Post Reply
Page 5 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 Next
5 years ago  ::  Sep 01, 2009 - 8:09PM #41
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Sep 1, 2009 -- 7:18PM, Larosser wrote:

Only a very small percentage of the population of this country is blind, or Sufi,  has last names that consist of a single letter or is severely allergic to peanuts. But we still try hard not to pass laws that make life difficult for them. In fact, we sometimes go out of our way to pass laws to protect them.



You missed the point. We don't pass laws because there are extrenuating (sp?) circumstances by which they will adversely affect others. If that was the case, then absolutely no law would ever be passed because there's always some situation in which that law will be a detriment to someone. We pass laws in order to protect one group from inflicting harm upon another group, and all anti-abortion laws would be passed in order to prevent the ZEF from being harmed by either the actions of the mother or others. Of course, there'd probably be the odd case here or there where someone really was raped and wouldn't be allowed to have an abortion, but that's merely a fact of life involved with the passage of any law.


Are you this judgemental about everything? Do you favor denying medical care to people who don't wear seatbelts? If someone doesn't discover a theft for a few weeks, does that mean they can't press charges?



This has nothing to do with being judgmental. Everything has a statute of limitations. This is to prevent people from abusing the proverbial system. Depending on the state, the statute of limitations on reporting a rape is a few years. This is so you can't show up twenty years down the line and claim that someone raped you. Obviously, since pregnancy is only nine months, then there has to be a similar limit on claiming one was raped and being allowed to obtain an abortion. This is so someone can't just show up six months down the line and claim that she was raped.


Sorry my writing was unclear. Th sample was taken fairly quickly - she felt horrible the next day and ended up in the infirmary, but the results took quite a while to come back.



GHB isn't exactly a recreational drug. So if that was found to be in her system, that would be a clear indicator of rape.


So, I have an additional question for you: I'm assuming from your position that you would like to see the number of abortions drop. Why is that? Do you believe that life begins at conception? Or do you have some other reason for the position?


Best,


La



Because abortion is a clear violation of a human's natural rights (The right to life), which is infringed upon without due cause (92% of abortion are performed purly out of convenience). That's why.


And, yes, human life begins at conception.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 01, 2009 - 8:12PM #42
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Sep 1, 2009 -- 7:42PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

Larosser, you were perfectly clear.  It's just that Bei has this ophthalmic condition called willful blindness.



Please, don't confuse me with yourself.


And he cares deeply, passionately, about every life ... until it's born, anyway, then he doesn't give a damn.  But that's not unique to Bei.  I see that in all the so-called 'prolifers' here.



It's always funny to listen to you tell me what I believe. The difference between you and I is that I care about all humans-- Unborn, born and those on respirators-- And I don't relegate any subset of the human population to having any less rights than the other. Unlike yourself.


Don't you ever get tired of telling me what I believe? It's sooo annoying.


...Oh, and I had something to say about cheerleading, but I forgot what it was.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 01, 2009 - 8:40PM #43
Onlyme
Posts: 7

Bei,


You kind of missed my point.  There are people who believe as passionately as you that even a pregnancy resulting from rape should not be aborted because the feuts ("baby") is innocent.  Again, why is your view morally superior?  


Also, you should look into why women don't report rape more often.  It's a complex mix of myths believed by the general population, shame, blame, embarrassment over talking about such an intimate act in front of total strangers and a horrendous rate of convictions, if the case even goes to trial.  Even without a pregnancy, rape has long lasting effects that can include extremely realistic flashbacks, PTSD, depression, hypersexuality, drug and alcohol abuse, just to name a few.  If you have compassion for a rape victim becoming pregnant from her attack, you should be compassionate about about her making the extremely difficult decision to not report and yet still obtain an abortion if she chooses. Much like the decision to abort, it is something that rape victims do not take lightly.   Every rape victim wants his or her rapist to face consquences, but it is much easier said than done. 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 01, 2009 - 8:59PM #44
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Sep 1, 2009 -- 8:40PM, Onlyme wrote:

Bei,


You kind of missed my point.  There are people who believe as passionately as you that even a pregnancy resulting from rape should not be aborted because the fetus ("baby") is innocent.  Again, why is your view morally superior?



No. I got your point and I did answer the question. You simply didn't get the answer you wanted. Talking about what's "morally superior", or talking about morals in general, is pointless, because morals are subjective and the only way to be wrong is to admit you're wrong. And since no one is going to admit they're wrong, then we get get into the proverbial stalemate. Furthermore, morals have little place when discussing the law, as the law is not based on a set of morals, but rather it's based on preventing one party from bringing harm of some sort to another party. So far, PC'ers have been able to frame the debate as one of "personal morality", which makes little sense seeing as how this has nothing to do with morals, but rather with protecting one subset of the population from another.


Also, you should look into why women don't report rape more often.  It's a complex mix of myths believed by the general population, shame, blame, embarrassment over talking about such an intimate act in front of total strangers and a horrendous rate of convictions, if the case even goes to trial.  Even without a pregnancy, rape has long lasting effects that can include extremely realistic flashbacks, PTSD, depression, hypersexuality, drug and alcohol abuse, just to name a few.  If you have compassion for a rape victim becoming pregnant from her attack, you should be compassionate about about her making the extremely difficult decision to not report and yet still obtain an abortion if she chooses. Much like the decision to abort, it is something that rape victims do not take lightly.   Every rape victim wants his or her rapist to face consquences, but it is much easier said than done.



I know why women don't report rapes. That was a tangent brought up by BHR which has nothing to do without anything I wrote out. That is, it doesn't take away from anything I wrote out. Now, with that being done, what I said that women should report a rape as soon as it happens, and that a failure to do so makes it infinitely harder on the woman as 1.) She won't be given EC's unless she buys them herself and 2.) It makes it harder to catch her rapist. Any woman who doesn't do this makes her life much harder than it needs be. Just because the rapist might not face any consequences is absolutely no reason not to report it. As I said, reporting it also allows you to get free (I believe) treatment to ensure that you don't get pregnant.


But, anyway, saying that a woman should be allowed to get an abortion when she's raped without having to state that she was raped is a backdoor way of saying abortions should always be legal whenever the woman wants it, because that's in essence what has to happen for what you want to be true. It's not-so-sly, is what it is. One can "empathize" and be "compassionate" without thinking a woman should be allowed to have an abortion without stating that as the reason for the abortion.


And, just to throw this out there, most rape victims don't even abort their child. Hell, less than a half of a percent of abortions are for rape :P


...Oh, and I must have woken up in bizarro world or something, as there are actually people here arguing that a woman shouldn't, nor be expected to, report being raped. Weird o_O

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 01, 2009 - 9:53PM #45
Larosser
Posts: 413

Sep 1, 2009 -- 8:09PM, Bei1052 wrote:


. ...We pass laws in order to protect one group from inflicting harm upon another group, and all anti-abortion laws would be passed in order to prevent the ZEF from being harmed by either the actions of the mother or others.




So on what basis do you award a collection of cells with the status of a human being?


Sep 1, 2009 -- 8:09PM, Bei1052 wrote:


 Of course, there'd probably be the odd case here or there where someone really was raped and wouldn't be allowed to have an abortion, but that's merely a fact of life involved with the passage of any law.




That seems pretty callous and judgemental. Do you feel the same way about the occassional innocent person who is falsely convicted of a crime and imprisoned or executed?


Sep 1, 2009 -- 8:09PM, Bei1052 wrote:


This has nothing to do with being judgmental. Everything has a statute of limitations. This is to prevent people from abusing the proverbial system.




Most states don't have a statue of limitations on rape.   It's classed with capital crimes.


Sep 1, 2009 -- 8:09PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Depending on the state, the statute of limitations on reporting a rape is a few years. This is so you can't show up twenty years down the line and claim that someone raped you. Obviously, since pregnancy is only nine months, then there has to be a similar limit on claiming one was raped and being allowed to obtain an abortion. This is so someone can't just show up six months down the line and claim that she was raped.




This imposes a cruel and unusual burden on the woman in question and subjects her to a special and specific hardship compared to other women (those who don't have the bad luck to turn up pregnant when raped.  I'm thinking we can do better than that.


Sep 1, 2009 -- 8:09PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Because abortion is a clear violation of a human's natural rights (The right to life), which is infringed upon without due cause (92% of abortion are performed purly out of convenience). That's why.


And, yes, human life begins at conception.




I get that this is the position you're asserting - life begins at conception, a zygote is a person. On what do you base that assertion?


Best,


La

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 01, 2009 - 10:49PM #46
Onlyme
Posts: 7

Sep 1, 2009 -- 8:59PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Sep 1, 2009 -- 8:40PM, Onlyme wrote:

Bei,


You kind of missed my point.  There are people who believe as passionately as you that even a pregnancy resulting from rape should not be aborted because the fetus ("baby") is innocent.  Again, why is your view morally superior?



No. I got your point and I did answer the question. You simply didn't get the answer you wanted. Talking about what's "morally superior", or talking about morals in general, is pointless, because morals are subjective and the only way to be wrong is to admit you're wrong. And since no one is going to admit they're wrong, then we get get into the proverbial stalemate. Furthermore, morals have little place when discussing the law, as the law is not based on a set of morals, but rather it's based on preventing one party from bringing harm of some sort to another party. So far, PC'ers have been able to frame the debate as one of "personal morality", which makes little sense seeing as how this has nothing to do with morals, but rather with protecting one subset of the population from another.


Also, you should look into why women don't report rape more often.  It's a complex mix of myths believed by the general population, shame, blame, embarrassment over talking about such an intimate act in front of total strangers and a horrendous rate of convictions, if the case even goes to trial.  Even without a pregnancy, rape has long lasting effects that can include extremely realistic flashbacks, PTSD, depression, hypersexuality, drug and alcohol abuse, just to name a few.  If you have compassion for a rape victim becoming pregnant from her attack, you should be compassionate about about her making the extremely difficult decision to not report and yet still obtain an abortion if she chooses. Much like the decision to abort, it is something that rape victims do not take lightly.   Every rape victim wants his or her rapist to face consquences, but it is much easier said than done.



I know why women don't report rapes. That was a tangent brought up by BHR which has nothing to do without anything I wrote out. That is, it doesn't take away from anything I wrote out. Now, with that being done, what I said that women should report a rape as soon as it happens, and that a failure to do so makes it infinitely harder on the woman as 1.) She won't be given EC's unless she buys them herself and 2.) It makes it harder to catch her rapist. Any woman who doesn't do this makes her life much harder than it needs be. Just because the rapist might not face any consequences is absolutely no reason not to report it. As I said, reporting it also allows you to get free (I believe) treatment to ensure that you don't get pregnant.


 


But, anyway, saying that a woman should be allowed to get an abortion when she's raped without having to state that she was raped is a backdoor way of saying abortions should always be legal whenever the woman wants it, because that's in essence what has to happen for what you want to be true. It's not-so-sly, is what it is. One can "empathize" and be "compassionate" without thinking a woman should be allowed to have an abortion without stating that as the reason for the abortion.


And, just to throw this out there, most rape victims don't even abort their child. Hell, less than a half of a percent of abortions are for rape :P


...Oh, and I must have woken up in bizarro world or something, as there are actually people here arguing that a woman shouldn't, nor be expected to, report being raped. Weird o_




The point is that you ARE making a moral decision, whether you admit it or not. The fact it the ZEF is a product of rape does not take away the fact that, according to your arguments, the ZEF is human life  You are making a moral judgement based on your interpretations of the law.  There are many people who interpret the law differently, saying that the harm to the ZEF is greater than the potential harm to a woman who was raped and the manner in which a ZEF is created should not matter.   I don't see how you can claim your exception for rape is not a moral judgement. 


As a rape survivor, I think I have a much greater understanding of the dynamics of reporting rape than you ever will.  Until you speak in depth with a woman who has been raped, and the torment she undoubtedly went through in deciding whether to report,  you have no place to speak about how and when any woman should report.   Until you hear a woman tell you how her friends clam up when she speaks of her rape, never once offering any support or sympathy (and in fact, usually criticism).  As a victim contemplating reporting date rape, you hear that a serial date rapist got off because the jury said the victims testifying didn't cry during their testimony (I have never been able to cry about my rape, either).  When you hear a story of a boy who was molested by his teenage neighbor and told his parents, and they never spoke of it again, even after he had a breakdown a few years later. When you experience any of this first hand, then you can have a say about reporting.  I agree, it would be best if every woman (girl/boy/man) reported rapes, but I can understand why they don't and honestly often wonder why any do.  It's a total shame.   However, it should be noted that many, many rape victims do not identify their rapes as such for months (and even years) after. 


You talk about "catching" a rapist, but in date rape, "catching" is not part of it.  Normally, the accused doesn't even need to deny having sex with the victim, only try to prove that it was consensual.  It's He Said/She Said.  And since most women are raped by someone they know,  if a report is filed and either charges are never brought against the accused rapist or he is acquitted, the life of the victim is ruined.  So, no, I'm sorry, but you don't come across as if you have any understanding of what a rape victim comtemplates in deciding in whether or not to tell.  But, from reading your posts, that does not surprise me. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 02, 2009 - 1:13AM #47
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Sep 1, 2009 -- 9:53PM, Larosser wrote:

So on what basis do you award a collection of cells with the status of a human being?



Even though I suppose it's easier to think of it as such, a ZEF is always a human being. There is no point in time when it's not.


That seems pretty callous and judgemental. Do you feel the same way about the occassional innocent person who is falsely convicted of a crime and imprisoned or executed?



I fail to see how it's either callous or judgmental. A fact of life is that no law perfectly serves everyone a hundred percent of the time, and that there will always be those odd cases in which the planets align and something so unforseeable causes a situation in which a law created to help someone actually hurts them. But just because no law is perfect doesn't mean that the law shouldn't exist. Furthermore, the effectiveness of said law would solely on how quickly a woman comes forward and reports a rape. Obviously, the longer she waits the more trouble she's going to have. Of course, that speaks to a failure on her part to report than it does the law. You can't provide assistance to one who doesn't report being raped, now can you?


...And I totally oppose the death penalty, FYI.


Most states don't have a statue of limitations on rape.   It's classed with capital crimes.



This isn't true. Most states do have a statute of limitations on rape. The only crime that I know with absolutely no statute of limitations whatsoever is murder.


This imposes a cruel and unusual burden on the woman in question and subjects her to a special and specific hardship compared to other women (those who don't have the bad luck to turn up pregnant when raped.  I'm thinking we can do better than that.



Ummm... If someone is raped and then turns up pregnant, then she can have an abortion. No "special and specific" hardship there. I'm thinking what you meant, is that if someone turns up pregnant yet she says she was raped, then that would create a "special and specific" harship. Of course, it wouldn't, as that hardship would be self-imposed, henceforth going back to the whole "It's important for someone who's raped to report it ASAP" thing.


I get that this is the position you're asserting - life begins at conception, a zygote is a person. On what do you base that assertion?


Best,


La



I've said this many times before, but personhood is irrelevant. Rights, especially inalienable rights, are stated to be inherent to all humans. Personhood is a turn constructed in order to deny a certain subset of the population rights afforded to all humans. I said this in another post (On this very same thread, mind you), but Roe v. Wade managed to create two subsets of the human population-- Human persons and human non-persons-- Whereas prior person was synonymous with human.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 02, 2009 - 2:01AM #48
Justme333
Posts: 1,101

Bei,


I very seldom post here, and I probably agree with you more than not.  But you make it really hard when you make statements that seem to show that you don't know what you are talking about.  I do not understand how you can be so dismissive of posters who are honestly trying to discuss this issue - such as...


Sep 1, 2009 -- 5:54PM, Bei1052 wrote:


You put no further effort into the growth and development of the fertilized ovum.  I do. I have to nourish the zygote, embryo and fetus with calcium from my own body, iron from my own blood, and the developing zef gets first dibs on all nutrients that I eat.  I dispose of the zef's wastes.  I breathe for it.  I keep it at a uniform temperature compatible with life for its whole gestation. I may suffer some serious and sometimes permanent illnesses because of its presence, and a whole lot of not so serious and permanent conditions because of it.  All of which change my body forever, and not for the better.



Yeah... This is so wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin. "You" don't do jack squat. "Your body" doesn't even do that much, aside from providing someplace for the ZEF to gestate. Hell, you don't even need to go out of your way to accomodate a ZEF, as a ZEF is responsible for mainting it's own internal equlibrium and development (Seriously. Learn what homeostasis is. It's pissing me off how you continue to misuse a term). The only way a ZEF will start negatively impacting your nutrional health is if you go out of your way to change your eating habits, at which point it'll start "stealing" calcium from your bone and teeth, for example (Actually, I think your body will divert these minerals to the ZEF. I'm not sure).


What do you mean that the woman's body doesn't do jack squat? Of course the fetus takes needed nutrients from the mother. And not all women start out their pregnancy in good health or have access to adequate nutrition or pre-natal vitamins.




from here:  


pg 134 in Introductory Maternity and Pediatric Nursing by N. Jayne Klossner, Nancy T. Hatfield 




"The need for iron is increased dramatically after 20 weeks.  If the woman is iron deficient, she will develop anemia.  However, the fetus will get the iron needed to manufacture red blood cells.  This is one instance in which nature robs from the woman to adequately supply the fetus."


If insufficient amounts [of calcium] are ingested, or if calcium is not absorbed from the GI tract, the body will take calcium from the bones to maintain blood levels.  This process will also occur to meet the calcium needs of the growing fetus."


And then there is the issue of disposing of waste from the fetus, and other physiological changes to the woman, which are described here:


 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16604136 


Physiological adaptation in early human pregnancy: adaptation to balance maternal-fetal demands.


"After conception, the corpus luteum, placenta, and developing embryo release hormones, growth factors, and other substances into the maternal circulation. These substances trigger a cascade of events that transform the functioning of the maternal cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal systems, which in turn alter the physicochemical determinants of [H(+)]. Following implantation, maternal adaptations fulfill 4 important functions that support fetal growth. Increased availability of substrates and precursors for fetal-placental metabolism and hormone production is mediated by increases in dietary intake, as well as endocrine changes that increase the availability of glucose and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Transport capacity is enhanced by increases in cardiac output, facilitating the transport of substrates and precursors to the placenta, and fetal waste products to maternal organs for disposal. Maternal-fetal exchange is regulated by the placenta after 10-12 weeks gestation, but it may occur through histiotrophic mechanisms before this time. Disposal of additional waste products (heat, carbon dioxide, and metabolic byproducts) occurs through peripheral vasodilation and increases in skin blood flow, ventilation, and renal filtration. The maternal physiological adaptations described above must meet the combined demands of maternal exercise and fetal growth." 








Homeostasis - hmmm well it would be nice if you, instead of belittling someone else's post, would post actual facts that explain why you dismiss certain things.  For instance, I agree that the mother is responsible for the fetal homeostasis because...


"In humans, homeostasis in the blood (which provides fluid for all tissues) is ensured by several organs. The kidneys regulate pH, urea, and water concentration. The lungs regulate oxygen and carbon dioxide (see breathing). Temperature is regulated by the liver and the skin (see temperature regulation). Glucose levels in the blood are regulated by the liver and the pancreas." encyclopedia.farlex.com/homeostasis . So my question is what maintains the fetal homeostasis until that point when the kidneys, liver, pancreas and other needed organs of the fetus are developed?


And then there is this study: The Normal Increase in Adrenal Secretion During Pregnancy Contributes to Maternal Volume Expansion and Fetal Homeostasis from here: rsx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/6... that concluded that:"Maternal adrenal secretion maintains the normal increase in maternal plasma volume and fetal cortisol and indirectly supports fetal arterial oxygen tension, blood pressure, and adrenal secretion".                 




When the time comes, I alone have to undergo labor and delivery, and perhaps undergo major abdominal surgery just to end the pregnancy.





And...? That's due to an enlarged cranium.


Are you seriously dismissing a woman undergoing a c-section simply because you think the fetus has a large head?  What are you talking about?  The reasons for a c-section are several, but the cranium will generally make it out vaginally because it is easily molded due to the fontanels, unless the fetus is suffering from hydrocephalus which then opens a whole different can of worms.  But some of the real reasons are:



  • When the baby is in a frank breech or transverse lie.
  • When a risk of HIV or herpes transmission to baby exists.
  • Previous c-section with a vertical incision, which may increase the risk of uterine rupture.
  • Twins where one baby is in breech or risk of prolapsed cord is imminent.
  • Failure to progress or fetal distress.
  • Bleeding associated with placenta previa, placental abruption or other placental problems.
  • Maternal disease, which may include severe eclampsia or other condition

none of which should be easily dismissed.


www.womenshealthcaretopics.com/pregnancy...



 


 



It seems that a pregnancy is more involved and the demands put on the woman's body are more than you acknowledge.


Justme 




.

"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."  Will Rogers

"Give to those who ask, and don't turn away from those who want to borrow."  Matthew 5:42

"Charity is no substitute for justice withheld."         St. Augustine

"Your love for God is only as great as the love you have for the person you love least."  Dorothy Day

"If you want peace, work for justice." Pope Paul VI
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 02, 2009 - 2:05AM #49
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Sep 1, 2009 -- 10:49PM, Onlyme wrote:

The point is that you ARE making a moral decision, whether you admit it or not. The fact it the ZEF is a product of rape does not take away the fact that, according to your arguments, the ZEF is human life. You are making a moral judgement based on your interpretations of the law.  There are many people who interpret the law differently, saying that the harm to the ZEF is greater than the potential harm to a woman who was raped and the manner in which a ZEF is created should not matter.   I don't see how you can claim your exception for rape is not a moral judgement.



First and foremost, I'm going to quote something I wrote to you on page three when you first brought this up (You never did respond to it).


The law doesn't hold people responsible for things imposed upon them without consent of some form.



This has nothing to do with a "moral judgment". This is a facet of the law which is present in everything. The law will not require one to accept the responsibility for something which was "forced" upon them by a second or third party. This isn't a stipulation, for lack of a better word, solely tied to abortion. This is something present everywhere. But, second to that, I'd have you know that I personally would prefer a woman to give birth to any child unless it's going to kill her or negatively impact her health. However, there is no basis upon which to argue that a woman must care for something in which was "forced" upon her by a non-consensual act, as this logic is applied to nothing else, nowhere else under the law. I just thought I'd throw that in there, since you want to talk about "making moral judgments".


As a rape survivor, I think I have a much greater understanding of the dynamics of reporting rape than you ever will.


Until you speak in depth with a woman who has been raped, and the torment she undoubtedly went through in deciding whether to report,  you have no place to speak about how and when any woman should report.   Until you hear a woman tell you how her friends clam up when she speaks of her rape, never once offering any support or sympathy (and in fact, usually criticism).


As a victim contemplating reporting date rape, you hear that a serial date rapist got off because the jury said the victims testifying didn't cry during their testimony (I have never been able to cry about my rape, either).  When you hear a story of a boy who was molested by his teenage neighbor and told his parents, and they never spoke of it again, even after he had a breakdown a few years later. When you experience any of this first hand, then you can have a say about reporting.



I'll tell you what I *really* hate. I hate it when people try to play the whole "I have a much greater understanding than you" card when they know little of what someone else knows. It's actually pretty funny because, unless you're totally omnipotent, then I have to question the basis upon which you state as much. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is something I have a pretty good idea about the things I type out. And I can say that with absolute certainty.


There's a common saying here, and it has something to do with assumptions. I won't repeat it, but it has something to do with the first three letters of the word assumption and 'you' and 'me'. I'm pretty sure you can deduce the saying, if you don't already know it.


I agree, it would be best if every woman (girl/boy/man) reported rapes, but I can understand why they don't and honestly often wonder why any do.  It's a total shame.   However, it should be noted that many, many rape victims do not identify their rapes as such for months (and even years) after.



Anyone woman who doesn't report a rape does themselves a disservice (Wait. Didn't I already say this?). I said this before, but I'll say it again. A woman who is raped needs to come forward as quickly as possible-- First, because rape victims are typically given EC's as standard procedure (A point which you ignored) and also because the sooner a rape is reported the easier it is to tell that a rape has been committed, as when you don't report a rape there's an astounding 0% chance of the rapist being caught because of it, as when compared to a chance greater than 0% if the rape is reported (The second point you ignored). So... Let's try it again. What, of those two things, do you disagree with? Because, it seems to me that there's nothing for you to disagree with and you're just disagreeing to disagree, incredulous as that seems. Not being able to identify the rapist for weeks, months or even years taking not a thing away from what I typed out. Not a one.


You talk about "catching" a rapist, but in date rape, "catching" is not part of it.  Normally, the accused doesn't even need to deny having sex with the victim, only try to prove that it was consensual.  It's He Said/She Said.



I swear, you're just trying to grasp at straws for no real reason other than you can. And it's really starting to get so very annoying. You do realize that I've typed more than just "The earlier you report a rape the easier it is to prove that a rape happened to catch the rapist", correct? Because, it's hard for me to believe that you do.


...And, for what it's worth, I already went over the "He said/she said" thing.


*See one of my posts on page three or so*


And since most women are raped by someone they know,  if a report is filed and either charges are never brought against the accused rapist or he is acquitted, the life of the victim is ruined.



You do realize that you're the only one who has ever brought this up, correct? And, what's even odder, is that you brought it up as a response to nothing I ever typed out. I don't get it. I really don't. No one, aside from yourself, was talking about whether or not a woman is raped by someone she knows or not. The life of a victim is not ruined because she filed a report agains her rapist and he gets acquited, but BECAUSE HE RAPED HER. And doing nothing will ensure that he *will* get away with it.


So, no, I'm sorry, but you don't come across as if you have any understanding of what a rape victim comtemplates in deciding in whether or not to tell.  But, from reading your posts, that does not surprise me.



I'm fairly sure you haven't really read any of my posts, because you're arguing against things no one ever typed out and are blatantly ignoring what it is I *am* typing out. It's baffling. Really, it is.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 02, 2009 - 3:37AM #50
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Sep 2, 2009 -- 2:01AM, Justme333 wrote:

Bei,


I very seldom post here, and I probably agree with you more than not.  But you make it really hard when you make statements that seem to show that you don't know what you are talking about.  I do not understand how you can be so dismissive of posters who are honestly trying to discuss this issue - such as...



*does the TO thing and grabs his popcorn*


All right. I'm ready =D


What do you mean that the woman's body doesn't do jack squat? Of course the fetus takes needed nutrients from the mother. And not all women start out their pregnancy in good health or have access to adequate nutrition or pre-natal vitamins



Check what I said. I said that "she", not "her body", doesn't do jack squat. I said the body doesn't do much outside of providing some place for the ZEF to gestate. The way some people act about pregnancy, you would think that the woman "loans" her body to the ZEF and must go out of her way to provide for the ZEF, which is a complete and utter mischaracterization of the mother-fetus relationship and pregnancy as a whole. There's nothing "honest" about that.



from here:  


pg 134 in Introductory Maternity and Pediatric Nursing by N. Jayne Klossner, Nancy T. Hatfield 



*snip*



I don't get it. I really don't. This is exactly what I wrote out.


The only way a ZEF will start negatively impacting your nutrional health is if you go out of your way to change your eating habits, at which point it'll start "stealing" calcium from your bone and teeth, for example (Actually, I think your body will divert these minerals to the ZEF. I'm not sure).



I'm a biology major, remember? I know what happens during pregnancy. I don't get why people are always trying to correct me as if I don't know what I'm writing out. It's annoying when I type stuff out and have people try to correct me with the same stuff I just wrote out. It's like an "Ummm... Okay? I just wrote that out" kind of thing.


And then there is the issue of disposing of waste from the fetus, and other physiological changes to the woman, which are described here:



 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16604136


Physiological adaptation in early human pregnancy: adaptation to balance maternal-fetal demands.


*snip*



You know... I don't want to come off as condescending, but this is a "No, duh" kind of thing. Hormonal changes are involved in gestation (Wait... Didn't I mention gestation?).


Homeostasis - hmmm well it would be nice if you, instead of belittling someone else's post, would post actual facts that explain why you dismiss certain things.



Because we've been over this before and after a while I just get tired of repeating myself over and over and over again.


For instance, I agree that the mother is responsible for the fetal homeostasis because...


"In humans, homeostasis in the blood (which provides fluid for all tissues) is ensured by several organs. The kidneys regulate pH, urea, and water concentration. The lungs regulate oxygen and carbon dioxide (see breathing). Temperature is regulated by the liver and the skin (see temperature regulation). Glucose levels in the blood are regulated by the liver and the pancreas." encyclopedia.farlex.com/homeostasis . So my question is what maintains the fetal homeostasis until that point when the kidneys, liver, pancreas and other needed organs of the fetus are developed?



Okay. Let me explain something to you that I explained to TS and BHR. Homeostasis is the self-regulation of an internal environment (Does no one know what self-regulation means anymore???). An organism does NOT rely on another organism to perform homeostasis for it, as that wouldn't be homeostasis-- It'd be some weirdish type of parasitism (I.e., like a virus, which hijacks the metabolism of another organism because it has none of its own). It baffles me how some people can not understand this simple point. But, whatever. Homeostasis is the name of the mechanism by which an organism maintains some kind of internal equilibrium. I said this before and I'll say it again, but a ZEF needs it's mother for homeostasis like you need the earth for homeostasis. 


And what annoys me more than anything, is that the last sentence in the above paragraph says a mouthful, yet it continues to be ignored (Incredulously). It makes me want to bang my head against a wall.


...Oh, and to answer the question, a fetus has no use of certain mechanisms at certain points in its gestation (Mainly because it hasn't developed the organs or has no real need for them, as is the case with lungs prior to birth), therefore there's nothing to regulate as the processes generally attached to them do not occur.


And then there is this study: The Normal Increase in Adrenal Secretion During Pregnancy Contributes to Maternal Volume Expansion and Fetal Homeostasis from here: rsx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/6... that concluded that:"Maternal adrenal secretion maintains the normal increase in maternal plasma volume and fetal cortisol and indirectly supports fetal arterial oxygen tension, blood pressure, and adrenal secretion".



Right. That's what it says. Now do you even know what that means? Please, don't say that it means that the mother is responsible for fetal homeostasis, because that's not what it means at all and if I have to read that line one more time I'm gonna' pop a blood vessel (Or eight).



Are you seriously dismissing a woman undergoing a c-section simply because you think the fetus has a large head?  What are you talking about?  The reasons for a c-section are several, but the cranium will generally make it out vaginally because it is easily molded due to the fontanels, unless the fetus is suffering from hydrocephalus which then opens a whole different can of worms.



Yes. That's definitely what I'm saying.


...No, that's what I said at all. You're reading way too much into what I write. I wasn't responding to the c-section thing at all. I was pointing out the fact that childbirth in humans is generally dangerous because of a larger head and relatively small pelvis, since TS likes to point out all the dangers in pregnancy, labor and delivery.


But some of the real reasons are:


  • When the baby is in a frank breech or transverse lie.
  • When a risk of HIV or herpes transmission to baby exists.
  • Previous c-section with a vertical incision, which may increase the risk of uterine rupture.
  • Twins where one baby is in breech or risk of prolapsed cord is imminent.
  • Failure to progress or fetal distress.
  • Bleeding associated with placenta previa, placental abruption or other placental problems.
  • Maternal disease, which may include severe eclampsia or other condition

none of which should be easily dismissed.



That's nice and all, but it doesn't really have much to do with what I was writing out, nor was it "easily dismissed" since it wasn't brought up.



It seems that a pregnancy is more involved and the demands put on the woman's body are more than you acknowledge.




And, once again, I know what "demands" pregnancy puts on a woman's body, and they're not as-- How should I say-- Horrific as some make it out to be, which was the point of my post, which kinda' went unheeded (To put it kindly).

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook