PLFXpert 0 #26 June 20, 2007 Quote Just recently, and I don't know the exact numbers, a child was delivered at 23 weeks and has done well. That's wonderful!Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #27 June 20, 2007 QuoteQuote That's entirely false. Pro-lifers aren't pro-life because they want to take freedom away from women. They are pro-life because they want to give rights to an unborn child. So why is it that the vast majority of the Prolife leadership is male? It is? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #28 June 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteThey are pro-life because they want to give rights to an unborn child All the while taking away the rights of the woman. You know... the slave owners of the 1800s felt the same way about their rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #29 June 20, 2007 Quote Quote Quote They are pro-life because they want to give rights to an unborn child All the while taking away the rights of the woman. You know... the slave owners of the 1800s felt the same way about their rights. You guys need to go back to the appropriate thread for this discussion. We're trying to talk clones, seat belts and Drano snorting here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #30 June 20, 2007 QuoteFirst, you did not answer my question which you quoted.Sorry. I believe basic human rights should be extended to all fetuses, and for female fetuses, I believe they should be given the right to choose. It's only fair. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #31 June 20, 2007 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just recently, and I don't know the exact numbers, a child was delivered at 23 weeks and has done well. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteThat's wonderful! Why do you mention it, though? While I would hope for the best, certainly I would understand delivering a child at 23 weeks would be risky to the life or death of the child. I'd be willing to bet they delivered it anyways b/c the right-to-life & health of the mother was put first. The position of the pro-choice crowd, whether true or not, seems to be that in order to save the life of the mother, the child must die. With today's medical advancments, the viability of the fetus is greatly increased, so the death of the fetus is most often up to the mother's choice. The irony of it all is that women are supposed to be in touch with gentler, emotional, ethereal side of life. There are 40 million dead babies who would disagree, if they could. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #32 June 20, 2007 QuoteThe position of the pro-choice crowd, whether true or not, seems to be that in order to save the life of the mother, the child must die. "Pro-choice" is a legal position. Personal opinions on circumstance aside, certainly there could be a risk of death to the child in many cases in which a mother--with all the desire & intention of keeping her baby--must deliver early (which might potentially result in an abortion). If in these cases, the fetus has equal rights to the mother, whose health & right-to-life should be considered first and who makes that decision? I think you're confusing "pro-choice" with one's personal opinion of how & when the option should be used. There are a lot of opinions in both the pro-choice & pro-life "crowd", but only one legal position either way. It doesn't sound like you'd legally prohibit abortion in all cases & scenarios.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #33 June 20, 2007 The position of the pro-choice crowd, whether true or not, seems to be that in order to save the life of the mother, the child must die. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote"Pro-choice" is a legal position. Personal opinions on circumstance aside, certainly there could be a risk of death to the child in many cases in which a mother--with all the desire & intention of keeping her baby--must deliver early (which might potentially result in an abortion). If in these cases, the fetus has equal rights to the mother, whose health & right-to-life should be considered first and who makes that decision? I think you're confusing "pro-choice" with one's personal opinion of how & when the option should be used. There are a lot of opinions in both the pro-choice & pro-life "crowd", but only one legal position either way. It doesn't sound like you'd legally prohibit abortion in all cases & scenarios. There's no argument that abortion is legal, or that there are situations where the final solution is the best solution. I just believe that the 'life of the mother' argument, which seems to be the first one presented by the pro-choice crowd, is really a bogus argument, especially if the child has already reached the point of viability. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #34 June 20, 2007 Quote Your rights stop when they violate my rights, or the rights of others....or when they will damage the rights of someone I care about. Pretty much sums it up._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #35 June 20, 2007 The "life of the mother" (be it physical health, mental health, or a life & death scenario) argument merely demonstrates why some don't believe equal rights can/should be given to both mother & unborn child. You've even used the argument yourself when you presented your own "legitimate reasons". Who were you thinking about first in the rape scenario?Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #36 June 20, 2007 QuoteThe "life of the mother" (be it physical health, mental health, or a life & death scenario) argument merely demonstrates why some don't believe equal rights can/should be given to both mother & unborn child. You've even used the argument yourself when you presented your own "legitimate reasons". Who were you thinking about first in the rape scenario? I said this in the other thread....there are so many "what if" scenarios that it is impossible to come to any solid ground on this topic. There will always be THAT person who throws in one more argument just as everyone is happy on finding middle ground. It is those who are not secure with just making up their own mind on this topic that makes it such a violent discussion. Those that need to stand on a soap box about THEIR choice just annoy the fuck out of me. I don't care either way what your choice is, just don't tell me I have to agree with it._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #37 June 20, 2007 QuoteThe "life of the mother" (be it physical health, mental health, or a life & death scenario) argument merely demonstrates why some don't believe equal rights can/should be given to both mother & unborn child. But were not talking equal rights. Presently the unborn child has few, if any, rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #38 June 20, 2007 QuoteThe "life of the mother" (be it physical health, mental health, or a life & death scenario) argument merely demonstrates why some don't believe equal rights can/should be given to both mother & unborn child. You've even used the argument yourself when you presented your own "legitimate reasons". Who were you thinking about first in the rape scenario? If a woman has carried up to the point of viability, she has had plenty of time to think about the situation. Using the argument to justify the heinous act of partial birth abortion just doesn't hold water. The child is one minute away from taking its first natural breath, and its life is taken. I say, give me a break! OTOH, if the mother dumps the kid into a trash can as she walks out of the hospital, she goes to jail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #39 June 20, 2007 The only thing that tends to bother me is the assumption of either side that the opposite side must be cold & cruel. And the whole tunnel vision thing. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #40 June 20, 2007 QuoteIf a woman has carried up to the point of viability, she has had plenty of time to think about the situation. When were we discussing this? When did I say otherwise? I haven't given my personal opinion about when & what circumstances I agree or disagree with. The only thing I've offered inherently in my posts is that my legal position is pro-choice.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #41 June 20, 2007 What rights would you give?Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #42 June 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe "life of the mother" (be it physical health, mental health, or a life & death scenario) argument merely demonstrates why some don't believe equal rights can/should be given to both mother & unborn child. But were not talking equal rights. Presently the unborn child has few, if any, rights. As it should be. What list of rights should it have? Who gets to define that list? We can't agree on rights for people who are alive and in/near combat or alive and working to pick our fruit. Is this going to be another case where the loudest and best financed political group gets to decide what individual rights an unborn fetus/zygote has? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #43 June 20, 2007 a woman has carried up to the point of viability, she has had plenty of time to think about the situation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote When were we discussing this? When did I say otherwise? I haven't given my personal opinion about when & what circumstances I agree or disagree with. The only thing I've offered inherently in my posts is that my legal position is pro-choice.It would have been a relatively short, boring thread if we just simply answered the question with a yes or no. No? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #44 June 20, 2007 QuoteAfter reading the abortion threads, I'm curious... For those of you who feel that a woman has a right to have an abortion because it's her body and she should be able to do what she wants with it... Do you think that that right applies to other things as well? Should she also be able to have a clone made of herself? Sell her organs? Work as a prostitute? Use recreational drugs? Have herself euthanized? Drive without a seatbelt? Yes to everything but the clone, because there are many problems with cloning at the moment, and the clone would be a separate person, so it doesn't have much to do with the question, as it wouldn't have anything to do with the woman's body anymore than an identical twin would. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #45 June 20, 2007 Do you really have any idea of the problems of prematurity, or the expense to deal with it? Premature babies are at high risk for chronic problems, because the organs did not have time to properly develop before birth. Problems include underdeveloped lungs, underdeveloped brain, brain hemorhhage, problems regulating glucose levels, immature immune system, kidney problems, digestive tract and liver problems, such as necrotizing enterocolitis. Babies born before 28 weeks are at a high risk for cerebral palsy, mental retardation, epilepsy and blindness. -http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec23/ch264/ch264c.html This article is also very informative: http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/pa/pa_premie_hhg.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #46 June 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe "life of the mother" (be it physical health, mental health, or a life & death scenario) argument merely demonstrates why some don't believe equal rights can/should be given to both mother & unborn child. But were not talking equal rights. Presently the unborn child has few, if any, rights. As it should be. What list of rights should it have? The right not to indiscriminately terminated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,000 #47 June 20, 2007 > I just believe that the 'life of the mother' argument, which seems to >be the first one presented by the pro-choice crowd, is really a bogus >argument, especially if the child has already reached the point of viability. How about life of the child? Is a multifetal reduction of two out of four fetuses acceptable if it will give the other two fetuses a better chance of life? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #48 June 20, 2007 Define viability, please. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #49 June 20, 2007 i think the real question is when is a baby's life viable - my opinion is when it can support it's own life - if we could agree on when the baby is viable we could agree up to when an abortion should be legal Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #50 June 20, 2007 Quote How about life of the child?... I was going to go there next.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
