As the debate in the "What is it" thread has reached it's post limit and has still a number of arguments going on, here is part 2. Originally Posted by Sam - http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=338379&page=76&p=1063710285#post1063710285 - Posr #759 do you not understand the concept of building a defence for future use, because it would appear not .. ANY new defence that could come before the courts has to have a foundation, what is irrelevant is you trying to use current figures and rates.
Originally Posted By SteveJa - Post #760 From your own link 1. A steroid hormone, C21H30O2, secreted by the corpus luteum of the ovary and by the placenta, that acts to prepare the uterus for implantation of the fertilized ovum, to maintain pregnancy, and to promote development of the mammary glands. do you know where the placenta comes from? The placenta functions as a fetomaternal organ with two components: the fetal placenta (Chorion frondosum), which develops from the same blastocyst that forms the fetus, and the maternal placenta (Decidua basalis), which develops from the maternal uterine tissue Link one - But in reality a baby has to be "tolerated" long before the demands of parenthood. In fact the process begins from the moment of conception because a developing baby is genetically distinct from the mother, A baby poses an immunological conundrum -as foreign tissue why is it not rejected by its mother's immune system and that means persuading the immune system not to attack what is effectively foreign tissue. The fetal placenta contains the molecule phosphocholine, which is used by the parasitic nematode worm to avoid attack by the immune system of the host in which it lives. I'd suggest you read the following, which is far more in depth than the first link you provided - http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/31280.pdf - There are numerous factors involved in the female immune suppression and they are instigated and/or driven by the zef. Your second link offers nothing to the discussion and is about why the suppression of the immune system does not effect the woman as a whole, that would be because it is a localized suppression, a phenomenon recognized since 1964 by Billingham and known as an 'immune privileged site' but originally discovered some 135 years ago. This suggests that the developing fetus has mechanisms which prevent a maternal immune response against paternal/fetal antigens. Indeed, studies have shown that during pregnancy, paternal alloantigens can avoid maternal immune rejection. Yes it is, jumped in a little quick on my previous reply. Where did I say that, please provide the actual quote. . Then answer the question .. Is an injury you do not consent to assault?
I understand that your argument about abortion being self defense only pertains to a hypothetical future. But that doesn't refute my argument. Also, I never said that self defense laws currently justify abortion.
Originally posted by Beast Mode - Post #761 And you are making arbitrary decisions on what you consider arbitrary, not everyone agrees with what you consider to be arbitrary, so why should your decisions hold more weight and merit than any other persons? Because they are not "special rights" or even "women's rights", you are just trying to place words into my mouth, at no point have I said that they are rights special to women .. on the contrary I have stated numerous times that the same rights apply equally to men .. so will now continue to evade the question asked - "it is up to you to prove that those same rights are not given to all people. Can you, because I can and have proven they are rights given to everyone." Can you offer anything that disputes that ALL people have the right to defend themselves against assault, and that ALL people have the right to body autonomy? Then you believe wrong. The following states have stand your ground laws in place; Alabama Alaska Arizona Florida Georgia Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Mississippi Montana Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Oklahoma Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah West Virginia Some states have self-defense laws on the books that are similar to stand your ground laws, often with at least one key difference. These laws generally apply only to the home or other real property (such as an office) and are often referred to as "castle doctrine" or "defense of habitation" laws. Most U.S. states have castle doctrine laws, including California, Illinois, Iowa, Oregon, and Washington. - http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...nd-your-ground-laws.html#sthash.B030vdkn.dpuf - I assume your state is one of those with this difference. There is a federal law governing self-defence and that stands as "On a federal level, self defense is legal only in response to "An affirmative, unlawful act reasonably calculated to produce an affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences." - http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/united-states-v-peterson-483-f-2d-1222-dc-circuit-1973/
Orginially posted by Beast Mode - Post #763 I think you know perfectly well what I mean when I say assault, would you prefer invasion - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/invasion Urm, I haven't even mentioned Roe vs Wade, so I have no idea why you would bring it into the discussion. If you notice I said biology AND law disagree with you ... which both do. Not in the slightest, I understand very well what the truth is and the truth is that no matter what laws or biologically things are brought to the debate abortion has and always will be used, whereas pro-lifers suffer under the illusion that they can simply stop it happening .. rose tinted glasses with myopic tendencies. The only legal precedence I can think of would be roe itself (but then you will accuse me making an appeal to authority), as a note an appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the person is not an authority on the subject matter, so as far as legal matters are concerned SCOTUS would be an authority.
1-By that logic, my arguments are not arbitrary. (in the past, you have referred to my arguments against abortion, as arbitrary.) 2-Other than abortion, when can another person's right to life be taken away, because of another person controlling their bodily autonomy? I believe that it's a ridiculous argument to claim that a normal pregnancy is a serious injury, but I am willing to debate your claim that body autonomy justifies abortion.
Your arguments are arbitrary because you base them only on your personal perception, of which there a numerous examples; She only wants to get an abortion so she can go out and party She only wants an abortion because she doesn't want the responsibility Only "bad" women get abortions to name just three. You have yet to proved anything to substantiate any of the above, and pretty much all of the things you say. Furthermore you (and other pro-lifers) are trying to impose your arbitrary decisions onto other people. Rape Kidnapping Sustained Abuse You may believe what you will, the problem is you have NEVER provided a single relevant rationale why the argument is "ridiculous" other than your own opinion.
Your argument is based on things as they stand now, it would be the same as pro-slavery people back during the time when the changing in laws was being argued using things that occurred and stood before the debate began. So in the scenario I am talking about what happens now is irrelevant. You need to take yourself outside of the box and start thinking on the things that would be used in the future, and, if you can, find arguments to dispute them based on what could be, not what is.
Autonomy means "The right or condition of self-government:", if someone kidnaps you they take away that right, you are no longer able to self-govern, you are under the power of the kidnapper.
how so, you have stated numerous times .. that the reasons that a woman gets an abortion have nothing to do with self-defence or body autonomy, and while that may be correct as it stands now, it would be irrelevant in a post Roe world, hence you are trying to argue with items from now against an argument being presented for the future. So please do tell me how I am misrepresenting you?
At least we're directly addressing the issue, but I think we need to take things into context. I understand that you're talking about a post roe world, but that's irrelevant to the merits of my arguments. In a post roe world (in the hypothetical situation where abortion is kept legal,based on your justification that even a normal pregnancy is an injury) , would a woman really want to terminate her pregnancy because she doesn't like having a new organ, OR is that just an excuse to justify abortion legally? Probably B. That's why I don't think it's a relevant reason to keep abortion legal.
Ok, you are picking on a specific thing within a range of things, I thought we had gone passed this point when I explained to you that it is not the occurrence of single thing that creates the defence but the accumulation of all the things that occurred. If I remember rightly I said it something like this. A single cut is not a serious injury, 100 cuts is, and, again if I remember correctly, you agreed. So the single factor of the placenta growing is NOT the only and deciding factor, it is put a part of the overall set of issues.
To reply to what the threads about, what is it: It's the same thing no matter what you call it. The label is inconsequential; everybody knows exactly what it is all the same.
1-I don't disagree with that statement. 2-In previous comments, I explained why I believe those sets of issues don't justify abortion. Please don't go in circles.
and in previous comments I have explained why your beliefs are irrelevant in the matter without any evidence to support them, you to date have provided nothing, and if you want to stop going around in circles them stop asking the same questions over and over again, questions that have been answered enough times to fill a book, but you don't, you just ignore what does not suit your preconceptions despite being provided with evidence.
