Say Roe v. Wade is gone and there's a non gay marriage amendment

But these metaphors matter to the argument.

I'm a separate individual from you but if I was dying of liver failure I couldn't forcefully hook myself up to you to take advantage of your liver even if it doesn't kill you.

The problem with the parasite argument is that then the woman's rights are subsumed to the rights of the embryo or fetus. The fetus while being a separate individual is in a state where its forced the woman to sustain it like a flu virus.

 

Accept that we encourage the irradication of parasites that feed on us.

 

Except that these particular "parasites" have human DNA and share part of our, and only our, genetic code as parents.

 

In most cases, the woman had a helluva lot to do with introducing the "parasite" to its host location! Try as you might to make it sound, it is not an alien being.

 

Since we all, as humans, start out as these "parasites", I figure we treat these differently than your common cold.

 

She would be 50% at fault, no?

 

sishir

the neural tube fuses in the 5th week of pregnancy. the brain is there and developing in the 5th week. by the 6th week, its forming into its 3 distinct parts (http://www.parentsplace.com/pregnancy/trimester1/articles/0,,238995_549966-4,00.html) Keep in mind, this is still an embryo at this point...not a fetus yet.

as for sustainability...at about 24 weeks, 40% of babies can survive outside the womb with intensive care at a hospital.

i guess my point is, if we're not sure, which side do we want to err on?? everyone has to make their own judgment on that...but it seems to me that erring towards the side that JUST MIGHT be killing millions of human beings is the one we'd seek to avoid. there's a certain recklesness in the face of our own ignorance about fetal development that is striking to me.

 

I find a the prohibition of abortion by use of force to be very reckless.

The problem is that there will still be the killing, but now it will be underground, black market killing. Plus thousands of women will be demonized and incarcerated, maybe killed. They will be afraid to talk about their problems. Many are scared and manipulated. It will make forgiveness and compassion difficult to come by. They are victims too, will we remember that?

 

i'm not for abandoning those women, meowgi. the groups i've worked with and contributed to love those women, big time. they provide them with counseling and all sorts of social services, no matter what their choice.

but ultimately i'm struck by the logic that if this is a human being then it is worthy of rights and protections, despite how those who might deny it those rights and protections feel after the fact.

 

I guess; unless she were raped. I prefer not to think of it as fault but as responsibility. The point is that these "parasites" are not alien invaders. We know they may be coming when we engage in the behavior. It has everything to do with our behavior not our victimhood.

 

And that will continue when they are jailed or dead from unsafe procedures? They will have the unconditional love of society then? I do not see true healing possible that way.

Or those incapable to love before the fact? Compassion and forgiveness for these women is just as important as protecting the child. I see a moral rehabilitation of society as he most important aspect. It is more important than legal rights. Without that we will produce an even greater tragedy.

What most really want is a ban of abortion by enforced by the power of the state (to drive it undercover). That is what people lust for so badly.

 

Not really. If you look back at the studies cited, most abortions are performed because the "parent" just doesn't want the child. You technology forecast doesn't allow relief for the problem.

 

In that case, you and I are completely on the same page. Anyone who wants an abortion should have one within the first 12-13 weeks after which, the only valid reasons would be the health of the mother or the baby.

See, you and I can come to a compromise that is mutually agreeable even though our basic stances appear to be diametrically opposed. This is the reason I think that we (people who don't identify completely with the Dems and Reps) could form a political party based on moderation and compromise.

 

AFAIC, as long as the baby cannot survive outside the womb, it is a part of the woman's body since without her body, it would not be able to continue "living."

 

I don't have a huge problem with that view towards abortion. My wife might disagree, or she might not.

As for the "3rd party" thing? In my opinion, you both would be better served channeling your energy trying to make either party more moderate, and less divisive. Right now, the Republican Party has done a splendid job of putting the Democratic Party back on it's heels, and responding to the GOP's radical agenda with it's own gumbo of radicalism (see "Streisand's nose"), mixed with some largely buried good ideas on the issues. This doesn't bode well for the future, and cries out for smart moderates to work as hard at taking back control of each Party's agenda as the radicals worked to obtain their control.

It's not an impossible task. The worm can turn, with a lot of help.



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

Dude, you've watched the Matrix too many times.



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

How can abortion be allowed.. but if you kill a pregnant woman you get charged with two murders?

Seems to me like the law is indeed saying it is two lives?

And Yes I'm pro-life.....

I don't understand how in the Lacey Peterson trial.. seems like you are basically saying... if someone else kills the baby. then its murder because its a human.. but if the mother does it.. then its not murder becuase its not a human?

 

or it's allowing the word, "human," to be defined by the most subjective of ways...namely the intent of the mother. whatever she chooses to call it, that's what it is. which varies from situation to situation.