|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:56 am
I've been out with a stomach virus for the past few days, so I haven't been able to respond.
Basically, yeah. What bluecherry said is true, and it's pretty much what I would've responded with.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:38 pm
bluecherry
First, birthing a fully developed 9-month fetus can and does kill people even today, even if it is FAR less common then it used to be and even before that pregnancy can cause complications that are life threatening on it's own. Even aside from death there are PLENTY of things about pregnancy that could be undesirable for a person. Here's a list, you can read it or skip it if you want. Pregnancy normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
-- exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
-- altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
-- nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
-- heartburn and indigestion
-- constipation
-- weight gain
-- dizziness and light-headedness
-- bloating, swelling, fluid retention
-- hemmorhoids
-- abdominal cramps
-- yeast infections
-- congested, bloody nose
-- acne and mild skin disorders
-- skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
-- mild to severe backache and strain
-- increased headaches
-- difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
-- increased urination and incontinence
-- bleeding gums
-- pica
-- breast pain and discharge
-- swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
-- difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
-- inability to take regular medications
-- shortness of breath
-- higher blood pressure
-- hair loss
-- tendency to anemia
-- curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
-- infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
-- extreme pain on delivery
-- hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
-- continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)
These are the normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
-- stretch marks (worse in younger women)
-- loose skin
-- permanent weight gain or redistribution
-- abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
-- pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
-- changes to breasts
-- varicose veins
-- scarring from episiotomy or c-section
-- other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
-- increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
-- loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
These are the occasional complications and side effects:
-- hyperemesis gravidarum
-- temporary and permanent injury to back
-- severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
-- dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
-- pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
-- eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
-- gestational diabetes
-- placenta previa
-- anemia (which can be life-threatening)
-- thrombocytopenic purpura
-- severe cramping
-- embolism (blood clots)
-- medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
-- diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
-- mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
-- serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
-- hormonal imbalance
-- ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
-- broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
-- hemorrhage and
-- numerous other complications of delivery
-- refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
-- aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
-- severe post-partum depression and psychosis
-- research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
-- research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
-- research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease
These are some less common (but serious) complications:
-- peripartum cardiomyopathy
-- cardiopulmonary arrest
-- magnesium toxicity
-- severe hypoxemia/acidosis
-- massive embolism
-- increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
-- molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
-- malignant arrhythmia
-- circulatory collapse
-- placental abruption
-- obstetric fistula
And a few more permanent side effects:
-- future infertility
-- permanent disability
-- death. SOURCE: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
There's plenty of reason to not want to remain pregnant for any length of time even, whether medical or personal and it doesn't have to be killing you to still be seriously infringing upon your rights and whether or not it was intentional is moot. People have free will which they hold near and dear and part of that includes that they have the right to decide who/what can or can not use their body, when, and how ( - or do you wish to contest this?) Taking this away from a person who has not violated anybody else's rights first is tantamount to reducing the person to a state of slavery to who or whatever it is that they do not have the right to deny the use and/or control of their body at any time. And in the case of abortion the pregnant person HAS NOT given the fetus permission to anything to do with their body, but they HAVE given the doctor permission to perform the procedure on them that will remove and separate the fetus from their body. And not all violations of rights are a real violent attack. You can unintentionally violate somebody's rights by way of accident or ignorance.Nothing new was actually brought up here. First of all, yes, ask ANY lawyer, in a criminal violation of rights there MUST be present both action and intention. Second, you expressed that an individual ALWAYS has the right to their own body and subsequently anything which may affect it. I do wish to contest this; please, from either the Charter of Rights or the Constitution, show me where it says this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:18 pm
Abortion is perfectly acceptable untill the fetus can survive outside the womb. After that, one shouldn't abort unless the fetus become dangerous to the mother's health. And even then it wouldn't be an abortion, so much as a pre-mature birth.
Otherwise it should be up to the mother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:56 pm
Well, I have no lawyer at hand, but having asked a college senior about to graduate who'd been a law major for most of their time, I'm told you do not always need both action and intent - it depends on the case/situation/whatever. Also, the constitution does not expressly state ALL rights people have. It says in the Bill of Rights, "Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Rights are not restricted to only those expressly articulated in the constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:54 am
I FEEL ABORTION IS WRONG WE SHOULD ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE WANTED OR NOT.FOR HOW WOULD WE LIKE IT IF OUR PARENTS THREW US AWAY CAUSE WE'RE NOT WANTED!!!!! GOD LOVES US & CREATED US ALL TO BE EQUAL!!!!! THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN ABORTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN THOSE TO BE ABORTED SO THAT THEY KNOW HOW IT FEELS TO BE UNWANTED. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:20 pm
emeraldgreen3 I FEEL ABORTION IS WRONG WE SHOULD ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE WANTED OR NOT. right to bodily integrity trumps right to life; thats why you can't force someone to donate organs against their will, even if it means the death of another emeraldgreen3 FOR HOW WOULD WE LIKE IT IF OUR PARENTS THREW US AWAY CAUSE WE'RE NOT WANTED!!!!! i wouldn't know anything about it had i been aborted, since foetuses can't think or feel pain, feel anything emeraldgreen3 GOD LOVES US & CREATED US ALL TO BE EQUAL!!!!! yes, the mother included. what of her right to life? pregnancy and birth can and does kill; and it is all but impossible to identify those who will die or suffer serious harm as a result of pregnancy. however, i don't believe in your god, so the rules of your religion do not apply to me. emeraldgreen3 THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN ABORTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN THOSE TO BE ABORTED SO THAT THEY KNOW HOW IT FEELS TO BE UNWANTED. 3nodding it is possible to feel unwanted without being aborted. of course had i been aborted, its impossible for me to have felt unwanted since i would have been unable to feel anything
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:47 pm
In South Dakota, a law was passed saying that abortions could not be preformed, unless the health of the mother was in danger. This means that teenage mothers would have to have their child(ren), unless they could prove that their health was in danger in some way. Laws like this could lead to teenage mothers trying to abort the baby themselves, and they could end up killing themselves.
Emeraldgreen3, mothers who choose to abort the fetus, usually undergo a substantial amount of mental trauma, because of their choice.
Also, centuries ago, during the Salem Witch Trials, and generally when a woman was in prison, she wouldn't be executed is she was pregnant. Until the baby was born. Then they believed that the baby had a right to life, even if the mother didn't. They believed that the baby was more important than the mother. The mother is just as important as the unborn child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:56 pm
Rose of Pluto In South Dakota, a law was passed saying that abortions could not be preformed, unless the health of the mother was in danger. This means that teenage mothers would have to have their child(ren), unless they could prove that their health was in danger in some way. Laws like this could lead to teenage mothers trying to abort the baby themselves, and they could end up killing themselves. Emeraldgreen3, mothers who choose to abort the fetus, usually undergo a substantial amount of mental trauma, because of their choice. Also, centuries ago, during the Salem Witch Trials, and generally when a woman was in prison, she wouldn't be executed is she was pregnant. Until the baby was born. Then they believed that the baby had a right to life, even if the mother didn't. They believed that the baby was more important than the mother. The mother is just as important as the unborn child. Good, I applaud South Dakota for taking at least one step in the right direction. Any mother who has the desire to take her child's life away completely deserves to die trying. I don't at all see your point with the Salem witch trials, the child didn't commit a crime nor was he accused of a crime. I agree, in that case, the child is definitely more deserving of life than the mother (assuming she was truly guilty). Yes, the mother is just as important as her child, but the child is not a criminal and is totally innocent. bluecherry
Well, I have no lawyer at hand, but having asked a college senior about to graduate who'd been a law major for most of their time, I'm told you do not always need both action and intent - it depends on the case/situation/whatever. Also, the constitution does not expressly state ALL rights people have. It says in the Bill of Rights, "Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Rights are not restricted to only those expressly articulated in the constitution.Sorry, I thought it was just common knowledge that intent must be behind crime. It's the difference between a woman losing control of her car and vehicular manslaughter. Right, "certain rights... shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". So in the case of abortion, the child is not misconstruing his rights and interfering on those of others; his mother is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:01 am
The point behind the whole Salem Witch Trials fact was that it's a very old-fashioned belief that the child is alive when it's conceived. The fact is, an unborn child can't feel that it's being aborted, and it really isn't murder, as the baby isn't alive. That's what the courts say, and I believe that.
There'd be no point to aborting a child if it was about to be born, because that wouldn't make very much sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:45 am
Rose of Pluto The point behind the whole Salem Witch Trials fact was that it's a very old-fashioned belief that the child is alive when it's conceived. The fact is, an unborn child can't feel that it's being aborted, and it really isn't murder, as the baby isn't alive. That's what the courts say, and I believe that. There'd be no point to aborting a child if it was about to be born, because that wouldn't make very much sense. There is PLENTY of evidence to support the idea that the child is technically alive from very early on in its pre-birth existence. In fact I have seen no evidence that it is NOT. Perhaps you never heard that fetuses have physical reactions to the abortion process, flinching and thrashing under the needle, and in some cases dying fetuses have tried to grab the doctor's hand as they are pulled from the womb.  A child has feeling before it's born, some people don't realize that, or just choose to ignore it. The idea that people were more sensitive to the life of an unborn child those hundreds of years ago really says something to me about "progress".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:51 pm
I've heard of those claims of the fetus being in some way "aware" of what is going on in an aborton and if it's really neccesary, I can try to look up some exact sources for where I've heard the flaws of those claims. Essentialy some things I've heard went along the lines of it moves away from the needle because of the simple physics that works like if you push your hand in a pool of water toward an object the object will move away and also, flinching is generally a reflex, it takes no thought or awareness at all, and as for grabbing fingers, I might be wrong (It's late, I'm tired, I don't have time to look it up now, but again, if required, I'll try to look up the exact answer), but that may well be related to a reflex or contraction of muscles resulting from that process. And considering you need a certain amount of nerve and brain development to feel pain, most abortions probably occur before pain could really be an issue since most are done pretty early any way. And a woman losing control of her car will still be fined/sued if she damages somebody else's property and if she injured a person can be sued and if she killed anybody she still can have charges pressed against her even if it WAS an accident and not intentional. Manslaughter in particular in the definition I looked up just says it's killing without planning it ahead, nothing about intention, so it just may be the case that woman COULD be charged with vehicular manslaughter. And you've taken that amendment incorrectly - it means "just because we didn't list a certain right or rights here doesn't mean you don't have them, nor do we intend to legislate away your rights." It's not about between individuals, it's about the relationship of the government to the people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:03 pm
bluecherry
I've heard of those claims of the fetus being in some way "aware" of what is going on in an aborton and if it's really neccesary, I can try to look up some exact sources for where I've heard the flaws of those claims. Essentialy some things I've heard went along the lines of it moves away from the needle because of the simple physics that works like if you push your hand in a pool of water toward an object the object will move away and also, flinching is generally a reflex, it takes no thought or awareness at all, and as for grabbing fingers, I might be wrong (It's late, I'm tired, I don't have time to look it up now, but again, if required, I'll try to look up the exact answer), but that may well be related to a reflex or contraction of muscles resulting from that process. And considering you need a certain amount of nerve and brain development to feel pain, most abortions probably occur before pain could really be an issue since most are done pretty early any way. And a woman losing control of her car will still be fined/sued if she damages somebody else's property and if she injured a person can be sued and if she killed anybody she still can have charges pressed against her even if it WAS an accident and not intentional. Manslaughter in particular in the definition I looked up just says it's killing without planning it ahead, nothing about intention, so it just may be the case that woman COULD be charged with vehicular manslaughter. And you've taken that amendment incorrectly - it means "just because we didn't list a certain right or rights here doesn't mean you don't have them, nor do we intend to legislate away your rights." It's not about between individuals, it's about the relationship of the government to the people.Sure, the fetus may not be THINKING about it, but as long as it has nerves and a brain (which it does) it CAN feel it. And what's your point besides? Even if he can't feel his death that makes it right to take his life? Guess it's okay to kill quadruplegics then... A woman causing unintentional property damage or casualties by means of a vehicle is covered by insurance. Also, one can be sued without necessarily breaking a law. And besides, if this proves anything I suppose it's that a fetus should be sued instead of killed. Manslaughter is the killing of a human without premeditation; that doesn't mean it isn't deliberate. In that case, it is accidental manslaughter and thus not a crime. The term "manslaughter" is not always used in a criminal sense, but when one is charged with manslaughter they must have had the intention to kill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:06 pm
Part of me really doesn't want to get involved in this >.<
Anyway, in the abortion thread in ED the case of McFall vs. Shimp was used to debate on the topic of denying someone their "right" to your body though they'll die without it.
The court ruled that a person's right to bodily integrity trumps the other person's right to life.
*pokes the roaring inferno that Abortion debates always become*
I'll be around if anyone wants my opinion/facts and statistics on any other aspect of the abortion debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:48 pm
Yes, that's an essential point I've been trying to get across you've brought up. (Heh, I've been half tempted for a while to just post a link in this thread directing to the official abortion debate thread in Extended Discussion and get it over with, because anything we could say in here has already been said, and likely better, in there.)
I'm pretty sure nerves and brain must be not only present in some form, but developed enough to function before they actually will be able to work and process things like "pain." Also, people do not get the right to live simply because death is painful any way even if the fetus could feel pain, and it's still violating somebody else's bodily integrity any way if somebody does not wish to remain pregnant.
A quadriplegic can't be killed, true, but it's irrelevant because first, the quadriplegic has not violated anybody else's rights as far as has been indicated, and second, he/she could feel pain elsewhere in their body even if the ability to feel pain WAS what gave people the right to live, which it isn't.
You can't sue a fetus as they have no money and no way to get any and it would not accomplish the goal of ending the violation of another person's bodily integrity anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:59 pm
bluecherry
Yes, that's an essential point I've been trying to get across you've brought up. (Heh, I've been half tempted for a while to just post a link in this thread directing to the official abortion debate thread in Extended Discussion and get it over with, because anything we could say in here has already been said, and likely better, in there.)
I'm pretty sure nerves and brain must be not only present in some form, but developed enough to function before they actually will be able to work and process things like "pain." Also, people do not get the right to live simply because death is painful any way even if the fetus could feel pain, and it's still violating somebody else's bodily integrity any way if somebody does not wish to remain pregnant.
A quadriplegic can't be killed, true, but it's irrelevant because first, the quadriplegic has not violated anybody else's rights as far as has been indicated, and second, he/she could feel pain elsewhere in their body even if the ability to feel pain WAS what gave people the right to live, which it isn't.
You can't sue a fetus as they have no money and no way to get any and it would not accomplish the goal of ending the violation of another person's bodily integrity anyway. Yeah, me too XD Actually in abortions where the foetus is over 20 weeks old they do give it painkillers. I can try to find a source for that, I'm not positive where I learned it, but I wouldn't have bothered remembering it if it wasn't a credible source. Apparently someone already figured out when it was capable of feeling pain and already nullified that arguement. So, hurray for science and medicine for being ahead of some silly kids with nothing better to do than waste time debating events they have little to no control over on Gaia. ^_^ *note I am obviously included in that number, so please don't anyone take it as a personal attack. Twas not meant to be offensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
