Pro-Life and Anti-Regulation

[bazymew]

To interfere in the process would be to kill the fetus. For the mother to continue her normal life except to take more sustenance (which she would do because her body would tell her she is hungry or thirsty) would not be interference with the normal process.

I take the noise my brain made on reading this as fitting punishment for me wandering in here so unwittingly.

Pregnancy does not work like that, Bazymew. It's not a case of eating and drinking a lot while waiting for a baby to appear, though I do so wish it were. It's an invasive, damaging, parasitic process that has a significant effect on health, comfort and lifestyle. This is one of the reasons some people think they should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to go through it or not.

I do apologize for making it seem that I thought that was all that pregnancy entailed. I was merely stating that that would be all that would necessarily have to change in the lifestyle of the mother for the fetus to be carried to term. However, now that I think about it, that wouldn't necessarily have to change if the mother was already eating more than she needed.
I do realize that there would have to be numerous other changes usually, though they would be different for various women. I would like to make it clear that I do believe in the woman's right to choose to have an abortion or not, because it seems to be the right thing from the evidence I have gathered so far.

That being said, I was under the impression that pregnancy was not necessarily damaging, but just in most cases, right?

[Darth Wong]

Fair enough, but as I said above, you need to realize that your definition of "interference" assumes that the "correct" state is the natural process and that any deviation from this is "interference", even if the natural process involves interference itself. This is why I said you are employing a naturalistic fallacy.

Of course it is not necessarily wrong to interfere in a natural process, but something that is in the nature of an organism cannot by definition be interference with the natural process of the organism.

Wow, that point just sailed right over your head, didn't it? For the SECOND fucking time, you are assuming extra terms in the word "interference" which are not there. You are assuming that the natural process itself cannot possibly involve anything which could be considered interference.

Let me make this very clear for you: the natural process of an unassisted fetus is to die. The fetus will only develop into a human being if an outside force (ie- the mother's body) interferes in this process.

[BountyHunterSAx]

That being said, I was under the impression that pregnancy was not necessarily damaging, but just in most cases, right?

Well, put it this way, from a 100% strictly medical point of view, pregnancy has a purely negative effect - from a physical standpoint - on the human body's health. Some people have the impression that pregnancy is not necessarily damaging because the damage is not always directly fatal or visible (in the form of disease). The fact of the matter is that even in the *best* of pregnancies, we see a lowering of overall bone density, Increased Blood Pressure, and an Increased Tendency Toward Anemia. Of these, the Osteopenia/Osteoperosis lasts well after the child's birth. Further, though it has not been decisively proven, it is widely believed that the immune system of the mother is suppressed locally during the course of pregnancy so as not to reject the fetus (which is 50% foreign DNA).


Of course that's a purely physical view and dealing with the mother only. If I asked my mom if she felt her pregnancy was damaging and/or I was a parasite, I'm sure she'd yell at me and say "What's wrong with you for asking such a stupid question?". There are obviously more dimensions than purely physical ones that make pregnancy worthwhile.

-AHMAD

[Samuel]

Your mom is just trying to make you feel special. If it makes you feel better, we all are damaging parasites on our mothers.

[bazymew]

Fair enough, but as I said above, you need to realize that your definition of "interference" assumes that the "correct" state is the natural process and that any deviation from this is "interference", even if the natural process involves interference itself. This is why I said you are employing a naturalistic fallacy.

Of course it is not necessarily wrong to interfere in a natural process, but something that is in the nature of an organism cannot by definition be interference with the natural process of the organism.

Wow, that point just sailed right over your head, didn't it? For the SECOND fucking time, you are assuming extra terms in the word "interference" which are not there. You are assuming that the natural process itself cannot possibly involve anything which could be considered interference.

Actually, that wasn't what I was assuming.
Look again. I specifically added the terms "in the nature of" and "natural process of" because they were not specified in the definition of the word.

I was thinking that I was right about what I said and was going to post a reply saying so, but the something interfered and I couldn't reply last night. Then I thought about it for a while and I realized. I felt like hitting my head against something.
The mother's natural process contains many little processes inside itself. These can and do interfere with each other, but a single process cannot interfere with itself. Certain parts of it interfere with other parts of it, making it turn out a certain way. I was thinking of the pregnancy process as the same as the process of the mother, when it is not. It is a process of the mother and fetus collectively. It can and does interfere with the regular processes of the mother.

Let me make this very clear for you: the natural process of an unassisted fetus is to die. The fetus will only develop into a human being if an outside force (ie- the mother's body) interferes in this process.

I would say that a natural process process of a fetus is to die, but I know that is mostly just nitpicking.