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

While its true its not exactly the same there always is a risk to pregnancy and birth greater than mere blood transfusion. Even with modern medicine there are many things that can go wrong. The example has to do with who's rights take precedence. The right of one human to decide whether they should or should not biologically keep another alive.

Which is why I raised the particular example though of an child whose parents have given it up for adoption and it needs a partial liver transplant and the only one who can do it is the biological parent. My understanding of the law is that the parent is not legally compelled to do so just like no one else is legally compelled to do donate an organ or even give a blood transfusion even if it is guarenteed that it will cost someone elses life.

 

Because even without abortion there statistically isn't that large of a guarentee that it comes to term. I don't remember the statistic exactly but I've heard that most fertalized eggs end up being miscarried.

This is why I raised the examples involving two adults needing a transfusion from one to the other or one from a non-custodial parent to a child born so there rights are equal. My understanding of current laws no one can be forced to give a transfusion or biological donation to another even if it means their death.

But going back to my hooking myself to Mad Max's liver. Even if he consends to do that he is still within his rights to terminate that procedure knowing that as soon as he does I will die.

Giddyup I fully understand that I'm making cold arguments but I'm deliberately skirting an emotional argument because ultimately what this comes down to is a question of rights under the law which is not totally a moral or ethical argument.

I agree which is why I proposed a bright line standard of determining when brain activity starts but as with my other examples involving transfusions and donations even when there is no question there is a human involved it isn't a clear cut case that one person has to biologically nurture another.

 

You didn't fully develop the analogy.

Should the parent be exposed to a procedure that will save the child's life (donating the liver lobe), or conversely should the parent be exposed to a surgical procedure that will end the child's life.

These are the only two possible choices so you can't forget to mention that an abortion is also a medical procedure. Abortions are medically risky procedures, as is pregnancy.

 

but you can't hook yourself up to me because i didn't consent to it...it's essentially, an assault.

but you consent to that when you have sex. you know full well that a possible outcome is that the female could get pregnant.

hey, having a family is a big ass burden. and no law can get you around that. i've been up the last two nights feeding my baby...without me or my wife, he starves. it's a burden. and hell yes i have an obligation to take care of him. anythng short of that is neglect. we don't have absolute liberty to go, "ehhh...i'm not interested in taking care of you." do that and see how far your liberties take you.

 

http://atorrez.com/index.php?p=124

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position does not require Congressional approval.

The FDA’s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination.

Dr. Hager is the author of “As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now.” The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from Hager’s practice. His views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as “pro-life” and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled “Stress and the Woman’s Body,” he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of “The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family,” Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient.

We are concerned that Dr. Hager’s strong religious beliefs may color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women’s lives or to preserve and promote women’s health. Hager’s track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this committee.

Critical drug public policy and research must not be held hostage by antiabortion politics. Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and religion.

http://atorrez.com/index.php?p=124

how does someone whose medical views would be at home in the Dark Ages get to be head of the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee?

 

Chump, you are definitely not making my afternoon. This is one of many signals we should expect to see, confirming that this isn't going to be a moderate 2nd term. There has been some wishful thinking, in some parts, that Bush will suddenly "revert" to the "compassionate conservative" he was supposed to be in 2000. It ain't happening, folks.




Keep D&D Civil!!

 

couple of thoughts here:

1. the guy wrote a book and had a private practice. many doctors tell their patients, "if you're a praying person, i'd suggest you do so." i have a jewish pediatrician who cites to the power of prayer in medicine all the time. call it divine intervention or a positive outlook, but he'd throw out study after study to you citing how there seems to be an effect on human health from prayer.

2. my understanding is that some birth control pills dont kick in until after an egg is fertilized. they allow the egg/sperm union, and then kick out the egg. so if you are one who believes life begins at conception, then clearly birth control pills work as an abortion procedure.

 

I don't think any "pills" work in this way (on purpose that is), but it is common knowledge that a copper IUD (intrauterine device) works in this exact way. This is a very common form of contraception that can last from 5-10 years in some cases.

If that committe has not met in 2 years, how much damage could this appointment really have?