New York Legalizes full term abortion. Have liberals gone too far? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

New York Legalizes full term abortion. Have liberals gone too far?
in Politics

Wow. I am shocked. There is never a good reason to abort a 9 month old baby. Saying life begins at birth is problematic at best, let me explain why. Two women conceive at exactly the same time. One baby is born 24 weeks later, but the second babyy is still unborn 39 weeks later. Are liberals honestly saying that the first baby has more rights than the unborn baby even though the unborn baby is 9 weeks old? That is highly subjective personal opinion frought with appeals to emotion. If this is what I am supporting by being a Democrat, I am leaving the Party to vote for an independent candidate or join the GOP if they produce a viable centrist to run for POTUS. I am so done voting for liberals. I don't want blood on my hands.
GwynneMa
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Even if the process of giving birth (or Caesarean section) is threatening the health of the mother? Or if the child is guaranteed to die shortly after leaving the womb? This isn't unrestricted abortion up to the point of birth, though it does alter the way that abortion is regulated in the state. More importantly, late term abortions aren't being opened up to all comers. It's simply an expansion from the view that only life threatening health problems allow for late term abortions. You're welcome to disagree with it all the same because it does expand access to abortion and the reasons that you can pursue late term abortions, but you're mischaracterizing what it actually is.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/
    AlofRI
  • A fetus in a woman's body, feeding off it and not giving anything back, is a parasite by definition. Removal of a parasite at will is one of the most common and natural behaviors in the animal kingdom.

    I see it as returning to the natural state, rather than someone being gone too far.
    YeshuaBoughtZombieguy1987Applesauce
  • This is always murder at 9 months!
    AlofRI
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 172 Pts
    edited January 26
    @YeshuaBought

    just look at the laws, if you kill a pregnant woman or cause the baby to die, guess what, you get charged with the baby's death, if you are looking for logic and consistency you won't find it on this subject.  If you kill someone's pet you have to reimburse them for the value as they are considered personal property.  

    @whiteflame ;
    1. Even if the process of giving birth (or Caesarean section) is threatening the health of the mother?
    2, Or if the child is guaranteed to die shortly after leaving the womb? 
    3. term abortions aren't being opened up to all comers. It's simply an expansion from the view that only life threatening health problems 

    #2 is describing euthanasia not abortion, like putting down a sick pet.

    as to #1 and #3 what is an example where this would be warranted, there must be some occurrences that happened in which this law was needed to cover them and couldn't be covered by existing laws or medical judgement.  And that couldn't have been detected long before 9 months of development.

    pre this new law

    "it is a crime in New York if an abortion is performed after a woman is twenty-four weeks pregnant, unless the mother’s life is in immediate jeopardy. "  #1 and #3 have already been covered by existing laws, so those are moot

    Zombieguy1987GwynneMa
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @YeshuaBought

    just look at the laws, if you kill a pregnant woman or cause the baby to die, guess what, you get charged with the baby's death, if you are looking for logic and consistency you won't find it on this subject.  If you kill someone's pet you have to reimburse them for the value as they are considered personal property.  

    @whiteflame ;
    1. Even if the process of giving birth (or Caesarean section) is threatening the health of the mother?
    2, Or if the child is guaranteed to die shortly after leaving the womb? 
    3. term abortions aren't being opened up to all comers. It's simply an expansion from the view that only life threatening health problems 

    #2 is describing euthanasia not abortion, like putting down a sick pet.

    as to #1 and #3 what is an example where this would be warranted, there must be some occurrences that happened in which this law was needed to cover them and couldn't be covered by existing laws or medical judgement.  And that couldn't have been detected long before 9 months of development.

    pre this new law

    "it is a crime in New York if an abortion is performed after a woman is twenty-four weeks pregnant, unless the mother’s life is in immediate jeopardy. "  #1 and #3 have already been covered by existing laws, so those are moot

    I agree. Personally, I think late term and full term abortion are always murder.
  • @whiteflame
    1. Even if the process of giving birth (or Caesarean section) is threatening the health of the mother?
    2, Or if the child is guaranteed to die shortly after leaving the womb? 
    3. term abortions aren't being opened up to all comers. It's simply an expansion from the view that only life threatening health problems 

    #2 is describing euthanasia not abortion, like putting down a sick pet.

    as to #1 and #3 what is an example where this would be warranted, there must be some occurrences that happened in which this law was needed to cover them and couldn't be covered by existing laws or medical judgement.  And that couldn't have been detected long before 9 months of development.

    pre this new law

    "it is a crime in New York if an abortion is performed after a woman is twenty-four weeks pregnant, unless the mother’s life is in immediate jeopardy. "  #1 and #3 have already been covered by existing laws, so those are moot

    Those both seem like... very strange mischaracterizations of what's happening.

    Starting with #2, I don't see that as euthanasia. Euthanasia is doctor-assisted suicide, and while it is often based on the proximity of death by other causes, it is not solely based on that. People pursue euthanasia for a broad assortment of reasons, often because of suffering. However, the main thing that separates euthanasia and abortion is the difference between viability and expiration. Viability is based on the ability to survive outside the womb for any appreciable period of time, and while doctors have gotten very good at helping premature babies with underdeveloped organs, there are some that are born without necessary organs. There are some that are born with disorders that will absolutely lead to an abbreviated life, in some cases less than a week. Saying "we know this child will not survive, but you must go through labor to deliver it regardless" or "you must go through Caesarean section to deliver it" seems inhumane to both the mother and child. Meanwhile, euthanasia is about the wishes of the patient alone, and there is usually some question about how long that patient will last under medical care. It's not about viability, it's about disease or injury progression. There are more factors at play regarding whether the doctor made the right call, largely because the decision ends up entirely in the doctor's court. I'm not fond of the characterization that euthanasia is "like putting down a sick pet" either, but if you're going to compare this kind of abortion to euthanasia, at least take the time to show how they're similar.

    You aren't really addressing #3, and seem to recognize that there are restrictions even in the new law, which was my initial point. So we're agreed there.

    Onto #1. I don't think you're reading the point correctly, or at least not reading the attached link. Again, there's a difference. Life-threatening is a subset of health hazards, it is not all health hazards. It's not clear, at least from my reading of the bill, specifically what health hazards constitute sufficient reasoning for a late term abortion in New York now. However, it is clear that cases where patients are guaranteed to be harmed, but not killed, by the remainder of a pregnancy are now on the table for possible abortions under the new law. We can argue about the limits of that action, but it is quite clear that this is a shift. It is something new.
    AlofRI
  • @whiteflame

    if someone is whatever years old and can't survive outside the womb any longer and life support is removed is that an abortion?  so the hair to be split is whether it occurs inside our outside the womb, regardless of the condition or reason for the end of the life?
    "we know this child will not survive, but you must go through labor to deliver it regardless" or "you must go through Caesarean section to deliver it" 

    this really boggles the mind, a baby of 4, 5, 6 pounds or more.....how do you think they are removed from the woman?

    The woman would not have had the baby killed except for the (insert defect, risk etc here).  so the decision and or choice allows the law to kill the once wanted baby because it can't survive or has some defect that warrants ending it's life.  explain that difference between that and euthanasia.  Keep in mind I have at NO point said it's right or wrong, but let's be factual and accurate even if the laws are not.

    agreeable definitions?

    the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering

    the act or practice of causing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy


    AlofRI
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @Applesauce

    I explained the differences at length, and you really haven’t addressed any of them. You pointed to life support as similar, as though that responds to any of the differences I stated, utterly ignored the issues involved with giving birth to a child that has no chance at survival, and then presented definitions that don’t do anything to explain the differences either. So, no, nothing you’ve posted is “agreeable,” and if you want to actually respond to anything I just said, I’ll be here.

  • I know you don't see it as euthanasia hence the definition which fits more than abortion, but stick to your non fact based opinion if wish.  Don't agree with the definitions if you don't wish, but those are from the dictionary and what everyone accepts as the definition of euthanasia.  Seems disingenuous not to agree with formal and accepted definitions.

    you don't or didn't know how the dead baby is removed after being killed so I don't find you very knowledgeable on this subject anyway or do you know admit that was wrong (putting it nicely)

    restrictions aren't really relevant, as I have asked what situations specifically would a 9 month old not yet born baby need to be killed?  And how where those not covered by previous laws?
    How do you think that now dead baby is removed from the woman's body?  magic?




    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 587 Pts
    edited January 26
    @Applesauce

    I agree that those are the definitions of euthanasia. I dispute the comparison between euthanasia and late term abortions, insofar as the latter applies to the potential child’s viability.

    I didn’t say anything about how the unborn is removed after an abortion. I talked about how a mother who does not have the option of a late term abortion may be forced to give birth to a child that is either immediately dead or doomed to suffer and die rapidly after birth. That was my point, which you appear to have misinterpreted. Maybe your argument is that abortion still requires some form of removal, which I understand. What changes is the following: a) they no longer have to gestate a doomed unborn infant, which prolongs their grief, b) they will not have to go through labor to deliver a child that will not survive, and c) it’s done more on their terms, with some clear choice involved. 

    I specified those conditions as well: imminent health harms that are non-fatal to the mother, and certain death of the unborn. Simple. These are two instances that were not clearly covered under the law beforehand. You have yet to really address either one. The process of removing a dead unborn child from a mother is distinct from this and not at all relevant to my point. 

  • perhaps I'm wrong, but I could have sworn I heard, maybe it was here, that the child would be partially birthed then killed, since that has already been a think I believe.
    forced to give birth to a child that is either immediately dead or doomed to suffer and die rapidly after birth.
    so this just doesn't make sense, and is actually wrong, because as now for the 3rd time, after it is killed inside her, how do you think they get it out?  So whether she gives birth to a stillborn baby or one that has been killed inside her, I just don't see any real difference other than one is cause by nature the other by choice.  So it's relevant in that you brought it up first and I addressed it as factually wrong, which it is, you just own't admit that yet for whatever reason.

    I dispute the comparison between euthanasia and late term abortions, insofar as the latter applies to the potential child’s viability.
    so as long as the child is not viable then it's not euthanasia
    abortion is ending a pregnancy, naturally occurring is call a miscarriage
    the difference is the reason for the killing, and based on what was said, about babies who couldn't survive etc that is euthanasia not abortion, there's no real difference, it's basically "pulling the plug" while it's still in the woman, though they actually inject it or in someway physically kill it, but the reason is the same it is not?  to end suffering and no quality of life?
    but again what conditions did this new law allow or create that the olds ones didn't?  why was it needed and necessary?  How many 9 month abortions are needed and didn't happen because the law forbid it?  How many bad outcomes is this law going to solve?

    So let me ask you this do still born babies get birth certificates?  death certificates?  if they do, don't you wonder why?  aren't those only reserved for people?  what about babies at 8 months old?  9 months old that have been killed because of whatever reason?  do they get them as well?  that can't can they?  since they aren't people because if you give them that kind of recognition would that be murder?  or at the very least euthanasia?  (this is actually something I just thought about, because I never had before, maybe should have it's own thread, a can of worms to be sure)

    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @YeshuaBought ;


    Being optimistic. Female Specific Amputation can still be applied as their are many reasons a woman can be created equal of constitutional order/separation.

    Again Pregnancy abortion is an admission of guilt, it is by truth a religious admission of guilt as well, and does the admission of guilt effect the prosecution of the crime it confesses? Also an abortion can take place on a scientific level as the woman who donates human egg, or the man who donates human sperm may not know the child is alive, only their parents knows not the donor. As parents are legally the ones who combine the egg and sperm together knowing of the creation to life. Not all life has been created equal as a united state.

    A lot of this might have to do with two men can be united under common law as BiniVir, as a formation to corporation alternative by a religious group, or two woman as Unos Mulier, or even MulierFemina as a common law to alternative corporation formation. Marriage is not really effected by this action as it is a license to declare citizenship.



  • whiteflamewhiteflame 587 Pts
    edited January 27
    @Applesauce

    I gave you three individual reasons why it does matter, one of which is choice, which is the only one you responded to. I disagree with that response as well, largely because choice in the process of delivery is a big deal when you’re talking about the potential to go through hours and hours of labor. I don’t see how giving them options is harmful or even unimportant.

    I guess we finally agree that a non viable child is not akin to euthanasia. I wanted to say this was progress, but 2 sentences later, you argue that they are the same. An unborn child who cannot survive outside the womb is, by definition, nonviable. I’ve presented specific reasons for the differences between a lack of viability and terminal illness, the latter of which is often used to justify euthanasia. I presented them in my first response to you, you haven’t addressed them. I also have, now repeatedly, addressed where the desire comes from in terms of process and outcomes, most of which you have similarly not addressed. The suffering is not solely the potential child’s, for one, and there’s a difference in relative certainties. I’d love to see you actually tackle those points. I’d also love to see you interact with the gulfs I have now presented several times in the previous law. That law provided women with the ability to abort only if they were under threat of losing their lives. Those conditions have been expanded to include the circumstances of the unborn and broader health harms. That’s what makes it different. If you want specifics, here's what I've found on the subject:

    "Under current New York state abortion law — written in 1970 and never updated after Roe v. Wade in 1973 — abortion is a criminal act unless 1) it is performed before the 24th week of pregnancy, or 2) it is necessary to preserve a woman’s life. 
    ...
    A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health."

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58d9cbfe197aea5f0252f02e/t/5b08e24870a6addca99374b5/1527308872988/052518_RHAFactSheet.pdf

    To add onto this:

    "Previously, under New York’s outdated abortion law, those seeking abortion care later in pregnancy had to travel out of state to receive the procedure. This is often a logistical nightmare that includes the stress of finding a provider out of state, raising funds for the procedure itself and the associated travel, and dealing with insurance coverage. These issues are particularly difficult, and often insurmountable, for those with low incomes."

    https://rewire.news/article/2019/01/25/im-an-abortion-provider-this-is-what-new-yorks-reproductive-health-act-means-to-me/

    I can’t give you specific numbers of cases, largely because I don't think that kind of study exists (there is data on the number of women that pursue late term abortions, and I will readily admit the number is small, as slightly more than 1% of abortions happen at or after 21 weeks), but if you want, I can find you some specific cases where women have been harmed by this lack. Here's one particularly well documented one:

    "Take, for example, the case of reproductive health activist Erika Christensen, who, at 31-weeks pregnant, carrying a pregnancy she and her husband desperately wanted, learned that her baby would be unable to survive outside the womb. Due to New York’s abortion law at the time, which housed the procedure in the criminal code, Christensen had to travel to Colorado. The procedure alone cost her $10,000. This is an unthinkable amount for most, even for a necessary medical procedure."

    https://rewire.news/article/2019/01/25/im-an-abortion-provider-this-is-what-new-yorks-reproductive-health-act-means-to-me/
    https://rewire.news/article/2017/05/23/new-york-forces-women-like-carry-nonviable-pregnancies-term/

    "We were past the state’s 24 week cut-off even though it was a threat to her health and not a viable pregnancy. Nothing about our situation mattered except how far into the pregnancy we were. It didn’t matter that the doctor recommended an abortion. I was shocked at how indifferent and cruel the law was."

    https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/371401-how-the-gops-latest-abortion-ban-hurts-families-like-mine

    Your last slew of questions is really tangential to the questions we’ve been discussing, and has more to do with both how we legally view the unborn and how we should view them. I’d be happy to have a debate over how the unborn should be viewed under the law, but that is, as you’ve said, it’s own topic. I’d suggest we do that elsewhere, or at the very least after we’ve finished with the other portions we’ve been discussing.
  • @whiteflame ;

    WhiteFlame

    Pregnancy Abortion does not have to be about a pregnancy which happen only inside a woman. Freedom of speech can describe different translations on truth which happen by application not just wording of events. The medical field and sciences field are also involved with having pregnancy abortion by definition, this unrelated to the genetic mother or father. Also unrelated to female specific amputation. The constitutional principle of legislation never addressed a separation of this fact as far as I have ever seen.

    Here again the saying all woman are created equal. Abortion is both an admission and accusation to guilt. This is not an equality by any measure of the word. A united state of guilt is created for woman without removal of the end point of guilt. Woman are having other woman publicly say I am guilty of a crime, I have an alibi, I am not guilt. What is that?


  • @John_C_87

    I know how much you like presenting this argument, but I'm telling you that a) I still don't understand it very well and b) it's not relevant to this specific discussion. The question is whether this legislation is good or bad, not whether there's something wrong with how we're handling abortion in general.
  • @Applesauce there is logic to support abortion that is congruent with charging the murder of a permanent woman as double homicide.

    Bodily autonomy.

    If you need a blood transfusion to live and I am the only one able to give it to you I can refuse and it's not murder. But you might say, the mother already consented to the child as long as it wasn't rape. Ok I consent to giving you the blood transfusion. Halfway through, when you are just drops away from having enough blood to live in decide to revoke my consent. At that point doctors are required to stop the transfusion and again you die and I can't be charged with murder.

    This principle only works between two living individuals. If the fetus is indeed it's own person, and can result in a homicide charge for someone to kill it, then the mother has the right to refuse giving up her bodies resources to someone else, if the fetus can't survive without them it's not murder because we have laws that say no one can force you to give your bodily resources to another person, even if they require them to live. Of course if you don't view the fetus as it's own individual you could force the mother to continue to support it, but then that loses the claims of any murder at all.
  • @whiteflame ;

    It is relevant to the conversation and topic though contradictive to the use of ignorance as any justification otherwise. You display a modest ability to learn hang in there sometimes patience and perseverance pay off. The legislation of pregnancy abortion is criminal does that make it bad or good I don’t know you tell me? Im impartially asking. Is it possible you do not see what I see?

     I am going to place all woman as equal. You have just publicly admitted you do not know how, I’m helping the United States Constitution it cannot do this task itself. Do you agree?  Woman either do not know how to place themselves as all equal, or do not want to be placed themselves all equal. That is how whole truth works as a freedom of speech. Free means no self value no applied cost either. Agreed?

    By basic principle and legal precedent pregnancy abortion can take place when a woman refuses to have sex, when science takes on the role of parent and fertilizes a human egg, by license or university degree them intentional stops/ holds the life process. This is never made clear in this debate and was never made clear as a religious witness account for truth and whole truth. Agree?


  • @John_C_87

    I don't see how it's relevant to this specific topic. It sounds like it's relevant to any conversation about abortion laws in general, but considering we're talking about a change in abortion laws, I don't see how it applies.

    Regardless, fine. I'll give this one more chance. And yes, I have publicly admitted that I do not understand your argument, so this should be interesting.

    No, I don't see how legislation of pregnancy abortion is criminal. There are reasonable restrictions that must be placed in order to ensure that viable, unborn children are given the same protections as infants. Maybe it's your perspective that they're unreasonable, but I'm not seeing where you're getting that.

    Alright, I've placed all women as absolutely equal under the law. I don't see how that is you "helping the US Constitution it cannot do this task itself." No clue what task it can't do that you can, so I'm not sure what I'm agreeing to, here, but let's assume you're of some benefit in enforcing the Constitution simply by saying that all women should be equal. Sounds more like you're altering what a portion of the Constitution says and claiming it's forcing some kind of shift in how the law views women, though I don't see how. I don't know why women are having trouble "plac[ing] themselves as all equal, or... not want[ing] to be placed themselves all equal." Doesn't sound like any woman I know. Yes, there are issues with inequity for women. Yes, they are problematic. Yes, they should be fixed. I don't know why altering the Constitution or the way certain portions of the text are enforced suddenly changes that. As for the rest of this paragraph, I don't know what you mean by "whole truth works as a freedom of speech." Professing truth is a freedom of speech. Professing lies is also a freedom of speech. Both are free, and I agree that freedom means "no applied cost," though again, I don't know why that matters.

    You seem to be trying to get into the "why" in your last paragraph, though for the life of me, I can't understand it. I disagree that pregnancy abortion takes place when a woman refuses to have sex. Abstention is different from abortion for a reason, the main one being that the process of getting rid of an unborn organism growing within the woman is not equivalent to preventing the process that formed it. Similarly, I don't think in vitro fertilization is abortion, though it may lead to the loss of embryos as a consequence of performing multiple fertilizations and implanting only some of them. Fertilization is different from abortion as well. Finally, I am completely unclear on what you mean by "intentional stops/ holds the life process." Is an intentional stop example an abortion? If so, I agree that that fits the definition of an abortion because... it is literally an abortion. I don't see how you can put a hold on the process by which a human develops and still have a functional human at the end, though if that is possible, I would similarly disagree that it is an abortion because you're not terminating the unborn in the process. I don't see why anyone else would argue this, but yes, your argument that appears to be yours and yours alone was never before made clear on this specific debate. I have no clue if it "was never made clear as a religious witness account for truth and whole truth" because I don't know what "a religious witness account" is  and what separates a normal one from one aimed at unveiling the "truth and whole truth". Inevitably, that means I cannot agree with this point. I don't know what this point is, I don't know how it functions in support of your argument, and it's also largely factually inaccurate.

    If this was meant to clarify your point, then we're in trouble if we're planning on continuing this. All this did was further muddy was already a very unclear argument.
  • No, I don't see how legislation of pregnancy abortion is criminal. There are reasonable restrictions that must be placed in order to ensure that viable, unborn children are given the same protections as infants. Maybe it's your perspective that they're unreasonable, but I'm not seeing where you're getting that. 

      The legislation issue is something that can be described easily. What exactly is Pregnancy abortion an admission of guilt or a criminal accusation of guilt? What choice is without guilt that is placing all woman equal before law is put in the equation? Pregnancy abortion is given an alibi by the person telling the self-incriminating detail of a process of officially stopping a life that has been officially started. This is what the word abort does.

     Do accusations of guilt come with an alibi normally or is this the new trend that has now started? Maybe it's your perspective that they're unreasonable,  did you just say or write my perspective? Two choices of guilt are not a perspective. Perspective is an observation of depth in area’s dimension. There are reasonable restrictions that must be placed in order to ensure that viable unborn infants have the same protection as new born infants, did you just write Social security numbers and citizenship before birth is in line with a marriage license? That couples who donate the living egg and living sperm know each other and share the witnessing of creation with each other for every fertilization that ends in pregnancy abortion in the world? Would you say this under oath in a court of law, even if all official pregnancy that are stopped are not restricted to just the border of a woman’s body, but instead the property of all woman’s eggs as a measure of definable equality? I don’t see any effort at all to this respect. None. Are you saying it is my perspective and that if I stand somewhere else and look I will see it more clearly? Where should I stand? In which direction should I look? 

    Alright, I’ve placed all woman as absolutely equal under the law. Yes but you are not creating all woman as equal before placing them under law are you keeping them in the dark, are woman held under the buildings or in the court room? That must be my perspective again would I be telling a truth if I simply say we are placing woman within the law? @whiteflame ;

    Thank you for the opportunity to go over some details.
  • @John_C_87

    I would say that pregnancy abortion is a medical procedure, and that it's regulated under the law. I wouldn't view it as an admission of guilt or a criminal accusation of guilt. It's fundamentally neither. That's why I'm having a hard time with your argument - you have to actually justify why this is both non-medical and legally (perhaps morally as well) wrong in all instances. If all choices come with some form of guilt associated (and I'm pretty sure that isn't true), why is abortion different? I also don't get the alibi metaphor. You've given that several times before, and I just don't understand it. Are you saying that women are forced to divulge something negative about themselves in the process of getting an abortion? Isn't that a pretty big assumption, since many women view abortion as a non-negative? Maybe the concession that they're stopping a life is negative enough in and of itself to warrant a negative outlook, but that doesn't mean that every woman who seeks abortion thinks they're doing something wrong. That's painting with a pretty broad brush. As for this not being a perspective, I would say that proclaiming all uses of the term abortion to be a concession of guilt is a perspective. It's an assumption about how others view the topic.

    Beyond that, and I know I've said this before, it's a term. It represents a given action. Changing the term doesn't alter anything about the medical procedure, which will still happen regardless. There will always be this negative connotation. If we change the term to something else, like amputation, it still has a negative association. All it does is transition the negativity to a different term.

    I'm having a number of problems with your other responses. No, I did not write anything about social security, citizenship, or a marriage license. I said that birth should not define the beginning of human rights for an unborn child. Similarly, I did not write that egg and sperm donations are between couples who know each other, nor did I discuss those instances ending in abortion. I wouldn't say any of this under oath because, again, it's not what I said nor is it akin to anything I've argued. I stated that I was placing all women equally as a thought exercise - I don't have that power. I also don't see how I, personally, am keeping anyone in the dark or holding them "under the buildings or in the court room". None of that is relevant to anything I posted, and I don't know what these questions do to explain or further examine your points.

  • potential to go through hours and hours of labor.
    for the 4th time now I think, that is wrong, since you don't believe me and I guess you think they take the dead/killed baby out by magic, search it on your favorite search engine.  clinging on to such a wrong statement still is mind boggling.
    Even bringing up Erika A. Christensen proves your wrong, if you read it she flew back to NY to have labor induced and deliver the dead baby.

    "Under current New York state abortion law — written in 1970 and never updated after Roe v. Wade in 1973 — abortion is a criminal act unless 1) it is performed before the 24th week of pregnancy, or 2) it is necessary to preserve a woman’s life.
    the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.
    #2 already covered the mother's health so all that was expanded apparently is how far into the pregnancy you can kill the baby, right?

    "Previously, under New York’s outdated abortion law, those seeking abortion care later in pregnancy had to travel out of state to receive the procedure. This is often a logistical nightmare that includes the stress of finding a provider out of state, raising funds for the procedure itself and the associated travel, and dealing with insurance coverage. These issues are particularly difficult, and often insurmountable, for those with low incomes."
    this says nothing about any kind of medical need allowed by law past or present so to take her as some kind of authority figure on the subject doesn't cut it, her agenda is clear.

    I never agreed that the appropriate term is abortion.  When the baby is wanted and only killed due to harmful medical reasons that's euthanasia, same as if a person already born is let die for similar reasons or conditions.  It's the intent otherwise it would be manslaughter or murder when people are taken off of life support etc.  If you don't like that term you can call it D.N.R. law, the intent is still the same.  We'll have to agree to disagree.

    Since there's only one example of someone needing to go to another state, let's examine that a bit.  She said she had to deliver the baby by being induced.  This is common when babies die in utero of whatever cause. 

    with that in mind delivering a baby who can't/won't live is the same as taking someone off a life support and "letting nature takes it course" imo aka DNR.  Injecting something into the heart to kill it would be more in line with assisted suicide at best.  Whether a life is not viable inside or outside a womb doesn't seem all that relevant if you are focused on the life that will end. 
    In the case of Erika she did what she did for herself which should be obvious.
    Fact is she wanted the baby until it was no longer viable.  She was going to deliver a dead baby or a baby who would die quickly after birth, there was no way around those facts.  The choice was to continue on and let nature take it's course or have a doctor inject a drug directly into the baby's heart to kill it.
    The law fmpov allows the choice to kill the baby rather than letting "nature take it's course" when this is done for reasons other than the mother's risk of harm.  And this is what the law is for.  Whether that's right or wrong I can't say and am thankful I have never and would never be put in such a situation.
















    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @Applesauce there is logic to support abortion that is congruent with charging the murder of a permanent woman as double homicide.

    Bodily autonomy.

    If you need a blood transfusion to live and I am the only one able to give it to you I can refuse and it's not murder. But you might say, the mother already consented to the child as long as it wasn't rape. Ok I consent to giving you the blood transfusion. Halfway through, when you are just drops away from having enough blood to live in decide to revoke my consent. At that point doctors are required to stop the transfusion and again you die and I can't be charged with murder.

    This principle only works between two living individuals. If the fetus is indeed it's own person, and can result in a homicide charge for someone to kill it, then the mother has the right to refuse giving up her bodies resources to someone else, if the fetus can't survive without them it's not murder because we have laws that say no one can force you to give your bodily resources to another person, even if they require them to live. Of course if you don't view the fetus as it's own individual you could force the mother to continue to support it, but then that loses the claims of any murder at all.
    bodily autonomy has it's limits in most states with gestational age, but this isn't even about that.
    your example that you give is vastly different than what is being discussed, withholding life saving treatments aka D.N.R. isn't the same as purposefully doing something to cause death.  I understand the example you are trying to give (i've worked in a blood bank for a few years :)  ) but it's not the same and transfusions don't work that way, at all.  I can't think of one circumstance other than pregnancy that requires something from someone else to sustain their life.  Organ transplants, bone marrow it's all voluntary,  there's no other valid comparison you can make, it's totally unique afaik.

    the mother has the right to refuse giving up her bodies resources to someone else, if the fetus can't survive without them it's not murder because we have laws that say

    so if the fetus CAN survive without the mother's "resources" then it shouldn't be killed but born and adopted, that seems to make sense.  By birthing the baby it removes it from it's mother and her resources and solves the issue you are raising. 

    Other than birth how does a mother withhold her resources?  Well....she can't unless someone kills it right?  Is the reason restricted because she doesn't want to share her resources?  what if she just wants to without any reason, is that ok?

    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @whiteflame

    . It's fundamentally neither.  Right! Absolutely right it is neither that is what I just said and described. I used the basic word both as this gives a whole truth. Then partial truth of neither?

    If all choices come with some form of guilt associated (and I'm pretty sure that isn't true), why is abortion different?

    That would be because all forms of choice do not come with criminal guilt as a there united states.

    Are you saying that women are forced to divulge something negative about themselves in the process of getting an abortion? No, they/woman chose to do this, the question is on intention or not, the loss of privacy is coming from a publicly used Supreme court ruling.

    Isn't that a pretty big assumption, since many women view abortion as a non-negative? No, it is not a presumption, and I am sure the word many is a creation of limited united state, not all woman. Why is it not an assumption on my part? Same as Isn't that a pretty big assumption? It is not presumption as no woman who is sexual active, single, or married has ever told me publicly they are guilty of murdering the chill that lives as an egg inside them. Do you know one who will? This is the religious connection to confessions to abortion in the more organized church, it is something a woman may describe to a priest or equivalent. Being openly honest, no blame straight forward. Etc.

    I'm having a number of problems with your other responses. No, I did not write anything about social security, citizenship, or a marriage license. I said that birth should not define the beginning of human rights for an unborn child

    Social security, citizenship, or a marriage license. These are the human rights bound to the child by their creator the man and woman licensed to do so to only the living lives they united. Does this burden not need be carried equal by law?

    Beyond that, and I know I've said this before, it's a term. It represents a given action. Changing the term doesn't alter anything about the medical procedure, which will still happen regardless. Yes, it truthfully does alter a medical commitment. A medical doctor is licensed by the state will no longer go into emergency situations addressing a united state that all woman hold as female by self-incrimination of a guilt. This action addresses both male and female doctors. The doctors are relieved of that command. It is not medical like you said. The next question does this place all woman who have medical procedures all equal? Are they now created equally yet?


     
  • @Applesauce ;
    There is a united States Constitutional right why what a Mother does is not murder that is described by the address of Pregnancy abortion.  Gotta go earn the right to work.
  • @Applesauce you bring up some fair points which I believe are valid, I just take a different viewing on it. First let's address the way in which we can terminate resource transfer from mother to child. Waiting for the birth is not a legal option in my mind. If I am in the process of getting blood drawn or somehow conscious while giving a kidney, the second that I say I'm done giving up that resource the transaction must be terminated immediately. I should not be required to wait on that termination due to any factor of the person on the receiving end.

    However I will agree that if the fetus can survive outside the mother without receiving any resources then the fetus should be removed and not killed. The gray area for this would not be late term abortions, as that is currently illegal and even in the context of the OP this law is only in cases of danger to the health of the mother. The gray area would be at 6 months do you attempt to remove the fetus and keep it alive with extraordinarily minimal chances of survival, or just kill it as it would be significantly safer and less costly with the same outcome compared to trying to keep it alive in at least 99.9% of cases.

    Getting pregnant is also voluntary just like giving organs. Unless it's rape you are voluntarily deciding to have sex and possibly get pregnant. The transfer of resources can be stopped before birth by removing the umbilical cord or unimplating the fetus from the uterine wall. If this was done without killing the child then the goal is reached and will result in death of the fetus via miscarriage. However in that scenario you are not directly killing the fetus you are just allowing the mother to decide what happens with her resources. If technology manages to get to the point where a fetus can be sustained outside of the womb then I would support removing the fetus from the woman and nurturing it to full term outside of her.

    I understand where you are coming from and your position is valid. I personally don't view a fetus as a human but in the case that it is I believe under no circumstances should a person ever be required to use their bodily resources to keep someone else alive without an ongoing consent.
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 172 Pts
    edited January 28
    @Applesauce you bring up some fair points which I believe are valid, I just take a different viewing on it. First let's address the way in which we can terminate resource transfer from mother to child. Waiting for the birth is not a legal option in my mind. If I am in the process of getting blood drawn or somehow conscious while giving a kidney, the second that I say I'm done giving up that resource the transaction must be terminated immediately. I should not be required to wait on that termination due to any factor of the person on the receiving end.

    However I will agree that if the fetus can survive outside the mother without receiving any resources then the fetus should be removed and not killed. The gray area for this would not be late term abortions, as that is currently illegal and even in the context of the OP this law is only in cases of danger to the health of the mother. The gray area would be at 6 months do you attempt to remove the fetus and keep it alive with extraordinarily minimal chances of survival, or just kill it as it would be significantly safer and less costly with the same outcome compared to trying to keep it alive in at least 99.9% of cases.

    Getting pregnant is also voluntary just like giving organs. Unless it's rape you are voluntarily deciding to have sex and possibly get pregnant. The transfer of resources can be stopped before birth by removing the umbilical cord or unimplating the fetus from the uterine wall. If this was done without killing the child then the goal is reached and will result in death of the fetus via miscarriage. However in that scenario you are not directly killing the fetus you are just allowing the mother to decide what happens with her resources. If technology manages to get to the point where a fetus can be sustained outside of the womb then I would support removing the fetus from the woman and nurturing it to full term outside of her.

    I understand where you are coming from and your position is valid. I personally don't view a fetus as a human but in the case that it is I believe under no circumstances should a person ever be required to use their bodily resources to keep someone else alive without an ongoing consent.
    Please don't take what I say the wrong way, I've been dealing (working with blood) for 25 years so I do appreciate your analogies and get a little chuckle out of them for which I hope your can see for obvious reasons.  Let's use your examples but change them just a tad.  Let's say you are in the process of donating whatever, and at some point it becomes life endangering to you, or some potential for permanent harm then yes I could see an argument to be made that you should have to choice to protect your own life and you should do what you must. 

    The person receiving you have no obligation or duty to.  Until modernish times, babies were still dependent on their mothers for breast milk, although they were outside the womb they were still dependent on the mother's bodily resources.  Should a mother be allowed to withhold her resources, in this case the milk that sustains the baby because she no longer wants to provide it?  Why does it matter where the baby is located, either in or out of the womb?  Why can one be killed but the other can't (legally that is)

    for clarity I'm just talking about the new law and the late term expansion.  

    we could really get into the weeds lol, but something to think about, probably for a different thread.....If an otherwise healthy baby of a 24 weeks gestational age has a 50% chance to live and be normal and someone who has the money, means and desire wishes to have that child shouldn't they be able to?  then we can adjust the weeks, as the weeks go by the chance increases.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 374 Pts
    edited January 29
    @Applesauce I think we are on different pages with the blood transfusion analogy. I understand it does not work this way but for sake of argument when I use the analogy picture an IV hooked up from one person directly into the other, nothing in between. As one person loses blood the other simultaneously gains blood.

    The law does not require the giving party to provide any explanation as to why they want to withhold their resources causing someone else to die. It could be as dumb as something like the day starts with a T so they dont want to help. All perfectly legal.

    A mother is allowed to withhold hey breast milk from her child. The child wouldn't die from it because their are other nutritional options that do not involve any of the mother's resources. If the baby is allergic to absolutely every alternative I still think the mother should be allowed to withhold her breast milk but that would certainly be a massive legal case. In the case of a fetus there is currently no possible way to keep one alive without taking the mother's bodily resources. 

    To tie in with your final paragraph, if there ever becomes a way where it's possible to take a fetus out of someone and keep it alive then letting it die is no longer an option. If said person that wants the fetus and to provide for it then they get to cover the costs, otherwise taxpayers get to foot the bill the same as they do for orphanages. I guess technically the fetus is killed in abortion currently, but by cutting the cord and withholding the mother's resources it's gaurenteed death anyway, so to save the mother from the risk of terrible infection it's better to just remove the fetus at the same time as the mother ends the stream of resources.

    On a more philosophical level why is it that we use the day we were born to determine our age and not include the gestational period? There could be a few months difference in age between two people who were conceived at the same time if one is born premature and the other was born late. The distinction between tracking age at birth vs conception would certainly have influenced many legal cases, underage drinking, getting tried as a minor vs adult, statutory rape. It doesn't really make sense that someone who was born a month earlier than someone who was conceived on the same day, gets to start drinking legally a month earlier. They have both been on the planet the exact same amount of time and the person born earlier would have been born in a riskier state of health. We don't even track a fetus in any legal sense, which is why abortions can never be eliminated. Home abortions would be difficult to prosecute. There's is no evidence of a pregnancy outside of the actual fetus, and miscarriages are already common and an easy alibi. It's not proof of any kind but I believe it points to the answer of "when is someone a person" in the general history of human understanding.
  • @WordsMatter

    at one time and in some countries still, breast milk is the sole source of nourishment for babies, speaking of "for sake of argument" :)
    a child is dependent on a mother for much more than just milk for many years, does a mother have to use her money, energy and time (all resources) to feed and keep a 2 year old alive?  why or why not?  what's the difference?  why is that any different?  is bodily fluids where the line is drawn?
    so why does the mother have the right to kill the baby but not anyone else?  if someone else caused the death of the baby that's a crime, but if it can be killed for any reason as the example you gave, it is minimal worth/value at best so how could it really be much of a crime, it's not a person many say, pets are property legally, if I kill your pet I have to reimburse you the cash value of it, if it's an accident I probably don't have to give you a dime.  This is not true with a baby still in the womb, but again isn't that inconsistent with what value it seems to be given?
    do pregnant women get into legal trouble if using drugs or alcohol, why yes, yes they do, hmmm.....
    children who are neglected are so difficult to remove from the mother, sometimes the child even dies because of the neglect, why is it better to let children and babies die then to put them with people who want them?  and why is that relationship so valuable that laws make it difficult to remove the child?  then there's the difficulty and cost of adoptions.....  You see in once sense they don't seem to have much value but in other circumstances they seem to have the most value of anything.

    we've really gone off topic lol
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • No excuses: 
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 587 Pts
    edited January 29
    That example is a single example of what one couple chose to do when they had the option available to them. There is another option, which is "Dilation and Extraction: a surgical abortion procedure used to terminate a pregnancy after 21 weeks of gestation. This procedure is also known as D & X, Intact D & X, Intrauterine Cranial Decompression and Partial Birth Abortion." Individuals may opt into either choice, but the fact that they have a choice is what makes it different. Also, induced abortion means that they are not required to carry the child to term, which may take weeks or months beyond the point that an issue is discovered. 

    Similarly, the fact that there were already protections in place for mothers whose lives were at risk does not mean that mothers facing major medical hazards were allowed to make this choice within the state. Again, that's what makes the difference: the broadening of what health risks meet the standards required for a late term abortion. You can talk about agendas, but I posted the letter of the law as it existed before the policy and as it exists after. It follows her claims.

    With regards to terminology... I think we're splitting hairs on the differences as it is, and I haven't seen any reason why treating this in a similar manner to euthanasia or a DNR is problematic. However, I do feel the need to point out that both of these are usually approved either by the patient or, in the case of euthanasia, potentially by a close family member. As a late term abortion cannot be approved by the unborn, it does bear the important distinction of requiring that others make the decision. If you accept that difference, then I'll fully drop this point, especially as neither of us appears to be arguing much regarding the good or bad of this law.
  • Did one of my post get deleted? If so please let me know so I do not repost. It was addressing questions asked by applesause.

  • @John_C_87 I don't delete posts, and am wondering if one of mine was deleted. Go ahead and repost for clarity. :)
  • @John_C_87

    ...But you just said it's one or the other. If it isn't one or the other, then why are you concerned about the usage of the term abortion? Is it because it's mischaracterized, and if so, why should we be required to alter the term because of the views of others? I don't see where the criminal guilt is inherent to the term. It's not a form of choice that comes with criminal guilt in the US. It's legal here. So, no, I don't understand this point.

    And things keep getting stranger the more I read your responses. I don't see where the loss of privacy is coming in - these decisions are between a woman and her doctor, and they aren't required to divulge what happened to anyone else. I don't see how Roe v. Wade is a loss of privacy, either. It simply clarifies that abortion is legal. Maybe you're talking about a different ruling, but I can't for the life of me figure out what that could be.

    I've talked with several women who have willingly acknowledged (without being asked about it) that they have gone through an abortion previously. However, even if I hadn't, I don't see how you're not making an assumption about how women view abortion, specifically. I know many women who aren't open about their medical histories in the slightest. That doesn't mean that every single surgery they've dealt with, or a genetic disease they're born with, that they choose not to divulge later in life is somehow a presumption of guilt. Being private with one's medical history is not unique to abortion. The reason some people divulge more to pastors is often the same reason they divulge to significant others and family - they trust them more, and expect less in the way of judgment from that source. I suppose there is a connection to confession in that some women may seek forgiveness for the act, but that admission of guilt is personal. It's not the term itself that's an admission, it's the feelings of the woman herself towards what she's done. Again, it's your assumption that all women view this as something they need to admit to as a crime. I don't see that in any way. 

    Social security, citizenship and a marriage license are not things I would describe as human rights. None of these are guaranteed to you by virtue of basic ethics, they're simply part and parcel to being born within a country and being recognizes as a part of that country and subject to the laws and protections of that country. You might view them as human rights, but I view them as part of the social contract. God doesn't print out your social security card. God doesn't sign citizenship papers. A human right is more basic than a piece of paper. As for whether this should be viewed equally for all humans within a country... sure? I mean, that's generally how countries work. It doesn't seem like men and women are treated differently in regards to any of these, and it doesn't seem responsive to my point.

    I don't see how changing the term alters any commitment. I am not aware of any doctors that would alter their care simply by changing the term, and even if there is some kind of "self-incrimination of a guilt", that would transfer to the new term, which applies to the same procedure. What does this relieve doctors of, exactly? What command are you talking about? What are they required to do (or not to do) now that you would change? And I actually said it is medical, so I don't know where you're getting that. I don't know how this places all women who get any medical procedure as equal, or how it would make them more equal in this regard. This is just more confusion.
  • @YeshuaBought ;

    Okay thank you...….
  • @Applesauce other countries are irrelevant here. This isn't a moral argument it's a legal one. The law could be changed at the drop of a hat. The mother has to provide other resources because the law states that only your bodily resources can be withheld and if the needed recipient dies you can't be held responsible. Someone else would get in trouble for killing the fetus because they aren't withholding their biological resources. The mother is committing abuse if she is using drugs are alcohol because she is exposing the fetus to it. However as the law states she can decide to withhold her biological resources and then if the fetus is considered a living person in the laws eyes it becomes the fetus' responsibility to find replacement resources. It's a fetus, we don't have the technology to do that so it must die, in the same way that someone needing a kidney must die because I refused them mine and we don't have the technology to keep them going. Where the technology catches up the fetus can live it just has to be removed from the mother.

    Based on your line of questioning it appears you are having a very hard time understanding that your bodies biological resources can not be forced to be used to help any person ever. It must be voluntary and the consent can be revoked at any step of the procedure. Money is not a bodily resource. Other countries don't have this law. This is my legal argument as to how abortion is allowed even if you consider a fetus to be a living person with rights.
  • @WordsMatter

    you don't accept that at one time mother's milk was the only sustaining source for babies?  you like for me to use for arguments sake on your behalf but you don't seem to extent me the same curiosity.  dancing around what I say in an effort to gloss over or otherwise ignore it doesn't work with me just so you know, I'm fairly observant.

    time, effort, attention, energy isn't a bodily resource?  then what are they?

    you talk of a fetus but this is all about the late term babies.

    your analogies are problematic in that all the examples you gave, you stopped doing whatever the life giving or sustaining activity was and then the recipient would die.  In the case of the mother she actually isn't stopping anything, instead she has hired someone to kill the baby inside her.  You didn't hire someone to kill the recipient of whatever it is you were going to donate right?  By stopping or refusing your donation you effectively let nature take it's course.  Far different than paying someone to inject potassium chloride into the heart to stop it or whatever methods are used to kill.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @whiteflame ;


    .But you just said it's one or the other. If it isn't one or the other, then why are you concerned about the usage of the term abortion?  The abortion legislation is verbalized like heads I win tails, you lose is the most direct way of describing the grievance. Pro-choice pro-life. Heads I win tails you lose.

    Is it because it's mischaracterized, and if so, why should we be required to alter the term because of the views of others? It’s not mischaracterized the Characterization is one sided. Criminal guilt is inherent in both directions given to path, admission plus accusation. Again the shortest distance in explanation is no-one is creating all woman as equal.

    All woman equal. The human egg is alive all woman share this whole truth, not just some woman allow it to die all woman allow this to happen. This is by negligence though all woman do not treat it as so as this would be unfair to woman as a discrimination. This is the real life explanation of how pregnancy abortion by a woman occur, by all woman as a united state. This includes two woman who would use a donated egg in science as well those who use their own. A united State is now set for independence. All woman have be created equal by their creator. In this case human egg fertilization.

    I don't see where the loss of privacy is coming in - these decisions are between a woman and her doctor, and they aren't required to divulge what happened to anyone else. I don't see how Roe v. Wade is a loss of privacy,

    I do not see how it is up to me to describe a loss of privacy occuring in an admission of guilt created by a description of a criminal act.

    Again, it's your assumption that all women view this as something they need to admit to as a crime. I don't see that in any way.  That would be a good focal point but, all I need do is set a common defense to the general welfare, Female specific amputation does not require self-incrimination. There is no assumption on my part woman do not need to admit.

    Social security, citizenship and a marriage license are not things I would describe as human rights. I may have phrased this wrong. Registration of serial number, citizen ship, and marriage license God doesn't print out your social security card. would be more accurate a to United State Conditional right. God doesn't sign citizenship papers. A human right is more basic than a piece of paper. As for whether this should be viewed equally for all humans within a country... sure? Is that why you believe we shouldn’t do so? Because you do not see a non-religious GOD (400.11.500) as an axiom? What is in the middle of the numbers nothing? Are the numbers equal? If a legal right is to be attached human or not it is not a basic paper.

    What does this relieve doctors of, exactly? Self-incrimination. Two directions set lose in public to one destination, a described crime of official stopping life as a burden to share equally between doctor patients. Again there is a burden that is set by all woman are created equal. Also remember a female doctor is now legally part of the created equal inheritance.

    In order to form a more perfect union. These words are part of the truth that we can either establish as self-evident. Or not.


  • @whiteflame

    how the baby is removed is mostly dependent on the size, while there might be rare occasions that the mother has a choice between options I don't believe that is the norm.
    Similarly, the fact that there were already protections in place for mothers whose lives were at risk does not mean that mothers facing major medical hazards were allowed to make this choice within the state.
    doesn't it?  you don't think babies have been delivered early because the risk to the mother?

     I do feel the need to point out that both of these are usually approved either by the patient or, in the case of euthanasia, potentially by a close family member.

    facts don't care about your feelings, please read up on D.N.R. and what it means etc, that statement shows you don't know what it is fully, someone who has the legal authority CAN make someone D.N.R. when they can't make the decision for themselves.

    killing something to stop or prevent needless suffering is defined how?  I think I've given the definitions and why it applies, you feel that it doesn't but haven't given any evidence to contradict the logic I presented.  The distinction is clear as can be.


    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 374 Pts
    edited January 29
    @Applesauce I already addressed the mother's breast milk. I believe it is legal for her, in this country at this time, to withhold it if she chooses. Sure in the past it may have been the only option but it is not now and the law I reference has not existed for the vast majority of human history and not even in half the countries in the world currently.

    The mother doesn't have the physical ability to cut the umbilical cord inside her so someone else must do it, however she has the legal right to have it done. I see it as no different than stopping a direct blood transfusion necessary to sustain a life in the middle of the transfusion.

    We could waste the money and put the mother's health at greater risk to remove the fetus intact only for it to immediately die regardless, so until we are capable of keeping a fetus alive outside the womb this is a fine way to stop the flow of resources in my opinion. When we can keep them alive outside the womb then they must be removed alive and sustained outside the womb.

    I personally don't care how late in the pregnancy it is, the mother reserves the right at any point to restrict the flow of her biological resources to the fetus. If the fetus can survive outside the womb then let the doctors keep it alive, if it can't then it has to die just the same as the person who I quit giving blood to halfway through.

    I'm unaware of any right to live, or else we would be compelled to give everyone anything necessary to keep them alive. However I am aware of a right to decide what happens to your own biological resources.
  • @John_C_87 No prob. :)
  • @whiteflame Late term abortion patients are baby killing whores. There is no excuse.
  • @YeshuaBought

    As per usual, your capacity for empathy is astounding.
  • @Applesauce I already addressed the mother's breast milk. I believe it is legal for her, in this country at this time, to withhold it if she chooses. Sure in the past it may have been the only option but it is not now and the law I reference has not existed for the vast majority of human history and not even in half the countries in the world currently.

    The mother doesn't have the physical ability to cut the umbilical cord inside her so someone else must do it, however she has the legal right to have it done. I see it as no different than stopping a direct blood transfusion necessary to sustain a life in the middle of the transfusion.

    We could waste the money and put the mother's health at greater risk to remove the fetus intact only for it to immediately die regardless, so until we are capable of keeping a fetus alive outside the womb this is a fine way to stop the flow of resources in my opinion. When we can keep them alive outside the womb then they must be removed alive and sustained outside the womb.

    I personally don't care how late in the pregnancy it is, the mother reserves the right at any point to restrict the flow of her biological resources to the fetus. If the fetus can survive outside the womb then let the doctors keep it alive, if it can't then it has to die just the same as the person who I quit giving blood to halfway through.

    I'm unaware of any right to live, or else we would be compelled to give everyone anything necessary to keep them alive. However I am aware of a right to decide what happens to your own biological resources.
    this is starting to become like pulling teeth, FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE what if the mother's milk was the only option to keep the baby alive?????  by your argument would it be ok to withhold this bodily resource and let the baby die?  it's a very simple question which you did not definitively answer yet, being evasive is not an answer.

    yet again, not talking about a fetus, this is late term talk, stay on target red leader.

    so now I hear you saying if the baby has to be removed for medical reasons because of risk to the mother and it is of a viable age (the late term issue we are discussing) it should not be killed, do I understand you correctly?  
    Let's suppose the woman just doesn't want the baby anymore at around 8 or 9 months pregnant, obviously a baby of that size either has to be delivered vaginally or c-section if there are complications, but should the baby be killed first?

    I'm unaware of any right to live

    in the United States Declaration of Independence.  Right to life, liberty........

    if it's not a life then what is it?  property?  If it's not a life then why can someone be charged with it's death if they cause it?

    The Meaning of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”


    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @YeshuaBought ;

    Late term abortion patients are baby killing whores. There is no excuse. Even it the patient is not the mother who created the egg? Even if the fertilized egg alone is the patient?

  • @Applesauce I did address the brast milk question in a previous post. I said in the case that the baby is allergic to or otherwise can't have any alternatives that I still believe the mother has the right to withhold it. As I stated earlier Im sure the decision to do so would result in a very interesting legal case. How about actually reading my posts before accusing me of avoiding questions I've already answered.

    In terms of this law it already doesn't allow a late term abortion unrestricted. This law doesn't fall under my justification for abortions at all. This law allows late term abortion, 6 or more months, if the pregnancy presents a serious health risk to the mother or the fetus won't be viable after birth. This is an expansion on the previous law where late term abortions were only allowed in the case that a pregnancy was life threatening to the mother.

    Your link does not work by the way. The right to life is an abstract term that can be defined many ways, seeing as how capital punishment is legal. We could have an entire discussion on what a right to life means.


  • @Applesauce ;

    If it's not a life then what is it?  You miss the point life is a declaration of Independence. Again the precedent men are created equal is not followed. All woman have to my knowledge never created themselves as equal to all woman. I can say as a witness a woman has never tried to be elected, or proven as a Prasedera in a united state?

    Pregnancy Abortion simply being one of several occasions of this issue. It appears that this fact is true even with men. No man has held a woman as equal to all woman.



  • @WordsMatter

    you qualified your answer instead of giving a straight one, what does being allergic have to do with anything I asked?  it was a simple question needing a simple answer and yet you felt the need to add qualifiers.  So to keep it in the same context as you.  How about you just answer the question I asked with a simple yes or no and not add other conditions?  You also added "otherwise can't have any alternatives" changing what I asked.  I'll play your silly games for now even though it's getting rather obtuse, what if there are alternatives, no allergy but the woman just chooses not to provide breast milk or any alternatives, is that ok?
    (yes/no)(explanation here if you like)

    we aren't really talking about late term abortion, but rather the removal of the baby which could still be viable, I asked about that but you seemed to have ignored it again
     I hear you saying if the baby has to be removed for medical reasons because of risk to the mother and it is of a viable age (the late term issue we are discussing) it should not be killed, do I understand you correctly?  
    Let's suppose the woman just doesn't want the baby anymore at around 8 or 9 months pregnant, obviously a baby of that size either has to be delivered vaginally or c-section if there are complications, but should the baby be killed first?

    does the law allow or disallow this?
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @Applesauce go read my old posts and literally everyone of your questions will be answered. It's not my to teach you how to comprehend things.
  • @WordsMatter

    at 8:38am this was your first 'answer' to my question about milk
    other countries are irrelevant here. This isn't a moral argument it's a legal one. The law could be changed at the drop of a hat. The mother has to provide other resources because the law states that only your bodily resources can be withheld and if the needed recipient dies you can't be held responsible. 
    I may not have seen your edits but you did say in regards to breast milk being the only thing of sustenance for the baby...
     I believe it is legal for her, in this country at this time, to withhold it if she chooses.

    I'd like you to explain how it would be legal for a mother to withhold her milk and let a baby starve to death.

    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 172 Pts
    edited January 30
    @John_C_87
    If it's not a life then what is it?  You miss the point life is a declaration of Independence.

    who declared you a life and independent?

    if a baby is dependent on it's mother for breast milk, otherwise it would starve to death, does that mean it's not a life?  What dependencies make something not a life?

    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch