Phatose on 6/6/2009 at 05:22
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
No its not. At least you can't prove it is.
Already been over this one.
Now, on to the other claim. This one is at least interesting, because it moves us out of the realm of the speculative and logical, and into the range of the testable. If every pregnancy is in fact a real threat to the life of the mother, then we should see it statistically - the death rates for pregnant women of a given group should be higher then non-pregnant women, consistently and across multiple control groups.
Do we have those numbers?
SubJeff on 6/6/2009 at 09:05
Let me tell you guys something about stats on deaths and disease.
There may be low risk of x, y or z but when its you, its you. I quote from your link Renz -"total of 4,200 deaths were determined to be pregnancy-related". That's everyone on TTLGs wife or girlfriend 10s or 100s of time over. And, yes, maternal death rates are low in countries with good heathcare systems but the a. death rate varies widely and b. like I say - if its you its you.
(
http://www.unicef.org/progressforchildren/2007n6/index_41814.htm)
Are you saying one rule for one group, another rule for the other? One rule for women in industrialised countries?
The fact is pregnancy causes extensive and profound physiological changes that present a risk to women at any stage in the pregnancy. In addition, and this is important, you have to consider morbidity as well a mortality. Death is not the only measure as you's know if your wife had pre-eclampsia (or even eclampsia), an embolism or anything else associated with or exacerbated by pregnancy. I'm not just talking about asking women to risk their lives but also their health.
I feel that some of your views are tantamount to
not treating someone for something because they
chose to do the activity that injured them, such as playing sport or drink driving. Medicine doesn't work that way.
Phatose - I'm sure you could find stats like that but do you need to really? Its so obvious I don't think its necessary. Fact: there is morbidity and mortality associated with pregnancy. Look it up if you really have to but I'm telling you, as a medical man, that this is definitely the case.
DDL on 6/6/2009 at 11:55
I'd still really like to get phatose's postion on rape babies clarified.
I mean, if you're arguing that willingly entering a situation (even if, say, all possibly birth control methods were employed, but simply failed) whereby it transpires you've created a human, that human now has full rights to existence and you cannot get rid of it, then how is that different if you were raped? The human that has been created is IDENTICAL IN ALL RESPECTS, yet you seem to be stating that it can be treated differently according to whether the mother had sex willingly or unwillingly.
Which tends to suggest your position's not really about the foetus at all, but more about punishing women for being slags, or something.
Or I could be overreading the case, so yeah: clarification plz?
Phatose on 6/6/2009 at 22:19
Subjective Effect, I'd very much like to see the stats, actually. After all, apparently around here what's intuitively obvious to one person is not to another. I can think of at least one case - Sickle Cell Anemia - where a condition creates a considerable health risk, but is still essentially beneficial in at least some cases because it also relieves other health risks - malaria. The statistics should clarify.
At any rate, I suspect you're aware that it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. Abortion is considerably more morally gray then simple treatment of injuries - no matter what risk there is to the health of the mother, there's an additional risk that we're wrong about what a fetus is, and we are in fact killing a human.
If treating a drunk driver for injuries involved killing an innocent, does your stance remain the same?
DDL - you're over reading. The rape exception was made to the logic, not to abortion itself - the logic used did not hold in rape cases, and handling rape cases as well was not actually necessary to the point I was making. So I simply excepted it because it was irrelevant.
Beyond that I don't care to address the issue - I've already had entirely too much shit slung my way for the non-edge cases of this theoretical to be willing to deal with the edge cases as well, especially when I don't need to prove the edge cases to invalidate the point I was arguing against.
SubJeff on 6/6/2009 at 22:31
Quote Posted by Phatose
S
If treating a drunk driver for injuries involved killing an innocent, does your stance remain the same?
Yes.
Been there, done that.
What stats do you want to see exactly?
Phatose on 6/6/2009 at 22:44
Comparative death rates of pregnant versus non-pregnant women in otherwise similar groups.
kidmystik101 on 6/6/2009 at 23:48
Quote Posted by Phatose
At any rate, I suspect you're aware that it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. Abortion is considerably more morally gray then simple treatment of injuries - no matter what risk there is to the health of the mother, there's an additional risk that we're wrong about what a fetus is, and
we are in fact killing a human.No.
Fetus =/= Human being. Not one with feelings, emotions or memory.
How many times people? A fetus is not a fucking adult. It's not even a child. Children learn, remember things, experience emotion. A fetus sits there and...exists. Untill such a time as it leaves the womb it's a parisite, really.
Queue on 7/6/2009 at 00:07
Quote Posted by kidmystik101
How many times people? A fetus is not a fucking adult. It's not even a child.
...and, really, they're not very filling.
Renzatic on 7/6/2009 at 00:17
The best thing about abortion threads is that it brings out the heartwarming best in all of us. It's like a Dr. Seuss childrens novel, but with people picketing gory pictures, shooting up poor doctors, and actively redefining the concept of life to justify their argument.
And the moral? Hell if I know. I think it has more to do with wanting to be right than anything.
Phatose on 7/6/2009 at 01:15
Quote Posted by kidmystik101
No.
Fetus =/= Human being. Not one with feelings, emotions or memory.
How many times people? A fetus is not a fucking adult. It's not even a child. Children learn, remember things, experience emotion. A fetus sits there and...exists. Untill such a time as it leaves the womb it's a parisite, really.
Wow, you'd think I'd have thought of someone making such an assertion without proof, and accounted for it....hey wait.
Quote:
there's an additional risk that we're wrong about what a fetus is, and we are in fact killing a human.
Oh right, I did.
So, have you got proof? Something undeniable, we could show to the pro-lifers and have them go "Oh, you're right"?
