Tribal leader rallies for abortion clinic on reservation
Oglala Sioux Tribe President Cecelia Fire Thunder says a clinic on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation could provide abortions if South Dakotas new abortion ban goes into effect.
Were working on it, Fire Thunder said in a telephone interview Friday. This is a free-choice issue. If I were in that situation, Id want somewhere to go where Id be taken care of.
The new South Dakota law bans all abortions except to save the life of the mother with no exceptions for rape or incest.
Fire Thunder said the state law would not apply to the reservation. Were a sovereign nation, she said.
The new law is set to go into effect July 1, but a court challenge almost certainly will delay it, and opponents of the law are already gathering signatures to put it on the ballot in November.
Fire Thunder, in fact, is one of 15 co-leaders of the new South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, which on Friday announced a statewide campaign to overturn the new law.
South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long declined to comment on the proposal, saying he likely would have to write a description of the new law for ballots in November.
Long said that major crimes committed on reservations come under state jurisdiction if they are committed by non-Indians against non-Indians. Other major crimes fall under federal law.
Rapid City attorney Charlie Abourezk, who has experience in Indian law and who has represented tribes and President Fire Thunder, said Indian doctors might be immune from the new state law if abortions were done on a reservation whether the woman was Indian or non-Indian.
University of South Dakota law professor Frank Pommersheim, an expert in Indian law, agreed that Fire Thunders proposal was potentially workable especially if doctors were Indians and if the clinic were on Indian trust land.
Pommersheim said licensing could pose a problem. Physicians licensed by the state of South Dakota could face penalties, but he also said tribes might set up their own licensing procedures.
Long said that Indian Health Service physicians dont have to be licensed by South Dakota as long as they have licenses from other jurisdictions.
State Rep. Elizabeth Kraus, R-Rapid City, who voted for the new abortion ban, said state legislators did not anticipate a tribal government setting up a clinic. I think its poor policy because I dont believe in abortion unless its to save the life of a mother, Kraus said. I dont believe abortion is the answer to womens problems.
Fire Thunders proposal will be moot if South Dakotas new abortion ban never goes into effect. In fact, she predicted a federal court would rule it unconstitutional. But she said if the law did go into effect, she would work to open a clinic, maybe even on land she would donate. Weve got lawyers working on it right now, she said.
Earlier in the week, Fire Thunder told newspaper columnist Tim Giago that she would personally establish a Planned Parenthood Clinic on my own land.
Planned Parenthood officials expressed gratitude for the offer in a news release Friday but said they didnt plan to open a reservation clinic.
It doesnt have to be Planned Parenthood, Fire Thunder said Friday.
Fire Thunder has worked as a licensed practical nurse, and she has helped set up community health clinics in Los Angeles. She said the tribe could set up its own clinic. If we choose to do this, we can.
Fire Thunder said such a clinic could serve women from throughout the region. But she also emphasized the clinics local effect. We want to have a viable option closer to home, Fire Thunder said in a written statement issued late Friday afternoon. Of course, in our culture, children are sacred, but women are sacred too, and somebody who has been victimized by rape or incest should have options.
...
Should this be in Marble Gardens, or is here fine?
And hurray for South Dakota, by the way.
I have to say I'm pro-choice. Abortion should *not* be a decision to be taken lightly (and I'd wager it very seldom is), but it should be available. If I were raped, I would not want to be carrying the rapist's child - and if abortion were not available to me, I'd wonder what sort of lengths I would go to in order to get rid of it.
Equally, though, in normal circumstances there should be responsibility on the part of both partners to use contraceptives if they don't want children - or to abstain entirely if they don't believe in contraceptives. Abortion should not be available just because the partners shirked their responsibilities.
I guess those are my views on the subject - bottom line, I wouldn't want to be forced into taking on what is a lifelong responsibility by someone else, whoever they were.
DW
Same. Hurray for SD, except for the no-rape exclusion or lack of it. Other than that, I jsut scanned it. Did Ms. Fire Thunder - Damn, I wish I had a cool name like that - say it was for any ol' kill or jsut for rape, incest, life-threatening, etc?
Let's just step back for a moment, darkwing. Let me ask you this; should the sins of the father (the rapist) result in the death of an innocent (the child)? Heck, if you don't want the baby, you could give it away. I agree, rapists are disgusting and evil...but who should be punished? The guilty party or the unborn child? Nine months, or a life extinguished?
But I wouldn't be able to walk up to a rape victim and tell her that she had no choice in the matter; I would have mercy for the woman faced with what is clearly a moral conundrum for her. I will forgive her if she finds herself unable to make the decision that I would prefer to see her make. I know it is one that she will wrestle with and one I hope she seeks God's help with; whichever way she decides.
And hurray for South Dakota, by the way.
Uh, why? Arguments as to the morality/legality of abortion aside, what exactly will this law accomplish when all is said and done? There are already a dozen or so cases in court, it's going to cost a lot of money, and SCOTUS will strike down the law, not to mention force the state to pay for everyone's legal fees. Anyone who wants an abortion now can just go to North Dakota, and those who are too poor to do so will just have their lives ruined. All they've managed to do is make some news and waste a ton of money.
Heck, if you don't want the baby, you could give it away.
Jesus H. Christ, you have learned absolutely nothing. Stop posting, re-read this thread, pay close attention to the stuff about how dumb you are for thinking adoption is a viable solution, and come back when you have an argument other than the one we practically obliterated two months ago.
Here's what it comes down to Cycle; do you value life or not?
In the United States, there are three inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
With the exception of endangerment to life of the mother, aborting a child is infringing upon his or her right to life. Understand?
Whereas denying that is infringing upon their liberty and their pursuit of happiness. Arguments working both ways: 2 Ultra: 1
Oh, and on topic, this thread has some of the coolest names ever! Larry Long is awseome.
Denying their liberty and pursuit of happiness, eh?
It boggles the mind how a child can infringe upon one's liberty. Or one's pursuit of happiness, for that matter.
Here's what it comes down to Cycle; do you value life or not?
Your right to say holier-than-thou bull like that begins when you become a breatharian and stop damaging the environment.
With the exception of endangerment to life of the mother, aborting a child is infringing upon his or her right to life. Understand?
A tiny, slimy, pulsating collection of organic tissues neither legally nor scientifically qualifies as a human child and has no more "right to life" than an insect, cow, rat, tree, monkey, bacterium, virus or fungus spore.
Quote:
A tiny, slimy, pulsating collection of organic tissues neither legally nor scientifically qualifies as a human child and has no more "right to life" than an insect, cow, rat, tree, monkey, bacterium, virus or fungus spore.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong a thousand times WRONG!
Quote:
The humanity of the unborn: Are the unborn human? Yes. Biologically, the unborn are not only human, they have an individual human genetic identity; 46 human chromosomes. Virtually all medical authorities (physicians, biologists, etc.) agree with geneticist Ashley Montagu who wrote: the fact is simple. Life begins not at birth, but at conception. J. Lejeune of Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Downs syndrome, observed: Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.
Quote:
When does human life begin? At conception, states Professor W. Bowes of the University of Colorado. Professor M. Matthews-Roth of Harvard writes: It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception. Dr. Mary Calderon of Planned Parenthood in the 1960s, wrote: Fertilization has taken place; a baby has been conceived.
Everything that defines a person physically is present at fertilizationonly oxygen, nutrients and time to develop are required. The unborn child has his or her own genetic code, EEG trackings, and circulatory system. Often, the blood type and sex of the unborn child will also differ from that of the mother. The heart of the unborn child begins beating at 18 days, and is pumping blood at 21 days. The brain is functioning at 40 daysEEG trackings have been made at less than six weeks gestation. The unborn child responds to stimuli by the sixth to eighth week. Rapid Eye Movements (R.E.M.s) characteristic of actual dream states, are present in 23 weeks. There are clearly two distinct individuals (mother and child) present during pregnancy.
Quote:
Philosophical debates about the personhood of the human unborn resemble the old, medieval arguments about ensoulment. Dr. J.C. Willke, former head of National Right to Life, summarizes the case against abortion as follows:
Ask the question, is this fertilized ovum alive? Yes, by any dimension of that word, this fertilized ovum is alive, growing, replacing multiplying cells, life. Is this fertilized ovum human? How can you tell a human from a rabbit, from a carrot? Genetic chromosomes. Take a look, 46 human chromosomes, this is a member of the human species. This is human, growing, intact, programmed from within, moving forward in a self-controlled ongoing process of maturation, development, sexed male or female, replacement of his or her own dying cells, within ten days taking control of the host body that this little being grows within, controlling physiologically the host body for the balance of that gestation time, enlarging her breasts, softening her pelvic bones, setting his own birthday, all this controlled by the developing baby, this is alive, human and sexed.
Thats the biological measurement. Total intactness from a single cell. Youre 40 million million cells, but every single cell is the identical replication, genetically speaking, of the first one. Nothing was added to that single cell, who you once were, nothing but nutrition. Biologically, there isnt a perception, there isnt an opinion, biological, its absolute...
What are the other yardsticks? They all fall into a category that can be described as philosophic theories. This is not human until an exchange of love, until a certain degree of consciousness, until a certain degree of maturation, until a certain degree of independence, viability, until birth...certain IQ, whatever. Now, all of those are used as yardsticks to define the word human life or if you please, person. Now the question is, what do they all have in common? Not one is subject to natural science and proof. They are all beliefs or theories. People of good will differ diametrically upon these and if you put six such people in the room, you might get six different answers.
We believe the yardsticks of philosophic measurement of the word human life should be subject to the same political judgment as the religious beliefs on human life and just as we should not impose a religious faith, belief upon our neighbors through force of law, so we should not impose a philosophic theory upon our neighbors through force of law...we would go back to the one area that we cannot disagree on, that is the biologic judgment, and we would say that the...question, is this human life, should be answered scientifically.
Find a better argument.
And by the way...
Me: Here's what it comes down to Cycle; do you value life or not?
You: Your right to say holier-than-thou bull like that begins when you become a breatharian and stop damaging the environment.
Just right below it...
You: A tiny, slimy, pulsating collection of organic tissues
Thanks for answering my question. At the very least, it seems as though unborn (yet still living) humans don't qualify as human life to you.
You're backing up your argument with a partisan editorial, which backs up its argument with stuff scientists said thirty-forty years ago. Find a peer-reviewed, scientific, recent paper that says a fetus is a person. Find a legal ruling that says a fetus has the same rights as a person. Explain why it's okay to execute a walking, talking, thinking criminal, or to financially support a government that executes criminals, or to invade a country, or to eat beef, but not okay to kill a fetus.
From The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed., in 1998...
Quote:
"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."
Now I ask you to find a scientifc paper that says otherwise.
Quote:
Explain why it's okay to execute a walking, talking, thinking criminal
Broke the law. And considering that execution is reserved for serious crimes like murder, you have a problem with this?
Quote:
or to financially support a government that executes criminals
What part of criminal don't you understand?
Quote:
or to invade a country
Depends. The War in Iraq is an example of invasion I support, seeing as how it ended a totalitarian regime and put a democratic government in power. Now, if we're talking about the invasion of, say Finland by the Soviet Union...then that's another matter altogether. It largely depends on the reasoning behind the invasion.
Quote:
or to eat beef
...are you actually drawing a parallel between killing a cow for food and killing an innocent baby?
Such an abortion of logic should be illegal. But alas...
Now I ask you to find a scientifc paper that says otherwise.
The quote you provided doesn't conclude that a fetus is a person, merely that it is alive. There is no debate as to whether it's alive and contains human genes. The sheer fact that it's alive and technically human doesn't make it any more a person than a tumor. The fact that it has the potential to become a person is meaningless; the legal rights of a person depend on that person's current state, not the future, otherwise we would limit terminally ill people with only nine months left to live to the rights of a corpse.
Quote:
In the United States, there are three inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That's not true. That was put in the Declaration of Independence and is not the law of the U.S. If it were, then there would be no reason for the constant "fight" over abortion, capital punishment, gay marriage, illegality of drugs, etc. Everything would be pretty much covered as the large majority of things would fall under "pursuit of happiness" or "life." Remember, if something is "inalienable," then it cannot ever be given up. Our laws for many different reasons are contrary to the idea of "inalienable rights." But since only the Declaration of Independence mentions it, it's a moot point anyway.
Quote:
The quote you provided doesn't conclude that a fetus is a person, merely that it has the potential to become one.
...
Quote:
A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.
And you still haven't shown me a scientific paper that says a zygote is not a human life.
Quote:
The legal rights of a person depend on that person's current state, not the future, otherwise we would limit terminally ill people with only nine months left to live to the rights of a corpse.
Zygote = Alive
Terminally ill Person = Alive
Corpse = Dead
Quote:
That's not true. That was put in the Declaration of Independence and is not the law of the U.S.
True that TR, but the premise of those three rights IS present within our current system of law (For instance, criminals; infringe upon someone's right to life by killing them? You lose your right to life in return. And so on and so forth). And the reason they are called 'inalienable' is, IIRC, to show that they are not rights given to the people by the government, but rights of the people that the government protects. If government is the sole power dicating what rights the citzenry should or should not have, then nothing could stop them (theoretically) from taking those rights away.
Quote:
And the reason they are called 'inalienable' is, IIRC, to show that they are not rights given to the people by the government, but rights of the people that the government protects. If government is the sole power dicating what rights the citzenry should or should not have, then nothing could stop them (theoretically) from taking those rights away.
That's what I just said, Ultra. However, the laws of the U.S. do not support that idea in the least.
I have clarified my statement. (see above)
Zygote = Not a person
Terminally-ill person = A person
Cow = Not a person
Criminal = A person
Corpse = Not a person
This is where we get into an area of disagreement.
Zygote = A person
Terminally-ill person = A person
Cow = Not a person
Criminal = A person
Corpse = Not a person
Yes, I know. Would you care to, like, elaborate on that?
Cycle, there's a bit of a difference between a tumor and a zygote. A tumor is an abnormal growth resulting from uncontrollable multiplication of cells. It serves no physiological function.
A zygote, on the other hand, is a unique human life. It is totally unique in the aspect that there has never been a human like it before, nor will there be another like it in the future. And unfortunately, millions have been lost.
A zygote is not a freakin' person. It's a bunch of freakin' cells that have meshed together for christ's sake.
And I'm sorry, Ultra, but screw you on this:
I agree, rapists are disgusting and evil...but who should be punished? The guilty party or the unborn child? Nine months, or a life extinguished?
... ... ... a raped victim should NEVER have to go through that thought. Should never even have a second thought. It's not theirs. It was never agreed to be theirs. Why should a woman have to be forced to endure such a thought for nine grueling months, let alone finally go through the painful labor of giving birth to a child that she will probably want nothing to do with.
Get rid of it before it grows limbs, a brain, and a heart. That's when it's freakin' human. Open a god damned chicken egg. See all that crap in there? That a damn chicken to you? No. Thus it's not alive. It's not even anything. Just some white/yellow glob of nothing.
I'm so sick and tired of these gay/abortion arguments only to be sited by the freakin' book of some damn religion. To force everything and excuse anything only because your god says so is no damn better than being a damn extremist to anything else. Saying "do this because such and such deity said so" is bull.
I'm not usually one to blow up like this anymore but god damn I'm sick and tired of it all.
Jin Wins.
Now stop MGing up this topic and go play nice.
Ultra, you refer to abortion as murder, but how can you be so sure that an unborn baby's brain would have developed enough to be conscious, and to have already had a point of view? To me it seems more like an issue of stopping the pregnancy before the baby develops into a conscious human being. I wouldn't consider it a human being until it is born, because at least we know then for sure that it is conscious and has feelings and a point of view. We're not taking all those things away, we're just refusing to give them to them...
Now I don't know much about how and when abortions are performed. Now, probably between conception and birth the foetus (SP?) develops consciousness. But considering a point of view comes from the brain, I would say the time at which it does would probably be much closer to birth than it would be to conception.
Now, the "tell her that" article you linked to is one that I have neither the time nor the inclination to read, but just because one person was happy despite having to raise a kid, doesn't mean every one of them would be. I'm sure most of them had lots of dreams, they wanted to do a certain thing with their life and now they can't because they're kept with the burden of raising a child. I don't think I'd EVER want to raise a kid. I could understand why so many women would never want to raise a kid.
Think about it, women who never had intentions or even made a commitment or even promise to live up to the heavy responsibilities of being parents would be forced to carry a child they would have to protect, then forced to go the physical pain of childbirth, then forced to give up her education (in the more extreme situation of unwanted teen pregnancy) and thus the dreams that would have required that education to begin with, (including careers or other aspects of her life that may affect many many people's lives not just one person's life) then learn how to raise a child and and if they fail to live up to something they didn't even promise they could get charged with negligence. Expectations are being made of them that they in many cases may have realized they couldn't live up to.
And why? Maybe the woman was raped.
Maybe one woman might have been threatened by the rapist not to tell or she would be killed. And maybe another woman would get off more easily than another by lying and saying she was raped.
Maybe the birth control failed.
Maybe both partners remembered what they learned in Grade 9 and decided that they'd both use birth control but it failed in both parts of the relationship.
Maybe the woman was conned into sex.
I learned in one of my sex ed. courses in school that sometimes partners in a relationship try to persuade the other partner into sex by saying things like "you won't have sex with me because you don't love me" and I guess that would sort of persuade the other partner that way.
But how can we know?
Really, what can we do? Can we send police into bedrooms 24/7 to inspect on who is persuading who to do what? No, it'd be impossible, it'd be a MAJOR violation of privacy (in cases where nobody else would be watching them OTHERWISE, of course) and it'd be a waste of police officers if not a hugely wasteful approach in istelf to begin with. Now you could try hooking up both partners to lie detectors and ask an extensive series of questions that evaluate every possibility to try to see who's responsible and who deserves what. The most obvious problem with that approach is simply that lie detectors don't always work.
A more practical way of doing it is simple: Allow abortions. You suggest they give the child away. As my uncle would say, "a lot more people get pregnant by accident than are going to adopt a kid someone else made" so adoption isn't always an option, rhyme being unintentional. Besides, the world's overpopulation problem is bad enough. The smaller the population of humans the better it is for humans in the long run. We can have more sustainable development if our human population is smaller. Not as many humans will be taking up resources... not as many will be needed to be employed in factories. If our population on this planet were 1% of what it is now, we could allow 10 times as much pollution into the atmosphere and have 1/10th as much pollution to deal with.
Now I'm not saying most pregnancies are unwanted, but knowing that they're not doing something illegal will mean much more if they get pregnant and consider not having the child.
By the way, I reloaded the page and noticed there were two pages so I clicked the second page. It says abortion eliminated people with cures for diseases and ways to fix social problems, and eliminated leaders and thinkers. Stem cell research can cure disease. Less overpopulation would reduce the harm done by social problems. Furthermore, I think the woman who could have gotten a good enough education to get into office would be more likely to be a world leader than the kid who ended up living in a poor family because that woman couldn't have an abortion. So Ultra, quite frankly I believe that since we don't know for sure that it is a conscious human being you're killing by stopping the pregnancy, it'd be better for the child, the mother, probably for everyone to allow abortion.
Quote:
... ... ... a raped victim should NEVER have to go through that thought. Should never even have a second thought. It's not theirs. It was never agreed to be theirs. Why should a woman have to be forced to endure such a thought for nine grueling months, let alone finally go through the painful labor of giving birth to a child that she will probably want nothing to do with.
Life is not fair. Rape victims have endured a horrible act of evil men. Those who end up getting pregnant from rape have a decision to make. Even if it may not seem fair to give birth to the child, would killing it somehow right the wrong of the rapist?
As I've said before, however, I will not say to a rape victim that they cannot abort (due to the nature of the crime afflicted upon them). Nevertheless, I think the consequences of abortion are more dire.
Quote:
Get rid of it before it grows limbs, a brain, and a heart. That's when it's freakin' human.
The first two are visible within the first month. Brain waves are usually detected by day 40. It is human from conception (as scientific study has said over and OVER again), whether you say so or not.
Quote:
Open a god damned chicken egg. See all that crap in there? That a damn chicken to you? No. Thus it's not alive. It's not even anything. Just some white/yellow glob of nothing.
And a chicken is equal to a human...how?
Quote:
A zygote is not a freakin' person. It's a bunch of freakin' cells that have meshed together for christ's sake.
Technically, you and I are "freakin' cells that have meshed together". What's your point?
Quote:
Now, the "tell her that" article you linked to is one that I have neither the time nor the inclination to read, but just because one person was happy despite having to raise a kid, doesn't mean every one of them would be. I'm sure most of them had lots of dreams, they wanted to do a certain thing with their life and now they can't because they're kept with the burden of raising a child. I don't think I'd EVER want to raise a kid. I could understand why so many women would never want to raise a kid.
It's not even that long. And as my parentS (and a great deal many more) will tell you, raising a child is both a burden and a blessing. It's a shame you have to focus on the burden part. I can think of plenty of reasons to raise a kid. And didn't I already say my piece on rape victims who DO decide to abort?
Quote:
Now I don't know much about how and when abortions are performed.
Lucky you. When I found out at 13, I became nauseous. Gruesome stuff.
Quote:
Really, what can we do? Can we send police into bedrooms 24/7 to inspect on who is persuading who to do what? No, it'd be impossible, it'd be a MAJOR violation of privacy (in cases where nobody else would be watching them OTHERWISE, of course) and it'd be a waste of police officers if not a hugely wasteful approach in istelf to begin with. Now you could try hooking up both partners to lie detectors and ask an extensive series of questions that evaluate every possibility to try to see who's responsible and who deserves what. The most obvious problem with that approach is simply that lie detectors don't always work.
...what? What the heck are you talking about? Where have I mentioned or even talked about the prospect of having police watch people having sex?
Quote:
Besides, the world's overpopulation problem is bad enough. The smaller the population of humans the better it is for humans in the long run. We can have more sustainable development if our human population is smaller. Not as many humans will be taking up resources... not as many will be needed to be employed in factories. If our population on this planet were 1% of what it is now, we could allow 10 times as much pollution into the atmosphere and have 1/10th as much pollution to deal with.
I don't know how many times I've had to deal with this overpopulation argument. If one person (let's go with a hypothetical 10 billion population figure) lived on one acre and nothing else, then you'd have an area roughly 40,468,564.22 square kilometers large. Earth has 148 million square kilometers of land...so that's over 100 million square kilometers left over. Overpopulation?
When you take into account the fact that multiple people live on one acre of land, then you have much more room left over.
And a single volcanic eruption produces more greenhouse gasses than all of America's cars produce in a year. What's your point?
Quote:
It says abortion eliminated people with cures for diseases and ways to fix social problems, and eliminated leaders and thinkers. Stem cell research can cure disease. Less overpopulation would reduce the harm done by social problems. Furthermore, I think the woman who could have gotten a good enough education to get into office would be more likely to be a world leader than the kid who ended up living in a poor family because that woman couldn't have an abortion. So Ultra, quite frankly I believe that since we don't know for sure that it is a conscious human being you're killing by stopping the pregnancy, it'd be better for the child, the mother, probably for everyone to allow abortion.
Ah, the old 'embryonic stem cells' argument...let's go over the numerous talking points now and get them out of the way.
1) There is no ban on stem cell research
2) There is extensive government support for adult, marrow, and umbilical stem cell research.
3) There are restrictions on using federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. State, insititional and corporate money is not affected by this narrow "ban."
4) California alone has a very large sum ($3 billion?) set aside for embryonic stem cell research, but it's not worth it because...
5) ... so far, embryonic stem cells have not been able to grow anything but fast-growing cancers. They have produced no therapies for any illnesses.
6) No embryonic stem cell therapy has made it to animal trials.
7) On the other hand, adult & umbilical stem cells have almost 100 proven therapeutic treatments and over 1,000 human clinical trials underway.
All stem cell successes to date -- all! -- have been with autologous or umbilical cells. This includes routine treatments for one-time death sentences like non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
9) One enormous advantage of autologous stem cells is that they normally do not provoke any autoimmune response, as they are a natural tissue match -- genetically identical with their own donor/recipient.
And how the heck would the child be better off if he's killed before he's even born?
Quote:
10 PRINT "NOW RINSE"
20 PRINT "AND REPEAT"
30 GOTO 20
RUN
It's the whole same debate all over again, and the King still believes that if unwanted they can be called parasites.
*The King then proceeds to talk to a brick wall*
Quote:
It's the whole same debate all over again, and the King still believes that if unwanted they can be called parasites.
Even though by the very definition of the word 'parasite' unborn children can't qualify.
Dictionary definition:
parasite ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.
Why should a mother that doesn't which to keep a parasite be forced to? In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, an 'unborn child'/professional dinner guest qualifies as a parasite.
Didn't I already say MY piece on how there's other problems than rape such as the woman being conned into sex?
Under the law, that is for all intents and purposes, rape.
From Ultra's "why a baby is not a parasite" link
Quote:
by Thomas L. Johnson
Libertarians for Life
Copyright 1974
31 years :O
1.
Quote:
a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
b) A human embryo or foetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
I still see it as the dictionary definition, if the foetus is unwanted, it be a parasite.
2
Quote:
a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
b) A human embryo or foetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
The sperm is from outside :O
3.
Quote:
a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harbouring the parasite.
b) A human embryo or foetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
Financial, emotional, morning sickness, fatness, large titties, back pains, childbirth pains all caused by the unwanted parasite :O
4
Quote:
a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).
b) A human embryo or foetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
It steals the nutrients from the mother; therefore I dont distinguish the two from each other. They just use different means to steal this energy. And as I said, if this thing is taking the nutrients from the mother that doesnt want it, it is therefore a parasite.
5.
Quote:
a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
b) When the human embryo or foetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
Sometimes The body reacts differently to different parasites. Hormones perhaps.
6.
Quote:
a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)
b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or foetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
The baby makes the hormones :O @ New evidence 1974indeed
7.
Quote:
a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
b) A human embryo or foetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or foetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
Propaganda and bias 😀 The mother can be affected in many ways by being forced to have a parasite that is unwanted.
8
Quote:
a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
b) A human embryo or foetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
Worms? If you dont scratch your arse and put it near your mouth the worms go away like magic 😀 The foetus or parasite as I call it lasts longer than the worms. The unwanted parasite gets too fat, as such has to leave.
Quote:
A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).
A human embryo or foetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.
This may not always be positive, in the case I am saying, which is when the pregnancy is unwanted, therefore it is not positive for the mother.
This is all opinionated, with little based on fact. I based my view upon a dictionary definition, not what appears to be some pro-life bias.
Okay...RIDDLE ME THIS:
Why is it counted as a double murder when someone kills a pregnant woman?
This woman could be on her way to an abortion clinic, yet the murderer would still be charged with a double murder...
See, the problem with this is, where do we draw the line? At what moment does life begin?
I could start going off on some stupid rant, but I won't because I'll only get carefully ripped apart.
Quote:
Under the law, that is for all intents and purposes, rape.
Ok. So my comment earlier was about how you wouldn't know who could "prove" who was raped and who'd be able to "prove" who was conned. So they would actually be classified in the same category. Why not just make it easier for everyone and allow abortion?
As for the comments about killing an unborn baby with the mother being counted as double murder, I don't agree with that.
I remember hearing about the Scott Peterson case on GS forums where people were saying "oh so why does this person get charged with murdering an unborn baby and yet people who have abortions get let off" First and foremost the woman didn't want to have the baby aborted. (Of what I remember) Second of all, I don't think the same people who support abortion necessarily see that as double murder. I saw that case the murder, of one person: His wife. He should be punished as having killed one person. I also believe even people who double murder shouldn't be executed.
(I don't know whether or not he was exectued though)
Also, Ultra, your comment about volcanic eruptions does not take into account other sources of pollution than cars such as factories and fossil-fuel-fired power plants. It also doesn't take into account that nature would balance things out but humans adding more to the environment would upset that balance. The less humans there are the easier it is to avoid accidentaly upsetting that balance.
I've pretty much said everything I need to say on abortion for now...but first things first.
Quote:
Also, Ultra, your comment about volcanic eruptions does not take into account other sources of pollution than cars such as factories and fossil-fuel-fired power plants. It also doesn't take into account that nature would balance things out but humans adding more to the environment would upset that balance. The less humans there are the easier it is to avoid accidentaly upsetting that balance.
Annually, humans emit a grand total of 28 trillion kilograms of greenhouse gasses in a year. Which is 5% of total greenhouse gas emissions (with the rest being by plants, oceanic vents, soil respiration, and volcanoes). Total greenhouse gas emissions annually averages out at 550 trillion kilograms.
And here's a pop quiz: what is the most abundant greenhouse gas of all?
Answer: Water vapor. Anywhere from 36-70% of the greenhouse gasses in the air at any time is water vapor. Carbon dioxide? 9-26%.
FYI, humans ARE part of nature. The Earth IS balancing out everything. Upset the balance? You have no idea how tough the Earth is then, do you?
I think we're all a little off topic... what do people think about the actual article? That is, using the self-sovereignty of Native American reservations to maneuver around a law? Not abortion in general.... we've been through that a million times.
Some chime-ins:
Adoption for rape victims is really not a good option. Adoption itself is hard, like the rape victim Ultra quoted (I'm sure if you prowl the internet, you'll find similar cases.) A woman nurtures the kid for 9 months, gives birth to it, holds it in her arms once, and then social services takes the baby away so she never sees it again. It's an incredible feeling of loss. On the one hand she spends much of her life regretting giving up the baby, wondering what could've been, but on the other hand, she knows she emotionally or financially just wouldn't be able to cope with raising a child. Adoption is something she'll have to live with her whole life, whether she raises the child or not. Certainly abortion is not a good alternative, but I'm just saying that adoption is not the win-win solution for rape victims we often make it out to be. Emergency contraception should be part of medical treatment for every rape victim so they don't get pregnant to begin with.
--
I still think killing a pregnant woman is worse of a crime than killing a nonpregnant woman. A majority of the time, the woman and her family have already formed an emotional bond with the unborn baby. If the murderer kills a woman and then tears her photos to shreds, mutilates her corpse, and stabs her puppy, of course I would give him a harsher sentence though he's only technically committed one murder. The increased mental anguish caused to the family is enough to categorize the crime as cruel and unusual, even if only one living human was killed. Also, killing a pregnant woman is definitely not pro-choice since you're making the decision for her. Even if she were driving to the abortion clinic as she was killed... she could've changed her mind right there on the operating table. At that very second. But by killing her, she doesn't even have that chance.
--
I agree with matthayter; an educated woman is more likely of becoming a great thinker of the world than an unwanted baby. This is not to say that an educated woman won't become a criminal and an unwanted baby won't become a great doctor. However, given the likelihoods, abortion has a greater net effect of reducing crime than reducing, say, medical developments. This isn't necessarily a moral defense of abortion, but a statistical cause-and-effect relationship (assuming that most abortions are performed on lower-income, lower-education women, that unwanted children put up for adoption are more prone to crime, yadda yadda. A lot of assumptions that may or may not be true). To be drastic, you could stop all crime by killing everyone, or drugging them to take away their free will. Would you do it?
--
Quote:
When you take into account the fact that multiple people live on one acre of land, then you have much more room left over.
The problem with overpopulation isn't that we'll become so crowded we run out of room. The problem is resource degradation caused by people in developing countries trying to extend agriculture to land that's poor for farming. You end up with land that was formerly grassland or forest, where the topsoil, which took hundreds of years to accumulate, is stripped away so that nothing can grow at all, agriculture, livestock pasture, nothin', and it erodes into nasty dust storms. You have bodies of water so depleted of fish that those populations can't grow back, even if you leave it alone. Greenhouse effect aside, you have a greater number of smoggy days in cities where air quality is "red," affecting people with asthma and the elderly. I don't have anything against sustainable growth, but it does have to be sustainable. That said... abortion is not the solution to overpopulation any more than eugenics, assisted suicide, or any other morally questionable procedure. Most of the population increase in the US anyway, since birth rates are decreasing due to contraception, education opportunities for women, etc, will be due to middle-aged people getting old, not young girls having babies.
Quote:
The problem with overpopulation isn't that we'll become so crowded we run out of room. The problem is resource degradation caused by people in developing countries trying to extend agriculture to land that's poor for farming.
I believe Jimro's gone over this point before; the sooner less-developed countries industrialize and advance, the sooner they'll stop using harmful agriculture methods such as 'slash-and-burn' farming and move on to methods like crop rotation.
As for the article itself, the Indian Reservations are soveriegn entities. They can do whatever they want inside their own borders, and there's not a thing American law can do about it.
Now he's using its bones as a xylophone.
Goto marble to fire off rants on every sperm is sacred. First and only warning.
Now back to topic. I'll put this bluntly. I salute my Sioux brothers and their decision to give people a choice the american leaders do not allow them. President Fire Thunder must be a leader not unlike my late grandfather Henry Allen in her tenacity for equality and raising the quality of life for people reguardless of sex, race, or any other differences.
I'm unsure of the actual spelling of this as its been lost to most of our tribe. But I can spell it phonetically as I can speak it.
Ano Kanay. It means Thank You in our language.
~Rico
Ultra, when browsing MF Central I noticed one of your post's subjectlines asking how we went from abortion to greenhouse gases. Well, it's simple really:
I made the argument that if abortion isn't illegal more people might be willing have it. (And I already explained why I don't see abortion as murder) This would also mean women who wouldn't have a child would be more likely to become world leaders, ect... (in response to the comments made in that cartoons that it eliminated potential world leaders)
I then pointed out that if more people have abortions the world's human population will be more likely to go down faster. The smaller the human population, the better it is for humans themselves in the long run, as I had already said.
I then used pollution as a simple example. If the human population was 1% of what it is now we could allow ten times as much pollution per person and still only be polluting about 1/10th as much.
In the post responding to that, you interpreted that as a comment about pollution in itself. In the post responding to your response to that, I emphasized that the comment wasn't so much so as that itself as that I was using that as an example of how as about how it'd be easier for most of us (in building up for the conclusion to that post, "for all of us" I might add) if the human population on Earth was smaller. So, after I made that clear, in another post later in that thread I decided to mention that your comment about cars didn't take everything into account. Then you apparently interpreted that as me bringing this to a topic about greenhouse gases.
You seem to have misunderstood my comments. o.o
I'll be more careful wording them next time...
I then used pollution as a simple example. If the human population was 1% of what it is now we could allow ten times as much pollution per person and still only be polluting about 1/10th as much.
He actually has a point here, you know.
