no more abortions!

[Denny]

So, let me ask you guys something. What do you guys think about the signature requirement placed on parties to get members on the ballot in various states? Personally I think it's horseshit and is used to keep parties that aren't R or D from even a possibility of getting voters.

That's exactly what it is. Each side is a win/win. Fewer opponents and you already know what they're bringing to the fight.

[GhostTX]

Preach on preacha man!

We can agree on that.

I think it's because the POTUS has been busy fanning the flames of class warfare since he was elected.

That's one thing for sure.

[Maddhattter]

Oh, I believe it does:

(49) "Death" includes, for an individual who is an unborn child, the failure to be born alive.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:
..
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
...
Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/PE.19.htm

Which I would agree with you if not for the following...

CONSTRUCTION OF CODE. (a) The rule that a penal statute is to be strictly construed does not apply to this code. The provisions of this code shall be construed according to the fair import of their terms, to promote justice and effect the objectives of the code.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm

After all, there are legal murders.

As I stated in another post in this thread, how does abortion fit in there?

I've also explained to Frost, in this thread, several times how it does not fit in there at all.

Wrong? So you're saying a person that has never experienced an event has the same knowledge of a person that has gone through the event?

Same knowledge? Yes. A person who has a NDE has no more or less knowledge than someone who has only heard about them. If this were not true, the aforementioned women who don't know or understand the biology of pregnancy would have discovered all of it quite quickly and we wouldn't have had to wait so long for scientists to discover it.

Right, the mother's body gears up to protect and provide nutrients to the developing baby.

Against her will, if she does not want the baby.

To infer the mom is a host is a parasitic is incorrect, because a host gains nothing from a parasite.

Incorrect. The host has a net negative effect in the case of a parasitic infection. Tapeworms are parasites. However, they put off a series of chemicals that suppress the immune system to a small degree so that they can survive in our bodies. It also has the side effect of stopping most histaminic allergic reactions. So, the parasite is producing a positive effect, but it has a net negative effect on the host.

There's medical gains from being pregnant.

Even if there are, it has a net negative effect on the mother's body. So much so that the mother's immune system sees the fetus as a foreign invader and would attempt to destroy it if not for the placenta's secretions. Which, coincidentally, are the same mechanisms used by parasitic nematodes to avoid detection by the immune system of their host.

Though, I suppose we could argue whether actually having the baby is a gain or not, in this argument, since it seems you view a baby is not a benefit.

My personal opinion of whether a baby is or is not a benefit is irrelevant beyond my own opinions.

If that's what you want to think, fine.

It's not necessarily what I want to think. I only follow the evidence. When new evidence is presented and it's contradictory to my current position, I will revise that position.

The whole point was to simply the relationship of the mother and fetus, something apparently that you missed.

I didn't miss it. I addressed it. The embryo/fetus does not develop(or grow, to borrow your term) independently of the mother in the way an egg does. So, even basically, your analogy to a mother/embryo/fetus relationship is inaccurate.

That's fine. There's some that do mad Googling to try to appear they know more of a subject than reality.

So, people having an opinion on a subject and then doing research on that subject when challenged is a bad thing? I'm not sure I agree with that implication. As I agree with your previous statement that educating oneself is always a good thing, I cannot fault anyone for researching material to support their position. In a lot of cases, that's how people find out they're right, sometimes for the wrong reasons, or outright wrong.

I got no problem for accuracy if your statement was to put in the appropriate terms.

I was initially only going to refer to placental mammals, but as their are non-placental mammals that both do and do not lay eggs, I needed to locate the words I was looking for. Had I been trying to dazzle with my impressive vocabulary (not that I have one) I wouldn't have added the explanation of the terms so people don't have to go look it up if they didn't want to.

[GhostTX]

Which I would agree with you if not for the following...

CONSTRUCTION OF CODE. (a) The rule that a penal statute is to be strictly construed does not apply to this code. The provisions of this code shall be construed according to the fair import of their terms, to promote justice and effect the objectives of the code.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm

After all, there are legal murders.

Sure, "justifiable homicides", usually resulting from the actors own life in peril if they don't use lethal force.

So the crux of this entire matter boils down to this:

Against her will, if she does not want the baby.

So, because someone doesn't want something, it gives them the right to kill it?

"Want" is a far different thing than the mother's life in peril due to whatever result from pregnancy.

[Maddhattter]

Sure, "justifiable homicides", usually resulting from the actors own life in peril if they don't use lethal force.

Right. That is one example of a legal murder.

So the crux of this entire matter boils down to this:

So, because someone doesn't want something, it gives them the right to kill it?

"Want" is a far different thing than the mother's life in peril due to whatever result from pregnancy.

The mother has the right to control what her body does, in the same way you or I do. If we choose to not, or no longer, provide biological services to another person, even if refusing those services will cause their demise, we have the right not to.

This is why, as I've stated numerous times before, I'd agree with people that the point of external viability is a fair compromise on the abortion issue. At that point, if you terminate the fetus, you are killing something that does not need it's mother's body for survival any longer in the same way that Frost's scenario illustrates when he was presenting a strawman of my position before. However, if the fetus cannot survive without the mother's body, and the mother chooses to terminate biological services to the fetus/embryo, she's not killing the fetus/embryo any more than I would be killing someone if I were to refuse blood transfusions for a person, regardless to whether or not I agreed to provide them beforehand.

[likeitfast55]

Even if there are, it has a net negative effect on the mother's body. So much so that the mother's immune system sees the fetus as a foreign invader and would attempt to destroy it if not for the placenta's secretions. Which, coincidentally, are the same mechanisms used by parasitic nematodes to avoid detection by the immune system of their host.

You are right. My wife has a very rare blood type. When we were younger she had problems with the fetus developing past the 3 month mark. As I have O+ blood, her body fought and won the battle to naturally abort the fetus. We found a doctor that realized this and the treatment was successful. One miscarriage was at the 4 1/2 month mark.

So your point in my case is correct, the unborn fetus was doing harm to her body and it fought it like an invading parasite.

[Maddhattter]

You are right. My wife has a very rare blood type. When we were younger she had problems with the fetus developing past the 3 month mark. As I have O+ blood, her body fought and won the battle to naturally abort the fetus. We found a doctor that realized this and the treatment was successful. One miscarriage was at the 4 1/2 month mark.

That sucks. I'm glad you, your wife, and your doctor found a successful treatment.

[Forever_frost]

Sure, "justifiable homicides", usually resulting from the actors own life in peril if they don't use lethal force.

So the crux of this entire matter boils down to this:

So, because someone doesn't want something, it gives them the right to kill it?

"Want" is a far different thing than the mother's life in peril due to whatever result from pregnancy.

Actually, the way I see it is this. If the woman willingly engages in the activity to cause a pregnancy, is she not a willing (at least initially) participant and thus held responsible for her actions? If I see a stop sign and (for a few moments) decide to blast through it full bore knowing the possibilities of an accident, ticket, imprisonment, should I get a mulligan because it's inconvenient?