 |
|
'I would not force women into childbirth because of my own
Posted on: February 5, 2018 at 13:20:56 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
73685
Member For:
21.78 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
feelings.'
Do you also agree with pickle and Rothbard then that women should not be forced to keep their children alive regardless of your own feelings on whether or not they should do so?
http://tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=13052864
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[2] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[3]
It is a very complex issue as technology does not exist for artificial wombs.
It is currently the case that children are deliberately executed via abortion who are older than other children who are put in incubators and kept alive via any and all means available to modern medicine.
There is an issue around personhood.
There are two historical examples that I am aware of where some people felt that some human beings are not persons and therefore do not have the rights inherent in personhood... Nazi Germany, and in our own country with respect to slaves. It is also pretty standard in times of war to dehumanize the people from the country one is at war with in order to make it easier to kill them without feeling pangs of conscience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&biw=911&bih=402&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=cqN4Wu7uNYGUjwT116aADg&q=posters+dehumanization+war&oq=posters+dehumanization+war&gs_l=psy-ab.3...11308.15029.0.16516.17.13.0.0.0.0.177.879.3j4.7.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..13.3.501...0i8i30k1j0i8i13i30k1.0.LIn9BOwhrnk
http://www.abortionno.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Dehumanization.jpg
Demonizing the Enemy a Hallmark of War
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79071
WWII Propaganda: The Influence of Racism
https://artifactsjournal.missouri.edu/2012/03/wwii-propaganda-the-influence-of-racism/
Systematic Dehumanization
http://abort73.com/abortion/systematic_injustice/
When does the fetus gain conscious awareness?
We don't know for sure, but that has never been a criteria as to whether or not we could deliberately kill someone. People in a coma don't have conscious awareness... green light to go ahead and kill them? A drunk passed out on the street... or in his bed... go ahead and kill him?
In any event we know that many of the children executed in abortions feel pain and react to stimuli, suck their thumbs and so on. That seems pretty self aware. So does the child in the video on Dr. Bernard Nathanson's site, "Silent Scream": http://www.silentscream.org/ If you watch the video you will see the child squirming and fighting to avoid the serated suction tube the abortionist is chasing him around with in an effort to cut him to pieces in the execution process. The film is named after the look of horror on the child's face when he is finally caught, and the scream he tries to emit.
Many have no issue removing life support from brain dead people. Abortion in early weeks is removing e from life support.
e
Abortion is not "removing [people] from life support", but rather their deliberate execution. Read Dr. Leroy Carhartt's court testimony under questioning from his own attorney describing how he uses "traction and rotation" to twist off the victim's arms and legs, repeatedly answering questions as to whether or not the child is dead yet:
http://www.mttu.com/Articles/The-Abortionist-Speaks.htm
Question: How do you go about dismembering that extremity?
Carhart: Just traction and rotation, grasping the portion that you can get a hold of which would be usually somewhere up the shaft of the exposed portion of the fetus, pulling down on it through the os, using the internal os as your counter-traction and rotating to dismember the shoulder or the hip or whatever it would be. Sometimes you will get one leg and you can’t get the other leg out.
Question: In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the fetus still alive?
Carhart: Yes.
Question: In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the fetus still alive?
Carhart: Yes
Question: Do you consider an arm, for example, to be a substantial portion of the fetus?
Carhart: In the way I read it, I think if I lost my arm, that would be a substantial loss to me. I think I would have to interpret it that way.
Question: And then what happens next after you remove the arm? You then try to remove the rest of the fetus?
Carhart: Then I would go back and attempt to either bring the feet down or bring the skull down, or even sometimes you bring the other arm down and remove that also and then get the feet down.
Question: At what point is the fetus…does the fetus die during that process?
Carhart: I don’t really know. I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.
That is quite different than removing someone from life support. There were cases where hospitals performed what they called "therapeutic abortions" when delivery was induced prematurely, but even in those cases execution was the intent, not an unintended consequence. That is why Congress passed the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act", over the objections and diligent efforts of Barack Obama who had successfully killed similar bills previously. Nurses testified that the children born in this way were only given what the hospitals described as "comfort care", wrapping the child in a blanket, but then providing no other care, not even feeding the child, who was left to die a sometimes slow death. They said that younger children who were wanted were put in incubators and survived, while these children were left to languish without nutrition until they died. One nurse said that she came upon a child on a utility cart in a dirty linen closet, just waiting to die. Another said she walked into a nurse's lounge where the nurses were eating and drinking as a child on a table was laying on a utility cart slowly dying.
There is an issue of abortion needed to save a mother's life.
This is what Dr. George Isajiw said on this topic:
the assertion that sometimes abortion is necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother. Is that ever true?
G: Actually it’s not. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother. As a matter of fact for a while.. several years.. I was very interested in that question in my formative years and I would ask every obstetrician and gynecologist that I met anywhere. And I said have you ever had a case where you had to do something to kill the baby to save the life of the mother. I have not come across one case, you know. People think of in the movie, the story the Cardinal, where the woman was delivering the child and got into complications and they crushed the baby’s head. And that is just not a part of modern medicine. That is not necessary to be done.
Where the confusion arises is the so-called indirect abortion. Or those cases where both mother and child are dying because of a situation, there are really only three situations like this that I can think of and that’s ectopic pregnancy, cancer of the uterus, and perhaps trauma, or an accidental traumatic injury to the uterus. And if you don’t do anything then both mother and child will die. Now if you treat the mother for whatever needs to be treated, the uterus is bleeding, and you remove the uterus and the baby is still in there, and you do nothing to kill the baby, that is if you had a means an artificial incubator, some day we will have it, I’m sure, you could put that baby in there, so in no way do you directly attack the life of the baby. But you can foresee that that baby will lose its life, but it will lose its life anyhow but without directly attacking. Those are the three instances, very rare, very rare, but those are not abortions. If you look at the five ways that abortions are done, which is the only purpose is to kill the child, none of these techniques are the methods used in these operations. So there is no such thing as an abortion necessary.
And you don’t need a law, you don’t need an exception because for ages that treatment of ectopic pregnancy, once the mother starts bleeding or has life-threatening complications, the treatment of cancer of the uterus, that has been always permissible without …having to legalize abortion. So the answer is simply no. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother, sometimes early delivery, sometimes it is so early that the baby has a great risk of dying perhaps, but the baby is delivered, the baby is placed into intensive care, is given all the possible support, and may or may make it, but there is no such thing as an abortion to do that.
If you out law abortion, you then are also controlling a woman's right to do with her body as she wishes. You are granting another potential person rights over the mother.
The issue, of course, is not what the mother does with her own body, but what the abortionist is doing to her child's body. There is a common sense legal principle that your right to swing your fist ends where your neighbor's nose begins. In this case, the abortionist's right to swing his scalpel ends where the child's body begins.
The only answer I see is to try to educate women about birth control,but not outlaw abortions.
That's about as silly as asserting that we should not outlaw drive-by shootings because "you then are also controlling a person's right to do with his body as he wishes", that instead we should just educate people about how bad it is to kill other people, but to keep murder legal.
Do you also agree with pickle and Rothbard then that women should not be forced to keep their children alive regardless of your own feelings on whether or not they should do so?
http://tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=13052864
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[2] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[3]
It is a very complex issue as technology does not exist for artificial wombs.
It is currently the case that children are deliberately executed via abortion who are older than other children who are put in incubators and kept alive via any and all means available to modern medicine.
There is an issue around personhood.
There are two historical examples that I am aware of where some people felt that some human beings are not persons and therefore do not have the rights inherent in personhood... Nazi Germany, and in our own country with respect to slaves. It is also pretty standard in times of war to dehumanize the people from the country one is at war with in order to make it easier to kill them without feeling pangs of conscience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&biw=911&bih=402&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=cqN4Wu7uNYGUjwT116aADg&q=posters+dehumanization+war&oq=posters+dehumanization+war&gs_l=psy-ab.3...11308.15029.0.16516.17.13.0.0.0.0.177.879.3j4.7.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..13.3.501...0i8i30k1j0i8i13i30k1.0.LIn9BOwhrnk
http://www.abortionno.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Dehumanization.jpg
Demonizing the Enemy a Hallmark of War
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79071
WWII Propaganda: The Influence of Racism
https://artifactsjournal.missouri.edu/2012/03/wwii-propaganda-the-influence-of-racism/
Systematic Dehumanization
http://abort73.com/abortion/systematic_injustice/
When does the fetus gain conscious awareness?
We don't know for sure, but that has never been a criteria as to whether or not we could deliberately kill someone. People in a coma don't have conscious awareness... green light to go ahead and kill them? A drunk passed out on the street... or in his bed... go ahead and kill him?
In any event we know that many of the children executed in abortions feel pain and react to stimuli, suck their thumbs and so on. That seems pretty self aware. So does the child in the video on Dr. Bernard Nathanson's site, "Silent Scream": http://www.silentscream.org/ If you watch the video you will see the child squirming and fighting to avoid the serated suction tube the abortionist is chasing him around with in an effort to cut him to pieces in the execution process. The film is named after the look of horror on the child's face when he is finally caught, and the scream he tries to emit.
Many have no issue removing life support from brain dead people. Abortion in early weeks is removing e from life support.
e
Abortion is not "removing [people] from life support", but rather their deliberate execution. Read Dr. Leroy Carhartt's court testimony under questioning from his own attorney describing how he uses "traction and rotation" to twist off the victim's arms and legs, repeatedly answering questions as to whether or not the child is dead yet:
http://www.mttu.com/Articles/The-Abortionist-Speaks.htm
Question: How do you go about dismembering that extremity?
Carhart: Just traction and rotation, grasping the portion that you can get a hold of which would be usually somewhere up the shaft of the exposed portion of the fetus, pulling down on it through the os, using the internal os as your counter-traction and rotating to dismember the shoulder or the hip or whatever it would be. Sometimes you will get one leg and you can’t get the other leg out.
Question: In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the fetus still alive?
Carhart: Yes.
Question: In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the fetus still alive?
Carhart: Yes
Question: Do you consider an arm, for example, to be a substantial portion of the fetus?
Carhart: In the way I read it, I think if I lost my arm, that would be a substantial loss to me. I think I would have to interpret it that way.
Question: And then what happens next after you remove the arm? You then try to remove the rest of the fetus?
Carhart: Then I would go back and attempt to either bring the feet down or bring the skull down, or even sometimes you bring the other arm down and remove that also and then get the feet down.
Question: At what point is the fetus…does the fetus die during that process?
Carhart: I don’t really know. I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.
That is quite different than removing someone from life support. There were cases where hospitals performed what they called "therapeutic abortions" when delivery was induced prematurely, but even in those cases execution was the intent, not an unintended consequence. That is why Congress passed the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act", over the objections and diligent efforts of Barack Obama who had successfully killed similar bills previously. Nurses testified that the children born in this way were only given what the hospitals described as "comfort care", wrapping the child in a blanket, but then providing no other care, not even feeding the child, who was left to die a sometimes slow death. They said that younger children who were wanted were put in incubators and survived, while these children were left to languish without nutrition until they died. One nurse said that she came upon a child on a utility cart in a dirty linen closet, just waiting to die. Another said she walked into a nurse's lounge where the nurses were eating and drinking as a child on a table was laying on a utility cart slowly dying.
There is an issue of abortion needed to save a mother's life.
This is what Dr. George Isajiw said on this topic:
the assertion that sometimes abortion is necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother. Is that ever true?
G: Actually it’s not. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother. As a matter of fact for a while.. several years.. I was very interested in that question in my formative years and I would ask every obstetrician and gynecologist that I met anywhere. And I said have you ever had a case where you had to do something to kill the baby to save the life of the mother. I have not come across one case, you know. People think of in the movie, the story the Cardinal, where the woman was delivering the child and got into complications and they crushed the baby’s head. And that is just not a part of modern medicine. That is not necessary to be done.
Where the confusion arises is the so-called indirect abortion. Or those cases where both mother and child are dying because of a situation, there are really only three situations like this that I can think of and that’s ectopic pregnancy, cancer of the uterus, and perhaps trauma, or an accidental traumatic injury to the uterus. And if you don’t do anything then both mother and child will die. Now if you treat the mother for whatever needs to be treated, the uterus is bleeding, and you remove the uterus and the baby is still in there, and you do nothing to kill the baby, that is if you had a means an artificial incubator, some day we will have it, I’m sure, you could put that baby in there, so in no way do you directly attack the life of the baby. But you can foresee that that baby will lose its life, but it will lose its life anyhow but without directly attacking. Those are the three instances, very rare, very rare, but those are not abortions. If you look at the five ways that abortions are done, which is the only purpose is to kill the child, none of these techniques are the methods used in these operations. So there is no such thing as an abortion necessary.
And you don’t need a law, you don’t need an exception because for ages that treatment of ectopic pregnancy, once the mother starts bleeding or has life-threatening complications, the treatment of cancer of the uterus, that has been always permissible without …having to legalize abortion. So the answer is simply no. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother, sometimes early delivery, sometimes it is so early that the baby has a great risk of dying perhaps, but the baby is delivered, the baby is placed into intensive care, is given all the possible support, and may or may make it, but there is no such thing as an abortion to do that.
If you out law abortion, you then are also controlling a woman's right to do with her body as she wishes. You are granting another potential person rights over the mother.
The issue, of course, is not what the mother does with her own body, but what the abortionist is doing to her child's body. There is a common sense legal principle that your right to swing your fist ends where your neighbor's nose begins. In this case, the abortionist's right to swing his scalpel ends where the child's body begins.
The only answer I see is to try to educate women about birth control,but not outlaw abortions.
That's about as silly as asserting that we should not outlaw drive-by shootings because "you then are also controlling a person's right to do with his body as he wishes", that instead we should just educate people about how bad it is to kill other people, but to keep murder legal.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
'I would not force women into childbirth because of my own - JeffB MU - 2/5 13:20:56