what degree a child is an inconvenience to its mother.

So, do we then decree that the point at which the baby could survive outside the womb is when life begins? Thinking that makes you an ignorant sociopath. 200 years ago humans very much like ourselves had babies that could not survive outside the womb earlier than, I don't know, maybe 35 weeks. Since then our technology has gotten better and its down to 22-24 weeks depending. In another 200 years could our technology be even better still? Probably. So are you defining when life begins based on an immutable biological fact, or the progress of human technology? Obviously 200 years ago life did not begin at a different point than it does today, that is ignorant.

If we're going to define when life begins it is not going to be by location, to how annoying it is to the mother, or human technological achievement. It has to be based on a biological fact, the heart beat, brain activity, nervous response, something like that.

I don't know when life begins, but I know it happens before the current abortion limit. This is a free country, you have rights, such as the right not to be murdered. As soon as life begins, then, unless we're sociopaths, we have to protect that life. Not because god says so, I'm an atheist, god doesn't speak to me, but because murder is morally wrong, pretty much the most wrong thing there is. A woman has the right to choose to have sex, to choose to use birth control, to choose to use the morning after pill, to choose to have a prompt abortion. At this point, if she is pregnant, she has made her choice. She does not have the right to choose to kill a human being because it is annoying to her, or dependent on her. If you think otherwise, you are a sociopath (possibly also ignorant and retarded), please stay out of hospital NICUs, I wouldn't want you to get the urge to choke a newborn.

[crb]

Women are in a medical system that is severely lacking in knowledge of how to care for women specific health demands.

What decade are you living in? My wife's medical school graduating class was over 50% female (ignoring the fact that men are fully capable of learning female anatomy and reproductive health). This is not the 1950s.

[Liagala]

Unless you're a sociopath you must believe murder is wrong, that human life is worth protecting.
So what are your thoughts on the death penalty and war of any sort, again?

[crb]

So what are your thoughts on the death penalty and war of any sort, again?

Well, thats off topic, are you really equivocating putting a mass murderer to death, after being tried in a court of law and sentenced by a judge or jury, with the killing of an innocent baby? Really? To be honest I'm conflicted on the death penalty. I don't have a problem with killing the guilty. The death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime, and also a tool prosecutors can use to bring criminals to justice. However, the thought of one innocent victim dying is morally reprehensible. So I support it, but in a narrower set of circumstances than how it is currently applied.

Your war mention is stupid. A baby is not an enemy soldier trying to kill you. Obviously if a baby is a threat to the mother abortion should be permissible. Like if two people are impaled by a pole and it is only possible to save one of them it is okay to let one die. You're allowed to kill someone in self defense, yes. Not out of inconvenience, but in a life threatening situation. As for my personal opinion on war? I am for war when it is to make the world better, I am against it when it is not.

[Liagala]

I don't see it as being off topic. You said, "Unless you're a sociopath you must believe murder is wrong, that human life is worth protecting." You didn't qualify it, or even attempt to soften it. You threw it out there like a club, to bludgeon anyone who tries to defend abortions after the CRB-approved point in development. I simply asked if you're including prison officials and soldiers in your sociopath category or not.

[crb]

Obviously we have different definitions of murder then don't we?

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+murder&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

And I said I didn't know when life begins, but I do know that it has to be based on a biological fact, not some external factor, because I've taken a science class in my life and recognize the latter as being retarded. So it isn't my approved point. But you don't do science by consensus or convenience.

We have scientific definitions for death and brain death based on biological facts, we need the same for life. I personally think life begins when brain activity shows response to stimulation.

[Showal]

What decade are you living in? My wife's medical school graduating class was over 50% female (ignoring the fact that men are fully capable of learning female anatomy and reproductive health). This is not the 1950s.

I'm currently living in 2012, but that is subject to change with time. I said what I said and I stand by it. Being female does not mean you understand female anatomy. Men are able to learn. But women's health, as a field, has lagged behind men's and continues to do so. For example, it's really only been able five years since it's started becoming more understood that women display signs of heart attack differently than men, despite all the research that has gone in to cardiovascular health. I'm not saying it's the same as the 50s. I'm saying it's lagging.

[Furryrat]

As a person with a strong medical background, I can without hesitation state here that this girl did not die because her child was afforded a slight right to live. This whole argument is ridiculous in assuming that abortion is a snap of the finger fix to major changes in the human body. Success rates for chemotherapy in cases of pre-adult leukemia are low to begin with, and when compounded by the additional stressors on the immune system due to the pregnancy, she really never had a chance. It's just another situation involving poor judgement that led to a horrible outcome. Using this family's suffering to validate a misguided need for happy-hunting free-will abortions is disgusting.

[TheEschaton]

Leave it to CRB to spice up a thread in which most people agree.

CRB, the shifting line of viability is a straw man argument. At some point (some may say that point is already passed with in vitro fertilization) medical advances will allow an embryo to exist and grow completely outside the womb, and thus is murder from the moment a sperm fuses with an egg. By scientific terms, that is where life begins. Furthermore, it's disingenuous to have a shifting definition of life based on scientific progress. Science has been absolutely clear - when the egg is fertilized and the cell has 46 unique chromosomes (IE, not wholly the mother or father), that's a new life. Viability trending earlier and earlier has not changed science's definition of life, but has been used as an excuse by the religious to argue that an embryo is a life from fertilization.

I do not think that's where *human* life begins. And that's the difference. There is a qualitative difference between a 24 week fetus and a 24 week premie in an incubator. Much of that qualitative difference is philosophical and theological and psychological, so unless you want to get into that debate, I'll set it aside for now. Needless to say, religious authorities like the Church, until the mid 19th century, made a qualitative (not scientific) distinction of life: life began at the quickening; when the woman could first feel the baby kicking in the womb, typically 18-20 weeks, or halfway through the pregnancy, because that is when the bond between mother and child formed - a two way feedback-response system. It's a bit shifty itself, but holds much more firm that the viability argument, even though it's based on emotion and human bonding ideas (and thus subject to exceptions like psychosis, stress, etc).

I said I'd refrain from philosophy, but I'd make this one point: I think why qualitative assessments like "quickening" are more valuable than scientific in this case is because human life is a qualitative experience. They're not definitive, but humanity is judged in a lens of relationship to another (I know that hurts your conservative, "rugged individual" machismo). It's because of this qualitative view of life that I have no problem with pulling the plug on a Terry Schiavo, for example, because even though she is scientifically alive, she was not qualitatively alive. This also allows me to still believe the death penalty is wrong because one's actions cannot simply forfeit their humanity - the ability to have relationships are innate to our human nature, and thus almost always requires extreme trauma to that nature to sever.

[Merala]

Your war mention is stupid. A baby is not an enemy soldier trying to kill you. Obviously if a baby is a threat to the mother abortion should be permissible. Like if two people are impaled by a pole and it is only possible to save one of them it is okay to let one die. You're allowed to kill someone in self defense, yes. Not out of inconvenience, but in a life threatening situation. As for my personal opinion on war? I am for war when it is to make the world better, I am against it when it is not.

Not to nitpick, but innocents die during wars every day, not just the soldiers who are sent to the front lines. If you're against killing innocents, they should be all innocents, not just the innocents you pick and choose to keep alive. Or maybe you're a selective sociopath?

[Latrinsorm]

We had an interesting debate in an ethics class I took a few years ago. The topic was a paper we read in which the author put forth the view that children are not actually "people" until roughly 3 months after birth. The argument was in the definition of "person" - this person argued that the defining characteristic of humans is our ability to reason - to learn, to problem-solve, etc. A child doesn't develop this capability until somewhere around 3 months. Prior to that they operate purely on instinct. They said that an unborn child or one who hasn't yet acquired the ability to reason is more on the level of a beloved pet. They are certainly loved and valued by their people, but they are not people themselves. I can't really refute the "reason is what sets us apart" argument, but I can't look at a newborn and be all, "Dude... you're like a puppy. Cute, but whatever."

The other side we debated is that the only point in the development of a person that you can point to and say, "This is it. .5 seconds ago this wasn't a person, and now it is," is conception. Since everything else is constant, gradual development, drawing a line at any other point is arbitrary. I enjoyed the hell out of that class.I would argue they're below the level of a beloved pet for many people. I can't think of any case where a pet owner would terminate their pet without being compelled to and be met with anything but universal disgust. (Except by sociopaths!!!) I remember a thread here where some pet owners said they're rather have their pet rescued (from a fire or whatever) before fully matured strangers.

This dovetails nicely with the distinction in response between miscarriage and abortion, but it's also really terrifying.

[Tisket]

I remember a thread here where some pet owners said they're rather have their pet rescued (from a fire or whatever) before fully matured strangers.

Hah, I remember that thread. I think I threatened to kill people with a sawed off shotgun.

Good times.

edit: found that link: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?15775-Help-the-Animals-affected-by-Katrina

[crb]

Leave it to CRB to spice up a thread in which most people agree.

CRB, the shifting line of viability is a straw man argument. At some point (some may say that point is already passed with in vitro fertilization) medical advances will allow an embryo to exist and grow completely outside the womb, and thus is murder from the moment a sperm fuses with an egg. By scientific terms, that is where life begins. Furthermore, it's disingenuous to have a shifting definition of life based on scientific progress. Science has been absolutely clear - when the egg is fertilized and the cell has 46 unique chromosomes (IE, not wholly the mother or father), that's a new life. Viability trending earlier and earlier has not changed science's definition of life, but has been used as an excuse by the religious to argue that an embryo is a life from fertilization.


I never thought I'd see you of all people agree with Rick Santorum (life begins at conception). But you're right, you can't define life based on viability because, as I originally posted, technology changes. I also agree that one day in the future we'll see a fully uterus free pregnancy and birth. Not in our lifetimes, but the human race will likely get there.



I do not think that's where *human* life begins. And that's the difference.

Ah see we agree on this, you know of course are beginning stages of development we still have tails, and you'd have a hard time telling a human embryo from an iguana one? I don't have a moral problem with abortion at this point.



There is a qualitative difference between a 24 week fetus and a 24 week premie in an incubator.


No, there isn't.


Much of that qualitative difference is philosophical and theological and psychological, so unless you want to get into that debate, I'll set it aside for now.

Philosophy, theology, and psychology cannot define when life begins, only biology can do that.



Needless to say, religious authorities like the Church, until the mid 19th century, made a qualitative (not scientific) distinction of life: life began at the quickening; when the woman could first feel the baby kicking in the womb, typically 18-20 weeks, or halfway through the pregnancy, because that is when the bond between mother and child formed - a two way feedback-response system. It's a bit shifty itself, but holds much more firm that the viability argument, even though it's based on emotion and human bonding ideas (and thus subject to exceptions like psychosis, stress, etc).

I said I'd refrain from philosophy, but I'd make this one point: I think why qualitative assessments like "quickening" are more valuable than scientific in this case is because human life is a qualitative experience. They're not definitive, but humanity is judged in a lens of relationship to another (I know that hurts your conservative, "rugged individual" machismo). It's because of this qualitative view of life that I have no problem with pulling the plug on a Terry Schiavo, for example, because even though she is scientifically alive, she was not qualitatively alive. This also allows me to still believe the death penalty is wrong because one's actions cannot simply forfeit their humanity - the ability to have relationships are innate to our human nature, and thus almost always requires extreme trauma to that nature to sever.

Your analogy fails. Terry Shiavo, whom I also do not have a problem pulling the plug on if that is what her family wishes, is an organism without potential. A persistent vegetative state as I recall. Brain dead. An unborn child is fully of potential and is not brain dead.

Also, if you really think unborn children can have no relationships, no attachments? Talk to a woman who has had a miscarriage some time. But that is beside the point, because it isn't biology.

Science either matters, or it doesn't. If a child can think and can feel and her only crime is being in a uterus, is it permissible to sever her spinal cord and vacuum her remains out?

You know I used to be pro choice, but then I became a father, and going through the pregnancy with my wife, seeing the development of the baby, and most importantly for me, being forced to go into the NICU after our (relatively healthy) baby was sent there, and seeing the little 20 some week premies. I couldn't wrap my brain around how I could ethically support murdering them if they were merely still in the uterus (which most of them should have been still).

[crb]

Not to nitpick, but innocents die during wars every day, not just the soldiers who are sent to the front lines. If you're against killing innocents, they should be all innocents, not just the innocents you pick and choose to keep alive. Or maybe you're a selective sociopath?

Innocents also die in car accidents yet I am not an anti-car luddite.

Your post is specious, not nitpicky. There is a difference between purposefully killing innocent people and accidentally doing so, or doing so in the course of an enterprise to save a greater number of lives.

[crb]

I'm currently living in 2012, but that is subject to change with time. I said what I said and I stand by it. Being female does not mean you understand female anatomy. Men are able to learn. But women's health, as a field, has lagged behind men's and continues to do so. For example, it's really only been able five years since it's started becoming more understood that women display signs of heart attack differently than men, despite all the research that has gone in to cardiovascular health. I'm not saying it's the same as the 50s. I'm saying it's lagging.

Heart disease is one thing, most women receive more medical care than men (we don't like going to the doctor). They also have gynecologists they usually see at least once a year, how many guys have a regular urology appt? Breast Cancer probably receives more research money than any other cancer. Women are well cared for and represented by modern medicine.

[crb]

Oh, I didn't even read the first page of this thread, I've been commenting on abortion in general not one case in particular.

Also, did you all hear the one about the pro-choice, anti-death penalty, vegan? Ya, it doesn't make any sense to me either.

[TheEschaton]

Potential is another straw man. Potential is nothing until it's actualized. All of us have the potential to be something, but as you prove every day, potential is wasted regularly. No serious debate centers around the idea that a fetus is potentially a human life.

[4a6c1]

Heart disease is one thing, most women receive more medical care than men (we don't like going to the doctor). They also have gynecologists they usually see at least once a year, how many guys have a regular urology appt? Breast Cancer probably receives more research money than any other cancer. Women are well cared for and represented by modern medicine.

This is so so SO false. Guess what recieves more research than any cancer ever. Just guess. Please guess. NEVERMIND I'LL TELL YOU. Erectile dysfunction.

Oh what a wonderful world.

[Tgo01]

This is so so SO false. Guess what recieves more research than any cancer ever. Just guess. Please guess. NEVERMIND I'LL TELL YOU. Erectile dysfunction.

Oh what a wonderful world.

Oh come on, like women aren't clamoring for a cure for this as well.

[msconstrew]

Oh come on, like women aren't clamoring for a cure for this as well.

Vibrators. That is all.

[4a6c1]

Most of us would just be satisfied with healthy kids and successful careers. We don't care about your limp dicks. You still have two fingers and a mouth, that's enough for us!

[4a6c1]

Vibrators. That is all.

CONCUR

[msconstrew]

Most of us would just be satisfied with healthy kids and successful careers. We don't care about your limp dicks. You still have two fingers and a mouth, that's enough for us!

What she said.

[4a6c1]

Grrrrrrrrl secret handshake time.

[Androidpk]

Crb was talking about cancer types. ED isn't a type of cancer.

[4a6c1]

Maryjane strikes again.

[Bobmuhthol]

Also, did you all hear the one about the pro-choice, anti-death penalty, vegan? Ya, it doesn't make any sense to me either.
Veganism is weird but I'm pro-choice, anti-death penalty.

[Androidpk]

Grrrrrrrrl secret handshake time.


http://i50.tinypic.com/e89xr4.gif

[Merala]

Innocents also die in car accidents yet I am not an anti-car luddite.

Your post is specious, not nitpicky. There is a difference between purposefully killing innocent people and accidentally doing so, or doing so in the course of an enterprise to save a greater number of lives.

I am pretty sure that entering into an enterprise willfully knowing there will be innocent casualties (for example war) is just a tad different than trying to be a safe driver (some of us still do that) and still risking some danger to innocents by way of car malfunction or another driver's stupidity. We do not get into our cars to go to work expecting someone innocent to die from our actions, we do go into other countries expecting innocent casualties. If you think we don't, you're sadly mistaken.

When you drive a car, someone innocent may get hurt or killed, when you go to war, you know someone innocent will get hurt or killed. Different animals.

[Latrinsorm]

Philosophy, theology, and psychology cannot define when life begins, only biology can do that.The biological definition of life is descriptive, not prescriptive. You can really only get prescriptions from philosophy or theology.
This is so so SO false. Guess what recieves more research than any cancer ever. Just guess. Please guess. NEVERMIND I'LL TELL YOU. Erectile dysfunction.

Oh what a wonderful world.Can there be a clearer indictment of our capitalist medical research system than that we have five (5) pills for erectile dysfunction? Someday, big government, someday.

[Tisket]

This is so so SO false. Guess what recieves more research than any cancer ever. Just guess. Please guess. NEVERMIND I'LL TELL YOU. Erectile dysfunction.

Oh what a wonderful world.

Uh no. Pharmaceutical companies make money by jacking research and marketing their own version of a drug. Their profits are in doing as little research and development as possible and selling their own versions of the same drug at the same price to a proven market. That's why so many drugs exist that do basically the same thing.

Anyway, if you really insist on making this a feminist rant, you'd be better served by wondering why the morning after pill isn't sold OTC. Make it cheap and easily available and much of the abortion problem would disappear. Just my opinion.

[Androidpk]

Anyway, if you really insist on making this a feminist rant, you'd be better served by wondering why the morning after pill isn't sold OTC.

To keep those pesky kids from snorting it.

[Warriorbird]

Because they're supposed to "be fruitful and multiply" so they can have awful lives and seek to join a religion. Also because they should suffer for having sex.

[4a6c1]

If I start one more vagina thread Anticor might kick me out.

Anyways. HERE.

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv183/rojodisco/infographic_women_aca-1.png

[Liagala]

Why are 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8 female only (I know why 6 & 8 are, but I'm arguing them for equality's sake - why should women be the only ones concerned about contraception and/or the only ones affected by domestic violence)?

Also, I'm pretty sure the republicans voted to repeal the act not because they have an idiotic war on women, but because they have an equally idiotic war on Barack Obama. He could propose a bill eliminating the democratic party from future elections and they'd probably vote it down just because it came from him. Democrats are similarly idiotic about party lines. I swear, there's more cooperation and teamwork on a kindergarten playground than there is in Congress.

[Androidpk]

I'm pretty sure the GOP is trying as hard as possible to make themselves irrelevant.

federal ban on abortion with no exception for rape and incest survivors (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/todd-akin-gop-platform-rape_n_1818532.html)

[4a6c1]

Oh no, slanted liberal facts!!!!

CNN reported on Monday that the draft of the GOP's official 2012 platform calls for a federal ban on abortion with no exception for rape and incest survivors -- the same policy Akin was trying to defend when he asserted that victims of "legitimate rape" have a natural bodily mechanism that prevents them from getting pregnant.

[Liagala]

I'm pretty sure the GOP is trying as hard as possible to make themselves irrelevant.

federal ban on abortion with no exception for rape and incest survivors (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/todd-akin-gop-platform-rape_n_1818532.html)

UPDATE: 1:48 p.m. -- The Republican platform committee approved the draft on Tuesday
I think you might be right. "Gee, the whole country is pissed at this moron's interview. Let's hurry and approve a plan that supports his views right now, while everyone is watching and condemning it."