89 replies to this topic

[Beckys_Mom]

Rlyeh, on 17 November 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

So you don't get that the mother's body is inherently her own?

Strictly speaking yes it is her own body.. But for someone who has been pregnant,  I can tell you that my body was not my own during pregnancy..  Pregnancy changes the body to great lengths.. It is kind of hard to explain..

In saying that,  this does not mean the woman should not abort  if her life is in danger  or she was raped ...

[Rlyeh]

Beckys_Mom, on 17 November 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

Strictly speaking yes it is her own body.. But for someone who has been pregnant,  I can tell you that my body was not my own during pregnancy..  Pregnancy changes the body to great lengths.. It is kind of hard to explain..

Thats not what I meant.
I meant it is you, biologically.

[Beckys_Mom]

Rlyeh, on 17 November 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Thats not what I meant.
I meant it is you, biologically.

That is why I said - Strictly speaking it is her body  ..

[Mr Walker]

Rlyeh, on 17 November 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

What definition of independent are you using?

Logically then she can still have it removed, as it is her body. To come to your conclusion you've got to ignore the fact she must give up her body.

Unless it offended God.

It is an independent entity, temporarily attached to a host, like a human being attached to a life support machine for 9 months. It is independent gentically, being a unique human being,combining two sets of genomes, and it will develop an independent body and mind. It is NOT a part of the mothers body, as all other organs are. It is evolved to separate and  have an independent life.

Why on earth do you think  a woman has to give up her body to have a child? Biologically mother hood iS the role of a womans body. It is a part and parcel of being a woman. Arguably the presence of a child in a woman's body completes the woman. It certainly doesnt subtract anything from a woman..

If a woman's life or health is threatened by having a child, that is an entirely separate matter and ethical situation, and we all have a right to maintain our health and well being.

Your last reference is both incomprehensible to me and, i suspect, puerile.  Kill your child after it is born, and you are a murderer, whatever god says. You still seem to be living in old testament times, or at least applying the legal principles of those times to the modern world. When is the last time god told you to kill a child because it offended him?

[Rlyeh]

Mr Walker, on 17 November 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

Why on earth do you think  a woman has to give up her body to have a child? Biologically mother hood iS the role of a womans body. It is a part and parcel of being a woman. Arguably the presence of a child in a woman's body completes the woman. It certainly doesnt subtract anything from a woman..

I have a question, as a person do you have the right to remove what ever is attached to your body?

Quote

Your last reference is both incomprehensible to me and, i suspect, puerile.  Kill your child after it is born, and you are a murderer, whatever god says. You still seem to be living in old testament times, or at least applying the legal principles of those times to the modern world. When is the last time god told you to kill a child because it offended him?

It was more a shot at your (rather lame) apologetic excuses for killing in the Bible.

Edited by Rlyeh, 17 November 2012 - 10:09 AM.

[Mr Walker]

Rlyeh, on 17 November 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

I have a question, as a person do you have the right to remove what ever is attached to your body?

It was more a shot at your (rather lame) apologetic excuses for killing in the Bible.

No. As a person I do not have a legal  right to remove another person/human being, attached to my body, if that might harm or kill them. As, for example, with conjoined twins.

You will have to remind me about my excuses for killing in the bible. Times were slightly different 2-4000 years ago. Laws ethics and moralities were different and matched the societies of the time. Only in the very  modern era have humans had the luxury of modern ethical and moral standards and the freedoms to apply them. I am not one to apply old testament laws to modern society, but i do believe america still has a death penalty in some states, for certain crimes.
In other words, even in the most modern of modern states, humans can legally be put to death for crimes against their society or individuals within the society. This was the same in biblical times and has been ever since, but; because crimes had harsher effects on people and on society, because social  order and safety was valued more than individual rights, and because human life was less valued, due to its harshness and brevity, the punishments were also harsher.

If you dont like judaeo- christian laws from a few millenia ago, I wonder how you would cope under maya/incan law, that of ghengis khan/ the mongols,  the vikings, or many other non christian societies. Mmnn!  How about life as an apache indian?

Edited by Mr Walker, 17 November 2012 - 12:25 PM.

[Sthenno]

Mr Walker, on 17 November 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

No. As a person I do not have a legal  right to remove another person/human being, attached to my body, if that might harm or kill them. As, for example, with conjoined twins.

Of course you don't have that right - because there's absolutely no situation in which such a right might be neccessary. Conjoined twins isn't an example, it's the only other possible situation in which you could have a person attached to you. And technically, conjoined twins do have this right. For example, a fully developed twin would have the legal right to remove a partially formed one.

[Beckys_Mom]

A pregnant woman does NOT have a baby attached to her ... It is INSIDE her

[Rlyeh]

Mr Walker, on 17 November 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

No. As a person I do not have a legal  right to remove another person/human being, attached to my body, if that might harm or kill them. As, for example, with conjoined twins.

So you wouldn't mind then if someone attached themselves to you? lmao.

Conjoined twins is a poor example of something attaching itself to your body.

Quote

You will have to remind me about my excuses for killing in the bible. Times were slightly different 2-4000 years ago. Laws ethics and moralities were different and matched the societies of the time. Only in the very  modern era have humans had the luxury of modern ethical and moral standards and the freedoms to apply them. I am not one to apply old testament laws to modern society, but i do believe america still has a death penalty in some states, for certain crimes.

Do you recall your asinine excuse for killing the sabbath breaker? Half of it you pulled out of thin air.
Even in the context of the time, your excuses and justification were convoluted to the point of utter nonsense.

Beckys_Mom, on 17 November 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

A pregnant woman does NOT have a baby attached to her ... It is INSIDE her

Which is attached to her.

[Beckys_Mom]

Rlyeh, on 17 November 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

Which is attached to her.

You say attached to her body, as if it was on the outside, that is your mistake here...It is NOT attached to her body... Something that grows inside you, is not classed as an attachment.. When something grows  on the outside of your body, that is classed as an attachment ..  

The word  'attached'  means to join or fastened on to something...Saying a woman who is pregnant, has a baby attached to her   as a way to describe it, does not sound medically correct

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 17 November 2012 - 03:24 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Beckys_Mom, on 17 November 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

You say attached to her body, as if it was on the outside, that is your mistake here...It is NOT attached to her body... Something that grows inside you, is not classed as an attachment.. When something grows  on the outside of your body, that is classed as an attachment ..  

The word  'attached'  means to join or fastened on to something...Saying a woman who is pregnant, has a baby attached to her   as a way to describe it, does not sound medically correct

Not sure where you got that idea from, the uterus is part of her body and the embryo attaches to the uterus.
http://www.ucsf.edu/...o-attach-uterus

[SUPERSquatch]

Legally, I'm with Roe v. Wade. But I don't even think legislature should be involved in the matter of abortion. I believe, also, morally, a woman has the choice to do whatever she wants with her body. Religion should DEFINITELY not get involved, as if they have any say at all in somebody's personal choices.

Mr Walker, on 17 November 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

No. As a person I do not have a legal  right to remove another person/human being, attached to my body, if that might harm or kill them.

Roe v. Wade actually says that a right to privacy extends to abortion, so it is a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.

Edited by Taylor Reints, 17 November 2012 - 03:57 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Rlyeh, on 17 November 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

Not sure where you got that idea from, the uterus is part of her body and the embryo attaches to the uterus.
http://www.ucsf.edu/...o-attach-uterus

Yes the embryo attaches itself to the uterus..

It was how you have worded it.. Look at this again  -  The baby is attached on to her body  <-- Not correct.. It sounds as if the baby is attached on the outside ..It is a simple matter of wording it right

[Rlyeh]

Beckys_Mom, on 17 November 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

Yes the embryo attaches itself to the uterus..

It was how you have worded it.. Look at this again  -  The baby is attached on to her body  <-- Not correct.. It sounds as if the baby is attached on the outside ..It is a simple matter of wording it right

Show me where I used the words "attached on to her body". I said attached to her, is the uterus part of her or not?

Edited by Rlyeh, 17 November 2012 - 04:01 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Rlyeh, on 17 November 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

Show me where I used the words "attached on to her body". I said attached to her, is the uterus part of her or not?

Attached to her body  is the same thing. When you attach something  it has to go ON something else.  Why split hairs? ..  Fact is you have it worded wrong..

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 17 November 2012 - 04:23 PM.