A Woman's Right to her Body

[LetThereBe]

Can you show me where you have stated that without a caveat before?

What caveat is that?

The man can not opt out of his duty to his child, you are proposing that he be able to.

The woman can opt out of her duty, so yes, I propose the man can as well. That is equitable.

Can mean nothing is stopping them. I am not aware that thing needs to be external.

As much as I "can" order onion rings, but I am "stopped" by my internal dislike of onions. "Can" in your weird sense is the same as "willing".

What is silly is for you to use this debate when you claim the word is not what I meant and it is your interpretation of the word.

Then please provide your actual interpretation, instead of just making excuses and dodging the issue.

As with the example for my friend. She wanted to kill herself. This was very obvious. Why did she not?

How should I know the reason for her choice? Maybe she feared the unknown. Maybe she felt the pain of death wasn't worth the peace it would bring her.
Whatever her reasons, she had her choice and she made it.

It does not clearly mean willing. That is your interpretation and I have not used that term in another of posts.

Then please supply the word you mean with the definition.

Please define 'can' with my friends story in mind.

Very well.
Can:
1.
to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to: She can solve the problem easily, I'm sure.
2.
to know how to: He can play chess, although he's not particularly good at it.
3.
to have the power or means to: A dictator can impose his will on the people.
4.
to have the right or qualifications to: He can change whatever he wishes in the script.
5.
may; have permission to: Can I speak to you for a moment?

Your friend had the ability, power, or skill to kill herself. Your friend knew how to kill herself. You friend had the power or means to kill herself. Your friend had the right or qualifications to kill herself (this one is debatable, but I feel someone should always have the right to suicide). Your friend had permission to kill herself (also debatable, but I feel legally all should have this right).
There you have it. The word can.

It is the interpretation not the word.

Then explain your interpretation.

I already said not physical.

Then you "can" do it. Unless perhaps you don't know how?

She did not choose that. I know her, you do not. There is obviously something you are missing.

We agree that she did not choose that. If she had chosen to kill herself she would be dead. It's obvious that's not what she chose.

Then why are you asking me over and over to define the word?

...because it is obvious your position is completely untenable, and you are just hiding behind a statement that you want to keep nebulous and ambiguous... as the clear meaning doesn't even support your own argument. I don't want to give you the ambiguity to hide behind.

Again with the games. Can't you simply debate honestly?

Since you refuse to provide definitions or explanations for your position, I have little recourse to read as much as I can into your nebulous, poor English statements.

Well I think the issue is not so much with the word as your denial to see what I mean. As in my example of my friend you simply deny the evidence and say she choose to not kill herself when her words and actions clearly showed that was not the case.

She is not dead. That is some pretty strong evidence that she chose not to kill herself.

I have explained what I mean. The example of my friend is the best way of explaining it.

A person thought about killing herself, then decided not to kill herself. I don't see how that helps you at all.

And no I did not show with my own definition. It was simply the definition from t he dictionary and your interpretation.

Then give a DIFFERENT definition of what you actually mean and YOUR interpretation.
Why are you dodging this? What is there to hide from? Is it really so impossible to just say what you mean?

[BlackSheep]

What caveat is that?

If you do not believe there were caveats then it should be easy to prove me wrong.

The woman can opt out of her duty, so yes, I propose the man can as well. That is equitable.

As I have said many times there is no perfect solution. If the man can simply opt out then it is grossly unfair to the child.

As much as I "can" order onion rings, but I am "stopped" by my internal dislike of onions. "Can" in your weird sense is the same as "willing".

It is not. The example you gave it s the same as willing. In the example of my friend it is not.

Then please provide your actual interpretation, instead of just making excuses and dodging the issue.

The word is insignificant. There is no reason to debate the interpretation, it simply takes us further from the heart of the matter.

How should I know the reason for her choice? Maybe she feared the unknown. Maybe she felt the pain of death wasn't worth the peace it would bring her.
Whatever her reasons, she had her choice and she made it.

It was not a choice. She choice to kill herself, you just can't accept that.

Then please supply the word you mean with the definition.

What word?

Very well.
Can:
1.
to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to: She can solve the problem easily, I'm sure.
2.
to know how to: He can play chess, although he's not particularly good at it.
3.
to have the power or means to: A dictator can impose his will on the people.
4.
to have the right or qualifications to: He can change whatever he wishes in the script.
5.
may; have permission to: Can I speak to you for a moment?

Your friend had the ability, power, or skill to kill herself. Your friend knew how to kill herself. You friend had the power or means to kill herself. Your friend had the right or qualifications to kill herself (this one is debatable, but I feel someone should always have the right to suicide). Your friend had permission to kill herself (also debatable, but I feel legally all should have this right).
There you have it. The word can.

She did not have the mental ability or power to do so. She found herself frustratingly unable to do so.

Then explain your interpretation.

There is no point in dragging the debate into a debate about the meaning of a word. The argument is boiling down to you feel it is impossible for a person to want to do something and yet find themselves without the ability to do so for emotional or moral reasons.

Then you "can" do it. Unless perhaps you don't know how?

No I can not.

We agree that she did not choose that. If she had chosen to kill herself she would be dead. It's obvious that's not what she chose.

You are back to playing games again. Trying to put words in my mouth.

You said "The fact that she is still alive shows that she has not CHOSEN to kill herself."

I responded with "She did not choose that. I know her, you do not. There is obviously something you are missing."

And then you argue we are in agreement when we most obviously are not.

She did choose to kill herself and yet she is not dead.

...because it is obvious your position is completely untenable, and you are just hiding behind a statement that you want to keep nebulous and ambiguous... as the clear meaning doesn't even support your own argument. I don't want to give you the ambiguity to hide behind.

I am not keeping anything nebulous and ambiguous. I am being very clear and forthright. Emotions and or morals can prevent us from taking actions even if we want to at times.

Since you refuse to provide definitions or explanations for your position, I have little recourse to read as much as I can into your nebulous, poor English statements.

Except that is not what you are doing. If a specific sentence is unclear ask about that specific sentence. That is not what you do. You take very clear sentences and twist them around or select one word and try to make the debate all about that word.

She is not dead. That is some pretty strong evidence that she chose not to kill herself.

Actually it is evidence she did not kill herself.

A person thought about killing herself, then decided not to kill herself. I don't see how that helps you at all.

I have been very clear she did not decide to not kill herself. I was very clear she was very upset about it and afterwords she was still very desiring of her death.

Then give a DIFFERENT definition of what you actually mean and YOUR interpretation.
Why are you dodging this? What is there to hide from? Is it really so impossible to just say what you mean?

The word is insignificant. You just believe it is impossible for someone to be stopped from doing something they want by their emotions and or morals.

[minorwork]

Non-sequitor. This does nothing to affect his right to protect his offspring.

Unless it is gone before he even knew he had offspring. That is reality.

[/quote]Incorrect. If the Mother survives but the child does not, the killer can still be charged with murder[/QUOTE]That is a fact and is a matter of law. The Mother's will has been violated by the killer as in the old days of eugenics the mother's will was violated by the state that sterilized future mothers involuntarily. You do acknowledge the difference between voluntary and involuntary don't you? When a pregnancy is terminated by another against the mother's will then the one forcing his will on another is fair game for the law.

[minorwork]

The fetus is alive and is therefore murdered. If a person with a mental retardation or is brain dead basically has limited to no brian function then are they not still alive? They are. We can allow them to die naturally but we cannot for instance kill them that would be murder. This is not about wether the baby is alive or dead. This is about whinny selfish depressed or crazed people who have no sense of morals and don't care who they murder to get what they want, who take no responsibility for their own choices and actions and don't think they should ever have to. This has NOTHING to do with "my body my choice" this is all selfish murder perpetuated by lies and denial by an immoral population of our culture who have lost all self control.

STILL self-righteous enough to demonstrate your will against the wishes of the mother by tying the pregnant lady seeking an abortion to a gurney in a prison and force feed her until delivery then execute her and the willing abortion doctor yourself? Your conviction used to inspire me. Don't let me down.

[Apeman81]

That is a fact and is a matter of law. The Mother's will has been violated by the killer as in the old days of eugenics the mother's will was violated by the state that sterilized future mothers involuntarily. You do acknowledge the difference between voluntary and involuntary don't you? When a pregnancy is terminated by another against the mother's will then the one forcing his will on another is fair game for the law.

That is a fair summation of current law.

A bit of an odd dichotomy though, don't you think. Up to the moment of birth, with no third party intercession, the mother can choose to kill her offspring, because it is voluntary.

But the life is protected by law from every other person on the planet.

Thus, the life inside her is a child if she wants it to live, or a fetus if she wants it to die. For whatever reason or no reason.

I find that logic highly suspect

[Yarn]

In the bible, if you kill a woman's embryo without her consent, all you have to do is pay a fine.

Kill a born person though, and you have two choices: either be killed or go into exile to a sanctuary city (the latter is only supposed to be used if it was an accident).

The Christian argument for anti-abortion relies primarily on inferences from poetry and hymns rather than old testament law.

[Apeman81]

In the bible, if you kill a woman's embryo without her consent, all you have to do is pay a fine.

Kill a born person though, and you have two choices: either be killed or go into exile to a sanctuary city (the latter is only supposed to be used if it was an accident).

The Christian argument for anti-abortion relies primarily on inferences from poetry and hymns rather than old testament law.

Exodus 21:25 says: If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The fine is for premature birth. If the child dies, the punishment is not monetary.

[BlackSheep]

That is a fair summation of current law.

A bit of an odd dichotomy though, don't you think. Up to the moment of birth, with no third party intercession, the mother can choose to kill her offspring, because it is voluntary.

I don't think she can legally do it up to the moment of birth. Up to the moment the law says she can.

But the life is protected by law from every other person on the planet.

Basically it is like a body part until it is considered a human.

Thus, the life inside her is a child if she wants it to live, or a fetus if she wants it to die. For whatever reason or no reason.

An unfair assessment. It is a fetus until the law declares it is not. She can abort it until that point.

[Yarn]

Exodus 21:25 says: If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The fine is for premature birth. If the child dies, the punishment is not monetary.

Premature birth is equivalent to death in ancient times, and fetuses don't have teeth. Plus translations of this section are often manipulated.

[Apeman81]

Basically it is like a body part until it is considered a human.

An unfair assessment. It is a fetus until the law declares it is not. She can abort it until that point.

A body part. That's the debate, isn't it. Is the life within her part of her body, or a separate body growing within her?

There's no argument that the life is a person once the birth process is complete. I say complete to allow for the incomplete birth "abortion" of the child.

Hence the argument focuses on the transition from non-person to person.

Any choice other than the moment of conception is an arbitrary one. There is no clear, identifiable moment in the gestation period that such a "transition" from non-person to person takes place.

Which is why we see such mental gyrations employed. The purposeful employment of the term fetus instead of child, regardless of the viability of the child. This is required to support late term, partial birth abortions.

We see the incorrect use of the term parasite (an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.) to dehumanize the child.

We speak of the woman's "control over her body" while ignoring the existence of the body growing within her.

Throughout human existence as part of a civil society, it has been held that life is not freely taken. The 5th amendment states that a person may not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Yet some in our civil society seek to do just that, deny the person they created life. And they justify their actions with arbitrary attributes and false definitions.

I do not support these actions.

[Apeman81]

Removed. No worth

[Yarn]

Source?

Apparently no one has bothered to research the premodern premature birth death rate.

Around 80% of babies born weighing less than 1.5 kg now survived, compared to around 40% in the 1960s. From 1982 in Britain pediatricians could train and qualify in the sub-specialty of neonatal medicine.

Neonatal intensive care unit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Average fetal length and weight chart | BabyCenter

Presently, we can rarely save embryos prior to the 24th week (ie 6th month). Survival rates then steadily rise until they are in the 90s by the final month. They would've been lower back then, but probably babies within a month or two of proper birth did often survive even before modern medicine. So my assumption was wrong in that it was overly absolute.
Premature Birth - Viability and Survival Statistics for Premature Birth

Premature birth resulting in death of the embryo is common, and always has been, but survival has never been unheard of.

Infantile quibble

Pun intended?

At any rate, ad hominem and insubstantive. The tooth part suggests that the eye for an eye portion only refers to the mother's health. But maybe it was meant to refer to both the mother and the child.