I know of no law that would result in you being arrested for killing your own dog ... please cite such a law
Nope, all they say is you cannot kill your dog in a cruel manner, ie starvation . .says nothing about killing your dog humanly. Here is a complete list of state laws regarding animal cruelty http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/PDF/AnimalCrueltyLaws.pdf and by far they apply to a third party doing it, not you personally.
Are service animals persons? LOL Intentionally subjecting an animal to cruel neglect, mistreatment, or killing or harming a service animal is a Class 6 Felony punishable by a fine of up to $150,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 1.5 years. Can you kill a bald eagle? Is a bald eagle a person?
Well, if you get over the Anti-Choicer's crap about eagles I'll address your question: """If a doctor knew that a patient would not likely survive a very late term abortion (perhaps due to an allergy to anesthesia) but would probably survive natural childbirth...should he perform the abortion if the woman insists on it? """ No, he shouldn't . He should consult with a psychologist/psychiatrist since a woman wanting a "very late term"(you changed that ) abortion where there are no health problems has mental problems. Since "very late term" abortions are illegal he has every right to refuse to do a "very late term" abortion. IF it isn't a "very late term" abortion but a legal one then he can refuse and refer her to another doctor.
No mentally healthy woman "enjoys" 9 months of pregnancy just for the "fun" of having a "very late term" abortion minutes before giving birth. If you have no respect for women's intellect you may view this as "normal for women" but it isn't.
In your first post, which outlines your proposal for determining personhood, you state that "medical prospects" is the criteria for determining personhood. I pursued that criteria with some questions. Very clear, straightforward questions, which you apparently have not considered and do not want to investigate. Maybe you should reread my post (which you linked) with the eye of someone who truly wishes to "exchange ideas".
Your low opinion of women's intellect will never move you beyond the absurd. If she changes her mind at the last minute( a very late term abortion) she has the option of birthing it and giving it up. A mentally healthy woman would do that rather than endanger her own life. Again: No mentally healthy woman "enjoys" 9 months of pregnancy just for the "fun" of having a "very late term" abortion minutes before giving birth. If you have no respect for women's intellect you may view this as "normal for women" but it isn't. And you never addressed Fugazi's """Despite looking I can find no reliable evidence to support your idea that a late term abortion is riskier than childbirth.""" Maybe she doesn't face death, maybe it isn't risky at all ....then all she has to do is find a willing doctor...fine with me....
No, that isn't anti-Choice. I didn't insist on it.......You are the one who has been insisting that the woman HAS to do what the doctor wants...Anti-Choice. YOU are the one insisting that ALL women are so mentally challenged that normal women would do that. Seeing as how you have no real point and have gone off topic....I have said what I have to say , if someone as silly as you thinks I'm anti-choice because of absurd, bizarre circumstances , gee, my life won't change...
and still it does not say anything about killing your own animal humanely being an offence. Pets are property and as such how you dispose of that property is up to you, as long as they are killed without unnecessary cruelty, there is not a single law in any US states that can or will restrict you. A bald eagle is a protected species .. a cat or dog isn't.
I'm sorry to be so slow in Replying. Real life impinges, sometimes... I did nothing of the kind. I wrote: In this section: 1) I pointed out what I believe to be the most significant "moment" and then immediately deprecated it: "But that's still just one of many stages." 2) I explained the consequences of really accepting that "moment", and then immediately refused it: "Are you shuddering with revulsion...?" I set up what I consider to be the very best "personhood" argument... and then I shot it down. The basic idea of my OP is that "personhood" is beside the point in determining the last limit of abortion. The essential item is our relationship with the newborn: our instinctive protect-and-nurture reflex. This is, by the way, the basis of all "right to life" arguments. The tenants attempt to invoke that same protect-and-nurture reflex on behalf of the ZEF, by calling it a "baby" regardless of its actual gestational status. The right-to-life camp exploits our gene-deep instinct. We cannot convince them unless we take that argument away.
There are alternatives to anaesthesia, and the likelihood a person would be allergic to the many variations that a doctor can use is pretty much zero.
Your opinion only....come back when you can get on topic and present an argument that happens in THIS world....not yours.
If you don't like debate you don't belong here. You get so angry when your extremist position does not hold up. That is not my fault....its yours
And, like a typical Anti-Choicer you see emotions where there are none....it's all about emooooootions for you guys... Like Anti-Choicers you emotionally claim someone said something they didn't....that's hardly debate....
