Thread: Prolife answers on Woman's rights VS Murder/person hood/ZEF Rights

Originally Posted by mac

No, that's just a delusion you have. But at least you are saying proven now, instead of proved. That's progress.

Oh the sweet irony of this post makes me laugh

Weird I have provided proof and all you have provided is "nu-huh cause I said so" LMAO

SOrry these facts obviously bother you but they are facts none the less

Originally Posted by mac

All rights end where they harm another.

My unborn harmed me.

"Since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman
(is not a mere "inconvenience" , freedoms are significantly restricted if she is
forced to carry to term.

Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. For example, the state cannot force people to donate organs or blood, even to save someone's life. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will[7]. (In response, anti-choicers say that being pregnant is not the same as being a Good Samaritan, because the woman chose to have sex, voluntarily accepting the risk of pregnancy[8]. But sex is not a contract for pregnancy—people have a right to non-procreative sex[9]. Their argument is also sexist and puritanical because it punishes women, not men, for their sexual behaviour.)

Even if a fetus were a human being with a right to life, this right doesn't automatically overrule a woman's right to choose, which can be argued to have a higher moral value under the circumstances. The free exercise of one's moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman (it is not a mere "inconvenience"), her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term.

THE PRO-CHOICE ACTION NETWORK

Originally Posted by minnie616

My unborn harmed me.

Did it put your life in danger? My kid kicked me in the junk the other day, it hurt, he's still alive.

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

Math is a universal science, the principles of which remain universally true regardless of how you represent it, or what language you use.

Unless your proposed alternate math system is based on redefining existing symbols to have different meanings, your statement is pure nonsense. Assuming we keep the symbols constant in meaning, such that…

The symbol “2” means this many: ••

And the symbol “4” means this many: ••••

And the symbol “5” means this many: •••••

And the symbol “+” means the sum of the numbers to either side of it.

And the symbol “=” means the result of the preceding mathematical formula.

Then there is no way to devise a mathematical system in which the statement “2+2=5” is true, or in which “2+2=4” is not true.

The closest you can come is to use a base 3 or base 4 system, in which the symbols “4” and “5” no longer apply.

In base 3, this statement would be true: “2+2=11”

And in base 4, this statement would be true: “2+2=10”

But regardless of which system of symbols you might devise and use, this much is universally true:

This quantity: ••
Added to this quantity: ••
Produces this quantity: ••••

There is no way to devise a valid mathematical system under which that is not true.

I gave you one example that a math professor gave me before I hit 20. He also indicated that there are mathematical systems in which one can divide by zero. Advanced math is not taught in high school and alternative mathematical systems are not usually studied by undergrads, but the fact is that alternative mathematical systems have been and can be generated. I'm not a professional mathematician, but you need to go consult one. You have a very narrow and shallow view of a complex discipline.

Originally Posted by Ontologuy

A mother and her five-year-old -- does one have more rights than the other? Yes. The mother has more rights.

Why does the mother have more rights? Because the mother, assuming she has not done anything to have her rights legitimately abridged, has more freedom rights than her five-year-old. The mother has, for one example, the right to bear arms. The five-year-old does not.

A mother and her fetus -- does one have more rights than the other? Yes. the mother has more rights, and for the same reason that she has more rights than her five-year-old.

There are simply so many more freedom rights that accrue to the mother by virtue of her age than belong to either the five-year-old or the fetus that the total number of the mother's rights of all three classes -- life, security and freedom -- is greater than the same total of either the five-year-old or the fetus.

A mother's five-year-old has a chronic problem with temper tantrums. This causes the mother stress, compromising her immune system. She is frequently ill as a result with colds/flu and headaches. Her five-year-old has an infected sore on his leg that isn't responding to treatment. The mother is greatly concerned. This adds to her stress and the reduction in her health. The mother is constantly carrying her five-year-old, picking him up to comfort him when his infection hurts or he throws a temper tantrum. She picks him up and strains her back. She can barely stand up. She must still care for her five-year-old even with her bad back, adding to structural damage of her spine as well as increased stress-related health problems. Thus her health is getting worse as a result of caring for him. Her worsening health is not considered life-threatening. However, long-term affects from the associated health-damage related to her caring for her five-year-old could indeed cross the line where they contribute directly or psychogenically toward causing cancer or other degenerative disease, specifically depending on her genetic predisposition. Is it wrong for her to kill her five-year-old to improve her health? Yes.

A mother's fetus is causing similar compromising of her health. Her ill-health is not considered life-threatening. However, long-term affects from the assoiated health-damage could lead to life-threatening health problems for her later. Is it wrong for her to kill her fetus to improve her health? Yes.

In either case of the mother suffering non-life-threatening ill health, the one with the five-year-old and the one with the fetus, because it is wrong for her to kill either in the scenarios, does that mean either the five-year-old or the fetus has more rights than the mother? No. The mother still has more rights than either the five-year-old or the fetus.

The woman has to suffer all this for the five-year-old because she agreed to be the legal parent of the child. If a woman has not agreed to be the legal parent of the child, she does not have to care for the child at all - it will have a different legal parent or guardian. A pregnant woman has not, merely by becoming pregnant, agreed to be a legal parent. Indeed, she has not necessarily agreed to be a natural parent. Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy or natural or legal parenthood. If you imagined when you had sex with some woman that she had, by agreeing to sex, agreed to pregnancy or parenthood, you were unbelievably naive!

Originally Posted by nathanjames1791

Thats only if they made laws saying that the mother had to follow certain health regulations, which of course will never happen.

In some states, they already have such laws. Know your country.

Originally Posted by tessaesque

Funny, as a woman I thought your claim was total crap. Upon further investigation, it is. The health of women following pregnancy, assuming they take care of themselves during pregnancy, is only marginally affected. Little, if any, "permanent" damage occurs in the large majority of child birth situations. There are permanent CHANGES to the body, but permanent DAMAGE...not so much.

But keep posting hyperbolic nonsense. It makes your argument that much less significant.

FYI, quite a while ago now, I read a study that showed that 20% of women over 90 had never had children. Now many more than 80% of women do have children, and this has been so traditionally. The quantitative result showed that women who do not have children, statistically, live longer than those that have them. While I cannot imagine wanting to live over 90, the fact is that women who have children statistically have shortened lives. Moreover, see the report Deadly Delivery: The Maternal Health Care Crisis in the US, by Amnesty International Mar 12, 2010 (http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/defa...lydelivery.pdf). Even though the main aim of this report is to focus on deaths in childbirth, there are quantitative figures there on serious health problems from complications in pregnancy and childbirth, and they are much more common than deaths. Moreover, even when the consequences are less serious, it is known that they exist. Most problems of incontinence in women are a function of bearing children, and one out of about three women has these problems.

Originally Posted by choiceone

In some states, they already have such laws. Know your country.

I'm assuming you actually are referring to fetal endangerment laws (such as excessive drug abuse while pregnant) this is not what NJ was referring to. I suspect you know that though.


"Know your country"....that's cute.

Originally Posted by choiceone

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

Math is a universal science, the principles of which remain universally true regardless of how you represent it, or what language you use.

Unless your proposed alternate math system is based on redefining existing symbols to have different meanings, your statement is pure nonsense. Assuming we keep the symbols constant in meaning, such that…

The symbol “2” means this many: ••

And the symbol “4” means this many: ••••

And the symbol “5” means this many: •••••

And the symbol “+” means the sum of the numbers to either side of it.

And the symbol “=” means the result of the preceding mathematical formula.

Then there is no way to devise a mathematical system in which the statement “2+2=5” is true, or in which “2+2=4” is not true.

The closest you can come is to use a base 3 or base 4 system, in which the symbols “4” and “5” no longer apply.

In base 3, this statement would be true: “2+2=11”

And in base 4, this statement would be true: “2+2=10”

But regardless of which system of symbols you might devise and use, this much is universally true:

This quantity: ••
Added to this quantity: ••
Produces this quantity: ••••

There is no way to devise a valid mathematical system under which that is not true.

I gave you one example that a math professor gave me before I hit 20. He also indicated that there are mathematical systems in which one can divide by zero. Advanced math is not taught in high school and alternative mathematical systems are not usually studied by undergrads, but the fact is that alternative mathematical systems have been and can be generated. I'm not a professional mathematician, but you need to go consult one. You have a very narrow and shallow view of a complex discipline.

As it happens, I used to be a professional mathematician, of sorts. More precisely, I was a computer programmer/data analyst for seventeen years. I know what I am talking about. You have not given any example, only the following claim:

Originally Posted by choiceone

Actually, 2+2=4 is a truism only in our common mathematical system. There can be many mathematical systems, and it would be possible to generate one where 2+2=5.

This claim, I say, is utter nonsense. And I say this having come from a professional background that qualifies me to say it.