Re: Freeman Dyson on heresy

A baby is not somebody's organ; it a person of its own.

John

It just occurred to me, it states in the Declaration of Independence that people are "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...".

Well, who just did all the grunt work of creating that fetus? Who provided all of the raw material? Who provided all of its food? Its mother, of course.

Ergo, as the creator of the fetus, its mother is the only one who has the power to endow it with "rights".

And, of course, every woman certainly retains the right to make a baby out of it, but then, when it's born, it's not her property any more, it's a person, who has had its rights endowed "by default", as it were, by the mother who chose to turn it into a new person.

The onllly way to endow "rights" to a fetus is to strip its owner, i.e., the woman who owns the womb it's in, of her unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

Does the country really want to go back to treating women as chattel?

Thanks, Rich

So, you're saying that as soon as a woman becomes pregnant, she loses the right to control her own body, and must surrender her will to the bidding of another, like a chattel slave, or brood mare?

When do we go back to burning them at the stake?

Thanks, Rich

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Only AFTER it's born,separated from the mother. Until then,the fetus can and does affect the health of the mother,is literally INSIDE the mother,thus still a PART of her.Her blood flows thru the fetus,her body supplies it's oxygen and nourishes it.

It should always be the woman's right to choose;it's nobody else's business. It's between her and her doctors.

I'm pro-gun and pro-death penalty,BTW.

No. It is genetically distinct. It is another being.

Her blood flows thru

Her blood does not flow through the fetus. If it did, one or both of them would die, because they are not immunologically compatible. Because they are different people.

John

No, the mother's blood had better *not* flow through the fetus. The fetus had better have its own!

You're in favor of "late term abortions"? I would have guessed that Rich the Dreaded dumb-dumb would come down on the side of infanticide, but not you.

Apparently for the most innocent too. Two out of three is a start though.

My Aunt and my Cousin were murdered in '87 by a drug crazed bastard, and despite eating 5 out of six slugs, the little bastard lived, and has sucked tax payer cash for the last 20 years.

You can bet that if I ever get diagnosed with a terminal illness I will go back there and get put in prison so the job can be finished.

You're an idiot.

You're a goddamned idiot. Her blood most CERTAINLY DOES flow in and out of the fetus the ENTIRE time, and even does right up until the doc cut the umbilical cord, you idiot!

How else do you think the fetus gets its Oxygen?

Her blood is 100% compatible. It's an absolute guarantee.

You're an idiot.

Your consiatant ability to be Always Wrong is incredibly impressive. The baby has its own circulatory system, and often has a different blood type. For example, I am RH positive and my mother was RH negative, so I had some mild liver problems at birth, because some of her antibodies got into my system. The blodstreams do not mix, but exchange gasses and nutrients via diffusion through the placenta. The placenta is such a smart barrier that HIV-positive mothers can and do give birth to HIV-negative kids.

"The placenta receives nutrients, oxygen, antibodies and hormones from the mother's blood and passes out waste. It forms a barrier, the placental barrier, which filters out some substances which could harm the fetus. The placental barrier does NOT allow the two bloods from the mother and embryo to mix because if the blood types don't match then the baby will be destroyed."

You are Always Wrong! How do you do it?

John

No Dimbulb, you have a corner on that market.

krw wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.individual.net:

yes,as necessary.

Late term abortions most often occur because there are serious problems,not just because the woman decided she didn't want a baby anymore. As I said,between the doctor and their patient;none of my business,and none of yours.

I note that you don't define "necessary".

Absolute bullshit. There is *NEVER* a need to kill an infant already in the birth canal. You are confusing "need" and "want".

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:51:14 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote: ...

I'm pro-gun, but I have a different take on the death penalty.

Why punish the body for the wrongdoing of the mind? Just give them life in solitary confinement with no TV, no human contact of any kind, no newspapers, no magazines, nothing. Just four blank walls, a floor and a ceiling, a cot, sink, toilet, and food slot. Feed him enough to stay alive, like you would a zoo animal, but don't do anything more.

Oh, and give him a razor. >:->

Cheers! Rich

By what path did the molecules that constitute this fetus get to it? By way of the mother's mouth and nose, is how. That makes them her property to do with as she sees fit.

Are you claiming that because her fetus is making new combinations of DNA, that the molecules that she has provided to it are no longer her property? Or that, somehow, a recombinationn of DNA miraculously becomes an "unborn child" and the woman is no longer a Human Being with the Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property? Are you saying that pregnancy makes her someone's property, to whom she must subjugate her own will? That she loses her Right to her OWH Life? That is a government imposition of religion, and expressly prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, not to mention a Bad Thing To Do.

Thanks, Rich

You're an idiot.

Why give them a way out? If most people thought about it, they would see that this is far worse than a death sentence and yet means that there need be no state killings to do.

She is obligated by law to protect her children, to feed them, to educate them, to not injure them. Child neglect and endangerment are felonies. So much for her "Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property"; once she becomes a mother, she acquires obligations under law. The only question is, when do the obligations begin?

If she continues to feed the baby with her milk, the molecules are still "hers" but under law the child is itself a separate citizen and has its own rights to Life and Liberty.

The Constitutional rights granted to citizens are not religious.

John

Think about the implications of that claim. So is every one of her eggs and every one of your sperm. Preventing you from aborting any one of your sperm coud keep the courts very busy.

Right, her blood only flows through the placenta. But while the mother is a person, the question of whether the fetus is a person is essentially what is being discussed here, and there are lots of good pragmatic reasons for requiring that a human being has to be a distinct and self-sustaining individual before they can be recognised as such by the law. I went through them here a few years ago.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen