Is a Human Zygote an Organism?

[fedor50]

Just another failed pro choice argument as are all pro choice arguments. One simply can not rationally defend the indefensible so all of their arguments are doomed to failure. noday8 predictably tucked tail and left rather than face the reality of his position....they all do. One can only deny the facts in public so long before he starts to just look stupid...even pro choicers get that and invariably leave before being forced to look the reality of their position straight in the eye.

I am sure he will pop up somewhere else making the same arguments that lost here. They all do. They are driven to have someone...anyone...join in their position with them as if having someone else in on it somehow makes it right.

Pale Rider, an unborn is NOT a person because according to the OFFICIAL definition of the US Code from Congress, in order to be a person, you must first be BORN. Here is my PROOF...

Human Being - Person - Individual Defined

[1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Current through Pub. L. 113-100. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.


It appears that I have successfully proved you wrong ONCE AGAIN... or shall I say the US Code and Congress has. You simply cannot argue against FACTS.

 

[fedor50]

So noday8...your whole self justification for your pro choice position rested on your belief that identical twins are not the result of fission? What the hell does that have to do with anything? You did exemplify the entire pro choice argument in fine form. Rather than discuss the overarching fact that abortion kills a living human being for the convenience of another...you attempted to narrow the argument down to a single irrelevant point that you believed you could win and therefore feel good over winning a point that had nothing to do with your position on abortion at all.

And like most pro choicers your knowledge of biology was terribly small and you never even had a chance of winning that small point...the fact is that right down to the cellular level, the pro choice argument fails and yet you hold it. Is running away clapping your hands over your ears and yelling LA LA LA LA at the top of your lungs to avoid admitting the truth really an effective strategy for defending your position to yourself?

There goes Pale Rider, still valiantly defending the unborn. Since you care about unborns so much let me propose this idea/solution to you...

You know, we keep hearing stories about how medical science is close to mimicking a womb in a male. If it comes to fruition, would you support removing the fetus from the female and implanting it in a womb surgically created in the biological father? Here's a better idea - what if we insist that all males that reach puberty have surgically created wombs and then, if they get a female pregnant, the male will have to take his own responsibility for his actions.

You would support that, right? Because, the fetus has a shot at life. The male, of course, would have the responsibility of rearing the infant.

Science isn't quite there yet, but, just think - a way to make you happy AND make women who don't want to carry a pregnancy happy. Win-win.

Come on Pale Rider, do it for the unborn children

This is nothing but a hypothetical Pale Rider to see if you are truly interested in "saving the babies" as you claim, or if you are more interested in controlling women's reproductive rights. I'm betting its the latter.

There's another option on the horizon as well. Artificial wombs.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...erless-births/

This opens up a whole new set of hypotheticals. And so I would ask you - would this make you happy? Supposing a woman does not want to give birth, would you support the biological father being held responsible for paying for this process and then for rearing the child?

The other area is embryo transfer. Not only can a developing mammal be transferred from the uterus of its own mother to that of a surrogate, but gradually investigators are reproducing the endometrium–the cell layer of the uterus that contains and nourishes the pregnancy–as a cell culture, or an in vitro model. The convergence of these technologies will make it possible to transfer a developing human into a system that includes the placenta and umbilical cord and supplies all consumables (oxygen and food), and removes all waste, directly through the blood.

Thus, survival and continuing development would not depend on the lungs and other organs being ready yet to do their job. Applying such a system to fetus delivered in the middle of pregnancy would constitute real partial ectogenesis. Furthermore, since bypassing the developing, not fully functional organs, stands to improve survival substantially, and might even decrease the costs of extreme premature birth, the movement of the technology from research to clinic is inevitable.

Once that happens, there will be no obstacle against pushing the limit further, toward full ectogenesis. But there will be no obstacle to pushing the limit akin to how lung viability has placed an obstacle to conventional pre-term care. At some point, an in vitro fertilized egg could be planted directly into the artificial womb, with no need for a natural uterus even for the early stages.

 

[cashmcall]

Pale Rider, an unborn is NOT a person because according to the OFFICIAL definition of the US Code from Congress, in order to be a person, you must first be BORN. Here is my PROOF...

Human Being - Person - Individual Defined

[1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Current through Pub. L. 113-100. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.


It appears that I have successfully proved you wrong ONCE AGAIN... or shall I say the US Code and Congress has. You simply cannot argue against FACTS.

I don't care what you or a group of just barely above average thinkers calls a person, A fetus is a human being with its own DNA.. If you have a child at home, think about this, if you aborted that child and somewhere down the line you decided to have another, she/ he would not be that child you love at home. She's gone..

 

[palerider]

Pale Rider, an unborn is NOT a person because according to the OFFICIAL definition of the US Code from Congress, in order to be a person, you must first be BORN. Here is my PROOF...

Human Being - Person - Individual Defined

[1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Current through Pub. L. 113-100. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.


It appears that I have successfully proved you wrong ONCE AGAIN... or shall I say the US Code and Congress has. You simply cannot argue against FACTS.

Sorry guy...I suggest that you look at the code, and the legal definition of person you find in Black's Legal Dictionary...that would be the same dictionary you find in the justices library for any edition prior to the roe decision...there is a very specific reason that the justices were very careful to never call unborns human in any sense of the word prior to the decision...the US code...and the definition of person in Blacks Legal Dictionary prior to the year Roe was decided agreed that a person was simply a human being...no being born caveat....

So what you have is the US code being changed in order to support a flawed legal decision....if that amounts to a victory in your mind, then your character is flawed indeed.

And you have never proven me wrong, nor will you ever...but feel free to keep trying.

 

[palerider]

I don't care what you or a group of just barely above average thinkers calls a person, A fetus is a human being with its own DNA.. If you have a child at home, think about this, if you aborted that child and somewhere down the line you decided to have another, she/ he would not be that child you love at home. She's gone..

Prior to the Roe decision, the US code, and Black's Legal Dictionary that is THE legal dictionary used by Supreme Court Justices all agreed that a person was simply a human being....no being born caveat.....Your empty "victory" is nothing more than evidence that the US Code was altered to support a flawed and illegal court decision...you really believe that is a win? If you do, then I am afraid that you are the one who falls into the barely above average thinker column....if you can even be said to make it to average....Altering the code to support a decision is no less than despicable...

In the roe decision itself, the justices said that should it ever become evident that unborns were actually human beings. roe would necessarily be overturned...care to provide some evidence that the offspring of two human beings is ever, at any point in its development something other than a human being? Of course you wouldn't.

 

[cashmcall]

Prior to the Roe decision, the US code, and Black's Legal Dictionary that is THE legal dictionary used by Supreme Court Justices all agreed that a person was simply a human being....no being born caveat.....Your empty "victory" is nothing more than evidence that the US Code was altered to support a flawed and illegal court decision...you really believe that is a win? If you do, then I am afraid that you are the one who falls into the barely above average thinker column....if you can even be said to make it to average....Altering the code to support a decision is no less than despicable...

In the roe decision itself, the justices said that should it ever become evident that unborns were actually human beings. roe would necessarily be overturned...care to provide some evidence that the offspring of two human beings is ever, at any point in its development something other than a human being? Of course you wouldn't.

Dictionary.com:
Kill: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; destroy, slay, extinguish.
Person: a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

Which of these terms doesn’t apply to the act of deliberately assassinating an unborn human? For it to not qualify as killing, the unborn human would have to be not alive. But how can a human be not alive, yet not dead? There are only two things a human can be: alive or dead. So which is it? If the baby is dead, then why is it being aborted? They call it “termination” — OK then, what precisely is being terminated? A clump of tissue? A wart is a clump of tissue. A pimple is a clump of tissue. So why don’t we consider dermatologists to be “abortion doctors” in their own right? Could it be that a skin blemish doesn’t have its own unique DNA and it can’t develop its own vital organs? Let’s go back to the dictionary (you’ll notice I’m sort of a stickler for using words according to their actual definitions):


Alive: having life; living; existing; not dead or lifeless.

Does the unborn human not exist? Is it dead and lifeless? Is it possible for a being to be dead and lifeless with the mere potential to be living and existing? We’ve ventured into philosophical waters, and I’m not sure that you know how to swim. Reality dictates that a BEING must always BE from the moment that it IS. Can a being be, but not be at the same time? Can a being be an actual being and a potential being simultaneously?

Like I said, I don't care what you or a group of just barely above average thinkers calls a person... As far as I'm concerned the Courts were dealing in make believe not facts..

 

[cashmcall]

There goes Pale Rider, still valiantly defending the unborn. Since you care about unborns so much let me propose this idea/solution to you...

You know, we keep hearing stories about how medical science is close to mimicking a womb in a male. If it comes to fruition, would you support removing the fetus from the female and implanting it in a womb surgically created in the biological father? Here's a better idea - what if we insist that all males that reach puberty have surgically created wombs and then, if they get a female pregnant, the male will have to take his own responsibility for his actions.

You would support that, right? Because, the fetus has a shot at life. The male, of course, would have the responsibility of rearing the infant.

Science isn't quite there yet, but, just think - a way to make you happy AND make women who don't want to carry a pregnancy happy. Win-win.

Come on Pale Rider, do it for the unborn children

This is nothing but a hypothetical Pale Rider to see if you are truly interested in "saving the babies" as you claim, or if you are more interested in controlling women's reproductive rights. I'm betting its the latter.

There's another option on the horizon as well. Artificial wombs.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...erless-births/

This opens up a whole new set of hypotheticals. And so I would ask you - would this make you happy? Supposing a woman does not want to give birth, would you support the biological father being held responsible for paying for this process and then for rearing the child?

This opens up a whole new set of hypotheticals. And so I would ask you - would this make you happy? Supposing a woman does not want to give birth, would you support the biological father being held responsible for paying for this process and then for rearing the child? YES , I would..

 

[cashmcall]

When you say .. abortion is not “killing” a “person”, it is terminating a pregnancy. Period. An unborn fetus is not a baby….. its a fetus. Period.

what you’ve engaged in here is a fallacy known as “drawing a distinction without a difference.” Saying “abortion isn’t killing a person, it’s terminating a pregnancy” is like saying “jogging isn’t exercise, it’s physical exertion.”

Hello?

By the way, “fetus” derives from the Latin for “offspring.” So what your saying is: a fetus isn’t a baby, it’s an offspring. That’s like saying, “this isn’t a cow, it’s a mammal.”

What you don't understand is, I REALLY don't care what you or a group of just barely above average thinkers calls a person... These are just a few of my reason for what I believe, not arguing with your points. They are just wrong.

 

[palerider]

Dictionary.com:
Kill: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; destroy, slay, extinguish.
Person: a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

Which of these terms doesn’t apply to the act of deliberately assassinating an unborn human? For it to not qualify as killing, the unborn human would have to be not alive. But how can a human be not alive, yet not dead? There are only two things a human can be: alive or dead. So which is it? If the baby is dead, then why is it being aborted? They call it “termination” — OK then, what precisely is being terminated? A clump of tissue? A wart is a clump of tissue. A pimple is a clump of tissue. So why don’t we consider dermatologists to be “abortion doctors” in their own right? Could it be that a skin blemish doesn’t have its own unique DNA and it can’t develop its own vital organs? Let’s go back to the dictionary (you’ll notice I’m sort of a stickler for using words according to their actual definitions):


Alive: having life; living; existing; not dead or lifeless.

Does the unborn human not exist? Is it dead and lifeless? Is it possible for a being to be dead and lifeless with the mere potential to be living and existing? We’ve ventured into philosophical waters, and I’m not sure that you know how to swim. Reality dictates that a BEING must always BE from the moment that it IS. Can a being be, but not be at the same time? Can a being be an actual being and a potential being simultaneously?

Like I said, I don't care what you or a group of just barely above average thinkers calls a person... As far as I'm concerned the Courts were dealing in make believe not facts..

Dictionary.com:
Kill: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; destroy, slay, extinguish.
Person: a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

Which of these terms doesn’t apply to the act of deliberately assassinating an unborn human? For it to not qualify as killing, the unborn human would have to be not alive. But how can a human be not alive, yet not dead? There are only two things a human can be: alive or dead. So which is it? If the baby is dead, then why is it being aborted? They call it “termination” — OK then, what precisely is being terminated? A clump of tissue? A wart is a clump of tissue. A pimple is a clump of tissue. So why don’t we consider dermatologists to be “abortion doctors” in their own right? Could it be that a skin blemish doesn’t have its own unique DNA and it can’t develop its own vital organs? Let’s go back to the dictionary (you’ll notice I’m sort of a stickler for using words according to their actual definitions):


Alive: having life; living; existing; not dead or lifeless.

Does the unborn human not exist? Is it dead and lifeless? Is it possible for a being to be dead and lifeless with the mere potential to be living and existing? We’ve ventured into philosophical waters, and I’m not sure that you know how to swim. Reality dictates that a BEING must always BE from the moment that it IS. Can a being be, but not be at the same time? Can a being be an actual being and a potential being simultaneously?

Like I said, I don't care what you or a group of just barely above average thinkers calls a person... As far as I'm concerned the Courts were dealing in make believe not facts..

I don't think you are grasping the point of my argument regarding the US Code.

 

[cashmcall]

I don't think you are grasping the point of my argument regarding the US Code.

I understand, I just don't care .. the US Code is wrong.. thanks

 

[palerider]

I understand, I just don't care .. the US Code is wrong.. thanks

You don't care about the rational, fact based side of the pro life argument...only the subjective morality argument? Interesting.

 

[fedor50]

You don't care about the rational, fact based side of the pro life argument...only the subjective morality argument? Interesting.

Alright Pale Rider, it is about time that we boil this debate down to its conclusion and settle our differences so let me ask you a DIRECT, simple, and very straightforward question:

Suppose that I am a woman and I DONT want to have a baby but I DO want to have sex... Here is my question to you: Can I have sex?

If I don't want a baby, can I have sex?

If your answer is YES, you've directly contradicted yourself when you said "If you don't want a baby, don't have sex"
If your answer is NO, you've directly contradicted yourself when you said "If you don't want a baby your entire life, you can have sex, but then you have to keep the baby".

You're kinda stuck in a hole, here.

Here is my point Pale Rider...

When you say "if you don't want a baby, don't have sex", you mean "if you want to be guaranteed not to have a baby, don't have sex". But when you say "People who don't want babies all their lives can still have sex", the 'want' just refers to a general aim, rather than a need for a guarantee. That's a contradiction; you're inconsistently using the phrase.

"If you want to be guaranteed to not have a baby all your life, don't have sex all your life" is the only statement that goes with "If you don't want a baby, don't have sex".

Lets be CONSISTENT Pale Rider.

"If you want to be guaranteed to not have a baby all your life, don't have sex all your life"

Is that your actual argument boiled down to its essence?

 

[palerider]

Alright Pale Rider, it is about time that we boil this debate down to its conclusion and settle our differences so let me ask you a DIRECT, simple, and very straightforward question:

Suppose that I am a woman and I DONT want to have a baby but I DO want to have sex... Here is my question to you: Can I have sex?

If I don't want a baby, can I have sex?

If your answer is YES, you've directly contradicted yourself when you said "If you don't want a baby, don't have sex"
If your answer is NO, you've directly contradicted yourself when you said "If you don't want a baby your entire life, you can have sex, but then you have to keep the baby".

You're kinda stuck in a hole, here.

Here is my point Pale Rider...

When you say "if you don't want a baby, don't have sex", you mean "if you want to be guaranteed not to have a baby, don't have sex". But when you say "People who don't want babies all their lives can still have sex", the 'want' just refers to a general aim, rather than a need for a guarantee. That's a contradiction; you're inconsistently using the phrase.

"If you want to be guaranteed to not have a baby all your life, don't have sex all your life" is the only statement that goes with "If you don't want a baby, don't have sex".

Lets be CONSISTENT Pale Rider.

"If you want to be guaranteed to not have a baby all your life, don't have sex all your life"

Is that your actual argument boiled down to its essence?

Is that what passes for logic in that brain of yours? If so, then I see why you are so confused. I don't particularly want to die...following your logic, does that mean that I can't live since life leads to death?

If you don't want a child, that doesn't mean that you can't have sex...go ahead and have sex. If you don't want to fall to your death from the top of a tall building, you can still walk the ledges on the top floors of buildings all you like...but if you go over the edge and get exactly what you don't want, at least you know that it was your own behavior that led to the sudden impact on the pavement that you are about to experience....or are you the sort that would blame the building...or gravity...or anything else other than your own penchant for walking the ledges of tall buildings?

The only one stuck here is you....you are wrong, and either not educated enough, or grown up enough to see it and acknowledge it...so what do you do?....you put on a memorable exhibition of flawed logic.

And if you never want a child, there are irreversible alternatives to never having sex...are you unaware of them?

I am, at this moment embarrassed for you fedor50....if in your mind that steaming pile of flawed logic and limited thinking represent a coherent argument in support of your position, I am genuinely embarrassed for you. Hasn't it gotten through your skull yet, that this is an actual scientific argument that either is, or is not supported by hard, undeniable scientific fact? Word games, and silly assed claims of "inconsistently" using phrases can never overcome hard cold undeniable scientific fact.

Suppose you never want to kill anyone but never the less go about with a revolver with one bullet, spinning the chamber then pointing the gun at people and pulling the trigger. When the gun finally goes off and someone drops dead...what is your excuse....I didn't want to kill anyone? I shouldn't have to face the consequences of my actions? It isn't my fault? How could I have known this would happen?....... Were there no alternatives to your behavior? Could you not have simply removed the bullet and then went about playing your demented game seeking your secret thrill?

Just as an afterthought....in the latter 1960's, after we had our first child, we were told that another child could result in the death of my wife...having no sex for the rest of our lives was not an attractive option so we made a mature decision, accepted that our actions have consequences and took action...decades and decades of sex....no more children....we knew that we NEVER wanted to have another child so took an irreversible action to assure that we didn't.

Grow up guy....argue like an adult...think more than half a mm deep into your quandary.

 

[fedor50]

Is that what passes for logic in that brain of yours? If so, then I see why you are so confused. I don't particularly want to die...following your logic, does that mean that I can't live since life leads to death?

If you don't want a child, that doesn't mean that you can't have sex...go ahead and have sex. If you don't want to fall to your death from the top of a tall building, you can still walk the ledges on the top floors of buildings all you like...but if you go over the edge and get exactly what you don't want, at least you know that it was your own behavior that led to the sudden impact on the pavement that you are about to experience....or are you the sort that would blame the building...or gravity...or anything else other than your own penchant for walking the ledges of tall buildings?

The only one stuck here is you....you are wrong, and either not educated enough, or grown up enough to see it and acknowledge it...so what do you do?....you put on a memorable exhibition of flawed logic.

And if you never want a child, there are irreversible alternatives to never having sex...are you unaware of them?

I am, at this moment embarrassed for you fedor50....if in your mind that steaming pile of flawed logic and limited thinking represent a coherent argument in support of your position, I am genuinely embarrassed for you. Hasn't it gotten through your skull yet, that this is an actual scientific argument that either is, or is not supported by hard, undeniable scientific fact? Word games, and silly assed claims of "inconsistently" using phrases can never overcome hard cold undeniable scientific fact.

Suppose you never want to kill anyone but never the less go about with a revolver with one bullet, spinning the chamber then pointing the gun at people and pulling the trigger. When the gun finally goes off and someone drops dead...what is your excuse....I didn't want to kill anyone? I shouldn't have to face the consequences of my actions? It isn't my fault? How could I have known this would happen?....... Were there no alternatives to your behavior? Could you not have simply removed the bullet and then went about playing your demented game seeking your secret thrill?

Just as an afterthought....in the latter 1960's, after we had our first child, we were told that another child could result in the death of my wife...having no sex for the rest of our lives was not an attractive option so we made a mature decision, accepted that our actions have consequences and took action...decades and decades of sex....no more children....we knew that we NEVER wanted to have another child so took an irreversible action to assure that we didn't.

Grow up guy....argue like an adult...think more than half a mm deep into your quandary.

Pale Rider, you do realize dont you that 87,000 women in the US die or suffer extreme health damage (stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, etc) from pregnancy and childbirth. This is WITH the legal option of abortion to save themselves available.

Plus, not all severe complications are predictable or preventable. The risks cannot be completely calculated or predicted and those risks, by that number, are significant.

Do you deny the risks to women are significant and not uncommon? If so, for what reason do you diminish these consequences for individual women?

You are claiming that women should remain pregnant but you are totally unwilling to see the HUGE problems with that statement and belief.

Plus did you know that a NORMAL pregnancy disables the immune system resulting in illness, depletes the bones, and causes injury invariably. That is all pregnancies -- even the completely textbook ones. And then there's all the hundreds of even more serious complications, some of which affect as much as half of pregnant women, and some of which are permanent or get progressively worse even after pregnancy is over.

Should women risk their lives just to satisfy YOU when some severe complications (and death?) are unpreventable?

 

[palerider]

Pale Rider, you do realize dont you that 87,000 women in the US die or suffer extreme health damage (stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, etc) from pregnancy and childbirth. This is WITH the legal option of abortion to save themselves available.

Games on top of games on top of lies...is that really all you have? According to the CDC, 600 women in the US die annually as the result of pregnancy or delivery complications with the majority of those being the result of delivery room complications...often due to the woman's own behavior...drugs, etc...So we have an actual 0.015% mortality rate for all causes related to pregnancy in the US...and liberally about 0.005 percent die as a result of the pregnancy itself. A much better argument could be made for never driving, or bathing, or changing light bulbs, or even getting out of bed.

And the whole tangent is meaningless as I have stated clearly and repeatedly that if her pregnancy is an imminent danger to her life, the woman has as much right to defend herself against a real and present threat as anyone else...

Pregnancy in and of itself, however is not a credible threat....if you sit on your front porch, a higher percentage of passersby on the sidewalk are likely to kill you than a pregnancy is likely to kill a woman. Playing with numbers in a dishonest fashion is no more a credible argument than word games...it simply does not counter the hard scientific facts.

Plus, not all severe complications are predictable or preventable. The risks cannot be completely calculated or predicted and those risks, by that number, are significant.

If you are going to play that game, you must first address the myriad of dangers that living itself poses to women that don't involve killing another human being in an attempt to avoid the consequences of life. If you are so concerned....how many ways of dying must you address which claim more lives than pregnancy? Or are you being disingenuous, just trying to win an invalid point?

Do you deny the risks to women are significant and not uncommon? If so, for what reason do you diminish these consequences for individual women?

The numbers speak for themselves...again, how many ways are there for women to die that are far more likely to happen than complications due to pregnancy? If your concern is for the safety of women, why pick a potential threat that is so far down the list? And you aren't considering the fact that the abortion itself represents a higher risk than simply having the child....women who have abortions are more than twice as likely to die in the 2 year period following the abortion than women who carry their child...then for the following 8 years, women who abort are more than 150 times more likely to commit suicide...killing another human being certainly has mental consequences associated with the act...

Truthfully, your argument isn't about women, or their safety, or their health issues...it is about your desperate attempt to not be wrong.

You are claiming that women should remain pregnant but you are totally unwilling to see the HUGE problems with that statement and belief.

You don't know what you are talking about and are lying in the process of pretending that you do.

Plus did you know that a NORMAL pregnancy disables the immune system resulting in illness, depletes the bones, and causes injury invariably. That is all pregnancies -- even the completely textbook ones. And then there's all the hundreds of even more serious complications, some of which affect as much as half of pregnant women, and some of which are permanent or get progressively worse even after pregnancy is over.

And the fact remains that there is an 0.005 chance that any particular woman will die due to her pregnancy in the US...your argument is bullshit and again, if you are so concerned about the dangers of living to women, why not pick any of the literally hundreds of causes of death that are a greater danger to any woman living in the US today?

Should women risk their lives just to satisfy YOU when some severe complications (and death?) are unpreventable?

Should anyone be allowed to kill anyone else for reasons that need not amount to more than convenience to make your claim fair and balanced across society? If a woman is in imminent danger, she has the right to protect herself...she can no more justifiably kill someone who may be a threat to her life than you can....go out and shoot someone and tell the judge that there was a 0.005% chance that that person was going to kill you and you simply acted preemptively.....let me know how that works out for you...they allow death row inmates to write letters I believe.