rat mothers

i know that dogs sometimes eat their pups. i imagine it's the same reasoning. this is probably a very common occurrance in mammals. a mother would rather kill her own offspring than allow it to suffer slowly or die at the hands of another. anyone see that mash episode where the mother smothered her baby?it seems to me that pro-lifers have conflated the issue of "personal responsibility" as though it is not a grave responsibility to sacrifice the resources necessary to prevent the suffering of a child born into unsavory circumstances... be it an unwanted child, or oneto be born to a mother who cannot care for it.

well yeah. but you know what i mean.but this is probably another example when the fundies will argue how unnatural something is and then when you demonstrate how natural it is, they go off on 'oh so you wanna be nothing more than animals?' ridiculous.what i wonder is this. can a mother's body reabsorb a fetus when resources are low, or will she simply abort?This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-12-2006 05:55 PM

no. that's really what you said.
stop playing I DIDN'T SAY THAT games. it's really childish. and if you mean evolutionarily precious... well that's really dishonest for YOU to say.

no. your point is that voters (at least) and legistlators (at most) should be able to determine what is a health-related abortion and what isn't. what crash was demonstrating is that abortion is a medical deicision and that ONLY those with MEDICAL expertise should be making these decisions. since most voters and almost all legislators have NONE of such expertise, they are unqualified.the point that i'm making is that a rat fetus is evolutionarily precious to a rat. without it, the species will not survive. the attachment ends there. thus the same with a human and a human fetus. if i have no interest at this moment in furthering my species, then i have no need to be attached to my fetus.

clearly i would invlolve patients in the decision. that's just silly. i'm simply arguing that no one outside the doctor-patient relationship should have anything to do with it.

um. no. you're having some trouble with words again. i said right now i'm not interested in furthering the population. right now. i have no business trying to raise a child. i live on $800 a month; i work part time; i go to school full time; i will be in school for the next 6 years easily. right now my interests are in furthering my education. but i have no direct desire to see the human species fail as you seem to suggest. what is it with you and asuming that people who have sex don't use protection and those who have abortions didn't? sometimes shit happens. i use two methods and am lucky enough to have not dealt with that.
besides. unlike men, if we get our tubes tied, it's permanent. thanks to our dear male-centered health system that doesn't even bother to find out women's specific heart disease related needs. nothing that has to do with humanity is objective. but your experience is no more objective or valuable than my experience.you don't have an abortion because you wanted to have sex. you have an abortion because your birth control method(s) failed.
or because your boyfriend started beating you and you couldn't imagine bringing his child into the world.
or because you were raped and your sanity has run away because you are still being occupied by your attacker.
or because your birth control method failed and you are too poor to care for your child (btw. prenatal care is ridiculously expensive so don't tell me about adoption. besides. no one adopts american children anymore and the process is so difficult that your child is more likely to end up in a foster home especially if there's anything 'wrong' with it).
or because you're 16 (or worse) and your fundie parents never taught you how to use birth control and now they've convinced you to have an abortion so that they aren't embarrassed to walk into church with you or picket at the abortion clinic with you. did you know the average age of abortion patients in texas is 18? the AVERAGE!i can honestly say that i don't really have a problem with abortion for any reason because it's not my business to go snooping into other peoples' medical records. no one should even know a woman is pregnant unless she wants them to, much less if she is considering having an abortion. these dedicated, conspicuous abortion clinics are a hazard.nonetheless. way back when, when abortion was illegal, desperate women with no options were forced to seek out 'doctors' who should be called butchers to help them. they often left them bleeding, infected, and often dead. the reason we have legalized this procedure is to prevent the butchering of, usually poor, women with no hope. so now we have it. and people like you want to restrict it and suggest that, clearly, women are not capable of making this important moral and medical decision with no other aid than a doctor. therefore, you want to legislate on this issue. you can argue that that is not what you mean, but clearly, you want YOUR EXPERIENCE to influence the choices of a woman who has never met you and has no knowledge of how trustworthy your advice is. why should she listen to your experience? why not the experience of her doctor?http://www.religiousinstitute.org/Abortion_OpenLetter.pdf

fine, whatever. honestly i think more people should have abortions. quota system. all people who score lower than a certain level on iq and personality tests and of course my personal bitchy spoiled cunt test should be required to have abortions. there, i said it. i support mass, genocidal baby killing. and i want them late term and as bloody and torturous as possible. but don't sterilize them. cause then i couldn't force them to have abortions again.i'm not interested in berating what he said. i'm interested in demonstrating the flaws in his position. if he can't see them and it ends in badgering because of his blindness then so be it. i am totally cool with abortion being a complex moral issue. i'm even cool with it being a baby and not a fetus. i'm absolutely fine with the idea that maybe it's not right to have an abortion for some reasons. we really agree. but the difference lies in that i don't think that i should be able to make that decision for anyone but myself and he does. i'm sorry that he feels he made a mistake once. i've made mistakes too. i gave up on the violin. should every student be forced to master everything they ever pick up? no. and as far as i'm concerned, it's the same thing.

if this were the only discussion i've had with him, i might agree with you.
but the simple fact is that he ignores real debate and jumps on other people with language games. turnabout is fair play.but really. unless you think that non-medically trained legislators should be making decisions for american women, i have no need to discuss this with you.

because your view infringes on my view when my view does not force you to get an abortion. but then you don't have a uterus and really don't have an opinion. bitch piss moan. no genius. you leave his ass and free yourself of his wretched seed. thanks. especially considering the reading i've been doing about rape lately. i'm doing a paper on the bosnian and rwandan genocides... that's insane. i have a right to intercourse. marriage is a contract that was invented to transfer property between men. part of that property was the woman in the marriage. if she had had sex then she was used property. it's hardly different now. your idea that i should only be having sex in marriage is posterity of this process. you, your traditions, and whomever's god have no right to tell me what i can and can't do with my body. moreover. it's none of your business. and it's none of the government's business. i'm describing situations i have seen before me. i have not had an abortion. you're disgusting. really. have you read the constitution?
do you understand what is involved in a discussion of legality? wtf?
abortion is ending a pregnancy.
it's not murder; it's not a drug. it is a medical procedure. and only the advice of a doctor should be taken when considering what to do about your own subjective reality.i have no idea what the last line is for. you're starting to talk to yourself i think. but nonetheless. i certainly don't need your advice or that of james dobson and his mindless automotons.

you're terribly optimistic. you really think that they're just going to trust that you and your doctor find it to me necessary? no. there's going to be some rich, white, greasy republican overseeing abortion requests. oh you have diabetes? that's okay. you can have a baby. immaterial. it places an undue burden on me to have to prove to an outside authority that it's medically necessary because it demands that i disclose my medical condition and let someone else view my medical records. moreover, it forces this invasion of my medical privacy on me simply because i am a woman and happen to have a uterus. the supreme court no longer accepts laws that separate people because of their attributes when the evidence is based on morality.the point is that this is simply an inpossibly constitutionally unsound discussion. morality is subjective and the rights of one person recognized by the state end at the rights of another person recognized by the state. a fetus is not recognized by the state. until the fetus could in fact survive on its own, it is either a part of my body or a tapeworm. (btw. i am opposed to the scott peterson law in case you were wondering. i think it's dreadful.) the state has no vested interest in a fetus that cannot survive on its own. so maybe restrict abortions within the last 2 months to medically necessary. otherwise, you're forcing your own outdated morality on my person and my medical privacy. it's all new information. yes, we are making strides. but only in very specific areas. and very slowly.prove to me it's bogus. i see only removal being considered for most female health problems. breast cancer, endometriosis, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer... and there has been little research in areas of medicine that affect both men and women into how it may affect women differently. only recently has there been any information on how different heart disease is in women. and at the same time, there has been lots of misinformation about how depression affects men because it is seen as a woman's disorder. men respond very differently to depression and none of the commercials and none of the awareness pamphlets have the information about their symptoms.so you demonstrate that its bogus.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-14-2006 11:45 AM

ooh look at this!BBC NEWS | Health | Stress sparks 'male foetus death' that's awesome.
also, did you see the research last year that suggested that male children are more likely to be born when the man is present following conception?
travelling dads make girl babies.

no not really. but since everyone is so intent on it...
but it places a burden on seeing when a patient is in her last two months so it's right out anyways. the problem is that my main argument is that the government should not know that i am pregnant much less what i decide to do about it. there is NO INTEREST that is vested enough to investigate my medical records save for communicable disease. pregnancy (while i view it as a disease) does not meet that standard.but no one listens to me when i say that.i'm not interest in decisions really. i'm interested in who has a credible voice with regard to a medical procedure. that is only the doctor performing that specific procedure and the patient receiving it. the decision and its cause are immaterial.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-14-2006 03:32 PM

i guess the biggest problem is that i don't see it as a moral question AT ALL. if anything, the moral question is that a woman has the right to make decisions that affect her life that no one else has the right to.

i don't think morality has a place in law immaterial of the moral issues of an argument. i think that's what you're missing in my standing.should parents be able to practice medically guided infanticide? no. because of the evidenced effects of the practice on other children. this is assuming a study on such a thing that would find such results. but then the state has a vested interest in maintaining a present population of living children. should we have a cull and replace option for very ill or mentally inferior children? no. that's illegal under the geneva conventions. it's eugenics and a crime against humanity. and if it isn't, it will be after i finish my doctoral thesis.law outside of morality is very simple and people just have problems with the fact that they improperly feel their morality is superior to well-reasoned law.
people are crazy.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-14-2006 05:12 PM

there is no place in law for morality. of course not. because it specifically infringes on the rights inherent to necessarily an entire group of people. it infringes on their rights. it may be the right thing. maybe it would be 'good' to kill all people with anti-social tendencies. but it's not the "right" thing to do. most regulations are amoral. specifically, business regulations are related to preventing businesses from infringing on the rights of other businesses and individuals. that's entirely possible.