Originally posted by ERCougar
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
On abortion
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by imanihonjin View PostWhat are you even talking about? You should be more precise with what you are trying to say, which I think I know what you are trying to say but that isn't what you actually wrote.At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
-Berry Trammel, 12/3/10
Comment
-
Originally posted by Vic Vega View PostThe Freakanomics guys have some interesting stats about this. YouTube has this section from their movie.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615?SThisFB
Also, watch the "Cosmos" episode about Clair Patterson as well. Interesting stuff.
Comment
-
Originally posted by beefytee View PostI think (I'm assuming oxcoug agrees) this correlation to the drop in violent crime is just as good of an explanation as abortion:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615?SThisFB
Also, watch the "Cosmos" episode about Clair Patterson as well. Interesting stuff."Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied
Comment
-
Originally posted by ERCougar View PostOk, not my clearest moment. I'm just echoing what NWC has pointed out. The only point that we can all agree that a fetus acquires full human rights is birth--anything before that point relies on some moral/theological code that lacks any clear standard. You might have your point, but everyone else has theirs, ranging from fertilization to birth. You're not even able to define yours with any useful measure. Roe v Wade tried to with a viability standard, but that's not even going to work very soon, as technology advances.
Comment
-
Originally posted by wuapinmon View PostSteven Pinker refutes the abortion/crime drop in The Better Angels of Our Nature.
If the highest rate of abortions is among the poor and minorities, why couldn't you conlcude that their is a correlation with the crime rate going down? Oh, oh. Is that a Paul Ryan moment? Am I antic poor and a racist for even asking the question?
Comment
-
Originally posted by imanihonjin View PostSo in your laid out plan then a baby only receives rights after birth? So a mother could terminate a baby at 40 weeks? You are a doctor, are you saying that you don't believe that baby is alive at that point in time? You are right I am not certain when life begins, but I don't think it should be out of the purview of society to determine when it is that a baby has certain rights that may not be violated. All laws are determinations based on questions of morality. Why should this one be any different?
As a physician, if I'm treating a pregnant woman, the woman's life comes first, then the fetus'. This is the standard of care--they are not treated equally.At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
-Berry Trammel, 12/3/10
Comment
-
Originally posted by ERCougar View PostYou really need to let go of this "alive" language. Of course it's alive. So is a fertilized egg. The better question is when does the fetus acquire fully human rights, equal to the mother. And no, that doesn't occur until birth.
As a physician, if I'm treating a pregnant woman, the woman's life comes first, then the fetus'. This is the standard of care--they are not treated equally.Fitter. Happier. More Productive.
sigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by ERCougar View PostThe only universally agreed standard at which a fetus' right to life equals the mother's is birth. Anything before--even third trimester fetus--relies on some extra worldly logic.
If the fetus has as much rights after the mothers life, why is it a mother can choose to end the life even if hers is not in danger, but the husband can't.
Comment
-
Equating unborn rights with the rights of the mother is impractical in all aspects. Any other balancing test cannot be implemented without impinging upon the liberties of the mother.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk"Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."
Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Topper View PostEquating unborn rights with the rights of the mother is impractical in all aspects. Any other balancing test cannot be implemented without impinging upon the liberties of the mother.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Comment
-
If we keep the horny toad we solve global warming.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk"Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."
Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ERCougar View PostYou really need to let go of this "alive" language. Of course it's alive. So is a fertilized egg. The better question is when does the fetus acquire fully human rights, equal to the mother. And no, that doesn't occur until birth.
As a physician, if I'm treating a pregnant woman, the woman's life comes first, then the fetus'. This is the standard of care--they are not treated equally.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TripletDaddy View PostAnother reason such a standard is impractical is that is raises the question of who advocates on behalf of the fetus over the rights of the mother? Does the mother incur liability towards the fetus since her rights are subordinate to the fetus? Can the state sue a woman for negligence when she miscarries? Ridiculous and untenable to give superior right to a fetus.
Comment
-
Originally posted by imanihonjin View PostWho is claiming that the babies right to life is more important than the mothers. If that is what you believe I have been arguing then I apologize for not being clearer. What I am talking about is when the rights of the mother to not have to be pregnant any more are subordinate to the rights of a baby's life. There is almost no difference between baby at 40 weeks still inside the womb is no different than a 3 week old baby on the outside of the womb in terms of viability. I know the better question is when does a fetus acquire fully human rights....many states can an do set that mark at the 3rd trimester of pregnancy (other than issues dealing with the life of the mother-which I agree with btw).
The third trimester is becoming increasingly arbitrary as our technological capabilities improve.At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
-Berry Trammel, 12/3/10
Comment
Comment