Home - List All Discussions

The health/life exception??

by: AshMarie88

So I got into yet another debate on a pro-life group and it was on being pro-life (100% pro-life no exceptions, pro-life making the health exception, or pro-life making the rape and incest exceptions, and of course I am 100% pro-life, for a few reasons). After I posted this, someone actually changed her mind on it... I guess I make great points.
The post was along the line of a woman already having 2 born kids but about to birth a 3rd child, and either having to choose her life or her baby's. Then I replied, in bold, with,
But a woman has 3 living children then, and I understand the whole not leaving them behind, it's just I'm torn. And for example, what about the possibility of the mom dying to save one of her born children if they were in danger of dying (say her child was 3...), and she didn't want to leave her other two behind... Would leaving that child to die be okay, for the other 2 children's sakes? That's what I always think about, no matter if a child is born or not yet born, a mom still has her role in helping her children. Just like most fathers would risk their lives to save their child's, a mom's role is similar.
Eh, I guess I'm stuck on the matter...
I don't see how killing the baby saves the mom anyway tho. The baby will be birthed one way or the other, it's just a matter of if it will be alive or dead when it comes out...
However, I should've added, everything in the world should be done to save both. I would hope both mom and baby make it thru.
But thankfully the health/life endangerment is low (in the 4 or so percentile?).
That is just how I see it I guess. I know other people don't think like that but I just see every child, born and unborn, as equals and that parents should always protect them no matter what.

reply from: Sigma

Who should choose whether or not mothers or fathers will risk their lives?

reply from: JusticeThenMercy

Who should choose whether or not mothers or fathers will risk their lives?
I don't know if you are asking who should choose (ummmm, the parent is the only one who CAN choose...duuuuhhhhh) or who/what should force them to "choose" (which wouldn't be a "choice" now would it). Please be clearer and no-doubt you'll get an answer (I'll see to it )

reply from: Sigma

No, you are right. There would be no choice to sacrifice oneself were one or the other required. That was the thrust of the question.
Since AshMarie88 is "pro-life without exceptions", however, she would advocate requiring self-sacrifice in this manner. If you allow the father or mother to choose for themselves whether to risk their own lives then it would not be "pro-life without exceptions". The question was to find who requires this sacrifice. Does God require this sacrifice? The gov't?

reply from: yoda

Well we know what YOUR choice is, siggy baby........ if it's attached OR if it's taking nourishment from a reproductive organ... it's FAIR GAME!!
IT'S OPEN SEASON on such babies, isn't it siggy???

reply from: BiblicalTruth

No, you are right. There would be no choice to sacrifice oneself were one or the other required. That was the thrust of the question.
Since AshMarie88 is "pro-life without exceptions", however, she would advocate requiring self-sacrifice in this manner. If you allow the father or mother to choose for themselves whether to risk their own lives then it would not be "pro-life without exceptions". The question was to find who requires this sacrifice. Does God require this sacrifice? The gov't?
The point of her statement was to show the double standard of people saving their born children but killing unborn. You perverted what she was saying so your reponse really does not have anything to do with the issue at hand which is the concept of the double standard. If you are confussed by what people are saying maybe you should just read until you can get on the same page.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: JesusSucks

No, you are right. There would be no choice to sacrifice oneself were one or the other required. That was the thrust of the question.
Since AshMarie88 is "pro-life without exceptions", however, she would advocate requiring self-sacrifice in this manner. If you allow the father or mother to choose for themselves whether to risk their own lives then it would not be "pro-life without exceptions". The question was to find who requires this sacrifice. Does God require this sacrifice? The gov't?
sig, i find this whole discussion to be grounded in whether or not the fetus equates to its born counterparts in terms of personhood. i don't accept the govt declares when a person is a person because in this govts history it has a poor track record for properly doing so. remember blacks used ot be less than human, women used to be less than men, etc.
i dont think you have to talk religion to know who requires any choice. who requires the choice to not murder born people. its the same thing with fetuses. the question is are they people too. i cant see why they shouldnt be. if you can answer that question youll have the answer to yours.

reply from: yoda

One thing that really confuses me is that you and siggy are using the same avatar...... it would help us to keep you two separate if you'd pick a different one.......

reply from: yoda

It's just a matter of convenience. The Supreme Court found it "convenient" to declare human fetuses not to be "persons" as a convenient way of declaring open season on them, and make it legal to kill them.
Hey, it worked with slaves and Jews, so why not fetuses?

reply from: Hereforareason

"I don't see how killing the baby saves the mom anyway tho. The baby will be birthed one way or the other, it's just a matter of if it will be alive or dead when it comes out... "
I don't either....
"Who should choose whether or not mothers or fathers will risk their lives? "
The mother or father in question. period. What she said was not all mothers and fathers must risk their lives for their children, but " Just like MOST fathers would risk their lives to save their child's, a mom's role is similar. "
Amber

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88 is "pro-life with no exceptions", which would mean she does not support a woman's right to choose in any situation, including the one she described above. I, too, was drawing a similarity between the two groups. It is nonsensical to believe one should require one to risk one's life for a born child just as it is nonsensical to believe one should require one to risk one's life for a fetus. It is she that has a double standard.
I have perverted nothing of what she is saying. I am showing the logical consequence of what she is saying.

reply from: AshMarie88

Is there something wrong with that?

reply from: Sigma

This is a fallacy. Whether they did so properly before does not affect whether it is proper and logical now. However, I am conscious that there are philosophical ramifications that are not affected by the Court decision.
Consider this: Were a person to undergo an operation whereby his brain were safely removed and placed in a jar, was a new person created?

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88 is "pro-life with no exceptions" so the woman would have no choice whether to risk her life for the fetus within her.

reply from: Sigma

Intrinsically? No.
However, I strongly oppose the implication that people should have no choice whether they risk their lives for others.

reply from: AshMarie88

Sigma, do you think it would be right, morally and physically, for a woman (or even man) to not bother to save a dying child? For example, what if a child was drowning and the parents didn't want to save that child because they were afraid they would get their clothes wet or potentially ruin them? Would that be acceptable to you? Would you give them any sort of punishment at all, even tho it was their choice not to go in for the child?

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88, I do not believe it is moral or right to require that a man or a woman to risk their lives to save another no matter how kind and good it would be for that man or woman to do so. You cannot make people moral, and it absolutely is not the government's place to try.

reply from: AshMarie88

I guess you're just not going to bother to answer my actual questions.

reply from: Sigma

Eh? I answered your question. However right and good it would be to save a dying child I do not believe it is moral or right to require that a man or a woman to risk their lives to save that child.

reply from: AshMarie88

You didn't answer all my questions! Just answer yes or no to the following questions. That simple.
Do you think it would be right, morally and physically, for a woman (or even man) to not bother to save a dying child?
What if a child was drowning and the parents didn't want to save that child because they were afraid they would get their clothes wet or potentially ruin them, would that be a good enough excuse?
Would that be acceptable to you?
Would you give them any sort of punishment at all, even tho it was their choice not to go in for the child?

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88, you can imagine it is as right or as wrong as you want to imagine it to be and I still would believe that the woman should not be required to risk her life.
How much punishment would you dole out for the woman who refused to risk her life to save a child from a burning vehicle?

reply from: AshMarie88

Aw poor Sigma, can't even answer 4 simple yes or no questions...
I didn't ask you if you feel it's required I not, that was the opposite of what I asked, pay attention!

reply from: Hessflg

I'm 100% pro-life. And I mean that very sincerely. But, and that's
a BIG BUT, there ARE instances of when the mother and child are in grave danger of death. I'm talking about toxemia. It's when the mother's blood pressure
is going through the roof, and the nurses find such a protein in the mother's
urine. Pre-eclampcia. If not taken care of, both the mother and the
baby could die. I personally know someone who developed those very
symptoms. They can come on gradually or very quickly. Unfortunately
for the young woman I know, it came on quickly. She and her husband
had to make the decision of what to do. Because it was coming on so
rapidly, the decision was pretty much made for them. They lost the baby.
She almost lost her own life as well.
I know this sounds way out there, but does anybody watch the soap operas?
How about" Days of Our Lives"? Not all that long ago on "Days" the
character, Belle Black Kirioukas, was pregnant and ended up in the hospital
with high blood pressure, endangering her life along with the life of her
unborn child. She was determined to keep going through the pregnancy
no matter what. She went unconscience and her husband, Philip decided
she should have the abortion to save her life. She had toxemia. Or pre-
eclampsia.
In such cases, I say yes, abortion would be ok.

reply from: Sigma

I am. The questions you ask are unrelated to what I am saying. However good or kind or moral saving someone else is, I oppose the gov't requiring one to risk one's life to do it.
You are asking if it is good and kind and moral. It does not matter one iota how good or kind or moral it is.

reply from: AshMarie88

You aren't 100% pro-life if you don't oppose all cases.

reply from: Sigma

Pro-life seems a morally vacuous position

reply from: yoda

You would certainly know about moral vacuousness.........

reply from: yoda

No, you're not 100% prolife.
First, no prolifer would start off by talking about the very rare instances of threat to the life of a mother, and ignore the 96% of abortions done by healthy women with healthy babies. Only someone who wishes to support abortion does that.
Second, early delivery is just as protective of a mother's health, and much more respectful of a baby's life than "abortion"..... which has as it's goal the death of the baby.
No, you're definitely not "100% prolife".

reply from: yoda

Maybe to a totally immoral person such as yourself it does not matter...... but to us it does.

reply from: Hereforareason

"AshMarie88 is "pro-life with no exceptions", which would mean she does not support a woman's right to choose in any situation, including the one she described above. I, too, was drawing a similarity between the two groups. It is nonsensical to believe one should require one to risk one's life for a born child just as it is nonsensical to believe one should require one to risk one's life for a fetus. It is she that has a double standard.
I have perverted nothing of what she is saying. I am showing the logical consequence of what she is saying"
Sigma, It's been awhile since I have had the pleasure of reading your posts. You are doing what some kids do when they are told to do something they don't to. They over do it. They push it as hard as they can. They try to makeit look like thye are working, but it is sloppy, things are being damaged and it doesn't make any sense.
Pro life with no exceptions = do not kill the child under any circumstances.
"Does not support a woman's right to choose in any situation" has nothing to do with it.
Excuse me but, didn't the woman choose to have sex in the first place? She has made a choice already.
Tell me Sigma, how is it going to help a woman to have a dead baby brought out of her body, rather than a live one? The baby is going to be born either way. How does it help her to have it dead?
Oh, and as far as a peron not being forced into saving a person from a burning vehicle or something, no they are not requried and they are not forced to do that. however, if they set fire to the car with the child in it, they made a choice. But they will at least go to jail for it.
Honestly sigma, what would you think of a person who sat in a lounge chair sipping lemonade watching the car burn with the child inside?
Amber

reply from: RobertFerguson

One thing that really confuses me is that you and siggy are using the same avatar...... it would help us to keep you two separate if you'd pick a different one.......
I understand where you are coming form.. siggy should be the only one with the goofball looking avatar.... it seems fit for him... however, one must recognize the irony of one who proclaims "biblical truth" yet denies over 2/3rds of the bible truth for doctrinal purposes because it is old testament. Such a person deserves to share siggy's avatar, IMO

reply from: Sigma

Hereforareason, I'm glad that my posts bring you such pleasure
You responded to the question: "Who should choose whether or not mothers or fathers will risk their lives? "
with:
The mother or father in question. period.
AshMarie88 does not believe this. She is "pro-life without exception" which means that abortion is not justified in any situation, including the situation where the woman's life would be risked to continue the pregnancy. Not believing in abortion for yourself but thinking that other women should choose for themselves whether to risk their lives would be a pro-choice position.
Do you understand yet the contradiction? You disagree with AshMarie88 just as I do.

reply from: faithman

Have about 10,000 I AM A PERSON cards in stock, waiting to be handed out. How bout it passifist? Or does handing out pictures of womb childen constitute violence?

reply from: RobertFerguson

I guess that is an admission that such is moral then, 'eh?

reply from: RobertFerguson

Contradictory statements.

reply from: RobertFerguson

No, you're not 100% prolife.
First, no prolifer would start off by talking about the very rare instances of threat to the life of a mother, and ignore the 96% of abortions done by healthy women with healthy babies. Only someone who wishes to support abortion does that.
Second, early delivery is just as protective of a mother's health, and much more respectful of a baby's life than "abortion"..... which has as it's goal the death of the baby.
No, you're definitely not "100% prolife".
You know Yoda ... you had best change your name to here to bring de truth 100% prolife, how deceived.

reply from: faithman

Have about 10,000 I AM A PERSON cards in stock, waiting to be handed out. How bout it passifist? Or does handing out pictures of womb childen constitute violence?

reply from: NewPoster1

I see. So you would support a law that forces a parent to enter a burning building or vehicle (risking his/her own life) to attempt to save his/her born child's life and that would punish him/her if he/she refused to do so?

reply from: faithman

I see. So you would support a law that forces a parent to enter a burning building or vehicle (risking his/her own life) to attempt to save his/her born child's life and that would punish him/her if he/she refused to do so?
If in the process of giving birth, one is lost, it is an unfortunante tragedy. But when one hopps up on the table and scrifices a child to the God of conveniance, it is more like the parent who dumps gass on the house ties the kidds up inside and starts flicking lit matches at them. Well over 90% of abortions are preformed on healthy women to kill healthy children for non medical reasons.

reply from: Sigma

Do you support the woman being able to choose whether she risks her life for the fetus within her?

reply from: faithman

Do you support the woman being able to choose whether she risks her life for the fetus within her?
That is a non-issue, as that was already legal before roe. Do you support the death of a healthy child, in a healthy mom just so mom can get back at daddy and kill his child?

reply from: Sigma

I see. So you do not support the death penalty for doctors who perform these abortions?
I support abortion, if that's what your asking.

reply from: faithman

I see. So you do not support the death penalty for doctors who perform these abortions?
I support abortion, if that's what your asking.
Wasn't what I was asking. I asked do you suport the vengance killing of a child by the mother, just to get back at the dad, knowing that killing his child would hurt him, and for no other reason.

reply from: Sigma

Well, since this forum is about abortion, all I can say is that I support abortion

reply from: Hereforareason

"AshMarie88 does not believe this. She is "pro-life without exception" which means that abortion is not justified in any situation, including the situation where the woman's life would be risked to continue the pregnancy. Not believing in abortion for yourself but thinking that other women should choose for themselves whether to risk their lives would be a pro-choice position.
Do you understand yet the contradiction? You disagree with AshMarie88 just as I do.
"
Simga, do you understand this question, if so please answer it.
How is it going to help the woman to give birth to a dead baby rather than a live one?
How does it help the woman specifically to stop that heart from beating before removing it from the womb?
Amber

reply from: faithman

Well, since this forum is about abortion, all I can say is that I support abortion
So you suport the vengance killing of a healthy womb child so mom can get back at daddy?

reply from: Sigma

I support legal abortion, so aborting for any reason during the first trimester I would support the legality of. Are you asking morally?

reply from: faithman

what does it matter, an inocent child is dead because of an evil hearted mom.

reply from: Sigma

What is legal is not necessarily moral, so it would matter

reply from: faithman

What is legal is not necessarily moral, so it would matter
either way an inocent child is dead so it doesn't matter

reply from: Sigma

Moral don't matter to you?

reply from: faithman

Morality and legality should be the same thing. Once upon a time in america they were.

reply from: Sigma

Never were, never were intended to be, aren't, and never will be.
So, then, you don't care about morals?

reply from: faithman

Never were, never were intended to be, aren't, and never will be.
So, then, you don't care about morals?
All laws are based upon some ones moral principles. With out some form of morality, there is no basis for law.

reply from: Sigma

Certainly there is
It is what allows us to live, as much as possible, without interfering with each others lives. You're a funny person, faithman

reply from: Sigma

Hereforareason, I was clarifying your understanding of AshMarie88's position. Your questions have nothing to do with that point. Abortion is an alternative to birth, abortion is not birth.
Whether or how it will help the woman is completely individual to the woman. Obviously she feels she will be helped by abortion, which is why she desires to acquire one. I cannot speculate on every woman's reason or why she feels it will help her.
How will it help the woman to require her to continue her pregnancy and give birth against her will? Why should it be your business to force "help" on a woman who has no desire whatsoever for your help? That is denigrating to women. Women do not need someone to come along and protect them from themselves.

reply from: catharinevitale

You cannot be 100% prolife unless you also reprobate capital punishment, war, euthanasia and are vegetarian.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Well, I'd like to contest that. For example, I am against euthanasia but I am not against war. If someone could suggest to me another way to end the Holocaust or slavery in America perhaps I would be. I admire your comitment though.

reply from: Sigma

Then, by the criteria put down by catharinevitale, you would not be 100% pro-life.

reply from: faithman

Certainly there is
It is what allows us to live, as much as possible, without interfering with each others lives. You're a funny person, faithman
What you describe is morality.

reply from: faithman

Certainly there is
It is what allows us to live, as much as possible, without interfering with each others lives. You're a funny person, faithman
What you describe is morality.
Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty
Pronunciation: m&-'ra-l&-tE, mo-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE

reply from: Sigma

No, it's not. Where it morality, it would have a doctrine or system of moral conduct. Our gov't was never intended to make us moral people. The gov't exists so we can function as a society. You could view freedom as a value, but hardly a moral.

reply from: Hereforareason

" Abortion is an alternative to birth, abortion is not birth. "
Not true. Abortion is not a live birth, but the baby must be birthed either way. And it has everything to do with the title of the topic here. If a woman is so critically ill or something that the baby is endangering her life (Which I don't know how many cases there actually are) But if the issue is the baby in the womb, why must it be removed dead? What is the problem with inducing a live birth and fighting for BOTH patients?
"Whether or how it will help the woman is completely individual to the woman. Obviously she feels she will be helped by abortion, which is why she desires to acquire one. I cannot speculate on every woman's reason or why she feels it will help her. "
Well in that case, what if I feel that it would be in my best interest to kill my boy friend. That is my CHOICE isn't it?
"How will it help the woman to require her to continue her pregnancy and give birth against her will? Why should it be your business to force "help" on a woman who has no desire whatsoever for your help? That is denigrating to women. Women do not need someone to come along and protect them from themselves. "
Denigrating huh? The last thing women today need is to be told that they need to kill their child to live a good life. Talk about degrading! A woman gets pregnant and "chooses" to get a very degrading oporation performed on her in order to remove and kill (Or in most cases kill and then removed) her child. Treated like garbage. Woman don't deserve to be treated that way.
But In regard to it bing my business to force help on a woman who has no desire for it.........
The woman is a victim, but not THE victim. How often is it the person commiting the crime that calls for help? Not many. It is normally the victim.
Sigma, if another person is exersizing their right to choose by choosing to burn you alive, do they want help? Do you want help?
Or are you not worth helping if you can't help yourself?
Amber

reply from: Sigma

No, not really. Just as miscarriage is not considered birth, abortion is not considered birth either.
It would depend on the gestational age. Before viability, birth is not an option.
You would be violating his rights, which is not justifiable in most situations. The fetus has no rights to violate. Even were the fetus to have rights, in that situation killing the fetus may be justifiable, depending on the State.
Dodging the question? The pro-choice philosophy is about choice, not telling women they need to do this or that to lead a good life.
So, how will it help the woman to require her to continue her pregnancy and give birth against her will?
lol. If it is done by choice, how is it degrading?
So, then, you are not trying to help women.
"Worth helping" to whom? In this country, I have rights because I was born here. I would be helped because of that, in that situation. In other situations, I may or may not be helped.

reply from: faithman

There are new laws that say if a womb child is hurt or killed in the commission of a crime, the criminal can be charged. John Kerry voted against this because he was affraid it atributed to much personhood to the womb child, and threatend government sanctioned killer mom action at planned Parenthood.

reply from: yoda

Our government has probably given up on YOUR "morality", sigma, but all criminal laws are an attempt to enforce the morality of the majority of any society.
You can't be moral and be totally cold and unfeeling at the same time, siggy....... that's probably why you have so much trouble with that concept.

reply from: yoda

Yet another life from the prince of liars..... a miscarriage or an abortion is a "still birth", kinda like your "conscience", ya know?
still.birth
Pronunciation: (stil'bûrth"), [key]
- n.
1. the birth of a dead child or organism.
2. a fetus dead at birth.
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/stillbirth

reply from: JesusSucks

This is a fallacy. Whether they did so properly before does not affect whether it is proper and logical now.
i stated an opinion and provided the reason for it. how is that a fallacy.
huh. either the child is a person or it isnt. again, considering the track record of the usa arongly judging this kind of thing i dont believe them in decalring the child in the womb not a persoin either.
Consider this: Were a person to undergo an operation whereby his brain were safely removed and placed in a jar, was a new person created?
just when I thought you could be intelligent... if if if situations are stupid. if your father had tits hed be your mom too. talk to the reality of things or sstop talking.

reply from: yoda

Sigma??? Stop talking??? Surely you jest! All his entire repertoire here is geared to confusing, changing the subject, clouding the issues, digressing to explore every tiny point of minutia, and filling up the forum with his BS. Anything at all to keep from giving a straight answer.

reply from: faithman

some maggot punks just like to aurgue for the sake of aurguing. They don't believe in anything so they think it funny to yank folks chains.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: Sigma
This is a fallacy. Whether they did so properly before does not affect whether it is proper and logical now.
Originally posted by: JesusSucks
i stated an opinion and provided the reason for it. how is that a fallacy.
I understand your reasoning in that they were wrong twice but that does not prove they were wrong a third time. The problem with your reasoning is that you are making Governmental positions the validation of whether something is true or not. Just because the Government now says that Blacks and Woman are people does not make it so. Now of course I believe that Blacks, women and the unborn all should have equal status as "person". If we relegate the definition of truth to a body of people that changes then truth is going to change and who knows maybe someday you will not be regarded a person. The point is that there are higher standards that state what is a person. Do you consider the unborn a person Sigma? Does it unnerve you that the classification can change acording to "This Worlds System". You have essencially made the Government your God.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: yoda

Yes, that would be our dear, beloved sigma, all right.

reply from: JesusSucks

Originally posted by: Sigma
This is a fallacy. Whether they did so properly before does not affect whether it is proper and logical now.
Originally posted by: JesusSucks
i stated an opinion and provided the reason for it. how is that a fallacy.
I understand your reasoning in that they were wrong twice but that does not prove they were wrong a third time.
twice isn't all of the track record. Injuns, born children, public eduction and unions, mafia, corruption of all kinds have decided some people are worth more than others. dont forget the wars that have been started over issues no one can justify if the facts behind them are known, soldiers are nothing but expendable government issue instead of human beings. they are dehumanized. dont be stupid.
you didn't read my comment then. i wasn't making an arguement nor was my conclusion a leap in logic. i just didnt offer the reasoning other than to say the govt has a poor track record. i didnt say nor do i believe the unborn deserve personhood on whether or not the govt says so. you are the one who leaped to a conclusion not me.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Actually I was not replying to your comment. It was towards Sigma
BiblicalTruth

reply from: yoda

Hey, how dare you frighten poor little siggy with mean old words like "morality"? Don't you know he's terrified of such things?
Why, he probably has an allergic reaction to such words!

reply from: JohnGlenn

Originally posted by: Sigma
This is a fallacy. Whether they did so properly before does not affect whether it is proper and logical now.
Originally posted by: JesusSucks
i stated an opinion and provided the reason for it. how is that a fallacy.
I understand your reasoning in that they were wrong twice but that does not prove they were wrong a third time.
twice isn't all of the track record. Injuns, born children, public eduction and unions, mafia, corruption of all kinds have decided some people are worth more than others. dont forget the wars that have been started over issues no one can justify if the facts behind them are known, soldiers are nothing but expendable government issue instead of human beings. they are dehumanized. dont be stupid.
you didn't read my comment then. i wasn't making an arguement nor was my conclusion a leap in logic. i just didnt offer the reasoning other than to say the govt has a poor track record. i didnt say nor do i believe the unborn deserve personhood on whether or not the govt says so. you are the one who leaped to a conclusion not me.
BT is confused. Did you note that he called you Siggy in the post? I do not think he is able to keep up in conversations like this.

reply from: JohnGlenn

Actually I was not replying to your comment. It was towards Sigma
BiblicalTruth
Really? Where did siggy state his reasoning was " that they were wrong twice but that does not prove they were wrong a third time."? Those were your opening remarks to the poster that you were addressing.

reply from: JesusSucks

Originally posted by: Sigma
This is a fallacy. Whether they did so properly before does not affect whether it is proper and logical now.
Originally posted by: JesusSucks
i stated an opinion and provided the reason for it. how is that a fallacy.
I understand your reasoning in that they were wrong twice but that does not prove they were wrong a third time.
twice isn't all of the track record. Injuns, born children, public eduction and unions, mafia, corruption of all kinds have decided some people are worth more than others. dont forget the wars that have been started over issues no one can justify if the facts behind them are known, soldiers are nothing but expendable government issue instead of human beings. they are dehumanized. dont be stupid.
you didn't read my comment then. i wasn't making an arguement nor was my conclusion a leap in logic. i just didnt offer the reasoning other than to say the govt has a poor track record. i didnt say nor do i believe the unborn deserve personhood on whether or not the govt says so. you are the one who leaped to a conclusion not me.
BT is confused. Did you note that he called you Siggy in the post? I do not think he is able to keep up in conversations like this.
maybe he is presuming I am the same poster as sigy and he just revealed that. interesting how sometimes the subtle things reveal more rather than than less.

reply from: yoda

I doubt that. You actually make sense, sometimes.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Originally posted by: Sigma
This is a fallacy. Whether they did so properly before does not affect whether it is proper and logical now.
Originally posted by: JesusSucks
i stated an opinion and provided the reason for it. how is that a fallacy.
Originally posted by: BiblicalTruth
I understand your reasoning in that they were wrong twice but that does not prove they were wrong a third time. The problem with your reasoning is that you are making Governmental positions the validation of whether something is true or not.
I have highlighted Sigma's statement which my statement is a response to and can only sensically be a response to his statement. I followed the conversation and have highlighted it for those who can't now so you can stop making a fool of yourself.
After the misunderstanding all this came out. Maybe I will highlight from now on for you both.
Originally posted by: BiblicalTruth
you didn't read my comment then. i wasn't making an arguement nor was my conclusion a leap in logic. i just didnt offer the reasoning other than to say the govt has a poor track record. i didnt say nor do i believe the unborn deserve personhood on whether or not the govt says so. you are the one who leaped to a conclusion not me.
Originally posted by: JohnGlenn
BT is confused. Did you note that he called you Siggy in the post? I do not think he is able to keep up in conversations like this.
I am rubber you are glue what you say bounces of me and sticks to you. ooppps I just fell of my chair.......howl
BiblicalTruth

reply from: yoda

I think the trouble is that you and siggy are using the same avatar, you really ought to try another one.

reply from: BiblicalTruth

Done. I like you.
BiblicalTruth

reply from: yoda

Much, much better.......... ;D

reply from: ThunderKitten

Not true. Maybe morally moral principals would be the only basis for law, but in reality things can be quite different. People can make up laws for entirely arbitrary, spiteful, personal gain, villanous, or other reasons. And if that person gets enough of the right people in line to put it in place, then it becomes law. There's no law that says laws have to be moral.
---
Now, regarding whether a woman should be able to abort if her life is in danger... Well... I don't want to die. I'd kill to save my kid, but I don't think I'd be willing to die for him/her. Sorry guys.
Do I think everything should be done to also save the baby? Damn right! I certainly wouldn't let the doc inject stuff into the kid to kill it. That's just dumb.

reply from: ThunderKitten

%#^* double post. Grrr...
Hey, I'll take this oppertunity to say more stuff.
Incorrect. You cannot be 100% prolife unless you singlehandedly prevent the deaths of every living being, reverse the deaths of those beings that have already died, insure an infinite increase in living beings, and guaruntee immortality and eternal bliss for all. (That includes individaul cells, too, not just the whole creature/plant/fungus/etc.) Until you do that, you are not pro-life. So, I guess not even God is pro-life.

reply from: AshMarie88

Are you saying you wouldn't die to save your almost born child? Do you feel the same way concerning any born children you may have? If not, why would you die for one of your born children but not your other almost-born child? It's... strange.

reply from: AshMarie88

That's not true. 100% pro-life means 100% anti-abortion, nothing else.
And if we have to be against every death in order to be 100% pro-life, then in the same way, you have to be for every choice in order to be pro-choice or 100% pro-choice (whether that includes rape, murder, etc. EVERY CHOICE!).

reply from: Hessflg

Ashley----- Did you not get the just of what I was saying? I AM
100% PRO-LIFE !!!!!!! BUT there ARE times when abortion is ok. Did
you not understand that when a woman is pregnant and comes down with
toxemia (pre-eclampsia) her life and the life of her unborn child ARE IN
GRAVE DANGER !!!!!!! They both could DIE !!!!!!!!! Now, if the pregnancy
is far enough along, I say deliver the child early. Treat the child and the mother
for the toxins. Otherwise, I say save the life of the mother and have the child
aborted. The woman can always have more children.
What I'm against is using abortion as birth control. I'm against abortion
just because a woman or girl was raped. There's a reason the child was conceived.
There's many reasons I'm against abortion. And, again, I AM PRO-LIFE.
BUT, And I'll say it again, BUT, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN ABORTION IS NECESSARY !!!!! SO !!!! Miss Ashley, DON'T TELL ME I'M NOT 100% PRO-LIFE !
Till you know someone who has actually had her life on the line with toxemia,
that she and her unborn child could BOTH die, don't go around saying "no"
to abortion ALL TOGETHER. I DON'T AGREE WITH ABORTION EITHER
BUT IN SUCH MEDICAL CASES, I SAY OK.
You, Miss Ashley need to learn to lower your "high and mighty" attitude.

reply from: ThunderKitten

Yes and yes. I don't want to die.
Lifetime in prison? 99.9% likely I would do that to save my kid. Die? 95-99% likely I wouldn't.
There are some sacrifices that not everyone is willing to make. I think that's why we admire those who are willing to make that sacrifice.

reply from: Hessflg

Thunderkitten......Yes, I would give my life to save the life of my unborn.
But, now think of this.........would my husband want to lose me or his child?
This a fact, when a woman comes down with toxemia (pre-eclampsia) her
blood pressure sky rockets. Both she and the baby could die. Most of the
time the mother goes unconscience before death. Now, put yourself in
her husbands' shoes. He has a choice to make. To lose his unborn child,
lose his wife or worse, lose both. I honestly think the Father would rather
lose the child. He would still have his wife and later down the road, they could
try for another child. It's a catch 22 with this one. But I also think a little
common sense comes into play.
I never mentioned this before, but not only did I know a young woman
who dealt with toxemia, But, I had toxemia myself. Thank God I was
just 2 weeks til my due date and they were able to deliver the baby early.
But had I only been a few months pregnant, and had toxemia, they most
likely would have had to take the baby by abortion. It would have been too
soon for the baby to survive outside the womb.
My husband told me that if he would have had to make a choice to save me
or the baby, he would have saved me. He did not want to raise a baby
alone and to save me, we could try again later.
No matter how you look at it, there will be a loss.

reply from: yoda

Actually, all it takes to be "prolife" is to oppose the legal status of abortion, according to the dictionary.

reply from: yoda

No, there are not. "Abortion" is a procedure designed to ensure the death of the unborn baby. An early deliver may be used to protect the life of a pregnant woman in distress.
That is a major distinction.

reply from: yoda

No decent father would ever "rather" lose any child. No decent father would choose between them. He would make sure that every effort was made to try and save both.
But why go on and on about such a rare set of circumstances anyway? Aren't we here to try to convince folks that the elective killing of healthy babies by healthy mothers is wrong?

reply from: Hessflg

Yodavater: You're right. No decent Father would "rather" lose
his unborn child. Neither would he want to lose his spouse. He WOULD do
everything in his power to save BOTH. The Dr. and Nurses would do
everything they possibly could do. But when it came right down to it and there was absolutely nothing more that could be done , I'm sure you understand
what I'm saying. Sometimes you simply have to let go and try to understand
God has everything in His hands.
Yes, these kind of circumstances are rare, But THEY DO HAPPEN !
Isn't the topic : "The health/ life exceptions" ? Well, I was trying to say
that sometimes that medically there are, sad so say, times when abortion
is necessary.
As for the elective killing of healthy babies by healthy mothers, I AM DEAD
SET AGAINST IT!!!!!!!!!! The killing of unborn babies for their own
selfish purposes IS WRONG !!!!!!! To kill a child because the "timing
wasn't right"; because the mother was raped; her birth control failed; or
anyother selfish reason is WRONG !!!! There I agree with you.
So, please try to see where i'm coming from, medically speaking.

reply from: domsmom

Sigma said regarding gov. decisions on personhood (slavery inparticular)
i would be willing to bet my income tax return that in 20 years, everyone will be appaled at the fact we used to slaughter defenseless babies in the womb. Just like they are today about slavery. (Most anyway)

reply from: yoda

Apparently we are having a communication problem. I have mentioned to you several times that it is your choice of words that I object to...... there is no need for "abortion" per se, when an early delivery is just as protective for the mother and does not carry with it the intentional killing of the baby. Did you miss that?
Well, good...... we're certainly on the same page there!

reply from: Sigma

Unfortunately I've caught a head cold and can't reply to everything
Birth is not an option during the time-frame the vast majority of abortions are performed.
No, it's typically used to refer to a fetus leaving the womb after viability, and usually after a certain gestational age. After viability, but before a certain gestational age it's typically referred to as a "premature birth", and is usually referred to a "stillbirth" if delivered dead after viability. In virtually no case by any establishment within the medical community is the term "birth" used as you are attempting to here.
Those laws are consistent, otherwise they would not have passed in those various States.
This is your opinion.
False. Disconnecting the fetus during any time-frame, yes, but not killing it during any time-frame. You're constructing a straw-man.
Again false, for the same reason.
False in practice, since it is perfectly legal to leave the child with many locations or people if one is unwilling to care for it.
This is your strawman. It has no relation to the pro-choice argument.
Personhood, which is the point of contention, is not a biological point. It is an abstract label. Biology determines if one is human. Anything beyond that would merely be labels that are not determined by biology, but by society.
That doesn't answer the question.

reply from: Sigma

To believe The State was wrong before therefore it is wrong now is a fallacy. If this is not your conclusion then what you brought up is irrelevent.
To believe Because the gov't was wrong before I do not believe them now would be the fallacy I mentioned. That they were wrong before does not make them wrong now. You must determine why they are wrong now if you believe that to be so.
It is a question that can help clarify the personhood issue. Where is the person, JesusSucks? Would it be in the jar or on the table?

reply from: Sigma

I disagree. The trend is for more and more freedom, not less. Were we to restrict abortion, it would be similar to going back to slavery. I doubt we would do this.

reply from: Sigma

No woman has the option of birth during the time-frame the vast majority of abortions are performed. Birth is not an option, period, during the first 3 months. There are only two options open to her: Continue the pregnancy or abort. Birth is not an option.
My mother chose to continue her pregnancy. She could not choose to give birth during that time-frame.
lol. Try to comprehend. "Live birth" is one type of birth. "Birth", by itself, is typically used to refer to a fetus leaving the womb after viability, and most likely after a certain gestational age. After viability, but before a certain gestational age it's typically referred to as a "premature birth", and is usually referred to a "stillbirth" if delivered dead after viability. In virtually no case by any establishment within the medical community is the term "birth" used as you are attempting to here.
Yes. Laws that are inconsistent with "societal standards" within that State will not remain laws long. In South Dakota, for instance, the law that restricted abortion was inconsistent with societal standards and so was repealed.
lol. Yes, it is. This is why laws protecting people vary from State to State as standards, determined by the people of that State, change.
Provide a case that proves it to not be legal to do so. Otherwise you are blowing smoke. To attempt to make a conclusion based on whether current law covers completely hypothetical situations that have little to no chance of occuring is complete idiocy. Current law would not cover that. It does not cover if a wizard comes and turns us all into green cheese because there is little to no chance of this occuring. You do not know what would be legal in that case. Unless you can show close precedent, there is no likelyhood of this being the open and shut case you assert it to be.
I find it amusing how far you must reach and the semantics you must twist in order to have a slim chance of being right.
Show case law.
This is excepted by the fact that parents can remove the child from their care if they have no wish to care for it. You can show no precedent where the lack of parental care caused the death of the child after it was delivered safely to the care of another having legal consequences. Put up or shut up
The effect is the same. Parents may leave their children in the care of another. Whatever you believe the law was "designed for", parents may leave their children in the care of another. The law does not, in any way, allow for legal consequences after parents have safely surrendered their child. Unless you can provide a case that shows differently, you have absolutely no backing.
If her milk is the only source of nutrition possible, there is no law that would prevent her from surrendering the child While it is in her care, she must of course provide for it.
"Person" is an abstract, not determined by biology. To whom those laws apply are also determined by society. Biology can determine who is "human", but cannot determine beyond that.
This does not answer my question. My question implies that requiring her to continue her pregnancy does indeed help her. I assume, then, that you do not believe this and are content that you will not be helping women with your view.

reply from: yoda

So, when are you going to become a champion for the freedom of the unborn child, siggy?
Why do you support taking away every possible freedom from the unborn child by killing it, siggy?
What makes you such a selfish pig that you would do that, siggy?

reply from: yoda

Usage by society is what determines the meaning of common terms like "person", siggy.
You're too dishonest to admit that, but our society determined centuries ago that the word "person" is defined as "the body of a human being", and that IS what it means........
But you're too dishonest to admit that, I realize.

reply from: Sigma

I am not contending with her reasons, I am stating a fact. In the time-frame the vast majority of abortions are performed, her only two choices are to either continue the pregnancy or to abort. Birth is not an option during that time-frame.
"Birth", by itself, is typically used to refer to a fetus leaving the womb after viability, and most likely after a certain gestational age. After viability, but before a certain gestational age it's typically referred to as a "premature birth", and is usually referred to a "stillbirth" if delivered dead after viability. In virtually no case by any establishment within the medical community is the term "birth" used as you are attempting to here.
Your quotation of the dictionary does not and cannot refute this.
We are talking laws, which are determined by many individuals Were they inconsistent with societal standards, they would not remain law long.
No, I am saying the decition would not be clear-cut as you attempt to assert when there is no close precedent and the law you are quoting was not meant to apply in this completely hypothetical situation. You could not make your conclusion without a case to show it to be so. In this case, it would be up to the judges discresion, and I doubt he would decide the way you suggest.
Besides, I did not assert anything about cutting the cord "before the doctor deems prudent". The doctor would take the comfort and care of the woman into consideration as well, and may deem it prudent to cut the cord even if it may cause the death of the baby. It would depend on the circumstances.
Yes, I can and do. I do not believe you can provide any case where such a situation existed and was ruled in the way you suggest. It is not even logically true to suggest that a doctor would be forbidden from cutting the cord for 10 days, even were the baby to die if the cord were cut.
Agreed. And "delivered safely" occurs as long as no harm comes to the child while it was in her care. Once it is "delivered safely", it no longer is in her care and she is not obligated to care for it, even were it to die without her care.
In this country there is virtually no situation where a woman does not have access to this service, so my point stands.
lol, show this to be so! Show where safely surrendering the child, itself, ever constituted an act or omission and show that she had legal consequences as a result of this! This is not even logically true. The harm is not caused by surrendering the child, the harm is from not being fed, and the woman is not responsible for this after she surrenders the child.
Yes, we've been through this before and you could not show this to be true then either.
Then show that surrendering the child constitutes an "act or omission" in any case law.
That's fine, but it does not answer my question on how it helps at all, even as a secondary concern. The question was not directed at you in any case, so I do not care much if you try to dodge it.

reply from: Sigma

False. The perceptions of one may indeed affect the defensibility of an action.
Many, though not all, laws regarding self-defense mention a fear for one's own physical safety. If you do not perceive the other as a threat (or lie and just say you perceived them as a threat), then killing them is not justifiable. It is not just the fact, but your perception of that fact that allows a certain action.
Besides, the law is perfectly consistent in the sense that whatever is affecting the fetus must, by necessity, affect her. If she objects to what happened to the fetus then it is perfectly consistent for her perception to take precedence since what happens to the fetus happens to her by necessity.

reply from: yoda

Reading and replying to your posts leaves me feeling dirty, siggy...... there's just something about reading your sleazy approach to protecting the practice of baby killing that really makes one feel like they've been in a sewer.
Nothing you say makes any moral sense, and yet you go on and on and on with it, as if someone cared. Oh wait, there are other baby killers that post on the forum, and they probably do want you to drone on and on and on..........

reply from: Sigma

I see. You seem to be asserting that it is not possible for a woman to cut off her children's fingers, since it was in response to my claim that the situation you cite is not possible so the law you cite would not have been intended to cover that circumstance. If that is not what you are asserting, your objection here does not apply.
Nay. I am asserting that what the doctor deems "prudent" would vary according to the circumstance, and what one doctor deems "prudent" another may not so. It would be individual to the doctor and the situation.
Oh ho! You suddenly qualify your statement. I thought "Every act or omission that results in harm to the child is covered". Is that suddenly no longer the case? The law you keep quoting makes no mention whatsoever of exceptions. Do you mean that the law you are quoting is no longer all-encompassing?
That's fine, assume that. There is no evidence you can provide that would show that cutting the cord is necessarily illegal. Cutting the cord is part of birth, and any complication during labor that requires a delay of 10 days it outside of what we can reasonably expect during birth.
I wouldn't have to justify a woman's decision in this or any situation.
The intention of safe-surrender laws is to provide women with a choice other than a trashcan to abandon their infants in. It is a service to women. Nowhere in the concept, intention or execution of this law is there application in utero and the underlying assumption with this and any law that applies would be that a woman is able to safely relinquish control of her infant. To change the underlying assumption to an impossibility invalidates the comparision and to attempt to reach some sort of conclusion based upon this is idiocy. You are an idiot for attempting this. The amusing thing is that you're still wrong.
The law is meant to cover harm by act or omission that the woman is legally culpable for. You cannot or at least have not shown any situation or case that surrendering a child would, in any way, lead to legal culpability on the part of the woman. I contend that it would not happen. If you can show differently I will concede the point.
*sigh*
I claim that surrendering the infant would not be a legally culpable "act or omission" in the way you suggest.
In a similar way that I, walking up to a house and knocking on the door, could concievably result in a heart attack on the part of the occupant. I could not be legally culpable for that (in virtually all circumstances).
No, it does not cover our scenario. Surrendering the infant does not harm the infant. The lack of food does, but the woman is not legally required to feed it at that point.
There is precedent that the perceptions of the involved persons affect the justifiability of the act.

reply from: yoda

Siggy, your thread is back on page one, don't you want to post in it? I started it just for you, siggy, so you could tell us why you think it's okay to kill babies.... don't you want to talk about that, siggy?

reply from: bradensmommy

You know what cracks me up about 'ol Siggy? I have a very good friend who is pro-choice and she would never believe the things he thinks. Methinks he is doing this for shock value and you guys are totally letting him get to you.

reply from: AshMarie88

The actual POINT of my post was that late term abortion to save the mother's life is NOT necessary, no matter how much any pro-choicers wanna believe that.

reply from: yoda

Hard to say, proaborts don't all think alike, any more than we do. But sometimes his crap gets so ridiculous that it is hard to escape the conclusion that he's trying to pull our chain, yes.
I wonder why he won't post on his "special thread"?

reply from: bradensmommy

Even most pro-choicers don't even believe in late-term. Abortion is murder like it or not, but even in the third trimester its even worse. I think its sad that people like Tiller the Killer gets off on killing a full-term baby.
Hey Ash, you know Jamie from Myspace right? She kicked me off her group because I said something about me believing that abortion kills a human being. She found it "offensive". But then again, she is pro-choice (even though, kudos to her, she had her baby out of rape).
But still...it is killing or am I wrong?

reply from: yoda

Siggy doesn't care what YOUR point may have been, Ashley, he will just go ahead and post his idiotic mumbo-jumbo anyway.
Try to get him to post on "his" special thread.

reply from: yoda

How can there be any question? Doesn't "kill" still mean to cause death?

reply from: AshMarie88

Hmm... you sure you were kicked out for just saying that? I've talked to Jamie before and she doesn't seem like she would purposely do something like that. I don't know, she's usually always been nice to me and was in one of her debate groups but still debated with pro-choicers, and I was never kicked out.
But yes, it is killing, because the unborn are living beings.

reply from: Sigma

Then you do not accept that the situation you posed has virtually zero chance of arising? The outlandish nature of what you are suggesting does not allow for current law to be applicable in the open-and-shut way you suggest without prior precedence. You have not suppled this precedent.
You tell me. You said: I am asserting that it would be criminal for either the doctor or mother to take any deliberate action that could reasonably harm the child in a case where there was no immediate danger to the mother.
Do you say that in a case where one could "reasonably" say harm would come to the mother deliberate action that harms the infant could be justified in the situation you posed?
I have every confidence you will not directly answer this question.
The statute is not all-encompassing it seems, so I'll reserve my judgement on how you answer the above question.
Actually, I expressed your point much better than you yourself seem able to.
You lie. Women can indeed deny this to their infants by removing those children from their care by safely surrendering them to various locations. Your implication that infants, or, by extention, the fetus, have some sort of unlimited right to require the woman to care for them is, flately, false.
You cannot show your scenario would be illegal. It would not even be true logically.
Your point here has failed. I'm sorry, it just has.
This is simply not true, and to make this comparison is not valid. As I said before: Nowhere in the concept, intention or execution of this law is there application in utero and the underlying assumption with this and any law that applies would be that a woman is able to safely relinquish control of her infant. To change the underlying assumption to an impossibility invalidates the comparision and to attempt to reach some sort of conclusion based upon this is idiocy.
The underlying assumption, the reason these laws exist, are based upon the fact that women are able to safely remove infants from their care and deliver this care to another. These laws, in concept or application, were never intended to apply in the situation you propose and were never intended to apply pre-natally. I defy you to provide evidence that these laws would apply in the way you suggest. To attempt a conclusion by underminding the assumptions the law is based upon is not only dishonest but idiotic. It just is not valid.
Dependant on what arguments in specific, and cut to the chase of what? I am responding to your arguments.
*sigh*
I cannot tell whether this is willful ignorance on your part or just stubborness. You have not shown that surrendering an infant in any way, shape or form constitutes an "act or omission" that harms the infant in a legally culpable way. She is legally culpable if an act or omission harms the infant while the infant is in her care, but you have not shown that surrendering the infant would fall under this umbrella. Show this and your point is affirmed. If you cannot show this then your point has no basis in fact.
And that's all you have done. It is not enough to quote the statute, you must show that surrendering the infant, itself, falls under "act or omission" or that surrendering the infant harms the infant in a legally culpable way. In any case, show that surrendering an infant safely would ever fall under that clause.
Then show she is criminally liable for surrendering the infant, itself! You cannot or, at least, have not shown that the act of legally and safely surrendering an infant in any way, shape or form constitutes harm even if the infant dies or is mistreated or is malnourished later. It is not true in actuality and it is not true logically.
lol! Do you even listen to yourself? Now it's all about "reasonably expected to pose a risk to a child". I'm amazed you don't choke talking out of both sides of your mouth
You're right! It is rediculous and there is no way that knocking on a door can be "reasonably expected" to cause a heart attack. I would not be legally culpable for this even though my knock caused the heart attack because it was the condition of the occupant that was the more immediate cause just as the cause of death for the infant was starvation. The woman did not starve the infant because she was not obligated to feed the infant. My knock would not qualify as an "act or omission" that harmed the man just as surrendering the infant would not qualify as an "act or omission" that harms the infant.
Do you yet see the depth of your delusion? There is even less connection between the woman's action and the death of the infant as there is between my knock and the death of the man.
I never disagreed. Now build a point around it.
Do you contend, then, that the woman is not "safely surrendering" the infant? Perhaps you could post what "safely surrendering" means in the statutes and we'll see if a pre-existing condition falls under it.
lol. Just lol.

reply from: yoda

Oh, siggy-poo...... your phone is ringing, siggy-poo... it's in the thread with your name on it, siggy-poo.........

reply from: bradensmommy

Hmm... you sure you were kicked out for just saying that? I've talked to Jamie before and she doesn't seem like she would purposely do something like that. I don't know, she's usually always been nice to me and was in one of her debate groups but still debated with pro-choicers, and I was never kicked out.
But yes, it is killing, because the unborn are living beings.
Yeppers. I thought it was because this girl and I got into an arguement but my friend Liz asked her and she told me that was why. I thought it was petty. She told Liz that I can be back in and I was like "no thanks"

reply from: coco

How about coming right on out and saying who you are referring to? Don't hide behind innuendo. If you have an accusation to make, grow a pair and spit it out. I'm well aware of your habit of accusing people of insincerity toward the prolife cause behind their backs.

reply from: coco

[sarcasm] Yeah, you're really giving him hell, Yoda. I believe "roasting" was the word you used. Keep up the good work.[/sarcasm]

reply from: yoda

coco, (notice how I'm addressing you directly) since you and I don't seem to be able to "get along", I'll just bow out of this little spat and ignore your posts from now on. I think that will be the best thing for the "good of the cause", don't you?

reply from: Sigma

And I deny that if the situation ever arose the woman would be held culpable.
Altering the fundamental assumptions upon which the law is grounded will not show you anything regardless of which way the question is answered. The comparison is invalid. Even if I agreed with you this cannot be extended to the fetus in the womb, nor could it even apply to the real circumstances again. This is true idiocy, but the really amusing thing is that you are still wrong.
Unless you can show that the infant came to harm as a result of an "act or omission" while in her care then your point about "act or omission has no force whatsoever.
The situation is that the woman sufficiently cared for the infant while it was in her custody and surrendered it in a legal location. Unless you can show that the act of surrendering the infant constitutes or has ever constituted an "act or omission", itself, that caused harm the infant then your point has no basis in fact. So far you have not done this. At no time does the woman harm the infant by an "act or omission" unless you can show surrendering the infant, itself, constitutes this harm.
Alright, now show that surrendering an infant, itelf, constitutes harm when the infant is malnourished or mistreated after it is surrendered. Since she is not obligated to feed the infant after it is surrendered and is not obligated to ensure it is fed, her culpability must stem from an "act or omission" that would satisfy the culpability requirement. Unless you can show prior precedence where surrendering the child, itself, makes the woman culpable for a death later on then you conclusion cannot be logically accepted as necessarily true.
Do homicide laws generally differentiate between manners of death, or the intent of the one who caused it? I do not see how this example undermines the fundamental assumptions of homicide laws. You are just blowing smoke.
Then under what basis do you contend the statutes you mentioned are all-encompassing?
You have stated that anything that violates the statute must be illegal, but this is obviously not the case. I can also content that a woman's constitutionally protected right to privacy does not allow the statute you mentioned to force her to remain connected.
The law also allows for defense if the doctors believes it is necessary to prevent a different harm, such as violating the woman's rights.
In criminal law, necessity may be either a possible excuse or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm
As discussed in State of New York v. Gray, 150 Misc. 2d 852 (N.Y. Co. 1991),the defendant is generally held to a "reasonableness" standard; the question is whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have reached the conclusion that the relevant conduct was necessary. It is not necessary that the defendant actually avert a greater harm, just that his or her belief be reasonable
Generally, he would have to introduce some evidence that he had no reasonable alternative and he did not create the danger himself.
Then the statute is obviously not "all encompassing".
Only while the infant is in her care, which it is not once she surrenders it. Unless you can show that the act of surrendering is a an "act or omission" that harms the infant in a legally culpable way your point is not based in fact. The statutes you posted merely mention that she must abandon the infant with the intent that it is cared for by another. She does not have to ensure that occurs.
False. She has to "ensure" nothing, only intend that the party receiving the infant care for the infant. She does not have to ensure this occurs, so whether or not it is impossible does not make her legally culpable.
It failed because you did not do what you just did, which is to try to provide support for your (failed) claim that surrendering the infant falls under "act or omission" in a legally culpable way.
There were already laws that protect children. "Safe surrender laws" were created to allow women a safe choice when abandoning their infants. This does protect infants, but their reason for being was because women were abandoning their infants in an unsafe manner.
lol, obviously trying to get out of your previous assertion that it is an "act or omission" in the meaning of the statutes. Amusing
So you are not arguing that surrendering the infant is harmful, and the infant came to no harm when in her care. Yet, somehow, the infant is harmed so the woman is prohibited? When was the infant harmed?
Only if she allows another to neglect the infant while she is legally responsible for the infant. After she surrenders the infant she is not legally responsible for the infant. She is only responsible for neglect that occurs while the infant is in her care. Do you contend, then, that the act of surrendering the infant constitutes neglect?
lol. The abuse statute does indeed state that, but the affirmative defense can allow immunity from abuse allegations.
From http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.pdf
In addition to the guarantee of anonymity, many States limit prosecution or provide that safe relinquishment of the infant is an affirmative defense in any prosecution of the parent or his/her agent for any crime against the child, such as abandonment, neglect, or child endangerment.
The act of surrendering the infant is an affirmative defense against allegations and prosecution for the act of surrendering the infant itself.
lol. And if someone has a heart attack when you knock on the door you are culpable for that according to you, eh?
In all seriousness, I do think you are unintelligent to be attempting this point, and the way you went about making this point was both dishonest and idiotic. For so long your trumpet call was that she was committing an "act or omission" and so was prohibited. You would not or could not answer calls to show this qualifies as such. Now you've abruptly switched to say that she's abusing the infant for putting it in that situation and so is prohibited. It is very clear that your grumbling about surrendering the infant being an act is just a way to try to cover your ass. It's rather disgusting, and is intellectually dishonest.
If you asked a question in physics like "Well what if gravity didn't exist" in an attempt to prove someone's claim wrong it would be as idiotic. No matter how it is answered you will not have proven them wrong.

reply from: Sigma

Absolutely, bottom line. I claim the woman the woman is not obligated to care for her child if she does not wish to. As you admit, this is true since a woman may give up a child she does not wish to care for. Whatever comes out of your hypothetical, this is absolutely true in practice. You try to counter that a woman must care for her child until she gives it up. I have not denied this; it is your strawman. If it makes you feel better, however, I agree that a woman must care for her child until she removes it from her care by surrendering it, etc. Since, in practice, there is little to no barrier to surrendering the infant, my point is not defeated.
Do you concede this point, at least in practice?
I'm afraid my browser is not sarcasm enabled.
I'm also sorry to say that you have misread the article. The part you are focusing on is irrelevent to our point here.
In addition to the guarantee of anonymity, many States limit prosecution or provide that safe relinquishment of the infant is an affirmative defense in any prosecution of the parent or his/her agent for any crime against the child, such as abandonment, neglect, or child endangerment.
The parent is or may be immune from prosecution on any allegation or crime against the infant surrounding the act, itself, of surrendering the infant. The mention of abuse, therefore, obviously refers to accusations of abuse other than the act of surrendering the infant.
You are contending that the act of surrendering, itself, is abuse and is therefore prohibited. This article would refute that. The act itself may not make the woman legally culpable for any crime.
You're dodging. My point referred to the doctor. I daresay that any reasonable doctor would conclude that requiring a woman to remain in labor for 10 days is an unreasonable expectation and would complete delivery, even if it meant stillbirth.
I see. So, would saving the life of the woman would qualify then? You seemed to believe saving the life of the woman by harming the infant would not qualify under the statute. Is there an exception or isn't there?
If there are exceptions it is not all-encompassing. Keep in mind that there are acts and omissions that one would not be legally culpable for. Pre-existing conditions, as the infant would have, generally do not make others culpable. I doubt you would find a judge that would make woman performing a normal and perfectly safe act culpable for a pre-existing condition on the infant's part, just as few, if any, judges would deem a person culpable for knocking on a door and causing a heart attack in the occupant. Can you find a case similar to this?
No, I think society wanted to allow mothers to abandon their infants in a safe and legal manner. They wished to save lives by providing a service to women. Providing this service to women saves the lives of infants. The law is a many splendored thing, not always subject to simplistic answers, but it's intention is certainly not to force women to take care of children they do not wish to care for. I'd make an observation of your simplistic answer being indicative of a simplistic mind, but you seem to have trouble connecting the dots in even elementary logic.
However, when you alter the fundamental assumptions of the law, you also undermine it's intention. It's intention is not to force women to care for their children. Altering the fundamental assumptions upon which the law is grounded will not show you anything regardless of which way the question is answered. The comparison is invalid. Even if I agreed with you this cannot be extended to the fetus in the womb since it is not in a position similar to this point. You may as well contend that there is no gravity and that this change would defeat my point. It is just irrelevent. You're still wrong, though :-\

reply from: AshMarie88

That is NOT 100% pro-life, that is less than 100% pro-life. if you were 100% pro-life, you'd be against ALL abortions. But since you're not, you're more like 85% pro-life.

reply from: Sigma

Cannot directly answer the question? There is little barrier, legally speaking. Practical difficulties are not part of my argument.
You are taking the quote way out of context. Taken in context, the quote clearly and logically only applies to abuse outside the act of surrendering the infant, itself.
In addition to the guarantee of anonymity, many States limit prosecution or provide that safe relinquishment of the infant is an affirmative defense in any prosecution of the parent or his/her agent for any crime against the child, such as abandonment, neglect, or child endangerment
Any crime. Your quote clearly and logically does not apply to our situation, since you are contending that surrendering the infant would constitute abuse.
I agree. The woman in our hypothetical satisfies that requirement, even if the infant starves to death.
Surrendering the infant, itself, is not an act that allows the woman to be legally culpable. This is very clearly shown by the article. The quote you are using has been taken out of context.
No, you have not. You have not shown she cannot give up the infant.
You cannot take laws intended for infants and apply them to the situation the fetus is in and expect any valid conclusion. They were not intended to apply in that kind of situation, they make certain assumptions that would not be true in the situation the fetus is in. My argument is true in practice. You admit your case cannot come to pass, so my argument is true. None today have the right to live off of the physical body of another against that other's will. If you make a hypothetical where God came down and fused people together then my argument fails. My argument assumes the world works the way it is working today. You cannot defeat my arguments in this manner.
They do, but even if they did not it would not disallow abortion by my arguments. It would show that the law does not take into account impossible scenarios.
I daresay that any reasonable doctor would think it is an unreasonable expectation to expect any woman to be in labor 10 days.
Except, obviously, the act of surrendering itself. The woman is not culpable for any crime directly related to that.
No, I think society wanted to allow mothers to abandon their infants in a safe and legal manner. It's intention is certainly not to force women to take care of children they do not wish to care for.

reply from: Sigma

Yes, safe surrender. Unless you can show that a pre-existing allergy would make the surrender "unsafe" the qualification is useless.
Show this occurs, then. I said my argument is true in practice, but not necessarily under impossible hypotheticals.
You misunderstand. It is an unreasonable expectation, so it is reasonable for the doctor to prevent this.
Well, yes, when you take it out of context there is no qualification. If you read the preceding paragraph it states that the act of surrendering is an affirmative defense against any crime and then gives examples of charges that would be leveled against the woman when she abandons the infant. Abuse would logically fall under this. The only logical conclusion of your quote is that it applies to evidence other than the act of surrendering.
It certainly doesn't say she is culpable if the caregivers find the infant difficult or impossible to care for, only that the parent surrenders the infant with the intent for another to care for it.
Read your
...
These "safe surrender" or "infant abandonment" laws aim to save infants lives by designating a safe haven where distraught parents can anonymously relinquish their babies without risk of prosecution or interrogation
Thier aim is to provide a service to parents that will save the lives of infants. Your statement is so simplistic as to be absurd.

reply from: yoda

I think that "health exceptions" account for about 4% of all abortions, and rape and incest maybe 2% more...... so subtract those numbers from 100 and get your "percentage"...... but of course, for babies conceived in rape or incest, a person that considers them to be an "exception" would be 0% prolife on that issue.

reply from: Sigma

I agree.
The harm was the infant starving, I'm assuming. Let's go in small steps. Now, she can legally surrender the infant if no harm or abuse or what-have-you occured as a result of her action or non-action while the infant was in here care with no questions asked. The act of surrendering the infant does not qualify, itself, as abuse or harm or endangerment or any of that on the part of the mother.
Would you agree with my assesment?

reply from: ThunderKitten

I am not aware of any condition other than pregnancy that absolutely requires a specific person to care for a particular child. Even if a child requires breast milk, it wouldn't necessarily have to be the mother who provides it. They even have a term for someone who provides breast milk for someone else's child: a wet nurse.
As sigma agrees that a mother should care for her child until it is (safely) surrendered, I assume this argument is being fought strictly on hypothetical/moral grounds?
Question: If someone were to leave their child with a daycare provider, babysitter, or send their child to school, and the temporary cargiver(s) were to mistreat, abuse, neglect, or kill the child while under their care, would the parent be liable for the other person's actions? In all circumstances? Some circumstances/which ones? None?

reply from: ThunderKitten

I percieved catharinevitale's statement to be mocking the "what it takes to be 100% pro-life" dialougue. I was "one-uping" her. 'Twas not meant to be taken seriously.

reply from: Sigma

concernedparent, I wish to take small steps so we can see on what point of law our disagreement is. You jumped to your conclusion, and avoided my question at the same time. If you wish to assert your conclusion to be true, you do need to show this situation falls under the statute and I am providing you a way to do this. The rest of your post just seems like a distraction.
If you actually wish your other points to be answered, please include them in a different thread so we can resolve this issue.
Just for clarity, I am not arguing this.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics