Abortion

[IshCong]

If the FIF is not removed, then both the FIF and the host die. If the FIF is removed, then the host lives and the FIF dies. Those are, quite literally, the only two options available, to people in such a situation. Regardless of what is done, the FIF will die. That is a simple fact.

However, removal of the FIF saves the life of the host. There should be no debate about what is acceptable, and I sincerely doubt any ancient or religious text will have anything regarding 'fetus in fetu'. Yes, the option should be given to the host/patient about whether or not to remove the FIF, and the option to refuse is entirely within the rights of the host/patient. However, in such a situation, the FIF has no inherent right to continue living. It lives by killing the host, plain and simple. Were the FIF a person living outside of their twin, and were they causing the slow death of said twin, then there would be no question about whether or not they should be allowed to continue doing so.

There truly is only one true course of action here. Removal of the FIF.

I agree. But some people hold that all life is sacred. Why would one life be held superior to another if that was the belief system?

It isn't, in this case. But only one life can be saved in this situation, that of the host. The FIF has no life to live, as it will 'die' shortly regardless.
That said, certain lives are held to be superior than others in certain circumstances, such as self-defense. Arguably, anyway.

[Camicon]

If the FIF is not removed, then both the FIF and the host die. If the FIF is removed, then the host lives and the FIF dies. Those are, quite literally, the only two options available, to people in such a situation. Regardless of what is done, the FIF will die. That is a simple fact.

However, removal of the FIF saves the life of the host. There should be no debate about what is acceptable, and I sincerely doubt any ancient or religious text will have anything regarding 'fetus in fetu'. Yes, the option should be given to the host/patient about whether or not to remove the FIF, and the option to refuse is entirely within the rights of the host/patient. However, in such a situation, the FIF has no inherent right to continue living. It lives by killing the host, plain and simple. Were the FIF a person living outside of their twin, and were they causing the slow death of said twin, then there would be no question about whether or not they should be allowed to continue doing so.

There truly is only one true course of action here. Removal of the FIF.

I agree. But some people hold that all life is sacred. Why would one life be held superior to another if that was the belief system?

Except that one life is not being held as more valuable, or superior to another. Another way to look at it is as follows:

"Two people are being held at gunpoint. If you choose the man on the right to live, then the shooter kills both men. If you choose the man on the left to live, the shooter only kills the man on the right." (No, you can't kill the shooter.)

The decision being made is the one that preserves the most human life possible. One man (the same man) will die, regardless of what choices are made. However, one course of action preserves a human life, while the other kills both. One man is not being valued over the other, the choice is simply being made to preserve as much human life as possible.

[IshCong]

Oh, it's obviously alive. But then, so is a tapeworm.

I'd consider something like the Xenomorph to be a better example. Same process, only the Xenomorph is guaranteed to kill the host.

How does the fact that the Xenomorph will kill the host all the time make it a better analogue to a fetus? Or were you referring to the fetus in fetu situation?

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Ok so a woman gets pregnant, and she decides "no no im not ready" or "i dont want this thing" or somthing like that, that gives her the right to have control over another living beings life? Just because a woman doesnt want a son or daughter that does not give them the right to kill their unborn son or daughter.

The death of the potential child is an unfortunate side effect of abortion. The act of abortion is simply to rescind consent to the use of someone's organ. In this case, the uterus.

Born children do not have the right to demand the use of their parents' organs or tissues, even when the alternative is death. Why are you so hell-bent on giving unborn children rights that you don't give to born children? Do you think that children who are already born have less right to life?

All life has the right to live in my opinion. Born humans have rights unborn humans dont, i want to make it so that all humans, born or not, have the right to live.

[Saint Jade IV]

So what? My skin cells are human. They each have human DNA. Every time I rub myself, I kill more skin cells than Hitler killed jews. Am I Hitler? No. Why? Because a skin cell, like a fetus, is not a person.

Your argument is not backed up by any understanding of biology. Your argument is based on what other people told you to believe. They believe it because others told them. On down the line, this is being orchestrated by people who hate women and want to subjugate them to their own desires.

This is even a subconscious desire of people in this thread. Look at how they talk about aborting a pregnancy by placing it in the context of "responsibility"? They see women as evil sluts who are off having sex with other man, and for that they must be punished. This isn't normal. It's evil. The evil people are those who hate women enough to force them to suffer and take major risks of losing their own lives.

If risk of death is enough to OK abortion, then every single woman who gets pregnant has an excuse to abort that pregnancy. All pregnancy is dangerous. All pregnancy is a major life decision. That decision is not up to you, or your grandfather, or your pastor, or some crazy person you met on the bus.

Dear god this just keeps going. I will make a response later. And just for the record i think that if the womans life would be threatened by birth severly abortion should then be allowed, better end one life than allow two to die, and the only other case where abortion should be allowed is if the fetus has severe genetic deformations.

Women's lives are severely threatened by giving birth. Every time.

[IshCong]

Dear god this just keeps going. I will make a response later. And just for the record i think that if the womans life would be threatened by birth severly abortion should then be allowed, better end one life than allow two to die, and the only other case where abortion should be allowed is if the fetus has severe genetic deformations.

Women's lives are severely threatened by giving birth. Every time.

Define 'severely'.

[Desperate Measures]

I agree. But some people hold that all life is sacred. Why would one life be held superior to another if that was the belief system?

Except that one life is not being held as more valuable, or superior to another. Another way to look at it is as follows:

"Two people are being held at gunpoint. If you choose the man on the right to live, then the shooter kills both men. If you choose the man on the left to live, the shooter only kills the man on the right." (No, you can't kill the shooter.)

The decision being made is the one that preserves the most human life possible. One man (the same man) will die, regardless of what choices are made. However, one course of action preserves a human life, while the other kills both. One man is not being valued over the other, the choice is simply being made to preserve as much human life as possible.

I'd make the choice to save the one person. I feel like the pro-life position is to walk away and say, "Well, I guess that situation will work itself out then."

[Saint Jade IV]

The death of the potential child is an unfortunate side effect of abortion. The act of abortion is simply to rescind consent to the use of someone's organ. In this case, the uterus.

Born children do not have the right to demand the use of their parents' organs or tissues, even when the alternative is death. Why are you so hell-bent on giving unborn children rights that you don't give to born children? Do you think that children who are already born have less right to life?

All life has the right to live in my opinion. Born humans have rights unborn humans dont, i want to make it so that all humans, born or not, have the right to live.

Born children do not have the right to live at the expense of someone else's bodily tissues. An 8 year old girl with leukaemia cannot, by law, force her mother to donate bone marrow, even if not donating means that little girl will die. And bone marrow donation is far, far less dangerous, and carries far, far fewer short and long term side effects than pregnancy. Why should a foetus be allowed to demand the use of a woman's uterus and blood to prolong it's life, when a born child cannot?

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

All life has the right to live in my opinion. Born humans have rights unborn humans dont, i want to make it so that all humans, born or not, have the right to live.

Born children do not have the right to live at the expense of someone else's bodily tissues. An 8 year old girl with leukaemia cannot, by law, force her mother to donate bone marrow, even if not donating means that little girl will die. And bone marrow donation is far, far less dangerous, and carries far, far fewer short and long term side effects than pregnancy. Why should a foetus be allowed to demand the use of a woman's uterus and blood to prolong it's life, when a born child cannot?

I do not think that is fair. That should be changed. Where both have rights.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Dear god this just keeps going. I will make a response later. And just for the record i think that if the womans life would be threatened by birth severly abortion should then be allowed, better end one life than allow two to die, and the only other case where abortion should be allowed is if the fetus has severe genetic deformations.

Women's lives are severely threatened by giving birth. Every time.

There is a slight chance of them dieing when they give birth, often assosiated with drugs.

[Thatchland]

Born children do not have the right to live at the expense of someone else's bodily tissues. An 8 year old girl with leukaemia cannot, by law, force her mother to donate bone marrow, even if not donating means that little girl will die. And bone marrow donation is far, far less dangerous, and carries far, far fewer short and long term side effects than pregnancy. Why should a foetus be allowed to demand the use of a woman's uterus and blood to prolong it's life, when a born child cannot?

I do not think that is fair. That should be changed. Where both have rights.

Again, you keep giving the same arguments:

"I do not think"
"I believe"
"My opinion"
I
Me
My
I
Me
My
I
Me
My
I
Me
My

With no facts, no scientific evidence, no studies, nothing to support your claim but your own gut feelings. And YOU want to change the law. So the burden of proof is on you in this debate ... which you continue to fail, miserably. When faced with facts, you scurry back into the corner with the same defense, over and over again. And you complain that "pro-choicers" say the same things over and over again - that is because we are given nothing new to debate upon.

Or better yet, when confronted with a statement, fact, etc that you know you have no argument against - you choose to ignore and wait until you find one that you feel obligated to then repeat your I, Me, My mantra.

[Iuuvic]

Ummm..."Fully functioning" care to prove that?

Thank you ... let me give you the link:

“Abortion: Is it Possible to be both “Pro-life” and “Pro-Choice”?”
or
“The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”
by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan

Thinking occurs, of course, in the brain--principally in the top layers of the convoluted "gray matter" called the cerebral cortex. The roughly 100 billion neurons in the brain constitute the material basis of thought. The neurons are connected to each other, and their linkups play a major role in what we experience as thinking. But large-scale linking up of neurons doesn't begin until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy--the sixth month.

By placing harmless electrodes on a subject's head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy (emphasis mine) --near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this--however alive and active they may be--lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think.

Sorry, I read that as 13th week not 30th. My bad...I was like "13th week are you fucking crazy?"

Guess it's time for glasses

[Ningjing]

Women's lives are severely threatened by giving birth. Every time.

There is a slight chance of them dieing when they give birth, often assosiated with drugs.

No. The slight chance has nothing to do with drugs.

[Thatchland]

Women's lives are severely threatened by giving birth. Every time.

There is a slight chance of them dieing when they give birth, often assosiated with drugs.

Source?

Oh, I'll give you one, but I'm not going to put a lot of work into it:

As stated by the WHO in its 2005 World Health Report "Make Every Mother and Child Count", the major causes of maternal deaths are: severe bleeding/hemorrhage (25%), infections (13%), unsafe abortions (13%), eclampsia (12%), obstructed labour (8%), other direct causes (8%), and indirect causes (20%). Indirect causes are things such as malaria, anaemia, HIV/AIDS and cardiovascular disease, complicate pregnancy or are aggravated by it.
Forty-five percent of postpartum deaths occur within 24 hours. Over 90% of maternal deaths occur in developing countries. In comparison, pregnancy-associated homicide accounts for 2 to 10 deaths per 100,000 live births, possibly substantially higher due to underreporting.
In developing countries, the most common cause of maternal death is obstetrical hemorrhage, followed by deep vein thrombosis, in contrast to developed countries, for which the most common cause is thromboembolism.
Unintended pregnancy is a major cause of maternal deaths. Worldwide, unintended pregnancy resulted in almost 700,000 maternal deaths from 1995 to 2000 (approximately one-fifth of the maternal deaths during that period).

I'm going to go even further to include in those 700,000 maternal deaths:

the majority (64%) resulted from complications from unsafe or unsanitary abortion.

And I can tell you where many of those occurred - in countries where legal abortions are not available for any reason or only in the reason where pregnancy may endanger the life of the mother. So, because they have no access to safe and sanitary abortions, they go unscrupulous (and/or uneducated) individuals performing abortions. And if abortions are made less legal everywhere else - more mothers will die. Pro-life, riiiiiiiighhhhhhhhhht.

[Thatchland]

There is a slight chance of them dieing when they give birth, often assosiated with drugs.

Source?

Oh, I'll give you one, but I'm not going to put a lot of work into it:

As stated by the WHO in its 2005 World Health Report "Make Every Mother and Child Count", the major causes of maternal deaths are: severe bleeding/hemorrhage (25%), infections (13%), unsafe abortions (13%), eclampsia (12%), obstructed labour (8%), other direct causes (8%), and indirect causes (20%). Indirect causes are things such as malaria, anaemia, HIV/AIDS and cardiovascular disease, complicate pregnancy or are aggravated by it.
Forty-five percent of postpartum deaths occur within 24 hours. Over 90% of maternal deaths occur in developing countries. In comparison, pregnancy-associated homicide accounts for 2 to 10 deaths per 100,000 live births, possibly substantially higher due to underreporting.
In developing countries, the most common cause of maternal death is obstetrical hemorrhage, followed by deep vein thrombosis, in contrast to developed countries, for which the most common cause is thromboembolism.
Unintended pregnancy is a major cause of maternal deaths. Worldwide, unintended pregnancy resulted in almost 700,000 maternal deaths from 1995 to 2000 (approximately one-fifth of the maternal deaths during that period).

I'm going to go even further to include in those 700,000 maternal deaths:

the majority (64%) resulted from complications from unsafe or unsanitary abortion.

And I can tell you where many of those occurred - in countries where legal abortions are not available for any reason or only in the reason where pregnancy may endanger the life of the mother. So, because they have no access to safe and sanitary abortions, they go unscrupulous (and/or uneducated) individuals performing abortions. And if abortions are made less legal everywhere else - more mothers will die. Pro-life, riiiiiiiighhhhhhhhhht.

Also, to follow up on actual number of deaths each year:

The World Health Organization estimates that approximately 1,000 women globally die every day due to complications from pregnancy or delivery. The number of maternal deaths worldwide was estimated to be 529,000 in 2000. However, it is well recognized that maternal mortality numbers are often significantly under reported. In fact, according to the United Nations, it is estimated that the numbers of maternal deaths globally could fall within a range of 277,000 to 817,000 per year.
Africa and Asia account for 95% of the maternal deaths each year. Those deaths are evenly divided between the two regions. Latin America and the Caribbean account for 4% of maternal deaths, and the remaining 1% is found in developed regions of the world.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

I do not think that is fair. That should be changed. Where both have rights.

Again, you keep giving the same arguments:

"I do not think"
"I believe"
"My opinion"
I
Me
My
I
Me
My
I
Me
My
I
Me
My

With no facts, no scientific evidence, no studies, nothing to support your claim but your own gut feelings. And YOU want to change the law. So the burden of proof is on you in this debate ... which you continue to fail, miserably. When faced with facts, you scurry back into the corner with the same defense, over and over again. And you complain that "pro-choicers" say the same things over and over again - that is because we are given nothing new to debate upon.

Or better yet, when confronted with a statement, fact, etc that you know you have no argument against - you choose to ignore and wait until you find one that you feel obligated to then repeat your I, Me, My mantra.

Look in the mirror. You have been repeating the exact same thing over and over again, choice this, womens rights that, and YOU AND YOUR OPINION want it to be legal, you say WE give nothing new to debate upon but YOU ALL provide nothing worthy to debate. Now stick to the issues please.

[Camicon]

Except that one life is not being held as more valuable, or superior to another. Another way to look at it is as follows:

"Two people are being held at gunpoint. If you choose the man on the right to live, then the shooter kills both men. If you choose the man on the left to live, the shooter only kills the man on the right." (No, you can't kill the shooter.)

The decision being made is the one that preserves the most human life possible. One man (the same man) will die, regardless of what choices are made. However, one course of action preserves a human life, while the other kills both. One man is not being valued over the other, the choice is simply being made to preserve as much human life as possible.

I'd make the choice to save the one person. I feel like the pro-life position is to walk away and say, "Well, I guess that situation will work itself out then."

My point is, in the case of fetus in fetu, pro-life means the preservation of as much human life as possible. Not the preservation of a genetically similar parasite that will die, regardless of what is, or is not, done.

However, fetus in fetu and pregnancy are two completely different, and not comparable, scenarios. Fetus in fetu will always have at least half of those involved die. Pregnancies, especially in Western societies, will generally have both mother and child survive. In addition, a child can become self-sustaining. A FIF can not.

[Thatchland]

Again, you keep giving the same arguments:

"I do not think"
"I believe"
"My opinion"
I
Me
My
I
Me
My
I
Me
My
I
Me
My

With no facts, no scientific evidence, no studies, nothing to support your claim but your own gut feelings. And YOU want to change the law. So the burden of proof is on you in this debate ... which you continue to fail, miserably. When faced with facts, you scurry back into the corner with the same defense, over and over again. And you complain that "pro-choicers" say the same things over and over again - that is because we are given nothing new to debate upon.

Or better yet, when confronted with a statement, fact, etc that you know you have no argument against - you choose to ignore and wait until you find one that you feel obligated to then repeat your I, Me, My mantra.

Look in the mirror. You have been repeating the exact same thing over and over again, choice this, womens rights that, and YOU AND YOUR OPINION want it to be legal, you say WE give nothing new to debate upon but YOU ALL provide nothing worthy to debate. Now stick to the issues please.

I have supplied new data constantly to this debate. I have directly answered questions you have asked and I have directly answered questions from others. You are using a generality on me that is not true. Absolutely false.

[IshCong]

Source?

Oh, I'll give you one, but I'm not going to put a lot of work into it:

I'm going to go even further to include in those 700,000 maternal deaths:
And I can tell you where many of those occurred - in countries where legal abortions are not available for any reason or only in the reason where pregnancy may endanger the life of the mother. So, because they have no access to safe and sanitary abortions, they go unscrupulous (and/or uneducated) individuals performing abortions. And if abortions are made less legal everywhere else - more mothers will die. Pro-life, riiiiiiiighhhhhhhhhht.

Also, to follow up on actual number of deaths each year:

The World Health Organization estimates that approximately 1,000 women globally die every day due to complications from pregnancy or delivery. The number of maternal deaths worldwide was estimated to be 529,000 in 2000. However, it is well recognized that maternal mortality numbers are often significantly under reported. In fact, according to the United Nations, it is estimated that the numbers of maternal deaths globally could fall within a range of 277,000 to 817,000 per year.
Africa and Asia account for 95% of the maternal deaths each year. Those deaths are evenly divided between the two regions. Latin America and the Caribbean account for 4% of maternal deaths, and the remaining 1% is found in developed regions of the world.

Have any data on developed nations? If Africa and Asia account for 95% of the deaths...well, those two locations aren't exactly bastions of modern medicine, with a few exceptions. (Japan, China, South Africa.)

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Look in the mirror. You have been repeating the exact same thing over and over again, choice this, womens rights that, and YOU AND YOUR OPINION want it to be legal, you say WE give nothing new to debate upon but YOU ALL provide nothing worthy to debate. Now stick to the issues please.

I have supplied new data constantly to this debate. I have directly answered questions you have asked and I have directly answered questions from others. You are putting using a generality on me that is not true. Absolutely false.

If you are going to be more biast than George W Bush than im finding somthing else to do.

[Distruzio]

Ever hear of churches and orphanages?

Yes, let's burden an already overburdened system rather than eliminating the problem early on.

Do you see the description of my personal philosophy in my signature? None of my particular positions on the various social concerns of the day are taken without anarcho-monarchism in mind. Meaning that the "overburdened" system you bemoan would, in conjunction with my philosophy, be subject to market forces and completely privatized. In other words, I realize the burden on the State is great when addressing social concerns, which is part of the reason I am an anarchist.

[Ningjing]

I have supplied new data constantly to this debate. I have directly answered questions you have asked and I have directly answered questions from others. You are putting using a generality on me that is not true. Absolutely false.

If you are going to be more biast than George W Bush than im finding somthing else to do.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[The Steel Magnolia]

I have supplied new data constantly to this debate. I have directly answered questions you have asked and I have directly answered questions from others. You are putting using a generality on me that is not true. Absolutely false.

If you are going to be more biast than George W Bush than im finding somthing else to do.

...The fuck are you on?

[Rejaina]

I'm pro choice till you hit the 3rd month then I'm pro life

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

If you are going to be more biast than George W Bush than im finding somthing else to do.

What the fuck are you talking about?

None of you have been in the least bit tolerent of those with different belifes, ive given more than a good debate and here you all go claim me wrong, troll pro lifers (calling a fetus a parasite is trolling), make personal attacks, find somthing better to do, stop wasting your damn time in a never changing cycle, your just dodging the rules, trolling, making personal attacks, and wasting time. Your never changing your beliefs, im never changing mine so lets leave it at that and go home. Read a god dang book or somthing, there are millions of better things to be doing.