Originally posted by GhostTX
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
no more abortions!
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by likeitfast55 View PostYou are right. My wife has a very rare blood type. When we were younger she had problems with the fetus developing past the 3 month mark. As I have O+ blood, her body fought and won the battle to naturally abort the fetus. We found a doctor that realized this and the treatment was successful. One miscarriage was at the 4 1/2 month mark.
Leave a comment:
-
Even if there are, it has a net negative effect on the mother's body. So much so that the mother's immune system sees the fetus as a foreign invader and would attempt to destroy it if not for the placenta's secretions. Which, coincidentally, are the same mechanisms used by parasitic nematodes to avoid detection by the immune system of their host.
You are right. My wife has a very rare blood type. When we were younger she had problems with the fetus developing past the 3 month mark. As I have O+ blood, her body fought and won the battle to naturally abort the fetus. We found a doctor that realized this and the treatment was successful. One miscarriage was at the 4 1/2 month mark.
So your point in my case is correct, the unborn fetus was doing harm to her body and it fought it like an invading parasite.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GhostTX View PostSure, "justifiable homicides", usually resulting from the actors own life in peril if they don't use lethal force.
Originally posted by GhostTXSo the crux of this entire matter boils down to this:
So, because someone doesn't want something, it gives them the right to kill it?
"Want" is a far different thing than the mother's life in peril due to whatever result from pregnancy.
This is why, as I've stated numerous times before, I'd agree with people that the point of external viability is a fair compromise on the abortion issue. At that point, if you terminate the fetus, you are killing something that does not need it's mother's body for survival any longer in the same way that Frost's scenario illustrates when he was presenting a strawman of my position before. However, if the fetus cannot survive without the mother's body, and the mother chooses to terminate biological services to the fetus/embryo, she's not killing the fetus/embryo any more than I would be killing someone if I were to refuse blood transfusions for a person, regardless to whether or not I agreed to provide them beforehand.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Maddhattter View PostWhich I would agree with you if not for the following...
CONSTRUCTION OF CODE. (a) The rule that a penal statute is to be strictly construed does not apply to this code. The provisions of this code shall be construed according to the fair import of their terms, to promote justice and effect the objectives of the code.
After all, there are legal murders.
So the crux of this entire matter boils down to this:
Against her will, if she does not want the baby.
"Want" is a far different thing than the mother's life in peril due to whatever result from pregnancy.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GhostTX View PostOh, I believe it does:
(49) "Death" includes, for an individual who is an unborn child, the failure to be born alive.
Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:
..
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
...
Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/PE.19.htm
CONSTRUCTION OF CODE. (a) The rule that a penal statute is to be strictly construed does not apply to this code. The provisions of this code shall be construed according to the fair import of their terms, to promote justice and effect the objectives of the code.
After all, there are legal murders.
Originally posted by GhostTXAs I stated in another post in this thread, how does abortion fit in there?
Originally posted by GhostTXWrong? So you're saying a person that has never experienced an event has the same knowledge of a person that has gone through the event?
Originally posted by GhostTXRight, the mother's body gears up to protect and provide nutrients to the developing baby.
Originally posted by GhostTXTo infer the mom is a host is a parasitic is incorrect, because a host gains nothing from a parasite.
Originally posted by GhostTXThere's medical gains from being pregnant.
Originally posted by GhostTXThough, I suppose we could argue whether actually having the baby is a gain or not, in this argument, since it seems you view a baby is not a benefit.
Originally posted by GhostTXIf that's what you want to think, fine.
Originally posted by GhostTXThe whole point was to simply the relationship of the mother and fetus, something apparently that you missed.
Originally posted by GhostTXThat's fine. There's some that do mad Googling to try to appear they know more of a subject than reality.
Originally posted by GhostTXI got no problem for accuracy if your statement was to put in the appropriate terms.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by racrguy View PostSo, let me ask you guys something. What do you guys think about the signature requirement placed on parties to get members on the ballot in various states? Personally I think it's horseshit and is used to keep parties that aren't R or D from even a possibility of getting voters.
Leave a comment:
-
So, let me ask you guys something. What do you guys think about the signature requirement placed on parties to get members on the ballot in various states? Personally I think it's horseshit and is used to keep parties that aren't R or D from even a possibility of getting voters.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by talisman View PostI think it's because the POTUS has been busy fanning the flames of class warfare since he was elected.
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedI think it's because the POTUS has been busy fanning the flames of class warfare since he was elected.
Leave a comment:
-
BTW, I think the lack of a center comes from the fact that the people in the center were getting screwed by both sides on issues and also thrown under the bus when the SHTF by even members of their own party when it came down to the blame game.
The center had to go one way or another for more of a defensive posture.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by racrguy View PostIt is absolutely a distraction. It's easier for the politicians to trod this out whenever they don't want to deal with other issues, and fuck them for kicking the can.
Other things like taking away our rights, freedoms and civil liberties would have to be backed with some solid research and evidence that it is what is best for the country. Too much work and most of their stances cannot be justified outside of lobbyists and major campaign contributers lining their pockets with kick-backs.
Let's just do an abortion bill with each party taking their usual side. While we're at it, how about some earmarks with some of the good stuff?!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by talisman View PostI don't disagree with that. Unfortunately people like Cruz who seem to be completely on the level with the stuff that is REALLY important go on these nut job religious sidebars about the minor things that get people really up in arms. It's fucking infuriating being a Libertarian right now. There doesn't seem to be any Center in this country any more. It's really pretty simple. Get spending under control and reduce the size of the government and let people decide what the fuck they want to do with their own bodies. Why would ANY of that even be an argument?
Stevo
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by talisman View PostI don't disagree with that. Unfortunately people like Cruz who seem to be completely on the level with the stuff that is REALLY important go on these nut job religious sidebars about the minor things that get people really up in arms. It's fucking infuriating being a Libertarian right now. There doesn't seem to be any Center in this country any more. It's really pretty simple. Get spending under control and reduce the size of the government and let people decide what the fuck they want to do with their own bodies. Why would ANY of that even be an argument?
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: