So in your mind, what's the connection between your denying children womb rights and your personal instances of condemning particular children to death? I am puzzled why you suggest there is no need for alarm whether a miscarriage is natural or unnatural. It bears a stark semblance to a sociopathic mental disease. I mean usually the phrase "death by natural causes" is conspicuous by its absence in homicide cases. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well this a thread primarily about abortion, no? I mean its not like you had a whole lot to say about Kids in brazil or car accident fatalities either so far ..... So if a case can be proven that she didn't want it, it is not a double homicide? You're not making things up again, are you? At the moment I am just pointing out the holes in the political language that your argument requires You said a majority of abortions are performed for valid reasons - what is an example of abortion (of the assumed minority) being performed for an invalid reason? An isolated incident in the life story of a refined gentleman do doubt ... now ask your cousin's daughter if she would have preferred to have met with the finesse and professionalism of an abortion clinic Far from requiring special terms to discuss her case, discussing her case highlights important questions behind the special terms your argument requires Let me point out the key problems with your use of the word Your thinking goes along these lines .... P1 - a parasite is something that sucks everything out of you P2 - a parasite is something we can kill on account of it sucking everything out of you P3 - A child in the womb sucks everything out of you Conclusion - Therefore killing a child in the womb is just like killing a parasite Its a fallacy of defective induction I think it makes more sense to question those seeking to kill their baby and those providing the service ... closing the ethical discussion on the implications of doing it unnaturally on grounds that it is already happening naturally is sociopathic. Difficult to answer since I am not sure how being a product of incest or rape grants one a different status in terms of justice or rights Do you have a link for that or is that another thing you made up? If you can't find the quote where I called all women whores, do you think you are capable of making an apology, or does your pride forbid you? You are saying that I am .. so far it seems you're making things up again since you haven't provided a quote Even if we want to turn a blind eye to the numerous political terms you require to maintain that pregnancy is purely an issue of women's health, I still don't see how you go from this to the idea that that all women are whores. Are you ever going to find quotes where I say these things or do I have to spend my time defending everything you imagine and make up? Still asking you why you think FMLTWIA uses whore in the demeaning sense. So far the only reason you appear to be giving is because it contains the word "whore" ... which means i guess that you have equal gripes with terms like "facebook whore " and so on Once again, please find the quote where I say these things. Defending myself against things you make up and imagine I say is getting tiring. Your failure to pay attention is mammoth You admit to not having particular problems with the word Even in your books you view killing as being worse than mere confounding of sexual etiquette sure its called putting up with your nonsense with patience Have you go the type of cancer that people get better from or the other type? I think that in discerning the validity of the decision, one should factor in that what one is dealing with is another life. IOW if all thinking on the matter boils down to "its my life and I can do what i want with it" its ethically unsound. You sound like the type of person who uses two fingers when texting I am saying you got the context wrong if you think its self demeaning I am more interested in why you are capable of playing several contexts to the word "retard" and can only apply one to "whore" (despite acknowledging that whore is a word subject to context in a previous post). then its as I expected You are simply being a troll that you are pretending to know stuff and making things up. Please provide a link for your claim that doctor's are legally bound or even commonly in the habit of providing emergency medical care for a fetus that survives an abortion Nothing in those links to suggest that nurses in california during 1977 (you know, the place where Gianna survived her abortion) were legally permitted to carry out third trimester abortions ... although if it took till 1994 for a PA to be legally permitted to perform first trimester abortion, I think we can effectively rule out the possibility of a nurse performing it in 1977? What now? Do you wan to make some more stuff up? Do you think an abortion carried out in the third trimester is done on zygotes? So if one postpones this "identity bestowing" ritual, one can given one's self a bit more time to decide whether to kill them or not? this claim You attempted to say that had the doctor been there, she would have been killed after she was born. We both know that would not have been the case. Approximately 14 000 of them a day. take your pick http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/pro-abortion.htm http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/proabortion-group-fined-20101223-196kz.html Now are you going to find links for your stuff or are going to continue to make up stuff to prove that you don't make stuff up? So you are willing to concede that later term abortion kills children? Why do you ask me to answer to views I didn't make? why do you make this stuff up? I have talked extensively about how pregnancy deals with another life other than the mother, and how this weighs on the ethical considerations of abortion. Nowhere have i said that a child in the womb has more rights than the mother. If you disagree, find the quote where I said it. denied what? the right to kill it? The answer isn't obvious? I beg to differ this what you posted No I don't understand that is what I am advocating in this thread, since nowhere have I said anything like what you are going on about. If you disagree, find a quote. You are just making stuff up (again) and? then I guess you haven't been paying attention .... ... but then again, maybe you were, since you edited it out of your reply ... go figure Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! its ethically sound when you factor in what you are dealing with is another life its not ethically sound when you insist all one has to factor in is the mother's consent then, for a start, bringing in extreme cases of pregnant women's lives being in danger is a disingenuous maneuver on your behalf Your inability to discuss ethics outside of the dialectics of legislation is charming . usually the way it works is that ethical discussion frames social attitudes which in turn trickle down to decisions about legislating (or even not legislating) changes. For instance its perfectly legal to smoke 5 packs a day while pregnant. Suggesting that any sort of ethical discussion about it is null and void because its impractical to install ultrasounds at all the places that sell cigarettes (or whatever other solution one imagine legislation requires in order to criminalize and pursue the culprits) is simply stupid. In fact its the sort of crap one would expect to hear from cigarette companies (ie persons who have a view shrouded in personal gain, etc) I've already answered these q's ... several times in fact the reality of abortion is that not even a majority of cases have life threatening conditions (eg ectopic pregnancy) or even under age rape (even if we want to assume that being born as a consequence of rape to an under age mother is a just cause for being discriminated against) as a contributing factor. You are making things up again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death#Maternal_Mortality_Ratio_.28MMR.29 I don't see how questioning the validity of an abortion denies a woman the right to have it ... particularly if its considered valid to have an abortion if the life is in threat. I also don't see how disbanding any sort of inquiry or discussion into the validity of abortion (on the basis that in certain circumstances it is valid) saves more lives ... unless of course one leans heavily on political language to relegate the topic purely to the lives of pregnant mothers How does it work asking persons to defend claims that you can't quote them as saying? Is that acceptable to you?