|
|
|
|
#1
11-09-2006, 07:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Abortion
I don't see any dilemma. She is allowed to refuse treatment for any reason, including religion. Anyone is allowed to refuse an abortion for any reason, including religion.
This does mean that religion plays a role in the law. Moral principle != religion. 
|
|
#2
11-09-2006, 07:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abortion
Heh. You'd have a hard time refusing an emergency appendectomy if you claimed that your dad, King Voltron of Magnavius IV would unleash his hordes of ultra-fighters on the Earth if you had the appendectomy.
|
|
#3
11-09-2006, 08:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abortion
[ QUOTE ]
Heh. You'd have a hard time refusing an emergency appendectomy if you claimed that your dad, King Voltron of Magnavius IV would unleash his hordes of ultra-fighters on the Earth if you had the appendectomy. [/ QUOTE ] lol, twofer injection for observation room 7. Evens on if you wake up in recovery or psych.
|
|
#4
11-09-2006, 11:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abortion
[ QUOTE ]
Heh. You'd have a hard time refusing an emergency appendectomy if you claimed that your dad, King Voltron of Magnavius IV would unleash his hordes of ultra-fighters on the Earth if you had the appendectomy. [/ QUOTE ] This reason makes just as much sense to me as the Jehovah woman's reason.
|
|
#6
11-10-2006, 02:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abortion
[ QUOTE ]
However, if they uphold the lady's decision to reject a blood transfusion on religious grounds, at the risk of her baby, then they are forced to concede that religion can play a role in the law (the law that allows religious people to decide upon medical care based upon their religion) [/ QUOTE ] Untrue because it's not a question of religion. People should be allowed to refuse any treatment for any reason. Futhermore, this is the "default" state, so no law is even required. Only if someone decides that they want to force their views on this person does the law become involved, so it's becoming involved because of the force, not because of the belief. FWIW, I'm pro-choice (up to the end of the first trimester anyway) and supportive of this woman's rights to religious freedom. Actually, I care far more about this woman's right to refuse medical care than I do about abortion. :P
|
|
#7
11-10-2006, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abortion
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I'm pro-choice (up to the end of the first trimester anyway) and supportive of this woman's rights to religious freedom. Actually, I care far more about this woman's right to refuse medical care than I do about abortion. :P [/ QUOTE ] Curious, what makes the end of the first trimester change your mind about abortion? A fetus at 13 weeks has no chance of survival outside the womb. Physiologically, a 12 week fetus is very similar to a 13 week one. So, why make it OK to kill a 12 week fetus, but not OK to kill a 13 week one? I'm not so interested in your choice of WHEN to draw the so called line in the sand after which abortion is not OK, but WHY you chose whatever line that is...
|
|
#8
11-10-2006, 03:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abortion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] FWIW, I'm pro-choice (up to the end of the first trimester anyway) and supportive of this woman's rights to religious freedom. Actually, I care far more about this woman's right to refuse medical care than I do about abortion. :P [/ QUOTE ] Curious, what makes the end of the first trimester change your mind about abortion? A fetus at 13 weeks has no chance of survival outside the womb. Physiologically, a 12 week fetus is very similar to a 13 week one. So, why make it OK to kill a 12 week fetus, but not OK to kill a 13 week one? I'm not so interested in your choice of WHEN to draw the so called line in the sand after which abortion is not OK, but WHY you chose whatever line that is... [/ QUOTE ] That's when brainwave activity starts.
|
|
#9
11-10-2006, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abortion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] FWIW, I'm pro-choice (up to the end of the first trimester anyway) and supportive of this woman's rights to religious freedom. Actually, I care far more about this woman's right to refuse medical care than I do about abortion. :P [/ QUOTE ] Curious, what makes the end of the first trimester change your mind about abortion? A fetus at 13 weeks has no chance of survival outside the womb. Physiologically, a 12 week fetus is very similar to a 13 week one. So, why make it OK to kill a 12 week fetus, but not OK to kill a 13 week one? I'm not so interested in your choice of WHEN to draw the so called line in the sand after which abortion is not OK, but WHY you chose whatever line that is... [/ QUOTE ] That's when brainwave activity starts. [/ QUOTE ] Ooohhh....sorry, no. That's about week 6. But, still it's nice to see you at least had reason. So what about brainwave activity makes it (according to you) suddenly not OK to kill?
|
|
#10
11-10-2006, 04:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Abortion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] FWIW, I'm pro-choice (up to the end of the first trimester anyway) and supportive of this woman's rights to religious freedom. Actually, I care far more about this woman's right to refuse medical care than I do about abortion. :P [/ QUOTE ] Curious, what makes the end of the first trimester change your mind about abortion? A fetus at 13 weeks has no chance of survival outside the womb. Physiologically, a 12 week fetus is very similar to a 13 week one. So, why make it OK to kill a 12 week fetus, but not OK to kill a 13 week one? I'm not so interested in your choice of WHEN to draw the so called line in the sand after which abortion is not OK, but WHY you chose whatever line that is... [/ QUOTE ] That's when brainwave activity starts. [/ QUOTE ] Ooohhh....sorry, no. That's about week 6. But, still it's nice to see you at least had reason. So what about brainwave activity makes it (according to you) suddenly not OK to kill? [/ QUOTE ] True, perhaps I should go with 6 weeks then. Anyway, brainwave activity makes the difference between a sentient being and a mass of flesh. Sure, that mass of flesh is "alive", but so is cancer. If simply being alive was enough reason to not kill something, everyone would be vegetarians. Sentience is the measure I use, and it seems to me to be the least arbitrary. It could be argued that a fetus still isn't sentient after brainwave activity, but before brainwave activity, it clearly isn't. Overall, I still think that our understanding of it all is poor enough that pushing things to the end of the first trimester is the safe way to go. Once a fetus is a sentient entity, its right to live outweighs the rights of the mother to have it removed, but trying to determine when that is is guesswork more than anything. Probably when I originally decided on first trimester, I was thinking that's the latest anyone could possibly argue for.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
