1) A woman gives birth to a child which is found to be undesirable to the mother for various reasons. The baby is still attached via umbilical cord. If I understand you correctly, the baby is still a part of the woman's body since they are connected together. Would it be okay for her to abort/kill the baby because she does not desire the baby and it is still technically a part of her body?
I'm still waiting for an answer to that woman who's doctor informs her that if she tries to carry her fetus to term, it will probably die anyway and also result in her becoming sterile so she will never be able to have a healthy child.
don't you think that the cord is a part of the process of giving BIRTH?
You were discussing the child being outside of the womb and still being able to be aborted. Now you are saying that it needs to get outside of the womb. Which is it?
You were discussing the child being outside of the womb and still being able to be aborted. Now you are saying that it needs to get outside of the womb. Which is it?
again, what part of the concpt of BIRTH aren't you clear about?
I'm still waiting for an answer to that woman who's doctor informs her that if she tries to carry her fetus to term, it will probably die anyway and also result in her becoming sterile so she will never be able to have a healthy child.
what do you say to her?
My sister-in-law went through that very same scenario as well as many other women. She was told that she would die and so would the child. She had a perfectly healthy child.
again, what part of the concpt of BIRTH aren't you clear about?
Your definition. You claim that we should stay outside of the womb and then you claim that the child can still be killed outside of the womb. Which is it?
My sister-in-law went through that very same scenario as well as many other women. She was told that she would die and so would the child. She had a perfectly healthy child.
and how many women have died from child birth? how many have destroyed their reproductive abilities by trying?
got a figure for that?
and why do you think that it is YOUR business to make that decision for your sister-in-law? Did the doctor have the RIGHT to abort her child to do what he thought would be saving her life? Did you?
Until it's BORN, our society has no business with it.
Why? I have shown many different ways that it is not another appendage of the mother. Why should we not have a say in what happens to another human being that is as helpless as you can get?
What does that have to do with the discussion? We were trying to decide if our society protects our own people only or if we try to protect all that we can.
Nor have you responded to my question on why is Scott Petersen being charged with a double MURDER.
"Nor"? It looks like the same question to me....and I did answer it...
it's because people like you who think they have a right to a woman and her body and what she does with it are using the system to take away women's rights to their own self.
how do you get from a fetus to a self without a birth occuring?
Birth has nothing to do with it. It is already a seperate being with seperate identities. It can even have a different hair color than the mother before birth. The mother is merely feeding it and protecting it while it is in the womb. You have shown me nothing to prove otherwise. All you have done is scream, "IT'S THE MOTHER'S, IT'S THE MOTHER'S".
and you want to force her to do this with her body.
I did not force her to get pregnant.
You would have us force her to use her body to change the diapers of the child once it is born. IT'S HER BODY AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE FORCING HER TO CHANGE DIAPERS.
Oh... so it only becomes my child after it exits the vagina?
Then explain the court cases that mandate that the male that got the girl pregnant that require the "father" to pay for pre-natal care and hospital costs for the delivery. If it only belongs to the mother, then what legal precedent are the courts using?
The mother is merely feeding it and protecting it while it is in the womb.
it's in her womb. It's HERS.
I understand that you want to force her to do what YOU want done with it, but it's NOT YOURS to do that with. She has rights. Forcing her to do something about something that is ENTIRELY HERS infringes on her personal rights.
That is not what I said. The mother's own immune cells would reject the fetus if they were allowed near it.
They knew that fundamental reproductive immunology suggests maternal immune cells don’t routinely traffic across the placenta. This is in part because the fetus is genetically different from the mother and will be recognized by her immune cells as foreign, resulting in what is known as a negative "graft-vs.-host" rejection response in the fetus. link
link
what a woman does about the birth of her child is up to her, yes.
link
absolutely.
don't you think that the cord is a part of the process of giving BIRTH?
I'm still waiting for an answer to that woman who's doctor informs her that if she tries to carry her fetus to term, it will probably die anyway and also result in her becoming sterile so she will never be able to have a healthy child.
what do you say to her?
that' she's a murderer?
don't you think that the cord is a part of the process of giving BIRTH?
You were discussing the child being outside of the womb and still being able to be aborted. Now you are saying that it needs to get outside of the womb. Which is it?
again, what part of the concpt of BIRTH aren't you clear about?
I'm still waiting for an answer to that woman who's doctor informs her that if she tries to carry her fetus to term, it will probably die anyway and also result in her becoming sterile so she will never be able to have a healthy child.
what do you say to her?
My sister-in-law went through that very same scenario as well as many other women. She was told that she would die and so would the child. She had a perfectly healthy child.
again, what part of the concpt of BIRTH aren't you clear about?
Your definition. You claim that we should stay outside of the womb and then you claim that the child can still be killed outside of the womb. Which is it?
no, that isn't what I said.
it needs to be BORN.
until it's BORN, it is ENTIRELY the mother's...no one else's business.
Until it's BORN, our society has no business with it.
and how many women have died from child birth? how many have destroyed their reproductive abilities by trying?
got a figure for that?
and why do you think that it is YOUR business to make that decision for your sister-in-law? Did the doctor have the RIGHT to abort her child to do what he thought would be saving her life? Did you?
It's HER BUSINESS, no one else's.
Until it's BORN, our society has no business with it.
Why? I have shown many different ways that it is not another appendage of the mother. Why should we not have a say in what happens to another human being that is as helpless as you can get?
because IT'S NOT YOURS. because it EFFECTS SOMEONE ELSE'S BODY.
and why do you think that it is YOUR business to make that decision for your sister-in-law?
Because in a civilized society you do not allow someone to kill an innocent human being.
For a person that has claimed several times that it is "none of his business", Crabs sure seems to spend a lot of time here making it his business.
because IT'S NOT YOURS.
It's not the mother's body either.
because it EFFECTS SOMEONE ELSE'S BODY.
That is my point, it effects the childs body.
NO, our society protect it's CITIZENS. A fetus is not a part of our SOCIETY, it is ENTIRELY THE MOTHER'S.
YOUR BODY is not our society's business.
ARGUING with people who want to make it their business, yes...I sure do.
it is the MOTHER'S...ENTIRELY.
It also EFFECTS the mother's body.
and this is why IT'S THE MOTHER'S.
Do you have ANY scientific proof that it is an appendage (or what ever you want to call it) of the mother's body?
until it's born, it's ENTIRELY THE MOTHER'S.
It's her property.
It has no rights to "self", because it hasn't BEEN BORN. The act of BIRTH imparts the idea of "self" to it. That's what BIRTH is about.
crabgrass 5/10/04 9:57pm
Oh really?
Then explain this:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040401/D81M8KTG0.html
NO, our society protect it's CITIZENS
Than why are those people who were abusing the Iraqi prisoners being brought up on charges? Are Iraqi's now a citizen of this country?
crabgrass 5/10/04 10:00pm
Why is Scott Petersen being charged with a double murder?
crabgrass 5/10/04 10:00pm
I see that you are unaware of a very long list of paternal court cases concerning the fathers of the unborn children.
it's people like you who want to extend society into woman's bodies.
then why did we go and drop bombs on them?
have you seen any of the civilian body counts from over there lately?
so, you somehow think I agree with them?
then why did we go and drop bombs on them?
What does that have to do with the discussion? We were trying to decide if our society protects our own people only or if we try to protect all that we can.
until it's born, it's ENTIRELY THE MOTHER'S.
It's her property.
This is your theory, not scientific proof.
that's what I was wondering.
we protect the rights of the individual.
a fetus isn't an individual until it's BORN. Until then, it's ENTIRELY THE MOTHER'S.
it's not a scientific claim.
it's about the right's of a woman to what is HERS.
her fetus is ENTIRELY hers. It doesn't have a "self" to be protected from her.
the process of BIRTH is what gives it it's status of "self"
crabgrass 5/10/04 10:10pm
We all know that's your opinion.
Other opinions differ.
that's what I was wondering.
And you got your answer in the rest that you quoted.
a fetus isn't an individual until it's BORN. Until then, it's ENTIRELY THE MOTHER'S.
Once again, it has different DNA, diferent blood type, can be a different sex, etc. How do you make the jump from that to "It's entirely the mother's.
Hey crabgrass. You still haven't commented on:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040401/D81M8KTG0.html
Nor have you responded to my question on why is Scott Petersen being charged with a double MURDER.
Now why is that?
your ability to state the obvious is duly noted, Rich.
because it's entirely the mother's.
how do you get from a fetus to a self without a birth occuring?
Come on Crabgrass... You maintain that an unborn child is not part of society.
crabgrass 5/10/04 10:14pm
Explain http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040401/D81M8KTG0.html
And explain why Scott Petersen is charged with a double murder.
"Nor"? It looks like the same question to me....and I did answer it...
it's because people like you who think they have a right to a woman and her body and what she does with it are using the system to take away women's rights to their own self.
crabgrass 5/10/04 10:05pm
how do you get from a fetus to a self without a birth occuring?
Birth has nothing to do with it. It is already a seperate being with seperate identities. It can even have a different hair color than the mother before birth. The mother is merely feeding it and protecting it while it is in the womb. You have shown me nothing to prove otherwise. All you have done is scream, "IT'S THE MOTHER'S, IT'S THE MOTHER'S".
again with the Peterson story and then an additional explanation about...the Peterson story?
he's charged with a double murder because people like you are using the system to try to manipulate your control of a woman's body.
crabgrass 5/10/04 10:19pm
If a fetus is NOT a member of society then why is Scott Petersen being charged with killing it? It not even a human yet according to you.
of course it does.
and you want to force her to do this with her body.
it's HERS!
ENTIRELY!
NOT YOURS.
NOT FOR YOU TO BE MAKING ANY DECISIONS ABOUT.
crabgrass 5/10/04 10:21pm
Looks like a human being to me:
I fucking answered tis question three times already.
why didn't you post the article about it as a separate question again?
he's charged with a double murder because people like you are using the system to try to manipulate your control of a woman's body.
If it is a woman's body, why would the immune cells reject it if they were allowed near the fetus?
Why could it be born without an immune system?
call it whatever you like...it's still ENTIRELY the MOTHER'S.
It's not societies until it's BORN.
and you want to force her to do this with her body.
I did not force her to get pregnant.
You would have us force her to use her body to change the diapers of the child once it is born. IT'S HER BODY AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE FORCING HER TO CHANGE DIAPERS.
crabgrass 5/10/04 10:24pm
Oh... so it only becomes my child after it exits the vagina?
Then explain the court cases that mandate that the male that got the girl pregnant that require the "father" to pay for pre-natal care and hospital costs for the delivery. If it only belongs to the mother, then what legal precedent are the courts using?
it's in her womb. It's HERS.
I understand that you want to force her to do what YOU want done with it, but it's NOT YOURS to do that with. She has rights. Forcing her to do something about something that is ENTIRELY HERS infringes on her personal rights.
Why could it be born without an immune system?
That is not what I said. The mother's own immune cells would reject the fetus if they were allowed near it.
women are forced to get pregnant all the time.
the legal precedents are between the mother and the father, not between the father and the fetus.
if the father did this to the mother's body, he has responsibilities to the mother.
this doesn't give him rights to her body.
I know, it's what I said.
a person's own immune cells can reject it's own cells.