Home - List All Discussions

Magic Bullet

Is there a simple, succinct, and effective argument to use to break through the pro abortion mentality?

by: bartman

It seems to me that you could argue with a pro abort until you are blue in the face and nothing you can say will get through. With many of them, even the photographic evidence of mutilated babies are shrugged off as sensationalism or scare tactics. I am seriously coming to the conclusion that arguing with these people is utterly useless. I really don't know what the most effective way to stop this madness is.
Do we try and get the media on our side by getting pro lifers in high positions of media outlets? Do we continue to take to the streets and show the graphic truth of abortion? Do we use a "soft" approach via crisis pregnancy centres and compassionate sidewalk councelling? Must we use all these approaches and more to confront the diabolical powers behind the abortion monster?
Can we win this thing? I am feeling overwhelmed by the sheer immenseness of the abortion challenge. Help me out. The killing must stop.

reply from: Teresa18

Personally, I believe there is, but they simply choose to avoid it, believing choice is more important than life itself. The simple argument should be the government never forces people to become parents, it happens, in most cases through consentual sex, and in 1-2% of cases, rape. By disallowing abortion the government would not be forcing women to have children, they would simply be saying it is important for them not to kill the children they have. Afterall, even if a parent decides to give their child up for adoption, it might not be instantaneous, and they may have to care for their child for a time until they can get them into a safe home. It's the same with pregnant women. They are the only ones that can care for the child at that particular stage. They shouldn't be permitted to kill the child just because no one else is able to care for him/her. Overall, it boils down to, this is not attaching random people to each other in order to save others lives, it is the simple, basic, natural process of reproduction that we have all gone through. Telling the woman she can not kill her child, is simply awarding the same rights to the child that we have all had. We aren't saying the child deserves more rights than the mother, we are saying that all men are CREATED equal when they are created.

reply from: yoda

In response to the question in the thread title, the short answer is "no". I say that because for a true proabort, it's not a matter of logic, science, or truth.... it's a matter of values. They have decided to value convenience and financial considerations over (other people's) human life, and that's not something you can talk someone out of.
So no matter how convincing your argument, they will always seek a way to refute it (even though they won't find it), and they will settle for some lame proabort platitude, slogan, or mantra that makes no sense. They have an emotional attachment to the practice of baby-killing, and only a stronger (internal) emotion will change them.

reply from: Sigma

Objectively, this argument cannot be compelling. Since the central theme of the pro-choice argument is that it is the woman's body, the goal you cite ("not to kill their children") cannot be made acceptable if the gov't would be requiring the woman to continue her pregnancy against her will.
The comparison between adoption likewise cannot be made since even your evidence here is patently false. The woman is, obviously, not the only one who can or must care for a born child. She also does not need to have her physical body used against her will.
You must understand the pro-choice philosophy before you can construct an argument countering it. It is not "I don't want to care for [...]", it is "I don't want to be required to allow the use of my physical body (internal organs and life-processes) against my will to care for [...]". Your argument here does not speak to the pro-choice philosophy.

reply from: Teresa18

The government has two people to consider. Just because the woman wants or desires something, does not mean that it is right or needs to be complied with. You can't have the right to liberty if you don't have the right to life.
Actually, it can be used as a valid comparison. Let's say a mother decides she doesn't want her 2 year old daughter any more. She has to work an extra job that is physically exhausting to support her, has to feed her, clean her, lift her, etc. Let's say she decides she no longer wants to raise her daughter. So, she looks into adoption agencies. It may take a couple weeks to put her two year old in the adoption agency. Can she then neglect her child, not bathe her if she is dirty or not lift her if she gets hurt, because the girl is her child, and no one else can take her at that point? It is unfair the government is requiring use of her body to care for the girl now isn't it Siggy?
Yes, caring for the child at that stage requires use of her body in that way. No, none of her organs are damaged. The child is not using the mother's organs in the sense that you are implying. I understand well the pro-choice philosophy, and it has regard for only one life where the pro-life has regard for two.

reply from: ihavechoselife

I feel like abortion (legalized) will be stoppd in my life time, and now is not the time to end our battle against it. Don't give up, don't let in. What would we acomplish if we do that?? There are thousands of babies being saved through prayer, sidewalk counseling, picketting and other outreaches. They should show on TV what it really is, and have comercials on the radio stations of women and how they regret their 'choice' of having an abortion.
I'm staying in this war untill I die, and I hope that you all do the same and don't lay down for you KNOW is wrong.

reply from: Sigma

Well, yes. It cannot be "just because the woman desires something". And absolutely you can have the right to liberty without the right to life There is no explicit right to life in the Constitution and the Amendment it has been interpreted to exist within wasn't ratified until after the Civil War. Liberty is a theme throughout the Constitution, however.
Her right to privacy and to bodily integrity are not there "just because the woman wants" it. They are Constitutionally protected. The fetus' rights are not Constitutionally protected because the fetus does not qualify for Constitutional protection. While you are right that the State should or can give consideration to the fetus, there is no logical basis for the consideration of the fetus to outweigh the consideration to the woman.
It is not a valid comparison for a few reasons. First of all it is absolutely false that the woman in question must care for the child herself. This is not physically required. At no time must the child be physically connected to her internal systems (bodily integrity generally deals with intrusions into and within the human body), so the comparison falls flat right here. The pro-choice argument is about the use of her body, not strictly the care of another.
Secondly, the availability of services has never to my knowledge been part of the pro-choice argument. If there is a doctor in your area only every Tuesday it is not a government imposed wait. "Immediacy" is not part of the pro-choice argument since there is of course time needed for an appointment, etc. You are confusing physical limitations with artificial restraints; one does not imply justification for the other.
It would be if the woman had to allow the use her body in the way the fetus does. She does not in your example.
In the sense I am implying? The use I am implying is the way her organs are used. I did not say "damaged", I said "used". Nearly every aspect of every system within her body is changed to accomodate, nourish and support the fetus to the detriment of the woman's general health. This is not the case with a born child. The fetus uses these systems to facilitate it's own growth.
The pro-choice philosophy has regard for both, but not to the detriment of the woman while the pro-life philosophy obviously ignores the concerns of the woman by focusing on the fetus.

reply from: Teresa18

It is expressed in the Constitution, and it is expressed in the Declaration of Independence which is still used. Let's look at the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It says:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So, no person, whether that person is a citizen of the U.S. or not, should not be deprived of "life, liberty, or property." There is no due process of law here as the womb child has done no wrong. However, the child is within the U.S. The child is simply inside the mother. Equal protection under the law would of course mean the right to life.
Those things are protected, perhaps, but they are not if the life of another person is threatened. The Constitution never directly said anything regarding African Americans, so they were taken as slaves. That was one of the arguments for slavery, that they were not given protection under the Constitution. The Constitution did not specifically say, but it was then determined that African Americans are indeed persons. The child within the womb is a person as well. Therefore, the rights of the child should be protected. Considering the child within the womb does not mean there is no consideration of the mother. If child birth is allowed, in most cases, two people end up perfectly fine. In abortion, only the mother is ok, and the child is killed. This is of course not mentioning all the harmful after affects of abortion.
Technically, it is possible that she must care for the child herself in that example. In the example, she is a single mother looking to put her child up for adoption. Until someone could take the child, she would have to care for the child herself.
The child is not connected to her organs. The child is connected only by the umbilical cord. Through that cord, the child derives oxygen, nutrients, and passes waste. Basically, as long as the mother breathes, eats, and goes to the bathroom, there is nothing more that she physically has to do to sustain the child. Many people say that once the child is born, it is actually more difficult.
The mother in my example, taking care of her two year old daughters, uses all her organs and physical means in caring for the child. Her body is physically used in that extra job that she works supporting the child. Her body is used when she lifts, feeds, and cleans the child. It is used. It is just used in a different way. She can't suddenly decide while holding the two year old, "Well, no one can take her right now, and my arms are very tired, plus my back is killing me. I'll now drop her on the floor." It's basically the same thing.
Yes, the ability of services is part of the pro-choice argument. The argument has always said that no one else is able to care for the child during the first 9 months besides the mother herself. Her body is being used in caring for the child, and if she chooses to no longer do so, no one else can do it, so she shouldn't be "forced to." Therefore, if there were services that could care for the child in that 9 months besides the mother, your argument would be moot.
In natural reproduction, the mother's systems are built to accommodate the child. Once again, I addressed some of this above.
The only real detriment to the woman would be if her life is at risk. In almost all cases it isn't. If it is, then the pro-life movement supports whatever is necessary to save both. In those extreme circumstances, abortion would then be necessary. Other than that, a woman's body is designed to carry a child. The vast majority of women continue their lives once the child is born. It is healthier to give birth as well as opposed to abortion. The pro-life movement has centers and homes to help women through pregnancy and beyond, making accommodations for her pregnancy instead of telling her she can end it quickly if she aborts her child. It seems the pro-life movement is just as much, if not more caring towards the woman.

reply from: Sigma

Nowhere within the Fourteenth is there a explicit right to life. The text says that the State cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This is not a right to life. This prohibits the State from taking life away. In addition, the State cannot "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", which disallowing abortion would do. Yet the State would not be taking away the life of the fetus if it does not ban abortion. Read literally, there is no Constitutional issue with allowing abortion, even were the fetus to acquire protection. Murder and killing falls under the police power of the State; it is not a Constitutional issue.
The fetus has not, however, been born. The intent and meaning of the Amendment was and is to allow equal protection for those here in America that are native or foreign born. The Amendment, logically, makes distinctions based on where one is born, not if one is born.
Evidence?
What in the world are you talking about? The Constitution specifically excluded black people from Constitutional protection. It had to be rewritten to take out those sections that counted black people as 3/5ths of a person.
The rights of the woman are not perfectly fine, however. They will have been violated in order to protect the fetus. It doesn't matter if the woman will or will not die due to the pregnancy, the issues involve her rights.
It is not physically required. The availability of services is immaterial to this point. The gov't would not be requiring her to care for the child herself, it would be her financial situation. If a woman cannot afford an abortion, that is hardly the fault of the gov't. The issue is obstacles placed by the gov't.
The fetus uses her organs. I did not say the fetus was directly connected to those organs. The use of her lungs, for example, is required for the fetus to acquire oxygen. The oxygen that her lungs transfer is not used to facilitate the metabolism of the woman, but is instead used to facilitate the metabolism of the fetus. The fetus is, essentially, using her lungs to acquire oxygen. This is the case with nearly every system in the woman's body.
Please. You cannot compare the two. Born children are not physically connected to the internal system of anyone.
No, it's not being used by anyone else. She is the only one using what her body brings in. She is the only one who uses her life processes. Externally she may use her effort to support others, but she is the one using that effort.
Yes, it is true that none other can physically take over the life-support functions of pregnancy. So what? That has nothing to do with the availability of abortion services. The availability of abortion services has to do with supply and demand. The pro-choice argument (in regards to the legality) has only to do with whether it is legal to seek one, not whether one is available.
Then she wouldn't be forced to, that is true. However, that is currently physically impossible so it is not part of my argument. If abortion is disallowed, she is being "forced to" by the gov't. If no services are available, she is not being "forced to" by any entity.
lol. And you tout that pro-life considers both participants. Pregnancy is generally detrimental to her health.
Healthier? The procedure of abortion is much safer than continuing the pregnancy and giving birth.
I would, of course, disagree. Pro-choice people support everything you cite pro-life people support, and we do not advocate violating their rights.

reply from: bradensmommy

I'd like to see NONbiased information to back up your "facts" about abortion being healthier than childbirth when God made female's bodies to give birth, not having something stuck up your vagina messing up your reproductive parts to "get rid" of responsibility.
No doctor can say that for a fact and the ones who do are not 100 percent sure of their "facts".

reply from: AshMarie88

Aw, don't mention God, that's politically incorrect...

reply from: bradensmommy

Aw, don't mention God, that's politically incorrect...
I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not!
(I hate being politically correct!)
Err...okay, when a "higher being" made female's bodies to give birth and so on and so forth.....

reply from: bartman

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly establish a right to life!? Say what?!Thanks, Sigma, for providing a prime example of Yoda and my assertions that pro-aborts ignore plain, simple truths and rely on fairy tale type assumptions to base their conclusions upon.
And thanks for the encouragment, ihavechosen. You see, I live in Canada where the populous is even more oblivious to the abortion holocaust, and the laws and social policies are even more insidiously pro-abortion. If the U.S. is only years away from stopping the slaughter, Canada is decades, perhaps longer, away.

reply from: AshMarie88

Aw, don't mention God, that's politically incorrect...
I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not!
(I hate being politically correct!)
Err...okay, when a "higher being" made female's bodies to give birth and so on and so forth.....
Yes I was being sarcastic, lol.

reply from: Sigma

From http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/safety.html
The risk of abortion complications is minimal when the procedure is performed by a trained professional in a hygienic setting: Fewer than 1% of all U.S. abortion patients experience a major complication. The risk of death associated with abortion in the U.S. is less than 0.6 per 100,000 procedures, which is less than one-tenth as large as the risk associated with childbirth. However, 68,000 women in countries where abortion is illegal die each year of abortion complications, and many times this number are injured by unsafe procedures.

reply from: Sigma

Then show an explicit right to life. The Fourteenth Amendment does not explicitly grant a right to life. The Federal Gov't does not have the power to criminalize certain behaviors like murder. Such things fall under the police power of the States to create laws and coerce its citizens into obeying those laws. Were an explicit "right to life" to exist, it would grant the Federal Gov't this power.

reply from: Teresa18

Sigma, the Guttmaucher Institute is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, as they are the research company hired by Planned Parenthood. If you look at the website, they are encouraging of abortion services and have link so women can find out how to obtain them.
The Amendment clearly says that state may not deprive any person of life without due process of law. Due process of law would be used if someone committed some sort of crime. The womb child committed no crime. The state can't decide to take life away because one objects to that life. If the State bans abortion, they would be preserving the life of the womb child. If the womb child is considered a definite person then, yes there would absolutely be a Constitutional issue with allowing abortion, as the State can't unjustly deprive someone of life if they have done nothing wrong.
The womb child is still a person. Persons are protected in the Constitution. The Amendment specifically mentioned citizens, but it also mentioned all people. A child within the womb is a person just as much as any other person that comes into this country.
You have also forgotten The Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
There are thousands of restrictions on things that people can't do in order to protect people's lives. There are smoking laws, driving laws, gun laws, laws against violence towards another person, etc. Your right to liberty stops when it puts another person's life in danger.
First of all, I think it is wrong to say there is a clash of rights, where the woman is more superior. It would be better to state that between the two there is a clash of needs. I'm going to post a small section of the article that I provided for you.
"Inequality under rights goes against the idea of having rights. This inconsistency leads many to conclude that unwanted pregnancy must be an insoluble clash between the unalienable rights of two people: the child's right not to be killed and the woman's right to liberty. Some abortion choicers claim there is a solution. They argue that no one has a right to impose unchosen obligations upon others; therefore, even given prenatal humanity, abortion is a permissible escape from slavery. They think Rand supports their view. "No man can have a right," she said, "to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as 'the right to enslave'."7
Still, Objectivism denies that child support is slavery. In discussing born children, Nathaniel Branden, when he was Rand's closest associate, wrote, "The key to understanding the nature of parental obligation lies in the moral principle that human beings must assume responsibility for the consequences of their actions." He did not explain exactly why we must. Yet he was correct to insist that "the basic necessities of food, clothing, etc.," are the child's "by right."8
Given this right of children, then the "insoluble" clash is solved, and unwanted pregnancy is neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. There may be a clash of needs between parent and child - but not a clash of rights.9 Given personhood, a human fetus has the same right as every innocent person not to be attacked and killed. What is more, since her parents owe her support and protection from harm, she has the right to reside in her mother's womb and take nourishment there."
http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html
It is physically required in that example. If no one is able to take her two year old the minute that she no longer wants her, she still would have a duty to care for her until someone could take her. There is physical use of the body required in caring for her child. Her heart, lungs, arms, legs, etc. are used when she physically must run after her or lift her. That example has nothing to do with the affordability of abortion.
However, the woman has to do nothing special in order to have her body acclimate. It does it on its own, as it is designed to. All she basically has to do is breathe, eat, go to the bathroom, and rest.
I can and I will. Born children require the mother to use her body to care for them, simply in a different way. Her body certainly won't work externally without its internal systems. Her heart may pound when she runs after the child, for example. Her muscles may be sore from lifting the child. She may catch an illness from caring for the child is she is ill. She may physically exhaust herself by working long hours and caring for the child.
You are right. I am not talking about abortion services. I am saying that if there were medical services where someone else could care for the child during the first nine months of development, then she would not be allowed to kill the child. Those services are not available. Therefore, the woman is permitted to kill her child because no one else can take care of him/her.
I'm glad you think she shouldn't be forced to care for her child if no one else can care for him/her. That is where my example comes into play. If the mother could find no one to take her two year old for the next couple weeks, for whatever reason, she should then, I suppose, be allowed to stop caring for the child. After all, her body is physically drained from doing so. I guess she should be allowed to drop her while lifting her or discontinue food or baths simply because it is physically tedious and no one else can care for the child. That is wonderful, Siggy. Thanks for clearing that up. It's basically the same with abortion. The government is not forcing the mother to do anything. The government is simply not allowing her to kill, abuse, or neglect her own child.
To say detrimental you imply her body is physically damaged long term or she ends up losing her life because of pregnancy. Her body is once again designed for pregnancy. Her body isn't designed for abortion. I wonder which is more detrimental.
I don't believe it. It is tough in most countries, including the U.S., to get those statistics,. Abortions are covered up, and clinics do not give long term care or attribute the death to abortion. I don't believe those pro-abortion sites such as Planned Parenthood. They don't look long term, either.
"The study, completed by researchers from the National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health in Finland, shows that the long held presumption that abortion is associated with fewer deaths than childbirth does not hold up once the pregnancy history of women is actually investigated using record linkage. Previously, it has been widely assumed that the mortality rate associated with abortion was only one-sixth that of childbirth. But those estimates were based primarily on information gathered only from death certificates or other public records. Proper identification of pregnancy history, the researchers found, reveals that the death rate associated with abortion is actually three times higher than that of childbirth. "
http://www.afterabortion.info/news/CDCdeathswrong.htm

This is only a part of the article, however, they said their statistics are from the August Issue of the Southern Medical Journal.
"The study was designed with a similar approach as used in a Finnish study published in 1997. The national study in Finland showed significantly higher death rates associated with abortion than with childbirth.
The Finnish study used a method called record-linkage, which allowed the researchers to match cases of women with various pregnancy outcomes to subsequent death events. This has the advantage that the study does not rely on getting an accurate report from the women, but, instead, uses objective statistics from government files. This is particularly useful in Finland, where detailed health records are kept on everyone by the central government.
The objective of the American study was to use the same approach to examine this association using an American population over a longer period. In order to obtain a similar set of statistics, the authors turned to California Medicaid records for 1989. The 173,279 women who had an induced abortion or a delivery in 1989 were then linked to death certificates for the period 1989 to 1997.
The authors' examination revealed that over that eight-year period studied, the women who aborted, compared to those giving birth, had a 154 percent higher risk of death from suicide, an 82 percent higher risk of death from accidents, and a 44 percent higher risk of death from natural causes. This confirmed the trends found in the Finnish study published in 1997. That government-funded study of maternal deaths revealed that in the first year following an abortion, aborting women were 252 percent more likely to die compared to women who delivered and 76 percent more likely to die compared to women who had not been pregnant.
The American study also compared women whose history of pregnancy outcomes fell into five different categories: delivery only, abortion only, abortion followed by delivery, delivery followed by abortion, and delivery followed by miscarriage.
The delivery-only group had the fewest deaths and the abortion- only group had the most deaths. The analysis revealed that women with a combination of pregnancy outcomes fell between these two extremes. Thus, the authors suggest that delivering a child has a protective effect on women, regardless of the combination of outcomes experienced."
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL09/franz.html

Also, time to draw out these fantastic sites. There aren't these many after affects from birth. Prove there are.
Complications
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/pap4.html
http://www.afterabortion.org/reasmor.html
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/childbirth/deaths.htm

Child Birth Deaths
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/childbirth/deaths.htm

Physical Risks
http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_928YC.asp
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/pap4.html

Psychological Risks
http://www.afterabortion.info/psychol.html

Deaths
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_21.asp

Complications
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_20.asp

Future Premature Births
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_22.asp#Are%20there%20any%20comprehensive%20studies%20on%20premature%20births?

Effects on Women's Mental Health
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_abortion_psychological_rea.asp

After Effects
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_effects_of_abortion.asp

Abortion Reflections
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_effects_of_abortion.asp

Fetal Handicap/Infanticide
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_24.asp#Abortion%20Leads%20to%20Infanticide%20Like%20Night%20Follows%20Day%20Why?

Leading to Suicide
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_9.asp#Does%20it%20ever%20lead%20to%20suicide?
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_suicide.asp

Abortion Trauma/Child Abuse
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_child_abuse.asp

Effects on Self-Esteem
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_child_abuse.asp

Abortion and Substance Abuse
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_substance_abuse.asp

Abortion and Feminization of Poverty
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/aboriton_and_the_feminizaion_of_.asp

reply from: Teresa18

I bet Siggy will respond to my argument as soon as he sees it. Siggy just can't stand it if someone refutes his pro-babykilling beliefs.

reply from: ihavechoselife

Healthier? The procedure of abortion is much safer than continuing the pregnancy and giving birth.
What? That is one of the most ludicrous things I have heard! "safer"? What about the mental health? What about the perforated uterus' and infections?? What about the risks of possible infertility after abortion?? Sorry, I just don't buy that! Have YOU given birth? Have YOU had an abortion?
From here
The risk of abortion complications is minimal when the procedure is performed by a trained professional in a hygienic setting: Fewer than 1% of all U.S. abortion patients experience a major complication. The risk of death associated with abortion in the U.S. is less than 0.6 per 100,000 procedures, which is less than one-tenth as large as the risk associated with childbirth. However, 68,000 women in countries where abortion is illegal die each year of abortion complications, and many times this number are injured by unsafe procedures.
That's obviously from a pro abort site.
(sorry I didn't do the 'quotes', I'm not quite sure how to get them to work right)

reply from: yoda

Quite the opposite, actually:
Abortion Is Four Times Deadlier
Than Childbirth
New Studies Unmask High Maternal Death Rates From Abortion

David C. Reardon, Ph.D.
Abortion advocates, relying on inaccurate maternal death data in the United States, routinely claim that a woman's risk of dying from childbirth is six, ten, or even twelve times higher than the risk of death from abortion.
In contrast, abortion critics have long contended that the statistics relied upon for maternal mortality calculations have been distorted and that the broader claim that "abortion is many times safer than childbirth" completely ignores high rates of other physical and psychological complications associated with abortion. Now a recent, unimpeachable study of pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland has shown that the risk of dying within a year after an abortion is several times higher than the risk of dying after miscarriage or childbirth.(1)
This well-designed record-based study is from STAKES, the statistical analysis unit of Finland's National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health. In an effort to evaluate the accuracy of maternal death reports, STAKES researchers pulled the death certificate records for all the women of reproductive age (15-49) who died between 1987 and 1994--a total of 9,192 women. They then culled through the national health care data base to identify any pregnancy-related events for each of these women in the 12 months prior to their deaths.
full article: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/fourtimes.htm

reply from: bradensmommy

I said NONBIASED sites!

reply from: Teresa18

Good find, Yoda. That's the exact same study that was on abortionfacts that I put up. I wanted to find a nonbiased link to it, and you did.

reply from: yoda

The one I posted is about as "non-biased" as you're going to find on this subject, and quite well documented.

reply from: bradensmommy

That reply was meant for sigma, I just forgot to quote him! Sorry about that.

reply from: bradensmommy

I agree with that site because its from Vanderbilt which is a really good college. I believe that it is also a hospital with the same name.

reply from: yoda

Hey no prob! If I didn't have him on iggy, I'd have known that already! (But keeping him on iggy has done wonders for my blood pressure!)

reply from: Sigma

lol, I'm sorry if the fact that I sleep at night and go to work during the day offends you I'm afraid that posting in this forum is a pretty low priority.
Firms hire research institutes to research statistics all the time. That fact alone does not bias the Institute. The analysis was a meta-analysis, if you have a problem with the data then show a problem with the sources.
Yes, if the State is executing someone or depriving someone of their liberty. The State is not performing abortions, so abortion is neither of these things. The Due Process Clause refers to the punishments meted out by the State for infractions of the law. This would not apply to abortion.
Actually this is not true. The Amendment refers to those born here and born elsewhere, logically. Those that have not been born are not covered by the Amendment. The Declaration does not establish Constitutional protection.
Yes, but so? This does not lead to the conclusion that any liberty must or will be necessarily restricted if a life is at stake. You would have to find a legal reason that liberty must be restricted in those cases. Otherwise a State can choose to not protect life in favor of liberty.
Thank you for paring it down. There are a clash of needs, certainly. However, the article you provided ignores the Constitutional rights of the woman. It is correct to say there is a clash of legal rights (were the fetus to have legal rights, which it does not). I'm not sure if you are using this on a legal level or a moral level.
Yet we do not recognize this right if it involves the use of another's physical body. The question is how far does this obligation extend. I contend that it never extends that far.
You misunderstand. Whether in her specific case she cannot afford a baby-sitter or have relatives to care for the child does not mean that those services are not physically possible. The gov't is not limiting her choices in the example given, so it is not comparable to disallowing abortion.
Agreed, but she is the only entity using the energy of her internal systems. Whatever she does externally this is true. With pregnancy another entity is using her internal systems to facilitate it's own growth. They are not comparable in the way you wish to compare them.
It is specious to claim that "they are not available". They are not possible, which is somewhat different.
You are confusing physical limitations with artificial restraints. One does not lead to the other.
The government is requiring her to continue her pregnancy as well. The gov't is not justified in restricting her liberty involving the use of her body.
As it turns out, pregnancy and childbirth.
The statistics for the procedure itself seem easy to find. The procedure itself is certainly safer than continuing the pregnancy and giving birth, whatever long-term effects there may be.
Hm, you dispute the validity of my source, yet provide such sources as afterabortion.org and the national right to life site. Please find non-biased sources.

reply from: bradensmommy

Do you understand how many botched abortions women have had since the legalization of abortion? Do you know how many have died? I have not heard of one woman lately dying from giving birth.

reply from: yoda

bradensmommy, why don't you repost my post from this thread with the Vanderbilt stuff in it, but don't tell siggy-poo that you got it from me?

reply from: Teresa18

I know you aren't here all the time. I'm not either. Sometimes, more of my posts are at night, though, because I have difficulty sleeping or am unable to during the day. I was joking that you would respond to my argument because you always respond fairly promptly in arguments you are involved in. Plus, this has to be somewhat of a priority to you, as in the past year you've posted over 2,100 times.
If they are truly nonbiased, and everyone here is familiar with the bias of the Guttmacher Institute, then they shouldn't have links with information on how to obtain abortions.
The State can't deprive any person of the right to life without due process of law. The State clearly is in support of the abortion option. Therefore, they are automatically depriving the womb child of the right to life without any process of law to convict the child of wrong doing.
The Amendment did not specifically say, and you can't interpret it that way just to deprive the womb child of rights. It specifically said citizens, which are people born in America in many cases, and it said persons. Persons would refer to anyone who is not a citizen. A child within the womb may not yet be considered a citizen, but a child within the womb is a person. Therefore, the child within the womb deserves the right to life along with any other person.
The Declaration of Independence is the basis on which this country was founded. It says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
It says that ALL men are created equal. When are they created equal? When they are created, of course. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, the later two things would be moot without the right to life. It also says that if the Government becomes destructive, the people have the right to overthrow it and lay the new government on such principles. Technically, the Government is depriving unborn persons of the three unalienable rights listed, therefore, we have a right to overthrow or change that.
Liberty is restricted in the cases that I illustrated in those examples, and it should be restricted in the case of abortion as if it isn't, an innocent person will die. I'll address further below. In fact, Thomas Jefferson wrote this particular little quote: "The God, who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
The particular article considers the Constitutional rights of both parties. Both parties are equal and deserve the right to life and to liberty. The woman's rights are still in tact. She is still in utmost control of her body and the child's body. If the child was taking control of her mind and organs to the extent they were no longer working for her, then we might have a different issue. However, the womb child is subject very much to her power, whether she chooses to smoke, drink, or ride a rough amusement park ride. She makes all the decisions and can basically continue to live normally up until birth.
Here is part of the article that we were discussing:
"Is prenatal homicide defensible on the level of rights? Only if childhood dependency is a capital offense against innocent parents, or if parents have an unalienable right to abandon their children and let them die"
Basically, it goes onto say that, with the exception of rape, the parent's brought the child into that situation. The child is an endangered third party who did not agree to be put in that situation, but he/she is subject to the power of the parents. The child is not an attacker. The child is at the mercy of the mother's control, therefore there is not a conflict of rights, but there is a conflict of needs. Everyone, as a person, deserves the right to be free from aggression. "Because nobody has a right to attack the innocent, nobody caught in a dire circumstance has the right to attack any of the others. The mother's right to self-preservation does not turn her child into a mere "thing" that she may destroy at will. The doctor's goal should be to save both patients, mother and child, but they can only do the possible. The goal of premature deliveries is to help both. The goal of an abortion, however, is a dead fetus." Abortion is aggressive. It's important, in dealing with others, not to set up a system that has two-tiers of humanity, with the child on a lower tier, as no one is better or has more rights than anyone else. No one is the property of someone else. "What abortion choicers are saying is that in pregnancy, the woman's liberty is paramount. However, liberty is not paramount. Life and liberty are equal rights; both are merely forms of the same basic right: the right to be free from aggression."
We would in the instance of pregnancy. Name other times where people are forced to use their body in the same method used in pregnancy. I don't think any society is going to go around and hook random people up to women or even men and tell them that they have to be hooked together so that one or the other survives. Yet, pro-choicers commonly act as if the government would do this if abortion was illegal. It's ridiculous. Those instances would all be unnatural and certainly life threatening to both parties involved. However, human reproduction is the basic process that we have all gone through. Without that right to survive that our parents felt we had, we certainly would not be here today. All children deserve from their parents nourishment and shelter, whether their parents want them or not. In that stage of development, the mother is the only one who can provide those very things. Since there is no one else that can care for the child, does she have the right to kill him/her?
The difference is fairly basic. In abortion, death is a direct affect. It is a forceful, aggressive act on the endangered child. If you deny any other person some sort of life support later on in life, death would be perhaps an indirect affect. Abortion is a direct affect.
Ok, let's revamp this a bit. Let's say the woman is stranded in a massive forest in the United States. In that forest, there are no people for hundreds of miles. In that particular situation, she has her infant child who she no longer wants. In order for the child to survive in the woods, the child would have to remain firmly in the power of her body. No one else can take the child. The only way the child can receive nourishment is from her breast, does she have the right to deny the child because the child is living off of her body? Does she have the right to stop caring for the child because it is physically difficult fending for two people in the wilderness? Can she drop the child as her body is sore and carrying the child makes it more difficult on an already difficult situation? Surely she can't abandon the child because the child is basically surviving off her, can she? If the child were to die, and she told the police (when the found her) she just dropped the child and refused to feed her, don't you believe she would be charged with child abuse or neglect? I believe she would.
Well, I've seen you found no non-biased sites either. However, if you look at the one example, the study was not conducted by the right to life group, the study was published in the Southern Medical Journal, and the results were copied over. My study was also from Finland, as this study is. There are no basic differences between the two. Nonetheless, here is a non-biased site:
Abortion Is Four Times Deadlier
Than Childbirth
New Studies Unmask High Maternal Death Rates From Abortion
David C. Reardon, Ph.D.
"Abortion advocates, relying on inaccurate maternal death data in the United States, routinely claim that a woman's risk of dying from childbirth is six, ten, or even twelve times higher than the risk of death from abortion.
In contrast, abortion critics have long contended that the statistics relied upon for maternal mortality calculations have been distorted and that the broader claim that "abortion is many times safer than childbirth" completely ignores high rates of other physical and psychological complications associated with abortion. Now a recent, unimpeachable study of pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland has shown that the risk of dying within a year after an abortion is several times higher than the risk of dying after miscarriage or childbirth.(1)
This well-designed record-based study is from STAKES, the statistical analysis unit of Finland's National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health. In an effort to evaluate the accuracy of maternal death reports, STAKES researchers pulled the death certificate records for all the women of reproductive age (15-49) who died between 1987 and 1994--a total of 9,192 women. They then culled through the national health care data base to identify any pregnancy-related events for each of these women in the 12 months prior to their deaths. "
full article: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/fourtimes.htm

Also, I'll keep putting these complications up, as you know there aren't this many after birth, until you respond to some of them.
Complications
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/pap4.html
http://www.afterabortion.org/reasmor.html
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/childbirth/deaths.htm
Child Birth Deaths
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/childbirth/deaths.htm
Physical Risks
http://www.abortionfacts.com/l.../literature_928YC.asp
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/pap4.html
Psychological Risks
http://www.afterabortion.info/psychol.html
Deaths
http://www.abortionfacts.com/o...love_them_both_21.asp
Complications
http://www.abortionfacts.com/o...love_them_both_20.asp
Future Premature Births
http://www.abortionfacts.com/o...20premature%20births?
Effects on Women's Mental Health
http://www.abortionfacts.com/r...psychological_rea.asp
After Effects
http://www.abortionfacts.com/r...fects_of_abortion.asp
Abortion Reflections
http://www.abortionfacts.com/r...fects_of_abortion.asp
Fetal Handicap/Infanticide
http://www.abortionfacts.com/o...0Follows%20Day%20Why?
Leading to Suicide
http://www.abortionfacts.com/o...0lead%20to%20suicide?
http://www.abortionfacts.com/r...rtion_and_suicide.asp
Abortion Trauma/Child Abuse
http://www.abortionfacts.com/r...n_and_child_abuse.asp
Effects on Self-Esteem
http://www.abortionfacts.com/r...n_and_child_abuse.asp
Abortion and Substance Abuse
http://www.abortionfacts.com/r...d_substance_abuse.asp
Abortion and Feminization of Poverty
http://www.abortionfacts.com/r...he_feminizaion_of_.asp

reply from: NewPoster1

Really? Last time I checked, in the United States, in the year 2000, 660 women died from complications of carrying their pregnancy to term, while 11 women died from complications of undergoing an abortion.

reply from: Sigma

It waxes and wanes based upon my work load (I'm only on here when I'm at work). When I'm busy I'm not here for months at a time. When I am here I'm so profoundly bored at work that I need any mental stimulation I can get.
It was a meta-analysis. The Institute did not do the studies. You would have to contend with their sources. I cannot link you to the studies because of the firewall here at work.
The State would not be depriving anyone of anything. SCOTUS has held in cases such as the Civil Rights Cases that the Fourteenth is limited to "state action", not actions between private citizens except to the extent that private citizens cannot own slaves.
SCOTUS can interpret what the Constitution was intended to apply to. That the Fourteenth applies to only those born is the most logical way of reading the Amendment and it is clear that it was adopted to apply to those born. There is no basis in precedent or logic to suggest that those not born be covered by this Amendment.
"Deserves" is opinion. I would agree, but never to the detriment of the woman's rights.
No, that's the Constitution. The Declaration was the "screw you" to England.
Going by this, the gov't would be unjustified to restrict the woman's liberty anyway, since it is inalienable. You cannot violate an inalienable right with another inalienable right.
And in other cases liberty isn't restricted. That it is restricted in one case does not logically imply it must be restricted in others.
Not if the State requires her to remain pregnant. The only way she can be in the "utmost control" of her body is if she may choose to end her part in the pregnancy. There is absolutely no other way for her to be in control of her body in this scenario. To disallow abortion it is unavoidable to violate her rights.
False dilemma. Women have a right to bodily integrity and to privacy surrounding their reproductive rights. No one, not even their children, have a right to live by violating her rights.
I have an analogy for you, then.
I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.
It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you - we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
The violinist is not an attacker since he was unconscious the whole time. I would suggest that the woman would be morally allowable to disconnect the violinist (I daresay the majority of the world would agree with me). This is analogous to what you suggest above, since the violinist is an endangered third party that is completely dependent.
I absolutely disagree. The fetus would then have rights no other person has: to live attached to the physical body of another. The woman would then have fewer rights: someone can live attached to her against her will and without her consent.
There is none. Pregnancy is unique. This is why most comparisons fail.
It would be a logical step to take, however. If liberty is disposable if a life is at risk then required organ donations to save others is absoutely a logical step to take.
Now you're quibbling about the method of abortion. If we altered the method so the fetus was delivered intact and the doctor did whatever he could then would you agree with abortion? In the first trimester when there is 0% chance of survival?
You're beginning to get into the territory of extreme examples that we cannot generalize morality to.
You're again confusing physical limitations with artificial restraints. The physical limitation would be that she is far from a town that will take her baby. An artificial restraint would be the State gov't forbidding her from leaving the forest until the baby is a certain age. To compare this to abortion (as I'm sure you wish to do), the fact that a woman is far from a clinic to get an abortion means nothing as long as the State gov't does not bar her from acquiring said abortion. Whether removing the fetus from her care is immediate or not is not part of my argument, as long as the State does not bar her from doing it.
Morally? It would depend.
I dispute this. Evidence?
I cannot at work. I had the link only because I had posted it in another forum so I knew what it said. I'll see if I can find one at home.
The article you provided was not unbiased The author is a frequent guest on Christian radio and Christian television talk shows and has been a key note speaker at many state and national conventions for crisis pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations, and the article was put up by a pro-life group. Unbiased would be the actual study.
You should know that of those 9,192 women, only 22% of the death certificates mentioned the pregnancy or its end. Also, this "unimpeachable study" came to the conclusion that "[t]he current official classification of maternal deaths as indirect, direct and fortuitous is arbitrary and allows much variation in defining a maternal death". They identified problems with the definitions of maternal death, not that abortion carried a higher risk.
If you read the data provided, you would see that much of the data was from a study to determine the rates of suicide associated with pregnancy. This Finnish study found:
The risk of suicide after birth is half of that among women of reproductive age in general
and
Suicides are more common after a miscarriage and especially after an induced abortion than in the general population
As well as:
Increased risk for suicide after an abortion indi- cates either common risk factors for both or harm- ful effects of induced abortion on mental health
While some studies have found a correlation (and others have found no correlation), no study has ever been able to determine what generates the results; the procedure or the context in which the procedure takes place. The most reliable indicator of a woman's mental health after the procedure is her mental health before the procedure. Studies that compare women with a history of previous mild psychiatric illness and those without show marked difference between the two groups.
This is not new by any stretch of the imagination. Other studies have also found a correlation between abortion and mental health risk, but none have been able to determine causation between the two. The most common conclusion is that there are common risk factors. It would be sloppy thinking to assume that correlations of any study implies causation.
The Finnish study also found:
Reports of mental complications after an induced abortion are controversial. Puerperal psychosis is rare (0.3 per 1000 abortions), but depression is more common (13-41%).5 Long term follow up studies, however, have documented more positive reactions and fewer undesirable feelings than short term studies
and
Childbirth has an impact on the mental health of women. Short term postnatal "blues" are experienced by 45-70% of women.1 2 An increased risk of non-psychotic depression after a delivery has been reported.3 4 The incidence of puerperal psychosis is 1.7 per 1000 live births.
It appears that some mental health issues are more common with childbearing (puerperal psychosis). The drop in pregnancy hormones is much higher than it would be after an abortion, so this would logically follow. The article you provided does not and cannot dispute that the procedure of abortion, itself, has fewer health risks than continuing the pregnancy and giving birth.
If you're interested in the mental health aspect of abortion, Ivan Goldberg, MD, has a http://www.psycom.net/depression.central.dep-abort.html of some studies you might be interested in.
Those were the sites I was referring to as being biased. Afterabortion.org and abortionfacts.com are both very biased sites.

reply from: fetalisa

There's your sign!
Perhaps that tells you people aren't swayed by emotional appeals? Perhaps it tells you the pubic is well aware those pictures aren't what they are claimed to be? Perhaps it makes the public sick to their stomachs that you would use someone's dead child to promote your agenda in that way, and thereby doubt the morals you claim to possess?
Whatever the case may be, it takes a wise person to admit your tactics aren't working and have come to nothing in our society as a result.
Is it useless? Why do you not try to argue with logic and reason instead of emotional appeals and name calling? Do you seriously think name calling us choicers 'baby killers' will allow us, or any other in our society, to take you seriously at all? Or does the 'baby killer' name calling cause others to see you as a 5 year old on a playground calling names?
Well as a choicer, I must state how utterly pleased I am with the pro-life position for the past 33 years. The pictures of the dead babies, the 'baby killer' epithets, the abortion=murder equation, the unborn=person equation, have all come to absolutely nothing for 33 years now. If I had my druthers I would beg you on hands and knees to please continue using these same false analogies and very weak debating tactics in the discourse. It certainly has brought results that this choicer has to love!

Oh please do! Remember, the media made Clinton then turned around and broke him years later. By all means inject those same arguments into the media.
Well it's worked so well for 33 years now, why would you not continue to do the same?
Why not? It actually allows you to fool the gullible who have no minds of thier own. Additionally, by spending your energy on this issue, it leaves other issues free to develop on their own without the attention of the lifers. Please carry on!
HEHEHEH! I am so sorry for laughing. It's just so funny that you are so blind that you can't see why the lifer tactics of the past 33 years haven't worked, yet, the evidence is staring you in the face in the very sentence quoted here! Too funny!

Sure you can! You won in South Dakota, didn't you? (*snicker*)
Naaaaaa, these temporary doubts will pass. Keep beating your head against that wa..., I mean keep up the good fight!
HAHAHA! There it is again! Yet you've not a clue why the movement as a whole is getting nowhere! HAHA!

reply from: yoda

BullHockey!
All abortion arguments are emotion-based, it's just that proaborts try to appeal to different emotions than ProLifers do.
While proaborts try to appeal to elitism, selfishness, and a total lack of compassion for helpless human beings, ProLifers appeal to equality, altruism, and compassion.
And then the proaborts try to pretend they aren't "emotional"....... like the jackasses they are.

reply from: fetalisa

100% of the arguments are not emotion based but based on logic and reason. The public has made it quite clear which type of argument they buy, as well.
It's very clear which side is elitist in claiming moral superiority here.
You mean by abandoning all logic and reason in claiming all abortions are for selfish reasons?
Won't someone please cue the cheesy violins?
I stand corrected! One must be truly 'altruistic' and full of 'compassion' if they call those who disagree with them 'jackasses.'
*snicker*

reply from: yoda

100% of the arguments are not emotion based but based on logic and reason.
Okay, give me ONE, just ONE of those....... without your usual sneering and jeering and name calling....... can you?
No, I didn't think so........ so go right ahead with your "snickering, jeering, childish school-yard prattering", as usual from you.....

reply from: fetalisa

You know where those arguments are. It's not my fault you are sore there is no precedent whatsover in the history of our law which grants legal personhood to the unborn. Knowing that, you choose to take potshots as a substitute for real dialog. By all means, go right ahead. You, along with those of your ilk who do this, serve my purposes very well.
Yep, abortion is still legal in spite of your name calling. Yep, the tactics of the lifers of the past 33 years still are not working. Carry on.

reply from: Sigma

Agreed. Pro-lifers taking issue with "pro-choice name calling" would really be the pot calling the kettle black.

reply from: yoda

In other words, YOU HAVE NONE.......... but are too ashamed to admit it.
No surprise there, nothing to look at here, everyone move along.......

reply from: yoda

It's not the kettle that's black, siggy-poo, it's your "heart".

reply from: Teresa18

I am not going to bother to waste my time contending with a research company which is affiliated with Planned Parenthood. If they were truly neutral, again, they would not have links to abortion services on their website. Also, in the studies I provided for you, they were not done by the groups or websites on which they were listed. They were, however, from a variety of sources, studies, and institutes. They were documented at the bottom of each article.
In the 14th Amendment, it mentions citizens, but also persons. There is sufficient enough evidence today to declare a child within the womb a person. Therefore, it is clear that since the Constitution provides protection for persons, it should protect all persons, including those still within the womb of their mothers. Abortion is the same as slavery in the sense that the mother is killing the child as though the child is her property. No person is the property of another.
The child has no rights, then. So, the mother's choices and feelings or whatever situation she may be in during a certain time frame, gives her the option to kill her unborn child. In fact, looking at this, women have some pretty awesome "rights." They get to have utmost control over another human being. They get to treat that human being as though that human being is their own property. They can even kill that human being. I bet men wish they could kill their child if they didn't want him/her.

The Declaration of Independence is still an accepted doctrine today. The Constitution was written with the Declaration of Independence in mind. The Declaration of Independence says "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." When are "all men" created? "All men" are created at conception. From that point on, all men have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The mother was given the benefit of those rights since her conception, why not her very own child? It's sad that a handful of judges and the personal whims of the mother can determine a child does not deserve the benefit of those rights. The mother's right to liberty should never supersede the right to life another person, especially her own childs. The rights to life and liberty go hand in hand. However, the right to liberty would be moot without the right to life. Nonetheless, if you look at the two rights, you must realize that both of these rights stand together in meaning that there is a right to be free from aggression. If these rights only hold for some in society and are separated so that liberty alone supersedes life, our country would be being unfair to all persons, and we would be allowing the liberties of some to overrule the lives of another. We would be separating two rights which should be joined in this country, and we would be declaring that some members don't receive protection from aggression.
Liberty should logically be restricted if it affects or endangers the life of another. In this case liberty has been declared to overpower and take the life of another person.
Well, I got into some of this above. To allow abortion gives 750,000 women a year absolutely no control over their bodies because one person's decision or personal liberty takes away their right to life.
Women don't have a right to kill their own child. Once again, that is a basic stage of human development the child is in. The woman's uterus is designed and made to hold the child. Basically, the child is not in the rest of her body, just in the area designed for him/her. The child never violates her body as she is in utmost control. They may have a clash of needs, but not a clash of rights. No one has the right to separate the rights of life and liberty, the right to be free from aggression, and then kill an innocent child. If the child were to be attached to her in a later stage of life, she could decline, as not only would it be an unnatural thing, but death would be an effect for the child but not direct. If she removes the child from within the womb, the death of the child would be direct.
The violinist analogy, written by Thomson is a familiar analogy to me, but it can be discounted. First of all, there are a good deal of difference in that analogy. I'll direct you to this. It goes through the analogy point by point, sometimes countering it with different analogies:
"Identity of the "needy" person Let's consider a slightly different analogy:
One day a homeless person knocks on your door and demands that you provide him with food, clothing, shelter, etc. He says that he will need this assistance for ten to twenty years. If you do not provide it, he will surely die of starvation or exposure.
Would you be morally obligated to give in to this person's demands? Surely almost everyone would agree that you would not, and any law forcing you to do this is a serious infringement on your freedom. No one may demand that you sacrifice years of your life, your money, your privacy, etc to assist another person, even if he will surely die without your help. (Or the help of someone else, of course, but that just shifts the question to a different person.) It would certainly be noble of you to make such a sacrifice, but you have every right to throw the homeless beggar out into the street and tell him to get a job and take care of himself.
And so, the same thing must apply to children. If I decide that the burden of caring for my four-year-old daughter is just too much, I can throw her out into the street and tell her to get a job and take care of herself. If she starves to death in the street, too bad, but that's not my problem.
Right? Surely not.
Anyone who did such a thing to his children would surely be denounced -- and rightly so -- as one of the lowest forms of scum on the planet. Indeed, we have numerous laws that require parents to provide reasonable levels of care for their children. In most if not all states, parents are specifically required to provide their children with everything from food and shelter to medical care to an education. People who fail to do these things can be fined or jailed. You would be hard-pressed to find someone who claims these laws are an unjust infringement on the parents' right to choose not to care for their children just because they have decided that this would be inconvenient or would interfere with their chosen lifestyle.
Divorced or never-married fathers are routinely required to pay child support, even if they never see the child never, even if they didn't want the child to begin with. The fact that he didn't want this child or never "bonded" with her is not a defense against a paternity suit.
There is a vast difference between someone being required to provide for a stranger, and being required to provide for her own child.
The "donor's" responsibility for the problem Another flaw in the analogy: In the story, the woman just wakes up to find herself in this predicament. But a woman does not just wake up one morning and "find herself pregnant". It requires some very specific actions on her part. Unless this pregnancy was the result of rape -- which makes up a very small percentage or pregnancies -- she engaged in these actions willingly. She has brought these circumstances on herself. Of course she may not have intended to become pregnant, but unless she is extremely ignorant, she must have realized that this was a possible outcome of her actions.
Thus, to make the analogy fair, we would have to assume that the woman somehow caused the other person to have the kidney failure by her own deliberate actions, and then caused him to be hooked up to her, and now wants to disconnect him. I can't think of any plausible way to modify the analogy to take this into account, but let's consider a scenario that highlights this aspect:
One evening you go to a party and drink too much. You become drunk, but you insist on driving home yourself. On the way home you cause a serious accident. You are unhurt, but the driver of the other car is now lying on the ground seriously injured. He needs immediate first aid, and surely someone should call an ambulance.
But ... there were no witnesses. If you stay and try to help and call the police or paramedics, your family and friends will find out that you were driving drunk, which will surely hurt your reputation. Even if you do not get into legal trouble, the accident will go on your record, and your insurance rates will go up. You could end up paying for this one little incident for many years, perhaps the rest of your life. If you just leave now and tell no one, this person might die, and that's too bad, but you have your own problems to consider.
Would you be morally obligated to help this person, or would that be an infringement on your freedom? Surely no one may demand that you sacrifice your reputation and money, possibly for the rest of your life, to assist another person, even if he will surely die without your help. You have every right to just get up and drive yourself home.
Right? Surely not.
When your actions endanger someone else's life -- even if you did not deliberately set out to harm them -- you acquire special responsibilities to help that you would not have if you were simply a bystander.
Note that in many ways this analogy is far closer to the reality of abortion than the kidney patient story. In the kidney-patient story, the "donor" had nothing to do with the problem she is suddenly being asked (or rather forced) to solve. But in the drunk-driving story, as in abortion, she is directly responsible for the problem.

Even if we accept that you did not intend to harm the driver of the other car or to place him in a position where he was dependent on you to survive, this does not make your responsibility disappear. Yes, this was an accident in the sense that you did not plan it to turn out this way. But when you got behind the wheel of your car knowing that you were too drunk to drive safely, you should have realized that this was something that could happen, and now you should accept the responsibility for your actions.
Similarly, even if we accept that a pregnant woman did not intend to become pregnant, this does not make her responsibility disappear. This was an accident in the sense that she did not plan it to turn out this way. But when she engaged in sex, she should have realized that this was something that could happen, and now she should accept the responsibility for her actions.
Some pro-abortionists say that if the woman used birth control, then she did everything in her power to prevent pregnancy, and so she cannot be held responsible for an accident that took place despite her best efforts to prevent it. But suppose the drunk driver in the above story was careful to drink some coffee to sober himself up, wear his seatbelt, drive slowly, etc. Would this change our conclusions about his moral responsibility?
It is one thing to demand that someone who had nothing to do with causing a problem should make great sacrifices to fix it. It is certainly admirable when a person is willing to do that, but we would not expect it or require it of someone.
But it is something quite different to demand that someone who caused a problem should do whatever is necessary to fix it. Especially when the person who would suffer most was a totally innocent bystander who did nothing to bring this problem on himself, and who is physically incapable of doing anything to help himself.
The "needy" person's intent The woman in the kidney patient story is kidnapped and forced into this situation. But as noted above, a woman is not forced to become pregnant. (Unless she was raped -- back to that point in a moment.) She deliberately took actions that led to her becoming pregnant. The baby did not. She has imposed herself on him. He has not imposed himself on her. He had no intent to harm her or even inconvenience her in any way.
There is a vast difference between our responsibilities to someone who is deliberately trying to harm us, and someone who accidentally inconveniences us.
If a hired killer breaks into your house with the intent to murder you, most people would agree that you have the right to kill him in self-defense. But if someone accidentally enters your house with no intent to do you any harm -- say a senile old person or a small child who is lost and confused -- you surely do not have the right to kill him, no matter how much his visit inconveniences you.
The original version of this argument -- or at least an early one, from 1972 -- included an interesting touch on this point. The person with the failed kidneys was described as a famous concert violinist, and you have been kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers to save him. He himself had no role in this abduction. This certainly helps to confuse the issue. You have been dragged into this situation without your consent, and thus your rights have been violated, but it wasn't done by the person who is now in need. We could debate the exact moral implications of this, but it's ultimately irrelevant to the present discussion. Again, women do not just "find themselves pregnant".
Still ... Let's consider another analogy:

You open the door one cold winter morning to find that a baby had been abandoned on your doorstep. If you do not do something, the baby will be dead within hours.
Would you say that you have zero responsibility to take any action to save this baby?
I think most people would agree that you have a moral obligation to help this baby, even if it causes you serious inconvenience. Exactly how much trouble you could be expected to go to is debatable, but you cannot just leave the baby there to die and do nothing.
The people who dumped the baby on your doorstep have dragged you into this situation without your consent. They have violated your rights. But the baby was not a party to any of this. He was completely innocent. You may have a right to be angry with the people who dumped him here. If you could get a hold of them, you could demand that, whatever their problem is, they must solve it themselves without imposing on you. But if this is not possible, the baby still needs help. It is surely unjust to say that an innocent baby should suffer because of the irresponsibility or crimes of his parents.
What if she really isn't here voluntarily? At several places in the above discussion I've pointed out that pregnancy is usually the result of voluntary actions on the part of the woman. But of course sometimes it is not: sometimes pregnancy results from rape. Such a circumstance makes several of the arguments here invalid.
This is, I presume, why many people believe abortion is justified in cases of rape. While they have probably not thought out the moral issues exactly as I have outlined them here, they have had thoughts along similar lines.
I disagree with this conclusion because only some of the arguments are inapplicable in cases of rape. Others still apply. Most notably, the final one: No matter what crimes his father has committed, it is not at all clear why the baby should be held responsible for them. If I rob a bank, the police will not arrest my son, they will arrest me.
Conclusion The kidney patient analogy may sound convincing at first. But it has many serious flaws. For any conclusions based on this analogy to be valid, we must assume that a people have no more responsibility to provide for their children than they have to support complete strangers. We must assume that someone who causes a problem has no more responsibility to fix it than anyone who may be passing by. And we must assume that there is no difference between killing a deliberate aggressor in self-defense and killing an innocent person who unintentionally inconveniences us."
http://www.ohiolife.org/searchengine/details.asp?ID=10143

Also, in this analogy, if the woman chose to decline the violinist her body, death would be an indirect effect. However, with removing her unborn child, death would be a direct effect, as abortion is certainly not a passive action.
Therefore, you disproved your own Violinist Argument without me doing anything (even though I did).
Most organ donations would kill the person themselves. However, if you chose to deny someone a kidney, and they died, that would be an indirect effect of your denial. Abortion is aggressively removing the child through the woman's body via killing the child. Therefore, the child's death would be a direct effect.
Of course not, because in order to remove the child from the womb, aggressive methods would have to be taken, through doctors or surgery. Not to mention, a mother can't simply drop her child off in a little pan, knowing the child would not survive. The mother would be endangering, abandoning, and neglecting her child. Does she have a right to leave her child in a dangerous situation, saying the death of the child is merely regrettable? The mother would be leaving her child in a dish or pan, without the child's consent, knowing that there is no one able to save the child.

No, you should be able to answer the question. No one is able to take the child as she is stuck in the middle of the wilderness in America. You misunderstand, she is stuck in the forest until she can find her way out. The State never put her in the forest. She got stuck there. There are methods, we'll say her plane crashed, and only she and her baby survived. She wants to get out of the forest. There is no one to take care of the baby in the forest besides her. There is no one. The only way the child can eat and survive is via nourishment from the mother's breast and by being carried by the mother's body. Does the mother have the right to leave her baby, if she no longer wants her, in the forest to die, simply because the child is surviving off of her body, and therefore violating her bodily liberty and privacy?
On what?
It's common sense. A parent simply can't abandon their born child, and deny them nourishment, warmth, and shelter, based on her own feelings. You have basically implied, if no one else can care for the child, and she chooses not to care for the child by breastfeeding, carrying, and sheltering her child, she should not be penalized. In that instance no one can care for the child besides her, so I guess you would support her allowing the child to die.

reply from: Teresa18

Oh, I didn't know you were a fan of Christian radio and Christian TV, Siggy. Boy, I just learn something everyday. The two articles that I first provided to you were put up on websites of pro-life groups. However, the information came from the Finnish study, and in the case of the second site, the Southern Medical Journal. The last site was from Vanderbilt. The study was done by Stakes. Stakes is the statistical analysis unit of Finland's National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health. They are affiliated with no particular group, pro-life or pro-choice. Also, the other articles I listed with the affects of abortion were on a pro-life site, but if you look, you'll see that the information was from various sources, studies, medical reports, etc. Did you not bother to look at any of it?
Meanwhile, I'll summarize the Vanderbilt summary for you. You found a few select sentences which still do not deny the study and several other studies mentioned in this article:
Abortion advocates, relying on inaccurate maternal death data in the United States, routinely claim that a woman's risk of dying from childbirth is six, ten, or even twelve times higher than the risk of death from abortion.
In contrast, abortion critics have long contended that the statistics relied upon for maternal mortality calculations have been distorted and that the broader claim that "abortion is many times safer than childbirth" completely ignores high rates of other physical and psychological complications associated with abortion. Now a recent, unimpeachable study of pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland has shown that the risk of dying within a year after an abortion is several times higher than the risk of dying after miscarriage or childbirth.(1)
This well-designed record-based study is from STAKES, the statistical analysis unit of Finland's National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health. In an effort to evaluate the accuracy of maternal death reports, STAKES researchers pulled the death certificate records for all the women of reproductive age (15-49) who died between 1987 and 1994--a total of 9,192 women. They then culled through the national health care data base to identify any pregnancy-related events for each of these women in the 12 months prior to their deaths.
Since Finland has socialized medical care, these records are very accurate and complete. In this fashion, the STAKES researchers identified 281 women who had died within a year of their last pregnancy. The unadjusted mortality rate per 100,000 cases was 27 for women who had given birth, 48 for women who had miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and 101 for women who had abortions.
The researchers then calculated the age-adjusted odds ratio of death, using the death rate of women who had not been pregnant as the standard equal to one. Table 1 shows that the age-adjusted odds ratio of women dying in the year they give birth as being half that of women who are not pregnant, whereas women who have abortions are 76 percent more likely to die in the year following abortion compared to non-pregnant women. Compared to women who carry to term, women who abort are 3.5 times more likely to die within a year. Such figures are always subject to statistical variation from year to year, country to country, study to study. For this reason, the researchers also reported what is known as "95 percent confidence intervals." This means that the available data indicates that 95 percent of all similar studies would report a finding within a specified range around the actual reported figure.
For example, the .50 odds ratio for childbirth has a confidence interval of .32 to .78. In other words, it is probable that 95 percent of the time, the odds ratio of death following childbirth will be found to be between 32 percent and 78 percent of the non-pregnant woman rate. The 95 percent confidence interval for the odds ratio of death following abortion was reported to be 1.27 to 2.42 of the annual rate for non-pregnant women.
Deaths from Suicide
Using a subset of the same data, STAKES researchers had previously reported that the risk of death from suicide within the year of an abortion was more than seven times higher than the risk of suicide within a year of childbirth.(2) Two of these suicides were also connected with infanticide. Examples of post-abortion suicide/infanticide attempts have also been documented in the United States.(3)
The same finding was reported in STAKES' more recent study. Among the 281 women who died within a year of their last pregnancy, 77 (27 percent) had committed suicide. Figure 2 shows the age-adjusted odds ratio for suicide for the three pregnancy groups compared to the "no pregnancy" control group.
Notably, the risk of suicide following a birth was about half that of the general population of women. This finding is consistent with previous studies that have shown that an undisturbed pregnancy actually reduces the risk of suicide.(4)
Abortion, on the other hand, is clearly linked to a dramatic increase in suicide risk. This statistical finding is corroborated by interview-based studies which have consistently shown extraordinarily high levels of suicidal ideation (30-55 percent) and reports of suicide attempts (7-30 percent) among women who have had an abortion.(5) In many of these studies, the women interviewed have explicitly described the abortion as the cause of their suicidal impulses.
The original publication of the STAKES suicide data prompted researchers at the South Glamorgan (population 408,000) Health Authority in Great Britain to examine their own data on admissions for suicide attempts both before and after pregnancy events. They found that among those who aborted, there was a shift from a roughly "normal" suicide attempt rate before the abortion to a significantly higher suicide attempt rate after the abortion. After their pregnancies, there were 8.1 suicide attempts per thousand women among those who had abortions, compared to only 1.9 suicide attempts among those who gave birth. The higher rate of suicide attempts subsequent to abortion was particularly evident among women under 30 years of age.
As in the STAKES sample, birth was associated with a significantly lower risk of suicide attempts. The South Glamorgan researchers concluded that their data did not support the view that suicide after an abortion was predicated on prior poor mental health, at least as measured by prior suicide attempts. Instead, "the increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion may therefore be a consequence of the procedure itself."(6)
Interpretation of these statistical studies is aided by numerous publications describing individual cases of completed suicide following abortion.(7) In many cases, the attempted or completed suicides have been intentionally or subconsciously timed to coincide with the anniversary date of the abortion or the expected due date of the aborted child.(8) Suicide attempts among male partners following abortion have also been reported.(9)
Teens are generally at higher risk for both suicide and abortion. In a survey of teenaged girls, researchers at the University of Minnesota found that the rate of attempted suicide in the six months prior to the study increased ten fold--from 0.4 percent for girls who had not aborted during that time period to 4 percent for teens who had aborted in the previous six months.(10) Other studies also suggest that the risk of suicide after an abortion may be higher for women with a prior history of psychological disturbances or suicidal tendencies.(11)

It is also worth noting the suicide rate among women in China is the highest in the world. Indeed, 56 percent of all female suicides occur in China, mostly among young rural women.(12) It is also the only country where more women die from suicide than men. For women under 45, the suicide rate is twice as high as that of Chinese men. Government officials are reported to be at a loss for an explanation.
Traditionally, Chinese families placed a high value on large families, especially in rural communities. But after the death of Mao Tse-Tung, who also valued large families, China instituted its brutal one child policy. This population control effort, encouraged by governments and family planning organizations from the West, has required the widespread use of abortion--including forced abortion--and infanticide, especially of female babies. Given the known link between abortion and suicide, can there be any doubt that maternally-oriented Chinese women who are coerced by their families and communities to participate in these atrocities are more likely to commit suicide?
Deaths from Risk-Taking Behavior
In this most recent study from Finland, the STAKES researchers also reported that the risk of death from accidents was over four times higher for women who had aborted in the year prior to their deaths than for women who had carried to term. Of the 281 women who died within a year of their last pregnancy, 57 (20 percent) died from injuries attributed to accidents.
Once again, giving birth had a protective effect. Women who had borne children had half the risk of suffering a fatal accident compared to the general population. On the other hand, as shown in Figure 3, women who aborted were more than twice as likely to die from a fatal accidentthan women in the general population.
This finding suggests that women with newborn children are probably more careful to avoid risks which could endanger them or their children. Conversely, women who have had an abortion are apparently more prone to taking risks that could endanger their lives.
This data is consistent with at least two other studies that have found that women who abort are more likely to be treated for accident-related injuries in the year following their abortions.
In a study of government-funded medical programs in Canada, researchers found that women who had undergone an abortion in the previous year were treated for mental disorders 41 percent more often than postpartum women, and 25 percent more often for injuries or conditions resulting from violence.(13)
Similarly, a study of Medicaid payments in Virginia found that women who had state-funded abortions had 62 percent more subsequent mental health claims (resulting in 43 percent higher costs) and 12 percent more claims for treatments related to accidents (resulting in 52 percent higher costs) compared to a case matched sample of women covered by Medicaid who had not had a state-funded abortion.(14)
It is quite likely that some of these deaths which were classified as accidental may have in fact been suicides. Reports of post-abortive women deliberately crashing their automobiles, often in a drunken state, in an attempt to kill themselves have been reported by both post-abortion counselors and in the published literature.(15)
It is also likely that many of these deaths are simply related to heightened risk-taking behavior among post-abortive women. This may occur simply because some women care less whether they live or die after an abortion. Other women may seek to "self-medicate" a sense of depression with the adrenalin rush that often comes with taking risks. In addition, heavier drinking and substance abuse are well-documented aftereffects of abortion, both of which increase a person's risk of fatal accidents.(16)
Deaths from Homicide

The STAKES study also found that 14 (5 percent) of the 281 women were killed by another person. Most of these deaths occurred among women who had undergone an abortion. As shown in Figure 4, the risk of dying from homicide for post-abortive women was more than four times greater than the risk of homicide among the general population. This finding, especially when combined with the suicide and accident figures, once again reinforces the conclusion that women who abort are more likely to engage in risk-taking behavior.
An Elliot Institute survey of 256 post-abortive women found that nearly 60 percent stated that they began to lose their temper more easily after their abortions, with 48 percent saying they also became more violent when angered. Increased tendencies toward anger and violence after abortion were also significantly associated with substance abuse and higher suicidal tendencies.(17) In other words, women who were more prone to anger were also more prone to "giving up" on life. This is a dangerous combination which can more easily lead to fatal confrontations with others.
In the STAKES study, an additional 6 deaths that were due to traumatic physical injuries were listed as "unclear violent deaths." In these cases, the researchers could not make a determination of whether the cause of death was due to accident, suicide, or homicide.
Deaths from Natural Causes

Of the 281 deaths, 127 (45 percent) were attributed to natural causes. As seen in Figure 5, the age adjusted odds ratio of dying from natural causes within a year following any outcome of pregnancy is less than the odds ratio of dying for non-pregnant women.
The obvious implication of this finding is that women who are capable of becoming pregnant are simply healthier and less likely to die of natural causes than women who cannot or do not become pregnant. In other words, women who are most likely to die from a natural physical ailment are less likely to have been pregnant in the last year of their lives.
Comparing abortion to birth, however, we once again see that the risk of death from natural causes was significantly higher (60 percent higher in this sample) for women who had an induced abortion in the prior year compared to those who carried to term or had a natural pregnancy loss.
One possible explanation would be that the women who died after an abortion were already in ill health before the abortions and sought the abortion to protect their health. But this hypothesis was rejected by the STAKES researchers when an examination of abortion registry records showed that only a single woman in this group had her abortion for reasons of maternal health.(18) The STAKES data would appear to support the view that induced abortion produces an unnatural physical and psychological stress on women that can result in a negative impact on their general health.
This theory is also supported by a 1984 study that examined the amount of health care sought by women during a year before and a year after their induced abortions. The researchers found that on average, there was an 80 percent increase in the number of doctor visits and a 180 percent increase in doctor visits for psychosocial reasons after abortion.(19)
Ten years later, another study of 1,428 patients chosen at random from their office visits to 69 general practitioners found that pregnancy loss, especially abortion, was significantly associated with a lower assessment of general health.(20) The more pregnancy losses a woman had suffered, the more negative her general health score. In addition, loss of a woman's most recent pregnancy was more strongly associated with lower health than were losses followed by successful deliveries.
While the researchers found that miscarriage was also associated with a lower health score, induced abortion was more strongly associated with a lower health assessment and more frequently identified by women as the cause of their reduced level of health. More than 20 percent of the women participating in the study expressed a moderate to strong need for professional help to resolve their loss.
From this data, Dr. Philip Ney, who led the research team, concluded that acute or pathological grief after the loss of an unborn child, whether by miscarriage or abortion, has a detrimental effect on the psychological and physical health of some women.
Ney proposed several possible reasons for this: (1) depression has been linked to suppressed immune responses, (2) psychological conflict consumes energy that would otherwise be spent in more healthy ways, and (3) prolonged or unresolved mourning may distract the woman from taking care of other health needs or confuse her interpretation of situations and events. In addition to these factors, abortion has been linked to sleeping disorders, eating disorders, and substance abuse, all of which can have a direct negative impact on a woman's health.
Conclusions
The STAKES study of pregnancy-associated deaths is beyond reproach. It is a record-based study in a country with centralized medical records. While a small number of women who died during the period investigated may have had births or abortions outside of Finland which would not have been identified in the records, there is no reason to believe these few cases would have altered these dramatic findings.
Clearly, the odds of a woman dying within a year of having an abortion are significantly higher than for women who carry to term or have a natural miscarriage. This holds true both for deaths from natural causes and deaths from suicide, accidents, or homicide. In addition, the study underscores the difficulty in reliably defining and identifying maternal deaths. Only 22 percent of the death certificates examined had any mention of the woman's recent pregnancy.
Unfortunately, there is often no clear way of determining when there is any causal connection between a death and a previous pregnancy, birth, miscarriage, or abortion. According to the lead author of the STAKES study, Mika Gissler, in maternal health reports throughout the world, "[t]here is no consensus concerning which cases should be included as maternal deaths. Problematic are, for example, some cancers, stroke, asthma, liver cirrhosis, pneumonia with influenza, anorexia nervosa, and many violent deaths, such as suicide, homicide, and accidents."(21)
By stepping back from a predefined notion of what constitutes a pregnancy-related death, the STAKES team has shown that deaths among women following a pregnancy cannot easily be tracked when a study is based purely on short-term post-operative recovery. This is particularly true following an abortion. Maternal deaths after an abortion are seldom identified as such unless the death occurs on the operating table, if even then (see accompanying article on page 5). By examining all death certificates and all pregnancy events in the prior year, the STAKES team avoided the basic problem of pre-defining what deaths will be included or excluded in maternal mortality reports.
Even this study, however, has shortcomings. The most obvious limitation is that the researchers examined only a single year of the reproductive history of women who had died during the study period. Since suicide attempts are often associated with the anniversary date of the abortion, some portion of deaths from suicide or accidents that occurred slightly over one year after a prior abortion were probably missed.
As seen in Figure 6, the distribution of suicides by month following the pregnancy event indicate an increased level of suicides at seven to ten months following an abortion. This may correspond to a negative anniversary reaction related to the expected due date of the aborted child. A similar spike is seen among women who had miscarriages, though it peaks a couple of months earlier, perhaps because the miscarriages generally occurred further along in gestation than the abortions.
Another disadvantage of the one-year limit on the STAKES data set is that it does not reveal how long the protective effect of birth extends, or conversely, how long the odds ratio of death for those who abort remains elevated. A study spanning a longer period of time would be needed to identify these longer term effects.

Finally, the STAKES study does not shed any light on whether or not women who died from suicide or risk-taking behavior after an abortion were already self-destructive before their abortions. It is probable that many were. Women with a propensity for risk-taking would be more likely to become pregnant and perhaps more likely to choose abortion. In such cases, while abortion may not be the underlying cause of their problems, it probably contributed to their psychological deterioration and was a contributing cause of their death.
On the other hand, it is also clear from other studies that many women who were not previously self-destructive become so as a direct result of their traumatic abortion experience. Whether this latter group represents a major or minor portion of those who died in the STAKES sample is unknown.
Additional insights could be gained by looking back over several more years of the women's medical records. It is likely that prior suicide attempts, a high incidence of treatment for accidents, prior psychological treatments, and other prior pregnancy losses would all be associated with an increased risk of subsequent death by suicide, homicide, or accident.
Abortion advocates will naturally argue that abortion did not "cause" any of these deaths, but rather that these women were simply self-destructive or ill beforehand and would have died anyway. This is a flimsy argument, since clearly this same data shows that giving birth has a protective effect. Even women who committed suicide after giving birth waited until after their children were born to take their own lives.
It is quite probable that the best way to help a self-destructive woman to change her life, and value her own life, is to encourage her to cherish the life of her unborn child. Conversely, it is clear that aiding and encouraging a self-destructive woman to undergo an abortion is likely to aggravate her self-destructive tendencies.
These findings underscore the importance of holding abortion clinics liable for screening women who are seeking an abortion for a history of suicide, self-destructive behavior, and psychological instability. The failure to screen for these risk factors is clearly gross negligence. In addition, when abortion clinic counselors falsely reassure women that abortion is safer than childbirth, they should be held accountable for false and deceptive business practices.
Obviously you never bothered to look at the material on the sites. If you did, you would have noticed that the articles on the sites derived information from various medical sources and studies, all meticulously sited at the bottom of each article.

reply from: yoda

"Obviously you never bothered to look at the material on the sites. If you did, you would have noticed that the articles on the sites derived information from various medical sources and studies, all meticulously sited at the bottom of each article."
Siggy-poo can't be bothered with small details like sources and credentials, and stuff like that, Teresa. He has to go over to the old folks home and heckle some of the residents when they fall down.

reply from: fetalisa

What part of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States," do you not understand? Every sentence in the 14th Amendment which follows 'All persons born or naturalized" is discussing the rights of those born or naturalized. Reading and comprehension pays.

reply from: yoda

Yes, utter fool, we know what the constitutional requirements are for citizenship....... but thanks for your input anyway!

reply from: Sigma

Teresa18, I'll respond to your posts fully when I have time, but I did want to point something out. While you're a great deal more intelligent than he is, you and concernedparent share at least one annoying habit: changing the goalposts and claiming that's what you were aiming for the whole time.
Here you claim the fetus to be equal to born men.
Here you admit that you have no moral obligation to help, even if another will die. If you claim they deserve equal consideration then abortion is allowed. The only way your point works is if the fetus gains greater consideration. You cannot have it both ways.

reply from: fetalisa

Exactly! Because rights flow from citizenship, which flow from either birth or naturalization. So any claims the unborn have rights under the 14th Amendment, can be considered nothing more than fallacy.
You are so very welcome. I am always happy to contribute in the land of free choice.

reply from: Teresa18

No, CP is smarter than I am. I will admit that. You simply take shots at him as a weak attempt to avoid his arguments. You prefer to argue with me because you consider me "easier to trip up."
Sigma, you obviously didn't read the whole thing or comprehend what the argument is getting at. It explains why there is no moral obligation to help that man, but it is trying to equivocate that a parent must care for their own child, sometimes whether they wish to or not. Surely a mother can't toss her four year old child out on the street, just because she does not wish to feed her, clothe her, or shelter her. She can do that with the homeless man, but she can't with her own child. A father has to do this whether he wants that child or not through child support. There is a responsibility of parents to provide for their children, at least until someone else can provide for them. The mother would have to provide for her four year old child until she could find someone who would be able to take the child. The father would have to pay child support for 18 years, regardless, if the mother wants to keep her child. Methinks you should read through the entire thing.

reply from: Sigma

He's really not :-\
All you see are his convoluted attempts to avoid what he already knows to be true. You are much more honest and straightforward. What do you mean by "trip you up"? Could you provide an example?
I both read and comprehend the argument. My statement does stand. Under the Constitution, if the fetus gained equal protection then it would gain the protection that the bum would have in the situation the fetus is in. You would be advocating greater than equal protection.
"Equal protection" would grant the protection that strangers would get.
Research:
A neutral organization can still provide both information and links about abortion. That in and of itself does not disqualify their research. Please contend with the sources, as you ask me to do.
However, if you cannot give what you ask for, the http://www.rcog.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=649#safe agree:
For most women an abortion is safer than carrying a pregnancy and having a baby. All medical and surgical procedures have risks, but the earlier in pregnancy you have an abortion, the safer it is. Your doctor or nurse should tell you about risks and complications that relate to the specific abortion procedure(s) being offered to you. If you have special concerns about certain kinds of risk, let your healthcare team know so that they can tell you more.
Constitution:
Since personhood is not a biological construct, I'm not sure what you mean by "evidence". While the Consitution provides protection to "persons", it has also been determined that persons are born in the intended meaning.
We all have these "awesome rights". The woman is just in a position that this regularly happens. We all have a great deal of control over what happens within our bodies. It is not absolute, but it severely limits gov't control.
There is no explicit "right to be free from agression", either, but that could be interpreted under "liberty". A right to liberty is certainly not moot without a right to life. The lack of a right to life does not equal death by any stretch of the imagination. Enforcing the life of one to always supercede the liberty of anyone else is currently unacceptable to our society. Our society values freedom, even sometimes over life. "Live free or die". "Give me liberty or give me death".
The life of others is not always sufficient reason to restrict freedom. If I caused an accident that caused your kidney to fail, my freedom to my own body is not forfiet because of it.
Unless you contend that the woman's uterus no longer belongs to her, the only way she can have the "utmost control" of her body is if she can deny the use of her uterus to the fetus. She has the right to her body. What you propose to do would take that control away from her. Your statement here of "there is not a clash of rights" seems nonsensical. Please elaborate.
Violinist:
This counter really does not apply. Once you have accepted the bum into your home you do owe a duty-of-care. This is comparing apples and oranges.
For this to be valid, abortion would have to be disallowed because of the woman's guilt in the matter. The "drunk driver" analogy cannot apply since driving drunk is illegal in and of itself. To make this analogy actually work, the woman must do nothing illegal to make herself legally culpable.
Let's assume that you did all this and he got to the hospital. Would it be valid if the doctors hooked up the victim to you if the victim needed it to live against your will? No, it would not be valid to do this. You are not morally obligated to share your body against your will.
Even when directly responsible for the problem, one is never legally or morally obligated to share your body.
Your link missed the point. Pregnancy is always non-consensual. Sex is not part of the analogy at all since it is irrelevent to the moral point whether sex was consensual or not (since sex is not illegal, it does not make one legally culpable). Unless the woman was trying to get pregnant, the pregnancy did not happen by choice.
I see. So it is debatable exactly how far your moral responsibility extends. I contend it does not extend to the point of sharing your body against your will.
Exactly what would be the difference? The woman in both scenarios must disconnect the dependant party. In both death would be the same effect.
Actually you didn't. The counters you provided were very weak as I have shown. I said there were no other times that people are forced to use their bodies in the same way the fetus uses her body. There are no actual situations. The Violinist Argument is a hypothetical situation.
Donating a kidney is not deadly. People can live just fine with one.
The gov't forcing organ donation to save the lives of others would be the same, though. The gov't, if abortion were disallowed, is forcing the woman to allow the fetus to live by using her body. The action the gov't is taking is the same. It logically follows.
So it would be comparable to removing someone from life-support.
Right. Unless the State is preventing her from leaving the forest to remove the child from her care this is not comparable to the abortion situation. The issue is whether the gov't can stop her from acquiring an abortion, not whether the gov't put her in the situation in the first place.
On how much of a detriment the child is, on how long she is lost, on how many supplies she has, on a lot of things. In an extreme situation as the one you describe, morality cannot be generalized. It depends on the specifics.
I may, depending on the specifics of the situation. I also dispute that the police would penalize her. I'm asking for evidence. I'll have to reply to your other posts later.

reply from: yoda

Think I'll just put ole motor mouth siggy-poo back on iggy-pooo.... who wants to read a load of crap like that?

reply from: MTTU

I run a pregnancy center so I know what you mean about being overwhelmed at times. I look to Jesus then and breathe deeply. I also tell girls if it isn't killing then that means that is isn't alive right? So if it isn't alive why worry about removing it from your body? Ok so HE/SHE IS alive so you are killing and it is a human. If it isn't a human then what is it? Corn?

reply from: Sigma

If you didn't mention a pregnancy center this could as easily apply to cancer growths.

reply from: yoda

Good questions, MTTU, but trying to get a straight answer from a proabort is like trying to find teeth in a hen's mouth.

reply from: Sigma

Keep a good attitude about learning and we may get somewhere yet
I must have misplaced the link you provided that was from the medical journal. Please repost that. The last site was a pro-life student group at Vanderbilt. Hardly unbiased.
Then, please, post the original study done by STAKES.
Why would I bother to look at a biased site? Link to the unbiased data.
I found sentences from the original study. It denies there is causation while it found correlation. The author obviously put his own spin upon the studies.
I provided you with an unbiased site (as far as I could tell) that lists studies that found no correlation at all. Please address that.
Oh. Then please link to the unbiased data.

reply from: Teresa18

What? Do you just spin crap around and hope that some of it sticks on the wall? Your statement doesn't stand. If the womb child gained equal protection, the womb child would have the same right to life, liberty, and happiness as the bum. However, the difference with the bum is, there is no obligation to care for the bum. The bum is a random person off of the streets that no person would have an obligation to. The child within the woman is the mother's own child. She is the only one who can care for her child at this particular stage of the child's life. A woman has an obligation to care for her own child, at least until she can find someone else who can care for the child. She can't simply dump the child out like she can the bum.
The Guttmacher Institute is a source in and of itself, as the Guttmacher Institute conducts its own studies. They are hired by Planned Parenthood, and their work is extremely slighted towards Planned Parenthood. I've read parts of their studies, and some things seem blatantly untrue as compared to other studies. Also, the sites I link you up to are articles written with the help of medical literature, studies, and other select sources. You would have to look at that particular literature, study, or source to determine its validity. The Guttmacher Institute is a source in and of itself, as it conducts its own studies.
Well, can I ask you, how safe is the abortion for an unborn child? Oh, I forgot, you see the child as a horrible little creature that should die. The Royal College may say that abortion is safer for most women, but I would think that would have to be during an early trimester. However, the Royal College probably most likely fails to look beyond the initial reactions to the procedure. The follow up for most abortions isn't like that of child birth. Abortion is often covered up and not always placed on a woman's standard medical record or listed as a reason for health issues or death. It is very difficult to ignore that besides the immediate risks of the procedure, the statistics, if looked at a woman's medical history the year after abortion, prove that it is 4 times more deadly. Often times reactions to abortion can be delayed even beyond that, and thewomen can be in a state of "denial" for close to three years. That Finnish study was published in a lead Scandinavian Obstetricians Journal, but it was largely ignored by the American press and probably the Royal press as well.
Overall, common sense tells you the natural process of reproduction would be generally safer than sticking sharp objects within your body or taking a pill with a strong enough effect that it can kill a human being within your body.
Sine personhood isn't a biological construct, I suppose it should be necessary to deem those with certain illnesses such as Down Syndrome, retardation, or in a coma as nonpersons. Hitler must have agreed with you, along with the slave owners. After all, Jews and blacks were considered disposable servants undeserving of protection. The bottom line is, everyone's morals vary a great deal. Depending on the particular feelings of certain persons or a person in control of government, certain people may not meet the moral criteria to be declared a person. The best way to declare someone a person is when their life begins biologically to when it ends biologically.
No, a man doesn't have the "awesome" right to kill his child if he doesn't want the child. In fact, as long as the mother wants the child, he has to pay child support for the next 18 years. How does he make his money? Doesn't he have to work, maybe even long tedious hours at a physically demanding job? There are no other examples where a person is randomly attached to another person. It is merely only in the natural process of reproduction. The mother, as a mother of her child, has a duty to care for her child until someone else can care for him/her. She still is in control, as her actions all throughout the pregnancy can affect the child directly, not vice versa. The utmost control line, though, has to be drawn as it is with drugs, as it is with other laws, when another person's body is involved, and the mother's control of her body would greatly endanger and kill a child.
The interpretation of life and liberty is basically a right that people have the right to live their lives free from aggression. If people were allowed to be aggressed, than the rights to life and liberty would be nonexistent. A right to liberty is moot without the right to life in a sense. If no one had the right to life in this country, if they had the right to be killed based on the choices or whims of another's situation, they would not be liberated or free. It's really not unacceptable in our society to limit liberty so that one can live. If everyone had the utmost right to liberty, than other's life and liberty would be endangered. Liberty is restricted through driving laws, clean air ordinances, gun laws, assault laws, etc. so that others have a right to live and be free.
True, if you caused an accident you would not have to donate your kidney, but you would, however have to get some help for me by contacting the authorities and paramedics, and you would be punished in some way by the law for causing the accident. Once again, if I died because you didn't donate your kidney, my death would be an indirect effect of you not donating that kidney. The death of the child in abortion is a direct effect of the mother's choice.
There is not a clash of rights between the two parties. The mother has the right to life and liberty which she had since she was within her mother's womb. Her child deserves the same. The child is in no way controlling mother's body or development, and actions taken by her could put the child directly in danger, not vice versa. Everyone has the rights to life and liberty or freedom from aggression. By saying that the mother has the choice to kill her child, she would have more rights than the child, and the child would be set as an unequal in comparison to the mother. That would create a two-tiered level of human offspring, which this country surely doesn't support. The mother, through consensual sex, in over 95% of cases, brought that child into existence, putting the child in a position of danger, one of which the child did not consent to. The mother has to take responsibility for her actions, whether the child was an intended consequence or not. She has a basic duty to care for her child, providing nourishment, warmth, and shelter, at least until someone else can do so. Pregnancy is not slavery, as children have the right to those basic things from their parents. The child within the womb has the same right as every person not to be attacked and killed. Thus, there is no clash of rights, but a clash of needs.
No I don't. If you feed a hungry stranger for one meal, surely there is no obligation to feed the bum again. If I give the bum a coat, do I have to give him another coat when it gets ratty? No, of course not. However, you must do these things for your own child, at least until your child is of age. That is why the violinist analogy is nothing more than comparing apples and oranges.
Well, it is true the mother did nothing illegal. However, what that statement is trying to do is point out the ridiculousness of the Violinist Analogy. No one would have a duty to hook a random person up unto them so that person survives. Declining that person may indirectly cause that person's death. However, you would not be directly killing that person. The Violinist Analogy just assumes you wake up to find yourself attached to a violinist. However, the woman doesn't just wake up with a child attached to her. Her actions brought that about. To make the Violinist Analogy somewhat fair, one would have to assume the woman caused the violinist to have the kidney failure and caused him to be connected to her.
That is not necessarily always true. If you bumped a person off of the curb, and you saw a car coming, if it was possible, should you not share your bodily arms and strength to pull the person out of the way of the car? If you pushed someone under water in the pool, and they somehow lost consciousness, should you not perform CPR if you can? If you tossed a grape at someone's open mouth and they choked, should you not perform the Heimlich Maneuver? If you caused a car to run off the road, and their car crashed, should you not try to remove the person from the car, especially if the car were say, to burst into flames at any exact moment? However, you could decline your plasma or kidneys, if you do the person may die, you didn't directly inflict harm by doing so.
The woman consented to sexual intercourse. She consented to the penis. Thus, she consented to a possibility of pregnancy. Whether sex is legal or not, it doesn't take away that consent to the penis means pregnancy is possible, no matter what means are used to prevent it.
It is debatable with a total stranger of course. However, your responsibility would certainly extend to not allow the baby to die in the freezing cold on your porch. The child is helpless, and you would have to get the child some sort of help. However, you did not put that child in harm's way. The mother puts the child in harms way through sex, and then she decides she can harm the child. That hardly seems fair. Also, does a woman have the same responsibility to someone else's child that she has to her own?
Oh, contraire. The difference would be great. It would be a principle of letting die vs. killing. If the woman chose to disconnect the violinist or decline him use of her body, the death of the violinist would be an indirect effect. She never put the violinist in harm's way in the first place. The violinist was sick due to a circumstance beyond the woman's control. Even if he was somehow sick because she damaged her kidneys, it still would not change what I am about to say. If the woman had the man removed, he may die, but she did not cause him to die. She simply told him she would aid in his survival. If he died, it would not be because of the woman, it would still be because of his damaged kidneys. However, in abortion, removal is not passive, it is direct killing of the child. The death of the child would be directly because the mother wanted to remove the child. Abortion is sticking sharp objects inside the uterus, to rip the child apart. Even if she simply just wanted the child "disconnected'", that would not be passive by any means. The same sharp objects would still be stuck within her uterus. Besides, does a mother have a right to abandon her child, knowing no one can care for the child, and allow the child to die?
There are no actual situations. That is why the Violinist Analogy is weak within itself. It is easy to counter because it is not possible, and there are many flaws to it.
True, but that is the only organ and perhaps people could donate plasma. However, people could deny kidneys or blood, and that would not be the cause of the person's death or situation in most cases. That situation was caused by a health issue or accident. Anyway, their denial would not directly kill the person. The person would die from whatever circumstance caused the kidney problem or loss of blood in the first place.
Well, I got into this above. Many countries disallow abortion, and name one of those that require forced organ donation. The only real forced organ donation is in abortion when the child is then used without his/her consent for science.
The State isn't preventing her, but the forest is huge, and she is lost. No one can take the child in both situations. In both cases, she shouldn't be permitted to kill or abandon her child. Surely the government wouldn't allow her to kill her child in the woods based on that situation.
True, but as long as she is healthy and not in danger of death, wouldn't it be bad to abandon or kill her child based on her situation? Would the government permit her to abandon or kill her child if she could care for the child?

reply from: Teresa18

(someone wrote this on abortionno.org as a response to the same argument)
"Your argument commits the mistake in a debate called 'Fallacy of Accident'. Which means your attempting to generalize data to undermine an argument. But this data is not undermined. On the contrary, yours is weakened. Listen closely.
This generalization you made implies that the DNA in a virus or bacteria has the same level of worth as a human embryo. You make this false generalization by proclaiming that: "Viruses and bacteria have different DNA, too" This statement gives conclusive evidence of the association you are trying to make, which is: Since there is DNA in every living cell; it's all merely biological material. . . nothing more. Therefore the level of worth is the same or nuetral throughout the entire spectrum of living cells, embroys, viruses, etc.. It's easy to reverse engineer your statement to discover the true intentions of your generalization.
You are completely and utterly wrong and at the same time you try to downplay and confuse the argument. A virus will never have the same worth as a human embryo because DNA in the human embryo represents life, a life which is a developing person. A virus' DNA is coded to attach to a host organism and either damage it or kill it and it will never grow into a complex organism like an embryo. Plus, most virologists define a virus as a non living organism because it doesn't fit all the criteria needed for life. ie. The cells in an embryo grow by division which is a characterisic distinct to life, and a virus replicates by coping itself off its host cell.
Now I'll conclude by answering your question: "should they(viruses)also be left where they are, unkilled? (is 'unkilled' even a word?) Yes, kill it. It doesn't have nearly the same worth as a human embryo and should never be associated with one. Plus, I don't know any pro-lifer or pro-choicer that enjoyes being sick."

reply from: yoda

Confusion is THE major tool in the proabort's arsenal. There's an old saying that they seem to prove everyday: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS".

reply from: Sigma

That's just what I said. The fetus would gain the same protection that a stranger would get were the stranger in a situation similar to the fetus. This is part of the reason why the Violinist Argument has support.
lol. You're beginning to be as petty as other pro-lifers here.
Yes, I believe this is true. I would have to qualify my statement, then. The abortion procedure, during the time-frame the vast majority of abortions are done, is safer than continuing the pregnancy and giving birth. You cannot deny this.
The Finnish study found correlation but did not establish causation, Teresa18. It would be sloppy reasoning to assume that.
Then common sense would dictate that allowing a fever to kill you would be safer than bringing it down via artificial means. What you posted here assumes that "natural" equals "good". This is certainly not so.
Our society does not work this way at either end of the spectrum. Whether what you say is the "best way" or not, this is not what our society generally seems to value either morally or legally, nor do I believe that to be the "best way". The gov't does not exist to dictate our morals to us, Teresa18.
That is not the right in question (there is no "right to abortion"). Each of us have the "awesome right" to a certain amount of control and privacy around our physical bodies. The jurisdiction of the State gov't is limited where intrusions into the human body are concerned. For the gov't to require the woman to allow the use of her body would protect her rights in this area less, and to give the fetus greater protection than any other (since there is no other that has the right to live attached to the woman's organs in this way).
So now you are asserting that the woman does not have "utmost control" over her body in our society? This seems to contradict your seemingly firm belief that she has this control.
The "right to life" has been interpreted to exist within the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not ratified until after the Civil War. Before this Amendment existed people were not killed randomly. This argument is specious, as murder and killing laws fall under State power, not Federal authority.
Not only that, but having freedom would prevent others from infringing upon it with assault or whatever even without a "right to life". A right to life is not necessary in the slightest to protect us from aggression.
Certainly I would be punished if I did something to make me legally blameworthy. Sex does not generally make one legally blameworthy. The point, as you concede, is that one is not required to share your physical body in any way, shape or form that is similar to pregnancy even if you directly caused the accident. Analogies that try to use other types of legal responsibility to justify requiring pregnancy fail, partly for this reason.
This is not exactly true. The woman had Constitutional protection since her birth. What is your logical connection to what the woman had at any time and what the fetus legally qualifies for?
Undoubtedly those born gain additional protection and rights upon birth even if you had your way about fetal "personhood" and we would still have this "two-tiered level of human offspring", would we not?
Certainly she has to take personal (not governmentally enforced) responsibility for her actions. Abortion can be the responsible choice, but then I do not consider the fetus and a born child morally equivalent.
Ok. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your point seems to assume that the woman has no rights in the area concerning the use of her internal systems in the way the fetus uses them. The gov't has the power, your argument seems to say, over who may inhabit the woman's uterus. The fetus, who then has the right to life and freedom and all of that, therefore cannot be removed from the woman's uterus because it requires the uterus to live and the woman has no right over the use of her uterus anyway.
Surely you see, however, that if the woman does have a moral and legal right over the use of her internal systems then she may, legally and morally, decide that her uterus cannot be used. There would then be a clash of rights; the woman's right to decide whether her internal body may be used, and the right of the fetus to obtain nourishment no matter where it is located.
Do you assert, then, that the woman has no right regarding whether her physical internal systems may be used?
If you invite the bum into your home, you cannot claim he is trespassing. If you do not invite him in, you may kill him (depending on the State). Inviting someone in creates a duty-of-care. It is apples and oranges to compare a bum coming up to you and anyone in your care.
The Violinist Argument compares those with equal protection and so applies if you advocate this. If you concede that you are advocating greater protection then you are right that the analogy does not apply.
You misrepresent the analogy. The violinist is already connected when the woman makes the choice. The disconnecting would be the same between the violinist and the fetus. You cannot defeat the argument with this line of reasoning.
That's fine, you can assume that. The Violinist Analogy does not, in any way, address the sex that happened before the pregnancy. It is not present in the analogy at all. Women do indeed "wake up" surprised that they are pregnant, especially with the use of BC.
Even if the woman directly caused the violinist to have kidney failure she would not be obligated to keep him connected against her will. You cannot defeat the argument with this line of reasoning, either.
Come now. You are stretching to compare this situation to "sharing ones body" as one would have to do in either the pregnancy situation or the violinist analogy.
This does not follow, either legally or morally.
If one crosses the street, one knows that there is a possibility that one will be hit by a bus. One does not consent to every possible risks
It is debatable with the baby on your porch exactly how far your responsibility extends. I contend it would not extend to the point of using your physical body in any way similar to how the fetus uses the woman's body.
This is contradictory. If the violinist is attached to her, disconnecting the violinist would be the same action that simply disconnecting the fetus would be. In neither case would the one disconnected be able to survive on their own and thus die as a direct result of the woman's actions (or rather the doctor, but we won't split hairs).
If you base disallowing abortion on the guilt of the woman instead of the innocence of the fetus and we assume the woman caused the violinist's kidneys to fail this would still be comparable. Both would be actions the woman desires. You cannot defeat the analogy using this line of reasoning, Teresa18.
By your own reasoning it would depend on if she were directly responsible for what ended up causing the death of the child. A food allergy would not make the woman responsible and she may abandon it at a legally designated location.
However, if the preservation of life, as a goal of the gov't, is greater than personal liberty then it is absolutely logical to require donations such as I described. Whether it is morally similar is immaterial since the action of the gov't follows the same reasoning.
Then oppose embryonic stem cell research. I hardly care about that. Organ donation more closely resembles disallowing abortion.
So? My only concern is whether the State is preventing her.
It can be perfectly valid to abandon her child based upon her situation, even if she can currently care for it. It would depend on how dire her situation is or would reasonably become. I could not generalize.
Were I concernedparent I would indeed have tried to make an asnine argument similar to what you outlined here and turn it into a semantic debate. Instead, however, I simply chided MTTU for flawed criteria and reasoning.
You have a view of me that is innaccurate. I do not "twist" what you say, nor do I try to "trip you up". Besides, your objection here is flawed. The generalization presented was weak in that it would allow many exceptions. It was a hasty generalization, a fallacy in itself.
It means that I apply a generalization to a specific case that would be an obvious exception to the rule. In this case it was not an "obvious exception".
Incorrect. I equated the human DNA in a cancer growth with the human DNA in the fetus. MTTU made the generalization and I indicated what else could fall under that generalization.

reply from: Teresa18

Yes, it seems to bother you a bit when someone points out your clear disdain for the child within the womb.
Perhaps so. However, I have read a medical forum, and women come on and ask questions sometimes during abortions. For example, say the woman took the abortion pill, it takes several days for the abortion to take place. Any of the women, even those in support of abortion, talked about the severe pains and bleeding involved as the life is being destroyed. There are still many risks to the pills and surgical procedures. In that set of links I provided, which you neglected to look at, some of the issues from the abortion occurred down the road. This is of course ignoring the emotional complications involved from killing your own child. Once again, abortion is rarely listed on a death certificate based on the short follow up. Often times the death is listed due to a complication from the abortion or just under the common term of pregnancy.
The Finnish study looked at the first year following and saw many more women died and were four times more likely to do so. Why this is, we don't know. However, does change the fact that women were four times more likely to die? I would hardly think the excess in deaths could be attributed to coincidence.
No, because a fever in itself contradicts the very nature of the body. The body was not meant to handle a sort of infection that would either decrease or increase the temperature to an unhealthy level. That is why medicine must be given to restore the natural process. Nice try, though.
Yet you/women impose morals on the lives of 4,100 unborn persons per day. Your statement is nonsensical, as the government must make laws in the best interests of persons under its jurisdiction. That is why there are laws preventing stealing, drugs, abuse, rape, murder, etc. in society, all things that some people may believe to be acceptable. Some people may not morally value a black or a Jew as a person deserving of protection. Surely you would argue that the government has a right to impose a certain morality or restriction on persons under its jurisdiction that those blacks or Jews must be treated as equals. The best way to determine a person is not based on level of development, ability to survive without another's care, or certain physical and mental capabilities. The best way to determine a person should be when their life begins biologically to when it ends biologically.
Yes, currently, women have a "right to kill their child in the womb." Does your right to your body permit you to kill another person if they are not physically harming you or causing a threat to you? Does your right to your body permit you to kill your own child simply because you are the only one needed to care for him/her at this particular stage of development? This is not some ordinary person intruding or crawling up her uterus, though. This is her own child, which became present there through her consensual act of intercourse in 98% of cases. The child never asked to be placed there. The woman and man brought the child into harms way, and now the woman decides to harm the child. That hardly seems right. The government would not be requiring the woman to do anything extraordinary because the natural process of reproduction has occurred since the beginning of human time. It is not some whacked out experiment where random people are hooked up to other random people in an attempt to "save" them. It really is taking a pill or sticking sharp objects within you to kill your own child. I've been over this before, but the child would have no greater protection than the mother. Abortion would still be permitted if the mother's life or health was in jeopardy. Although, measures would be taken to attempt to save both parties. The child would simply have the same right to life/liberty/freedom from aggression that every person on this earth has been entitled to. The mother would have the duty of every parent to care for her own child until she could transfer the child to another's care. (Correction: the fetus is only attached be a cord, not directly to the woman's organs. In fact, the woman has to do nothing spectacular but breathe, eat, go the bathroom, and sleep. Nothing in her body is harmed in any way, including her uterus.)
Don't get cute. You know darn well I said a woman has control, but the utmost control line must be drawn with certain things to protect the lives of others, including various restrictions on freedom so that others lives are not harmed. I listed some of those above.
However, they are perhaps allowed to regulate the court system and punishment involved, but one state can't say, "Oh, Indians aren't persons. We can kill Indians." No, because there is a statement in there that all persons deserve the right to life and liberty. The unborn person is a person, merely one that is not yet born.
Yes, if none of us had a right to life or liberty, then we could be freely aggressed against. Physical and even mental aggression can kill a person or seriously affect the quality of their life. That is why the right to be free from aggression ties in with the right to life and liberty.
Sex sometimes makes one legally blameworthy considering rape and incest of course. No, not all things make people legally blameworthy, but they do make people responsible. If you bring another person about by your actions and put them in harms way, do you then have the right to kill them? If you directly caused the accident, you would still have to get medical care for the person that you injured, and you would have to pay in some degree legally. You would not have to donate a part or lose a part of your body for them, which may in turn let them die. However, they didn't die because you declined them plasma or a kidney. They died because of whatever caused harm to their plasma or kidney. Besides, it seems rare that one would even match up with their "victim" in every circumstance to even be able to donate.
Technically, if she was born before 1973, then yes, she did have Constitutional protection since conception, at least in most states. Even if she was born after, it was obvious her mother decided that she had the right to life. Logically, if the woman had the right to life or was given it since her conception, her child deserves the same right to life. Basically, I'm arguing it from a moral standpoint, and you keep going at it from a legal angle. I know there is no legal protection until birth, but in this instance I am arguing moral protection as legal is not yet available.
I don't know what additional rights. There would be the right to speak, have religion, have a trial, etc., but the child is too young and incapable of taking advantage of such rights within the womb of the mother. The child really can't take advantage of those rights when born, either. A child can't speak, have a religion, or commit some sort of crime as an infant. There would not be a two-tiered level of human offspring, as both parties would have the right to life/liberty/freedom from aggression.
Killing a child that she helped bring into existence and put into danger is in no way a responsible choice. A responsible choice is caring for the child until someone else can take over the child's personal care. I don't know what happens when a child pops his/her head out of the womb that makes him/her more of a person or more deserving of rights. Yoda has a thread up with all the popular "pro-choice arguments." This argument would be the "magic vagina theory."
Of course the woman has rights concerning her systems. That is why there are a multitude of laws so that no one person infringes upon another persons life/liberty. However, at this point, the woman, in most cases anyway, consented to the possibility that she may get pregnant. Man made latex and pills are NOT full proof, and they say so on the boxes. The child never asked to be conceived. It's like putting a person in your house during a blizzard, and then tossing them out simply because you don't want them in your home any longer. The government can't shove people or random children inside a woman's uterus. However, once a woman has a child, which she does, she must provide for the child. The uterus is that method of providing. The government would simply be saying the woman is a mother who has to care for her own child until someone else can care for the child.
Sure, she has many rights. However, rights are limited when they may affect another person. That is why the mother can't sit in a hospital and smoke or is legally unable to do drugs.
Well, it depends. The bum is a full blown adult who knows he is breaking into your home, probably with an intent to hurt you. The child doesn't have the ability to rationalize that he/she is in any way "invading the mother's space." If the bum in question was a small child or a harmless, senile, elderly person who did not understand that they did anything wrong, could you kill them? Could you kill a two year old or a weak 90 year old lady with dementia? Surely you would not kill them, and you could possibly get in trouble for doing so.
Yes, the violinist is already connected, but she did nothing to warrant or had no clue of the possibility of the violinist being attached to her. Still, disconnecting the violinist would be an indirect cause of his death, as the woman did nothing to him to cause his kidney problem in the first place. He would die because of whatever happened to his kidneys, but he would not die because the woman decided to have him disconnected. The actual means of connection in itself would have to be forceful and dangerous to the woman, as it is not possible for one grown body to support the functioning's of another's grown body.
They may wake up surprised that their birth control method failed, but it did caution on the box of birth control that pregnancy is still a possibility. There was a slight risk of bringing a new person into existence, and she indeed must have known that was possible. If you are able to take birth control and have intercourse, you should know pregnancy can happen. Birth control can't always thwart the natural process of human reproduction. Once reproduction occurs, that woman is a parent whether she wants to be or not. She'll always be a parent, just a parent to a dead child.
No, I said that. First of all, let's get away from this connection because it is not possible. It is obviously not possible because it would most assuredly result in the death of both parties involved. However, look at it this way. She would be obligated to pay in some way legally for causing the violinist to have kidney failure. If the violinist dies, she may get charged for murder. If she did sustain the violinist, and he did survive, then she wouldn't be tried for murder. So, it would be her choice, but she would have to take responsibility in some way for causing a person's kidney failure and probably death.
Are you claiming that you wouldn't share your body in those circumstances? Would you not share your lungs in giving CPR to a person you somehow caused to drown?
It's an obvious risk that if you cross the street, you may get hit by a bus. You consent to that possibility, however slight it is, before you decide to cross the street. Whether that was your intention or not is a different story. However, would you not receive appropriate medical care if you did? Surely being hit by that bus would not allow you to kill another person, either.
However, you did not put that child in harm's way. The mother puts the child in harms way through sex, and then she decides she can harm the child. That hardly seems fair. Also, does a woman have the same responsibility to someone else's child that she has to her own?
No, not really. She did not bring the violinist under harms way in the first place. The violinist would die, but he wouldn't die because she disconnected him. He would die because of whatever ailment is inflicting his kidneys. If she caused his kidney's to fail in the first place, she would have to take responsibility legally. If he ended up dying, she may get charged with murder depending on what she did to cause his kidneys to fail. By sharing her body, she would take responsibility in a different way, possibly avoiding jail. Once again, this analogy is ridiculous as it is impossible to attach two random persons to each other and expect them to survive. It couldn't happen, as one body can't support the functions of another fully grown body. You are again assuming that she has to go above and beyond the call of duty for a random person. Surely she has a duty to her own child that she doesn't have to any random person.
An adoption or foster agency wouldn't take a child if they couldn't care for a child. This is her child, and she can't dump the child off on someone else if they would be unable to care for him/her. A parent has a duty to provide for their child until they are able to find someone else who can. So, should she be permitted to kill the child if no one else can care for him/her?
If it is not morally similar, how could it follow the same reasoning? If you have to give someone plasma or a kidney, you would literally lose part of your bodily fluids or organs. The mother loses nothing in pregnancy, not even her own uterus. Besides, denying kidneys or blood would not be the cause of the person's death or situation. The death or situation was caused by a health issue or accident. Their denial would not directly kill the person. The person would die from the circumstance that caused loss of blood or kidney failure.
Name a country that doesn't permit a mother to kill her unborn child that requires forced organ donations.
Once again, she is healthy and not in danger of death. So, could she abandon, not just abandon but kill her child (that resembles abortion) since no one else can care for the child except her/via her breasts?
I simply chided you "for flawed criteria and reasoning."
I'd love to here how it is weak and all of the exceptions that it would allow. You compared a child to cancer. I repeat:
"This generalization you made implies that the DNA in a virus or bacteria has the same level of worth as a human embryo. You make this false generalization by proclaiming that: "Viruses and bacteria have different DNA, too" This statement gives conclusive evidence of the association you are trying to make, which is: Since there is DNA in every living cell; it's all merely biological material. . . nothing more. Therefore the level of worth is the same or neutral throughout the entire spectrum of living cells, embryos, viruses, etc.. It's easy to reverse engineer your statement to discover the true intentions of your generalization.
A virus will never have the same worth as a human embryo because DNA in the human embryo represents life, a life which is a developing person. A virus' DNA is coded to attach to a host organism and either damage it or kill it and it will never grow into a complex organism like an embryo. Plus, most virologists define a virus as a non living organism because it doesn't fit all the criteria needed for life. i.e. The cells in an embryo grow by division which is a characteristic distinct to life, and a virus replicates by coping itself off its host cell.
Now I'll conclude by answering your question: "should they(viruses)also be left where they are, unkilled? (is 'unkilled' even a word?) Yes, kill it. It doesn't have nearly the same worth as a human embryo and should never be associated with one. Plus, I don't know any pro-lifer or pro-choicer that enjoys being sick."

reply from: Teresa18

Sorry the above post is messed up. It won't let me in to fix it either.

reply from: MattG

ihavechoselife, I think you did prettty well with the symbols. I had never seen the highlight (H) used before.
To answer bartman's summary question: When we see the Parital Birth Abortion on one of our Medical/Health Channels. Although, it is not possible for me to support this since another life will be lost. Everyday one may see all manner of surgeries on television, Heart, Eye, C-Sections, etc. that are not designed to take a life, but save or heal a life. Why is this one surgery, denied publicity? This visual argument would be effective. It seems to agree with yours, ihavechoselife.

reply from: faithman

When we see the Parital Birth Abortion on one of our Medical/Health Channels. Although, it is not possible for me to support this since another life will be lost. Everyday one may see all manner of surgeries on television, Heart, Eye, C-Sections, etc. that are not designed to take a life, but save or heal a life. Why is this one surgery, denied publicity? This visual argument would be effective. It seems to agree with yours, ihavechoselife.
If you want to see the most effective imagry in changing hearts, check out the web site in my signature. Also check out the thread "I Am A Person". It has one of the best poster/tracts to be found anywhere. And the best thing is, I will send you a sample free if you PM me a snail mail address.

reply from: Sigma

Teresa18, I am attempting to 'weasel' nothing. To have equal protection, then the bum in the same situation would have to have the same protection that you would give the fetus. I contend the bum would not have that protection.
It simply shows that you dislike me greatly and so wish to insult me. It bothers me not at all, but does lower your argument to the level of 'spiteful'.
Yes, the abortion procedure, even during the time-frame the vast majority are performed, does have risks and even the normal effects can be painful. I do not deny this.
A fever is the body attempting to fight off the infection. The infection is not the direct cause of the fever. A fever is absolutely natural, it is in no way contradictory to the nature of the body. If you accept the premise that "natural" equals "good" (a horrible philosophy, in my book), then this would be a logical progression.
The gov't creates laws, theoretically, to protect the rights of the citizens. This is why many things are illegal. The gov't does not exist to dictate our morals. That would be closer to fascism, where individual rights are subsumed to the greater good that the State represents. In our society, individual rights are usually more important than the interests of the State.
Were this so, the State would have to provide abortions to fulfil their Constitutional obligation. In our case, the only right the woman posesses is liberty that the State cannot infringe upon to restrict abortion. Whether a woman can actually procure an abortion is immaterial.
If they are attached to me in the same way the fetus is, then I would contend I have the option to disconnect them even if they would die. Unless I specifically consented to that connection, I do not believe I am either morally or legally obligated to support their using my body in the way the fetus uses hers.
I don't think whether pregnancy is natural or not is relevent to the rights of those involved.
No "right to life/liberty/freedom from aggression that every person on this earth has been entitled to" would allow someone to live attached to another person as the fetus is attached to the woman. Equal protection cannot allow the fetus to live attached to her unless a stranger could live attached to her when in a similar situation.
Teresa18, I worded my response specifically neutral so I would not offend you. If I failed in this then I do apologize, but please do not assume I have malicious intent.
You seem to be agreeing with me, then, that "utmost control" would allow the woman to disconnect the fetus so the woman does not have "utmost control" when you disallow abortion. You simply think "utmost control" should be limited in this instance. That is consistent. It is not consistent to claim the woman has "utmost control" when abortion is disallowed.
Bad example. Indians are a special case since reservations are, essentially, individual governments and are not subject to State courts. The Fourteenth, which you cite, is a restriction on States. In 1886, a U.S. District Court, asked to decide where two Indian murder suspects should stand trial, observed that "the constitution of the United States is almost silent in regard to the relations of the government which was established by it to the numerous tribes of Indians within its borders."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty:
In 1965 the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, concluded that no law had ever extended provisions of the US Constitution, including the right of habeas corpus, to tribal members brought before tribal courts. Still, the court concluded, "it is pure fiction to say that the Indian courts functioning in the Fort Belknap Indian community are not in part, at least, arms of the federal government. Originally they were created by federal executive and imposed upon the Indian community, and to this day the federal government still maintains a partial control over them." In the end however, the Ninth Circuit limited its decision to the particular reservation in question and stated, "it does not follow from our decision that the tribal court must comply with every constitutional restriction that is applicable to federal or state courts."
Only a right to liberty is required to protect us from all that you've described here. A 'right to life' is not required.
Sex did not make them blameworthy, it was disregarding the woman's desire to stop that made them blameworthy. Incest laws are a different subject entirely and is not consistent with many other laws, though there is an interesting tidbit about it:
In New York, sex with a child under the age of 11 is a Class B felony, punishable by up to 25 years in prison. The law is indexed appropriately, in the chapter on sex offenses. If, however, the sexually abused child is closely related to the perpetrator, state law provides for radically more lenient treatment. In such cases, the prosecutor may choose to charge the same acts as incest. This is not listed as a sex offense, but instead as an "offense affecting the marital relationship," listed next to adultery in the law books. It is a Class E felony, for which even a convicted offender may be granted probation.
-Andrew Vachss, New York Times Op-Ed, November 20, 2005
You do not see the contradiction. If you directly caused the accident, you would not be obligated to allow the use of your body in the way the fetus uses the womans. That utterly collapses the argument that the woman must allow the fetus to use her body because she had sex.
If they had Constitutional protection, it would have to be every State. The fetus has never had Constitutional protection; that was partly what was examined in the Roe decision. SCOTUS examined Constitutional precedent and determined the fetus was not included in any decision as a person.
Even from a moral standpoint, that the woman's mother allowed her to use her body does not obligate the woman to allow the use of hers.
It does get confusing when we talk about rights. If you wish, we can exclusively talk about moral rights in this thread and start a new one about legal rights. Otherwise I can only suggest that you specify in which sense you are speaking when you mention rights.
Come now, you know what I say is true. There would have to be "two tiers", in the sense you are using it, of humans if you grant one set of rights to those born but fewer rights to those in the womb. I do not see how you can logically deny this.
Aborting when you know you cannot afford to take off of work, or if you know you cannot care for a child, etc, can be responsible. Using contraception when you do not wish to become pregnant is also responsible. I do not consider the fetus, during the time frame the vast majority of abortions are done, to be morally equivalent to a baby, however.
As opposed to the "magic sperm and egg"?
You oversimplified what I said and avoided the point.
Does she have the right to deny the use of her systems to another, no matter whom may be using them? Or does the fetus have the special priviledge to use them?
Again, you avoided my point. I have not contended, in the slightest, that the fetus is the property of the woman. For the purposes of this argument I am treating the fetus as a completely separate person
Does the woman have the moral and legal right over the use of her internal systems? Can she decide who may use her uterus? Certainly you may say the right of the fetus to obtain nourishment allows the fetus to use her uterus, but you would then have to concede that there is a clash between her right to decide who may use her body and the right of the fetus to obtain nourishment no matter where that nourishment is.
Then you are saying the gov't may require the woman to allow the use of her internal systems against her will and without her consent to support the life of the fetus.
What? Where did this "higher right of the community" come from? That is not in the Constitution. Still, this concedes there is a conflict of rights.
The woman has a right to determine who uses her bodily systems, even to the point of denying them to another. What you are suggesting is that the fetus gains additional protection (from the "higher right of the community"). No one else has this protection. You do not advocate equal protection.
There is also a great deal of debate about drugs for that very reason. The only way either of these things are justified is when they violate the rights of another.
I submit, then, that protecting the rights of the fetus would necessarily violate the rights of the woman. The State is not justified in doing this.
Morally this is also so. A woman is not morally obligated to allow the use of her body in the way the fetus uses it.
It would depend on the State. In Florida, for example, you can kill an intruder running for the door. Simply the fact that an intruder is in your home allows the use of deadly force. Please note, I am not comparing the fetus to an intruder in this way. An invited guest invokes a certain duty of care, so trying to compare a bum on the street with someone you decide to care for, child or not, is comparing apples and oranges.
Why does that matter? Even if you directly caused his kidneys to fail you would not be legally or morally obligated to allow him to remain connected against your will. You conceded that already.
I see. So if she is not directly responsible for this pre-existing condition then she cannot be liable for his death?
This just avoids the question.
So? It is absolutely valid to say the woman wakes up surprised to have the violinist connected to her and still be analogous to pregnancy.
You may be surprised, but women who miscarry do not generally see it that way. I know many women who would be insulted to hear you say this. They do not consider themselves parents to dead children, and I would thank you to not refer to them in that way.
The possibility of this occuring does mean we could not generalize what the law would do, but the analogy does hit the major moral points. It is applicable.
Now you're trying to generalize what the law would do
You cannot apply this reasoning to pregnancy, Teresa18, since sex is not illegal. If she did nothing illegal but caused the Violinist to be in that situation your argument collapses and the argument remains analgous to pregnancy.
The violinist is in a similar situation that the fetus is in, and no right to life can allow the violinist to live attached to the woman. Equal protection cannot allow the fetus to live attached to the woman.
I would because my morals would demand it. I would never support the gov't requiring me to do this, however. The gov't does not exist to make me a moral person. I would support gov't effort to encourage women to continue their pregnancy, but I would not support the gov't requiring women to continue their pregnancy.
Then I daresay you are outside what the majority of rational people think and what our society legally requires. Laws generally do not recognize that you intend or consent to something merely because there is a risk of it occuring (unless it is practically certain it would occur, then you would have acted negligently). Your view could not gain popular support using this reasoning.
Sex is not illegal, and so she would not be held legally liable for that sexual act. That would not be sufficient justification to restrict her liberty.
I daresay she would if she accepted that child into her home. That creates a duty of care. The woman did not consent to allowing her body to be used.
It really isn't meant to be possible, but that does not mean it is not analogous in a moral sense.
Your only objection here seems to be that because she caused the violinist to be in that situation she is liable. To compare this to abortion you would have to say that sex is illegal and she may be charged for that illegal act if she does not allow the fetus to live attached to her.
I contend that any duty she owes does not extend to allowing her body to be used as the fetus uses her body.
Certainly she owes a moral duty to anyone she accepts into her care. That someone is there does not automatically create that duty, nor does the presence of life create that duty. I do not equate a living but brainless body with a person, morally.
It doesn't matter whether it is her child. If the adoption agency would take it, then she may indeed "dump the child off". The gov't provides no barrier to this. Unless you want to say that when she had sex she is now legally liable for any food allergies the child has, she will not have caused the child to starve, it was the pre-existing condition that killed the child. As long as she is not responsible to feed that child (which she no longer is when she gives up the child), she is not legally responsible for the child's death.
It follows the same legal reasoning. If liberty is always less important than promoting life, then anyone who is dying that can be saved must be saved even if it violates individual liberty.
lol. Nearly all of the developed world allows abortion in many if not all instances for at least part of the pregnancy. I would be hardpressed to even find a developed nation that doesn't permit abortion, let alone find one that follows disallowing abortion to it's logical conclusion.
However, whether I am able to or not, it remains a logical progression.
Oh, you did much more than that. You posited that I was creating an entire argument, which I most certainly was not, and then tried to refute that non-existent argument Were I concernedparent I would have indeed done that, but I do not do that sort of thing.
It is weak because if the criteria is merely the existence of human DNA then many things that most rational people do not consider morally equivalent would fall under that criteria. I do not compare the fetus to cancer except to the extent that both contain human DNA.
The argument you quoted does not apply to what I said. I never suggested a virus is morally equivalent, nor did I suggest cancer is morally equivalent unless human DNA is your criteria for moral worth. My question had nothing to do with life-forms that did not have human DNA.
That probably does it for me and log posts Replies in the future will probably be pared down.

reply from: Teresa18

I contend the bum would not as well. You have no obligation to a perfect stranger off the streets. However, you do have an obligation to your own child.
What I dislike is your view on abortion. It shows a complete disdain for the child within the womb.
Natural doesn't always equal good. Nonetheless, I would deem human reproduction good, and I assume you would too or you wouldn't be here.
Laws made to protect citizens rights are based on morality. The government also makes laws that protect the rights of those that are not only citizens, but persons in the country. They are protected under and must follow those laws. The womb child is a person. Thus, the womb child should be protected.
From:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC016.HTM

In the United States, there are more than 250,000 laws and ordinances in force, representing more than 10,000 different local, city, county, state, and Federal jurisdictions. Every one of these quarter-million laws makes a moral judgement that certain behavior is not to be tolerated from murder, espionage, and forcible rape to double-parking and running stop signs.
Most of our country's important laws are based on the Ten Commandments and Judeo-Christian tradition, and many of these directly legislate morality for the good of the individual and society.
As the United States Supreme Court majority declared in its McGowan v. Maryland decision, "Nearly every criminal law on the books can be traced to some religious principle."
A few examples;
.Thou Shalt Not Kill: laws against murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, attempted suicide, mutilation of both living and dead persons, possession of unregistered firearms, drunkenness, drunken driving, reckless endangerment, kidnapping, and use of illegal or dangerous drugs.
.Thou Shalt Not Steal: laws against robbery, fraud, shoplifting, stealing, larceny, theft, and embezzlement.
.Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness: laws against libel, slander, and perjury (lying under oath).
Justice Potter Stewart's common-sense approach in McRae v. Matthews summed up the situation: "That the Judeo-Christian religions oppose stealing does not mean that a State or the Federal Government may not, consistent with the Establishment Clause, enact laws that prohibit larceny."[10]
No, that State would not have to provide abortions. The State provides the right to an abortion. This permits the woman to kill her child. The State does restrict abortions in various states. Not all state laws regarding abortion are the same. So, technically, the state is restricting the woman's liberty by permitting her not to kill her child at a certain point in gestation.
It's physically impossible for another person to be attached to you in the way that the womb child is. Abortion isn't merely disconnecting. It is actually killing. Consent to sex renders a possibility of pregnancy, even if pregnancy is an unintended consequence. Technically, you wouldn't have to support another's body in that way. Connecting them to you would be a very forceful, peculiar medical procedure that you would have to consent to. If you declined, then yes, they may die, but that would be an indirect effect of your decision to decline them use of your body. If you woke up and they were attached to you, that would be quite odd, as you would not have done anything that could warrant such a connection. Disconnectng them would merely be defending yourself, as a born person can't live attached to another born person in an unnatural or healthy manner, except in the natural and sometimes healthy case of conjoined twins.
I think that human reproduction and parental responsibility is natural and relevant to the child.
No basic right to life/liberty/freedom from aggression would hold another person accountable for 18 years of life, either. Yet, a parent is help accountable to their child for 18 years of life. Surely a stranger doesn't just walk in and demand 18 years of care in a similar fashion. Parents have more obligations to their children than they do to strangers.
Utmost control of one's body doesn't exist entirely in our society. There are many laws restricting utmost control so that others aren't harmed: lying, stealing, drinking and driving laws, illegal drugs, rape, physical abuse, homicide, etc.
Yes, but I'm not referring to Indians that live on reservations. I'm referring to Indians that live in a State normally. We can change that to African Americans. One state can't permit the killing of African Americans. One state is unable to simply because all persons deserves the rights to life/liberty/freedom from aggression, regardless of state.
Then why would there be a right to life in the Constitution? Why didn't they just write liberty? To refresh, I had written:
Yes, if none of us had a right to life or liberty, then we could be freely aggressed against. Physical and even mental aggression can kill a person or seriously affect the quality of their life. That is why the right to be free from aggression ties in with the right to life and liberty.
Either way, having sex with someone against their will, whether via rape or incest, or even just consensual incest in some states, does make one legally blameworthy. Regardless of blameworthy, when one has sex, they are still responsible for their actions, regardless of their intentions.
No, use of your body in that way is not possible, though. Comparing the hooking of someone up to another person unnaturally after an accident does not coincide with human reproduction and a child's conception. You don't realize that even if such a way was possible, and a person declined, death would result indirectly from your declination, but it would result directly from injuries sustained via the accident. Nonetheless, basing this on if you caused the accident, I was trying to say that if it was possible, and you did share your body and they lived, you would probably have less legal consequences that if they died. If they died, you would probably be charged with involuntary homicide.
The womb child should have been included as the womb child is clearly a person. All persons are guaranteed the rights to life/liberty/freedom from aggression. Therefore the womb child should be. There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution.
I was implying that the woman, by continuing her pregnancy, would be giving the child the same right to life/liberty/freedom from aggression that her mother gave her.
Who would be benefiting from more "rights" here? When one person is permitted to kill another person, a two-tiered level of human offspring is offset. Re-post:
There is not a clash of rights between the two parties. The mother has the right to life and liberty which she had since she was within her mother's womb. Her child deserves the same. The child is in no way controlling mother's body or development, and actions taken by her could put the child directly in danger, not vice versa. Everyone has the rights to life and liberty or freedom from aggression. By saying that the mother has the choice to kill her child, she would have more rights than the child, and the child would be set as an unequal in comparison to the mother. That would create a two-tiered level of human offspring, which this country surely doesn't support. The mother, through consensual sex, in over 98% of cases, brought that child into existence, putting the child in a position of danger, one of which the child did not consent to. The mother has to take responsibility for her actions, whether the child was an intended consequence or not. She has a basic duty to care for her child, providing nourishment, warmth, and shelter, at least until someone else can do so. Pregnancy is not slavery, as children have the right to those basic things from their parents. The child within the womb has the same right as every person not to be attacked and killed. Thus, there is no clash of rights, but a clash of needs.
Work should provide benefits when a woman is on maternity leave. You can care for you child in the womb. If you can't after, then adoption is a loving option. Abstinence or NFP is responsible as well and much more effective I might add. Whether you consider the womb child to be morally equivalent is not the issue. Morals vary. The womb child is biologically equivalent; simply in an earlier stage.
Sperm + Egg = Conception = New Person
Yes, she may deny her systems to others, strangers, born family members in most cases, and unborn children that are not hers. However, the womb child does have the privilege to be using them as the child is in most cases the consequence of the mother's actions, and a parent owes their child nourishment and shelter.
Allowing the woman to kill the womb child sure as heck treats the womb child as property.
What do you mean can she decide who can use her uterus? You act like there are random people out on the street meandering around trying to climb inside her uterus. In that case, yes. In the case of pregnancy, she decided when she had sex in most cases. The child was a possibility, however slight. Even in the cases of rape or incest, this is still her child within the womb. A woman has more responsibility to her child than she does to other persons. There is no clash of rights as I stated above.
This is what I'm saying. Once a woman has a child, which she does, she must provide for the child. The uterus is that method of providing. The government would simply be saying the woman is a mother who has to care for her own child until someone else can care for the child.
The United States government has a duty, and the community of the United States as a whole has a duty to protect life. It states that all persons are entitled to the right to life/liberty/property in the 14th Amendment. No one is being deprived of any of these things in pregnancy. In abortion, the child is deprived of all of these things. Speaking of not in the Constitution, there is not right to privacy.
Do you support legalization of drugs and prostitution?
I submit, then, that legalized abortion would necessarily violate the rights of the child within the womb. The State is not justified in doing this.
A woman is morally obligated to provide support and protection to her child until someone else can care for the child. No one else uses her body in the way the womb child uses it anyway. You act like by providing care for the womb child via her body, she would be obligated to put others inside her uterus and do the same thing.
You danced around what I said. I'll just repeat it. . The child doesn't have the ability to rationalize that he/she is in any way "invading the mother's space." If the bum in question was a small child or a harmless, senile, elderly person who did not understand that they did anything wrong, could you kill them? Could you kill a two year old or a weak 90 year old lady with dementia?
I'm done with the violinist argument. I consider the violinist argument as it is a straw man that is an impossible medical experiment, it is dangerous, and it would most certainly result in the immediate death of both parties involved. Only pregnancy is set up in such a way where the mother's body accepts the child. You are paralleling the extremely possible to the absolutely impossible.
Actually, many women would not be insulted. Many women I've known of that have miscarried consider themselves parents who lost a child.
So, you push someone under water, they begin to drown, you deny CPR. Deny it then. But, you will be charged with some sort of manslaughter, even if it is involuntary. So, in order to discontinue pregnancy, you support child killing. Sing it from the roof tops Siggy, "I SUPPORT KILLING OF A CHILD WITHIN THE WOMB."
When you cross the street, especially if it is busy, there is a risk of getting hit by a bus, however slight that risk is. It may not have been intended, but it surely is possible. If it happened, you would have to deal with the sad consequences.
If she allowed someone else's child into her home, she would have to care for the child until she could get the child back to his/her home or to the police if the child is lost orphaned. Her own child, however, she would have to care for whether she accepted/wanted him/her or not, at least until she could get the child into another's care. There is still more responsibility to one's own child than to another's child.
The child is in her care, at her mercy. In most cases, she had sex and the child was put into her care as a consequence of that sex. Surely she shouldn't have the right to kill that child?
Not any person but her child.
The brain has not yet developed. We don't come about with already formed brains. Brains aren't fully matured for years. A brain dead person never has the hope of becoming conscious again, where the womb child has the hope of becoming conscious.
You literally believe that she can stroll into the agency and dump the child on the floor. She can then leave a tiny infant there or a wailing four year old bawling at the top of his/her lungs and say "Bu-bye." She'll have to go through paper work and the adoption agency will find out if the child has food allergies. If the adoption agency can't care for the child, why would they take the child?
It depends how far that liberty would go with other people. That liberty may extend to using your body in a certain way depending on the circumstance. Surely you wouldn't have to give up or lose your bodily fluids or organs, though.
Ireland isn't developed? There are many countries that only allow abortion in the case of the mother's life or health. The United States is one of the least restricted countries:
http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm

Are you saying Ireland and these other countries force organ donations? Actually, a natural progression from abortion laws are forced abortions. Look at China.
So, if you don't compare them, why would you make an earlier comparison? You said, "If you didn't mention a pregnancy center this could as easily apply to cancer growths." They are easily different. The human DNA inside a child within the womb is the DNA that will shape the entire development of that person throughout life. You can't say the same for cancer. Anyway, the worth of a person, is much less than the worth of a virus or disease. This said:
"This generalization you made implies that the DNA in a virus or bacteria has the same level of worth as a human embryo. You make this false generalization by proclaiming that: "Viruses and bacteria have different DNA, too" This statement gives conclusive evidence of the association you are trying to make, which is: Since there is DNA in every living cell; it's all merely biological material. . . nothing more. Therefore the level of worth is the same or nuetral throughout the entire spectrum of living cells, embroys, viruses, etc.. It's easy to reverse engineer your statement to discover the true intentions of your generalization.
A virus will never have the same worth as a human embryo because DNA in the human embryo represents life, a life which is a developing person. A virus' DNA is coded to attach to a host organism and either damage it or kill it and it will never grow into a complex organism like an embryo. Plus, most virologists define a virus as a non living organism because it doesn't fit all the criteria needed for life. ie. The cells in an embryo grow by division which is a characterisic distinct to life, and a virus replicates by coping itself off its host cell."
I cut out various things here, and it was still long. Long posts like these are very tedious. I'll have to shorten mine as well. This is becoming a circular, repetitive argument.

reply from: faithman

When we see the Parital Birth Abortion on one of our Medical/Health Channels. Although, it is not possible for me to support this since another life will be lost. Everyday one may see all manner of surgeries on television, Heart, Eye, C-Sections, etc. that are not designed to take a life, but save or heal a life. Why is this one surgery, denied publicity? This visual argument would be effective. It seems to agree with yours, ihavechoselife.
If you want to see the most effective imagry in changing hearts, check out the web site in my signature. Also check out the thread "I Am A Person". It has one of the best poster/tracts to be found anywhere. And the best thing is, I will send you a sample free if you PM me a snail mail address.

reply from: Sigma

I am going to try to separate my post into sections. If I miss something important let me know.
There is no explicit right to life in the Constitution, Teresa18. They protected liberty from infringment by the State, which disallowing abortion would do
You have admitted that there exists no obligation to allow the use of your body (as the fetus uses it), even hypothetically, outside the case of pregnancy. This strongly suggests that no 'right to life' can necessarily be used to violate a woman's right to privacy surrounding the use of her body. Thus, whether the fetus is considered a 'person' or not for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment is somewhat of a moot point.
This severely undermines the claim that abortion should be disallowed because the fetus deserves equal protection. Life, as this would suggest, is not always more important than the liberty of others. As we've seen, whether the fetus is human or even a 'person' is not the determining factor as to whether you believe disconnecting the fetus should be allowed. The determining factor, as your posts strongly suggests, is whether the woman owes a duty-of-care to the fetus. Would this be a fair representation of your view?
You say that the woman owes a duty (and that the gov't owes a duty to enforce) to allow the use of her body, but where does this duty come from? You have already admitted that even if one directly causes an accident one does not owe a duty to allow the victim of this accident to be connected to you as the fetus is connected. I would then say that we must examine whether the woman would owe the fetus a duty of care.
Sex does not make one blameworthy in the normal circumstances we are talking about. Intentions absolutely affect blameworthiness. With no intention to become pregnant, you would have a hard time seriously suggesting that a woman consented to pregnancy. Just as when you are hit by the bus, you did not consent to that occuring even if there was a chance of it occuring. Yes, you do have to deal with the consequences, but the gov't does not mandate that you cannot recieve medical care because you consented to being hit.
You say that the woman owes a duty (and that the gov't owes a duty to enforce) to allow the use of her body, because one would owe this to their children. We seem to be at somewhat of an impasse since I assert that one does not owe any duty of care to anyone that would allow the use of one's body as the fetus uses the woman's. A woman's 'right to privacy' surrounding the use of her body would allow her to deny this use to the fetus. Equal protection would not grant the fetus this ability, as I have already shown. You would have to reason that the fetus deserves extra entitlement.
The reasoning I have seen you use to show that the fetus deserves extra entitlement is that you have equated the fetus to her children. You have said:
If she allowed someone else's child into her home, she would have to care for the child until she could get the child back to his/her home or to the police if the child is lost orphaned. Her own child, however, she would have to care for whether she accepted/wanted him/her or not, at least until she could get the child into another's care. There is still more responsibility to one's own child than to another's child.
This is not exactly true. Whether they are her own children or not is immaterial if she accepted them into her care (by adopting them or some such). If a child that was hers but that she was not legally responsible for crept into her house, she would owe that child no more care than she would a stranger, and could put them out on their ear even if it resulted in the death of that child. She is not required to offer succor to any except those she owes this duty to. Whether she caused the circumstances or not does not create this duty of care (provided nothing to make the woman legally culpable occured), nor does the blood relationship create this duty of care. Unless the woman intended to become pregnant, I contend she does not have this duty of care towards the fetus.
This has no logical basis that I can see, provided no illegal or culpable action on the woman's part occured.
Regardless of the potential, I do not morally equate what the fetus is at the time that the vast majority of abortions occur with a person. I do not equate a brainless body with a person.
In a general sense that is what happens during pregnancy. Nutrients and internal metabolism is no longer used for your own body, but is instead "given up" to drive the growth and development of the fetus. It violates the woman's liberty for the State to require this. Thus if liberty is always less important than promoting life, then anyone who is dying that can be saved must be saved even if it violates individual liberty.
I said nearly all of the developed world. The Republic of Ireland joins... well most of the arab nations, Central and some of South America too. Most of the African nations as well. However, in nearly all of the developed nations abortion is allowed in most if not all instances for at least part of the pregnancy, as far as I've seen.
They both contain human DNA. If human DNA is your sole criteria then cancer would fall under that umbrella. Whatever the fetus "potentially" will be is immaterial to what it currently is. Why in the world do you keep mentioning viruses? Cancer is not a virus. Cancer is a growth that contains human DNA and that the body naturally diverts blood and nutrients to in order to facilitate its growth.

reply from: MattG

Healthier? The procedure of abortion is much safer than continuing the pregnancy and giving birth.
What? That is one of the most ludicrous things I have heard! "safer"? What about the mental health? What about the perforated uterus' and infections?? What about the risks of possible infertility after abortion?? Sorry, I just don't buy that! Have YOU given birth? Have YOU had an abortion?
That's obviously from a pro abort site.
(sorry I didn't do the 'quotes', I'm not quite sure how to get them to work right)

reply from: Sigma

Whether or not I have given birth or had an abortion, the abortion procedure appears to be safer than continuing the pregnancy and giving birth. If you're interested in the mental health aspects, Ivan Goldberg, MD, has a http://www.psycom.net/depression.central.dep-abort.html of some studies you might be interested in.
Hm. I suppose the http://www.rcog.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=649#safe are biased, in your mind too then:
For most women an abortion is safer than carrying a pregnancy and having a baby. All medical and surgical procedures have risks, but the earlier in pregnancy you have an abortion, the safer it is. Your doctor or nurse should tell you about risks and complications that relate to the specific abortion procedure(s) being offered to you. If you have special concerns about certain kinds of risk, let your healthcare team know so that they can tell you more.
lol, and you criticize my choice of sources?

reply from: yoda

Abortion Is Four Times Deadlier
Than Childbirth
New Studies Unmask High Maternal Death Rates From Abortion

David C. Reardon, Ph.D.
Abortion advocates, relying on inaccurate maternal death data in the United States, routinely claim that a woman's risk of dying from childbirth is six, ten, or even twelve times higher than the risk of death from abortion.
In contrast, abortion critics have long contended that the statistics relied upon for maternal mortality calculations have been distorted and that the broader claim that "abortion is many times safer than childbirth" completely ignores high rates of other physical and psychological complications associated with abortion. Now a recent, unimpeachable study of pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland has shown that the risk of dying within a year after an abortion is several times higher than the risk of dying after miscarriage or childbirth.(1)
This well-designed record-based study is from STAKES, the statistical analysis unit of Finland's National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health. In an effort to evaluate the accuracy of maternal death reports, STAKES researchers pulled the death certificate records for all the women of reproductive age (15-49) who died between 1987 and 1994--a total of 9,192 women. They then culled through the national health care data base to identify any pregnancy-related events for each of these women in the 12 months prior to their deaths.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/fourtimes.htm

reply from: Sigma

Florida law has the presumption that one is in reasonable fear of bodily injury. If someone has unlawfully entered that presumption is created and thus deadly force is allowed.
Section 1 of the bill creates a presumption that a person is in reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or bodily injury when he or she is using "defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury" under certain conditions. Those conditions are:
Where the person against whom the force is used had unlawfully or forcibly entered, or attempted to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle
So, yes, if the intruder is running for the door it is still allowable if that intruder forcibly entered the premises.
From the context, this section applies to children who are "in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship" of the defender. This seemingly wouldn't apply if that child was given up.
"Tedious" would fit yours just fine, but "idiocy" would be a close second :-\

reply from: Sigma

Yet I must spoodfeed you? Can't believe I'm wasting time on you, but fine.
The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used
The meaning of the sentence is this: ...is a child or grandchild, or is in some other way in the lawful custody...
The appears from the context that the intent of the application is to children in the lawful custody of the defender.
Stay with me now.
Section 1 of the bill creates a presumption that a person is in reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or bodily injury when he or she is using "defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury" under certain conditions
If someone forcibly breaks into your home and you kill him, the presumption is that you were in reasonable fear for your life or bodily harm. Nowhere is there an exception for an intruder running for the door.

reply from: yoda

...........The most chilling words I've ever read...........

reply from: Sigma

...
No, concernedparent. The conditions are not outlined in section 3. The conditions are in section 1 and are labeled with letters, not numbers.
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used had unlawfully or forcibly entered or attempted to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle or if that person had removed or attempted to remove another from the dwelling, residence, or vehicle.
(b) The person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful or forcible entry or unlawful or forcible act had occurred.
If someone forcibly enters your house and you kill him, the presumption is that you had a reasonable fear of death or bodily injury. There is no exception for a retreating intruder.

reply from: Sigma

Section 3 existed before Section 1 was added. Bleh. Learn about the subject before you post, will ya?

reply from: Sigma

It had been amended. And yes, it remains a valid part of the statute, as section 1 is a valid part of the statute. Section 1 creates the presumption that you were in reasonable fear of your life or bodily injury when you kill an intruder that had forcibly entered your house. There is no exception for a fleeing intruder. I think I'm done trying to show you what this law means. If you don't get it you never will.

reply from: Sigma

Please. I did not claim you could persue an intruder more than a football fields distance, but that you could shoot an intruder in your home. The "castle" doctrine embodied in the law is meant to apply to residences, not persuing the intruder 150 yards. You have not shown that the presumption is refutable, only that the law is not intended to apply as they tried to apply it.
lol. That is the point of the "presumption", it presumes that an intruder intended serious harm and it presumes that the defender had a reasonable fear of death or bodily injurty. The law grants criminal and civil immunity when there is that reasonable belief, and the law presumes that you have that reasonable belief when someone forcibly enters your home and you kill them.

reply from: Sigma

The case presented nothing along those lines. The case you presented went way beyond what the statute was meant to apply to, namely home defense. You are stretching as James Behanna was stretching to apply a home defense statute to chasing down an intruder. As even the case said, the home defense laws were not on trial here because chasing an intruder the length of a football field could not apply under home defense. Shooting an intruder in your home would.
"Defensive force" in the part of the statute we're looking at is "defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury".
I find it amusing that the points you initially brought up were soundly defeated and you have to flail around for something to stick. Even what you've settled on is very murky ground for you.


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