mercy killing the retarded/feeble-minded

Would you consider a tape worm part of the woman, because it is inside of her?

 

Is the police officer causing actual injuries by placing his hand on his gun, the obvious answer is no, where as a fetus IS causing actual injury.

No there is no philosophical moral dilemma except in your mind, the two are not even comparable.
I am not interested in your other threads, if you have a case to make make it here.

Only in cases where there are immediate alternatives, a woman does not have any other immediate alternatives to cease the injuries being imposed upon her.

Your moral grounds are yours alone, they have no bearing on the morality of any other person .. except for the fact you want to force your morality onto others.
There is no "higher bar" if you are being injured by a mentally incompetent person do you have the right to defend yourself up to and including deadly force or not?

The maximum risk undertaken by a woman of a pregnancy occurring is to have unprotected sexual intercourse during a six day period .. and that risk is on average 9%



http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/risk.html

100% true, are you expected to suffer any injury you may get by taking the risk of going skiing, do doctors say sorry sir we can't fix your broken leg because you knew the risk of injury when you went skiing .. What you forget is that people who consent to to take a risk do not have to consent to the actual injury. The assumption of risk can, and is, often tied into contributory negligence where the actions of a person can bring harm to themselves but even so those people who consent to risk do not lose the right to be free of non consensual injuries from others, and under the pro-life mandate of person at conception the fetus IS an "other" causing injury, if you are attempting to say that the woman brings the injury upon herself then you cannot advocate the separate personhood of the fetus, a person can only bring an injury upon themselves if there is no other actor involved.

What prior actions, is this the erroneous advocation that a woman who consents to sex is obligated to gestate a fetus until birth .. find me the legal precedence that states this please.
Your PERSONAL view may be that she is obligated, and you may live your life that way . .however your personal opinion on the matter has no bearing on the reality.

Oh for god sake, get a biology book and find out how pregnancy occurs, to state "She did it herself" is a moronic comment, by the majority medical books state pregnancy does not start until implantation and legally pregnancy can ONLY be caused by a fertilized ovum, no other entity can control whether a pregnancy occurs or not.

Yes her consent is 100% required. It most certainly is about her body, it is her body that is being injured without her consent. You, like all pro-lifers, are trying to paint the fetus as some sort of person who does absolutely nothing when the reality is that it is the fetus that maintains the pregnancy, not the woman, it is the fetus that MUST suppress the woman's local immune system to survive, it is the fetus that MUST grow a new organ to survive, it is the fetus that MUST re-route the woman's circulatory system to survive, tell me Anders what part in any of those does the woman have a say in?

I know what?
The fetus IS responsible for creating the pregnancy, without the fetus there would be no pregnancy. Pregnancy is not caused by a male. Pregnancy can only be caused by a fertilized ovum. There are two relationships, one is the sexual relationship between a man and a woman, the other is a pregnancy relationship between a zef and a woman.
While a man can cause a woman to engage in a sexual relationship with him he cannot cause a woman's body to change from a non-pregnant state to a pregnant one, the only entity that can achieve that is a fertilized ovum when it implants itself into the uterus (which is the generally accepted start of pregnancy). Thus although a fetus and woman can have a pregnancy relationship they cannot have a sexual relationship, and obviously a man cannot have a pregnancy or sexual relationship with a fetus.
So although a sexual relationship between a man and a woman usually precede a pregnancy relationship between a woman and a fetus the two relationships are by no means the same. what is more, not only is it the fertilized ovum, rather than the man, that joins with a woman in a pregnancy relationship, but it is the fertilized ovum, not the man, that is the primary cause of that relationship. The only way a woman will ever be pregnant id if a fertilized ovum implants itself and stays there, and the only way to terminate the condition of pregnancy in a woman's body is to remove the cause pf that pregnancy; the fertilized ovum (or fetus in later stages). Under the law, therefore, it is the fertilized ovum or fetus, not a man, that is the primary cause of pregnancy.
How to assess causality, whether of pregnancy or any other matter, is one of the most complex questions in the legal field. Often the law must determine cause in order to assess who or what is responsible for events or damages. The law makes that determination by assessing casual links, that is, by identifying the sequence of events, or chains, that explain how or why an event occurred. The law tries to consider only the causes that are "so closely connected with the result" -Source : Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts - Page 264 that it makes sense to regard them as responsible for it. In the process, courts distinguish between two main types of causes; factual causes, which explains in a broad context why an event occurred, and legal causes, which constitute the sole or primary reason for an event's occurrence.
A factual cause can be thought of as necessary but not sufficient cause of an event, there are two types of factual cause - 1. casual links, 2. "but for" causes, the former increases the chances that another event will occur but do not cause the actual event itself (Source : Calabresi - Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts - Page 71) and the latter are acts or activities "without which a particular injury would not have occurred", yet not sufficient in itself for its occurrence eg. If a woman jogs in Central Park at ten o-clock at night although such activity increases the chances they may be beaten, raped or murdered, it does not actually cause those events to occur; someone else has to do the beating, raping or murdering. Exposing oneself to the risk of injury, therefore, while it may be a necessary, factual cause of that injury, does not mean it is the sufficient, legal cause. The person who does the beating, raping or murdering are the necessary and sufficient cause of the injuries, and thus are the legal cause.
Among the virtually infinite number of necessary factual causes the task of the law is to locate the one necessary and sufficient cause of the event, that is, the legal cause. The legal cause is "that which is nearest in the order of responsible causation .. the primary or moving cause ... the lat negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted. The dominant, moving or producing cause" - Source : Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed Page 1225, the legal cause is, therefore, both a necessary and sufficient condition to explain why an event occurred.

This legal distinction between factual and legal causes relates to the distinction between sexual intercourse, cause by a man, and pregnancy, caused by a fertilized ovum. A man, by virtue of being the cause of sexual intercourse, becomes a factual cause of pregnancy. By moving his sperm into a woman's body through sexual intercourse, he provides a necessary but not sufficient condition for her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition, not until a fertilized ovum is conceived does it's presence actually change her body from a nonpregnant to a pregnant state. For this reason, since pregnancy is condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body, it can be identified as the fertilized ovum to be the legal cause of a woman's pregnancy state.
In the case of most pregnancies, men and sexual intercourse are a necessary condition that increase the chances of pregnancy by putting a woman at risk to become pregnant, but the conception of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body and its implantation are the necessary and sufficient conditions that actually make her pregnant. What men cause in sexual intercourse is merely on or the factual sequential links involved in pregnancy; the transportation of sperm from their body to the body of a woman. Moving sperm into a woman's body, however, is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman's pregnant condition, it is merely a preceding factual cause that puts her at risk of becoming pregnant. Once a man has ejaculated his sperm into the vagina of a woman there is nothing more he can do to affect the subsequent casual links that lead to pregnancy. There is no way he can cause his sperm to move, or not to move, to the site of fertilization, nor can he control whether the sperm will fuse with the ovum or not, for this reason is makes no sense to say a man causes conception, much less that a man causes pregnancy. Until a fertilized ovum conceives an implants itself into a woman's body pregnancy cannot occur. Sexual intercourse, therefore, although commonly a factual cause of pregnancy, cannot be viewed as the "controlling agency" or legal cause of pregnancy. The fertilized ovum's implantation accomplishes that task.
While the man depositing his sperm inside the vagina may possibly set in motion a sequence of events that may or may not lead to the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the woman's uterus, the law does not identify events that set things in motion as the legal cause of eventual consequences.

Sexual intercourse falls therefore under the "but for" factual cause ie without men there would be no sperm; "but for" sperm, there would be no fertilized ova; "but for" fertilized ova, there would be no implantation in the uterus; "but for" implantation by fertilized ova in a woman's uterus, there would be no sustained pregnancies.

A man is a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but a man is not the legal cause
A man depositing sperm into the vagina is- for the most - a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but is not the legal cause.
The sperm fertilizing the ova is a necessary and significant cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy, this is the legal cause.

Factual Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/actual-cause/
Legal Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-cause/

What does the fetus need to give consent for, it is the attacker here not the victim .. by your logic a rapist must give consent to his/her victim to defend themselves against his/her attack, absolutely absurd.

Then you do not understand how consent and self-defence laws work. You cannot have it all ways, if the fetus is a person then like all other people it must gain consent to impose itself onto another person .. it is, under your ideology, a separate individual, it cannot be assumed that the consent given to one person (the man) for one act (sexual intercourse) is proxy consent for another person (the fetus) for a separate act (pregnancy) to do so would undermine the very foundation of what consent is, by your logic a woman giving consent to a man to have sex with her also is giving consent to his brother to have sex with her. This is the problem with pro-lifers they only want personhood for the fetus to fit what they think is right.

Rubbish.

You really haven't a clue as to what I am, neither do you have a clue as to what Libertarianism is.

You mean the occasions that you personal agree with.

nope, banning abortion would remove the choice ergo there is no consent, that would be authoritarian and coercive, not consensual.

BS. I have never stated I do not believe in the right to life, I have said that the right to life has only as much value as another person places upon it .. prove me wrong?

There is no such right in existence.

The fertilized ovum infringes the rights of the woman from the moment of conception this is true whether she consents to sex or not.

Nothing stopping the eggs being fertilized, she does have the right to say 'no' to pregnancy, even according to pro-lifers there is no 'person' until fertilization, the consent required by the fetus is AFTER fertilization as before it there is no "person" involved.

Exactly how am I wanting it both ways, what part of there not being a person requiring consent prior to fertilization do you not understand, or are you now saying that the sperm deposited and the ova are now persons by virtue of being in the same environment and in close proximity to each other?

1. The choice to take a risk does not equate to the consent to actual injuries, nor does it negate the requirement of each individual person to gain separate consent to impose themselves onto another person. Remember Anders it is you who wants the person at conception idea to become law, not me, and with the protection of personhood also comes restrictions .. unless of course you want to give the unborn rights that no other person has and then arbitrarily remove them at birth.

2. Irrelevant as to whether it is responsible for its situation, no person can be forced to give up their bodily rights for another even if it was them who put the other person in those circumstances.

3. Again with this 'extreme' ideology, that is not required for the use of deadly force.

I have responded and answered every single one of your questions, if you cannot comprehend the answers then just say so and I will attempt to make them simpler for you.

 

Hence the subject of this thread. I was just asking whether taxpayers being forced to care for a severely retarded dependent is so different from a woman being forced to care for an unborn dependent.

What if we financially compensated the woman for her pregnancy? (at least partially) Would that make any difference?

But, despite all that supposed damage, she WANTS to be pregnant. At some time.
If she didn't she most likely would have just gotten her tubes tied.

According to your version of what pregnancy is like, it's amazing that any woman would choose to be pregnant by her own volition, much less pay a fertility clinic huge sums of money when she finds out she can't.

 

Lol good point.

 

I would have to disagree with you, the fetus is inside another person but it is not part of that person, it is also not an separate individual, it cannot be by virtue of it's attachment to another being. The fetus has a parasitic-like relationship with the female.

A lot of people look at my comments and paint me as an extreme pro-choice person, they never inquire as to why I take the stance I do and even though you have not asked I will tell you. I take the stance I do to counter the extreme stance of pro-lifers, I use their own ideology against them.

 

Do you consider this to be one or two people, if only one why?



It meets all of the above things you have stated - it has its own blood type, it is not part of the boy, it is attached to the boy.

- - - Updated - - -

It can come over as a very depressing topic, but it is a very important one.

In the end both sides of the coin want the same thing, a reduction in abortions, the difference is on how that can be achieved.

On the one side, pro-life, you have the belief that by banning abortion it will stop it happening (most of the time) when we know from history and from countries with restrictive abortions laws that-that simply does not work, and turning the womb into state owned property (at least in the short term).

On the other side is pro-choice, where we don't want the state to control another persons body even for a short time, what we do advocate is that comprehensive sex education and free at source contraception (including IUD's and hormonal implants) would, and has been proven to, reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions.

The question you may want to ask is why, by far, the majority of pro-lifers stand against the very things that would go some way to achieving what they are aiming for.

 

The fetus does not take from the woman, the woman's body gives to the fetus to nurture it. A parasite takes form the body without the body's permission, the unborn does not do this.
you say it can not be a separate individual by virtue of being attached. Would you consider Siamese twins 1 person, or two before being detached?
I thought you took your pro-choice stance due to consent, or self defense?
Are you sayign yoyu are not really pro-choice, you just argue that view?

- - - Updated - - -

I knew chimera twins would come up. Chimera twins are one person with parts of a second person. Not a complete second person.

 

Does the man's penis become part of the woman during sexual intercourse?

Just because it is geographically within the woman's body does not necessarily mean it is a part of it. Regardless, I do not see how this is relevant.
Even if the fetus was considered a "part of the woman", pro-lifers would still ascribe a higher value to the fetus than, say, a kidney or spleen.

Isn't that exactly what a woman does when she gets an abortion?

Conception. After that, it really takes some extreme extenuating circumstances to make aborting her little developing life within her ok.

What is so special about "bodily" rights? It's not like we are telling the woman she has to do something. We are just telling her there is something she cannot do.
It's perfectly natural.

If the fetus does not have a right to its bodily rights, what makes you think the woman does?

The extreme ideology is saying that a woman has the right to use "self defense" on her unborn child during a completely normal healthy pregnancy.

 

Lol I have got the message now. :/

 

OK, IF it's separate "human being". then take one home with you, maybe a 12 week fetus....and dress it and feed it and burp it and change it's diaper.


IF it's a human being it has no right to harm the woman without her fighting back...... just like you have the right to self-defense, so does she.

 

Most people would hardly use the word "harm" to describe a typical pregnancy. "Infringe on her dominion" ? Maybe.

It's her unborn child, for goodness sakes!

 

How ridiculous(bolded above) What claptrap!

If you tell a woman she can't have an abortion you ARE telling her she must give birth....and it ISN'T "perfectly natural" to force women to do something they do not want to do.

 

Thing is....as a society we have developed these things called words, which are used to designate things different from each other....we call them terms. It helps us figure out what is what...you know, like a baby vs. a fetus or a cow vs. a horse. I know plenty of society that considers a fetus to be different from a human being...we generally refer to them as Doctors, Scientists, or intelligent people.

 

That is your opinion, however the biological and medical facts paint a very different picture

I didn't say it WAS a parasite, I said it has a parasitic-like relationship with the female, and furthermore if the female does not consent to it being there it is by definition taking without the bodies permission.

Legally & Medically if the Siamese twins have two heads and two brains they are considered separate people, if not they are considered a single person, you see the standard there don't you -two heads, two brains ie the brain is the significant factor, as far as Siamese twins are concerned, as to the individual status of each.

I am pro-choice through and through.

Where have I said that, please re-read what I said.

A lot of people look at my comments and paint me as an extreme pro-choice person, they never inquire as to why I take the stance I do and even though you have not asked I will tell you. I take the stance I do to counter the extreme stance of pro-lifers, I use their own ideology against them.

hmmm . .so is this a "a complete second person." in your opinion, if so why?



Unless you have some other definition of complete I am assuming you mean - Having all the necessary or appropriate parts: - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/complete

 

YOU are NOT most people and YOU cannot speak for them. And what most people think isn't relevant.
YOU do NOT care what happens to women so YOU just ignore the following:

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 or increased facial/body hair
•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)

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 -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)
•changes to breasts
•increased foot size
•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)
•higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's
•newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates)

Occasional complications and side effects:
•complications of episiotomy
•spousal/partner abuse
•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

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
More permanent side effects:
•future infertility
•permanent disability
•death.

 

so the fetus has to be viable to be separate? It is unique and an individual, biologically and literally
Self defense does not apply in a vast majority of pregnancies

 

Sigh....taxpayers as a group contributing to the care of someone unable to care for himself is quite different from pregnancy. As I keep saying, you seem to have a remarkable lack of understanding of pregnancy/childbirth.

It might make a difference to some individual women. Women should make their own choices as to whether financial compensation makes it worth the pain and suffering.

It's true that most women do want to be pregnant, but not all. Young women without children do not always have the opportunity of a tubal ligation, and most young women trust birth control more than they should. After all, 1% failure rate doesn't sound like much, does it? Not until you realize that means one out of one hundred women using that method will get pregnant every year.

Most women do want children when they can properly care for them and they are willing to suffer the pains and discomforts and the financial costs. But an increasing number of women are choosing to remain childless.

 

Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

OK, IF it's separate "human being". then take one home with you, maybe a 12 week fetus....and dress it and feed it and burp it and change it's diaper.

Why can't you do that ??????????????????????



IF it's a human being it has no right to harm the woman without her fighting back...... just like you have the right to self-defense, so does she.



ALL pregnancies cause harm to the pregnant woman and YOU cannot prove otherwise....you have NEVER proven otherwise....



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 or increased facial/body hair
•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)

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 -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)
•changes to breasts
•increased foot size
•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)
•higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's
•newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates)

Occasional complications and side effects:
•complications of episiotomy
•spousal/partner abuse
•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

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
More permanent side effects:
•future infertility
•permanent disability
•death.

 

And I know plenty of society that considers the unborn a human being, you know doctors, scientists, and intelligent people.
a fetus is a stage in human development, so is infant. Both are humans. a human baby and human fetus are the same species a cow and horse are different species.

 

Well, the baby is coming out one way or another. Abortion still involves forcing open her cervix, you know.
Not just that, but they tug and tug on it with a spiny sharp clamping instrument to make sure the uterus lines up for the vacuum suction device to be inserted. It would really be extremely painful if they did not give the woman localised anesthetic.

I just meant that it is not completely unnatural. Her body is designed to handle it.

 

More claptrap, you got caught saying "I don't want to tell a woman what to do but I do"....

 

still a chimera twin, so not two people. 1 person with parts of a second
Ah you said brain, well the unborn brain starts developing very early, like around week 5, so at week 5 it has a separate brain and body parts. It's not even a fetus yet. So legally and medically a 5 week embryo should be considered a separate person. And in your resposne to the other psoter you said by virtue of being attached it is not separate, and Siamese twins are attached, yet you consider them two people. Why the double standard when it comes to attachment. And even further why the double standard when it comes to two heads two brains. Plus humans are more then heads and brains, which are body parts.

 

Here's a scenario for you, hypothetically. Suppose there is a woman who has acted as a professional surrogate mother multiple times in the past, for families willing to pay her a hefty premium.
Now she gets pregnant again, but this time there's no money to be made. Would you admit that in this case, denying her an abortion would essentially be equivalent to taxing her to pay for others who are dependent ?

Why do you keep going on with this? How would being a human being (as opposed to not being one) help justify the woman's right to self-defense?

 

Only in the eyes of pro-lifers.

Well you are wrong in that, a woman has no control over conception, unless you are advocating that a woman can stop sperm penetrating the ova . .are you?

did you read the legal positions on actual and legal causes, I bet you didn't.

So if I tell you that you cannot have a tattoo, or a piercing then that is ok to, after all what is so special about "bodily" rights eh.

do you even know what natural means - Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind and if as you seem to think that pregnancy is a natural state, tell me why does the immune system need to be suppressed in order for it to continue through to birth, is the suppression of the immune system a natural state?

Considering this is about the hundredth time this question has been asked in various ways, the answer should be as obvious as the nose on your face .. but just for the record here it is again. The fetus has every bodily right any other person has, up to the point that it violates another persons bodily rights, just as you have bodily rights right up until you violate another persons bodily rights once you do that you are subject to self-defence being used against you .. by your logic, yet again, a victim of rape cannot defend themselves against the rapist because it would infringe the rapists bodily rights .. absurd.

Nope the extreme ideology is saying that the state has the right to dictate to a person when, how and by whom there body is used by another which is what you want.

Even your mantra of "a completely normal healthy pregnancy" fails to understand (or ignores) that every single pregnancy causes injuries to the female, and just like you she has every right to consent to those injuries or not .. why do you want to remove rights from people so much?

 

You sure spend a lot of time making up asinine scenarios involving women and their reproductive tracts...........