Abortion, expanded

[sidneyworld]

so essentially, are you saying, if the girl has sex by choice, she should be forced to have her child...as some sort of punishment for having unprotected sex.

Punishment has nothing to do with it. Every adult knows that, no matter how careful they are, there's always the chance the woman could get pregnant. If a couple has sex at all, both of them have to accept responsbility for the consequences - which IMO means not taking a third life just because it happens to be an inconvenience for the next 9 months.

According to the Constitution, yes.

When medical technology gets to the point where we can remove an embryo and keep it alive for someone else, the law might change. I would hope that it does.

it implies the child to be, really means nothing to you, and only controlling the woman's life that you don't approve of does....?

And I've shown how you'd be wrong. Abortion is always homicide, but one of the great tragedies of life is that sometimes homicide is justifiable or even necessary.

but according to our constitution, unborn children did not achieve personhood or protection via the bill of rights /constitution, under the constitution...they were not considered protected and i don't believe that was changed...these things were left up to legislators of each state...and not untill the middle of the 1800's did the states begin to make abortion illegal prior to ''quickening''....?
fyi!
IT WAS LEGAL at the time of our constitution and founding fathers up until the point of quickening....up until the point of the baby to be's first kick....those women who could not afford the 9th kid as example, would get a mixture of drugs from the drugist or midwife, that made them abort....early on in pregnancy.

THIS WAS Common Law of which all the states followed on this, until they started writing their own individual state law on it when a very strong evangelical movement came about...

so, i take issue that you say abortion is unconstitutional because at the time of the creation of the constitution, it was legal, up until...quickening....and the founding fathers made no mention of including the UNBORN in the constitution's protections???
**
not legal in the sense of it writen in to law as a ''right'' but legal in the sense that it was not punished or talked about for the most part...

The constitution is not and never has been infallible. To imagine that the Constitution of the United States is absolute in natural law as relates to human beings is a legally defective perspective. Simply because something is legislated does not constitute absolute morality.

Also, not everything should "have" to be held to a legislative standard. Human beings are naturally expected to exercise a collective value system which includes a respect for all human life, when living among eachother as a society. This deals with, among other things, self regulation self respect and the lack of encroachment of the chosen quality of life within that community within any society.

Anne Marie

 

[Luissa]

Yes, because I enter every thread with my memory wiped totally clean of any and all previous encounters with posters, and therefore can have no idea what their opinions, attitudes, and intelligence levels are outside of the contents of that one thread.

Spare me. Been there, done that, not fooled.

then tell me my opinion on abortion?because from your previous statement I am thinking you have no idea what it is.

If you're really going to try to pose as someone who favors restrictions, let alone severe restrictions, on abortion, play your game alone. I'm even more bored by this pretense than I normally am by your posts, and believe me, that's saying something.

well you for sure did not remember my opinion from previous thread then. I am for what I voted for, pro choice until a certain point of developement and have stated this a few times. Stop pretending like you know what you are talking about.
First you accused me of refering to the first choice then when that didn't work out so well you decided you were going make up my opinion for me.
You seem like a bitter women.

 

[sidneyworld]

by stating you are only for abortion if it endangers the mother you are stating the rights of the mother are more important than the unborn child. And by your standards would still be denying the child of it's rights.

Yes, an actually it is moral to save the mother if the pregnancy would otherwise kill her. She is already alive and it's the baby inside of her that's potentially killing her. The rights side to the mother on a purely medical standpoint. To allow the baby to live at the inevitable death of the mother, as the only possible prognosis is also defying moral conduct. In accident cases where the pregnant mother is badly hurt, doctors will make an attempt to birth the baby while attempting to save the mother. But if such a procedure would conceivably kill the mother as a direct effect, such as blood loss, or excessive added trauma, the mother would be saved. If the mother is close to death with no connection to her preganancy, and if it is at all possible, she will be kept on life support, to bring the baby to a close enough term of a safe birth.

Anne Marie

yep, the mother takes preference ALWAYS in cases you mentioned, because she is born already...it puts her slightly ahead of the child to be, who hasn't been born yet...the Doctor's rules are to help mother first...might even be some kind of code for them or oath for them?

care

There was a case which involved a couple who conceived a child to save another one of their children. Truly one of the most ethically compelling cases since the onset of embryonic stem cell research. Here's the story, in part..

"Creating A Child to Save Another
By Anastasia Toufexis;Georgia Harbison/New York and James Willwerth/Los Angeles Monday, Mar. 05, 1990

Many loving parents would not hesitate to sacrifice their own lives to save their child's. But should they create a new life to rescue an endangered son or daughter? A Los Angeles couple, Abe and Mary Ayala, has taken just such an unusual step. In April, Mary will give birth to a baby girl who was purposely conceived to serve as a bone-marrow donor for her ailing older sister. Anissa, 17, was found to have a virulent form of leukemia nearly two years ago, and her only hope is a transplant of compatible bone marrow that could allow her to produce healthy white blood cells. Tests indicate that the baby has compatible tissue. With marrow from her sister, Anissa has a 70% chance of & being cured. Says Abe of the unborn girl, who will be named Marissa: "This is our miracle baby."

As joyous as their news is so far, the Ayalas' actions raise some unsettling ethical questions. Chief among them: Is it right to conceive children expressly so that they can be donors? It is a dilemma that faces increasing numbers of parents today as researchers make possible more transplants of organs from living people. For the Ayalas, the drastic measure was a last resort. Neither Abe nor Mary has marrow that matches Anissa's. (Reason: her marrow has a mixture of genetic characteristics from both parents.) Nor does brother Airon, 19, have marrow that is compatible with his sister's. And a search for a suitable nonrelated donor has been fruitless to date, though the hunt continues.

In the fall of 1988, Mary turned to her husband with a proposal: "What if we have another child?" In the roll of the genetic dice, the odds were only 1 in 4 that such a child would have the right tissue type. And there were other daunting obstacles. Abe, 44, would have to undergo an operation to reverse a vasectomy done 16 years earlier, and Mary faced becoming pregnant at age 42.

The decision worries some ethicists, who see it as a step on the path to treating offspring as objects. What if tests show that a baby conceived to be a donor is not medically useful? Parents might be tempted to have an abortion and try again. Babies might be used before birth. For example, transplants of fetal tissue may one day help victims of Parkinson's disease or juvenile diabetes. Will babies be conceived, then aborted to provide fetal tissue? "Children aren't medicine for other people," declares George Annas, a professor at Boston University's medical school. "Children are themselves." [more]

Creating A Child to Save Another - TIME

Interesting.

This is the seven minutes segment in 2008 of the outcome of that family's controversial decision. http://abcnews.go.com/gma.

Anne Marie

 

[Cecilie1200]

Punishment has nothing to do with it. Every adult knows that, no matter how careful they are, there's always the chance the woman could get pregnant. If a couple has sex at all, both of them have to accept responsbility for the consequences - which IMO means not taking a third life just because it happens to be an inconvenience for the next 9 months.

According to the Constitution, yes.

When medical technology gets to the point where we can remove an embryo and keep it alive for someone else, the law might change. I would hope that it does.

And I've shown how you'd be wrong. Abortion is always homicide, but one of the great tragedies of life is that sometimes homicide is justifiable or even necessary.

but according to our constitution, unborn children did not achieve personhood or protection via the bill of rights /constitution, under the constitution...they were not considered protected and i don't believe that was changed...these things were left up to legislators of each state...and not untill the middle of the 1800's did the states begin to make abortion illegal prior to ''quickening''....?
fyi!
IT WAS LEGAL at the time of our constitution and founding fathers up until the point of quickening....up until the point of the baby to be's first kick....those women who could not afford the 9th kid as example, would get a mixture of drugs from the drugist or midwife, that made them abort....early on in pregnancy.

THIS WAS Common Law of which all the states followed on this, until they started writing their own individual state law on it when a very strong evangelical movement came about...

so, i take issue that you say abortion is unconstitutional because at the time of the creation of the constitution, it was legal, up until...quickening....and the founding fathers made no mention of including the UNBORN in the constitution's protections???
**
not legal in the sense of it writen in to law as a ''right'' but legal in the sense that it was not punished or talked about for the most part...

The constitution is not and never has been infallible. To imagine that the Constitution of the United States is absolute in natural law as relates to human beings is a legally defective perspective. Simply because something is legislated does not constitute absolute morality.

Also, not everything should "have" to be held to a legislative standard. Human beings are naturally expected to exercise a collective value system which includes a respect for all human life, when living among eachother as a society. This deals with, among other things, self regulation self respect and the lack of encroachment of the chosen quality of life within that community within any society.

Anne Marie

And anyway, this is not a statement of fact concerning the actual wording of the Constitution. What this REALLY is is a statement of fact concerning one group of people's INTERPRETATION - colored with their own biases and agenda - of the wording of the Constitution. It is not the Constitution that does not grant unborn chidren rights or "personhood", which the Constitution doesn't grant to anyone inasmuch as it is a made-up concept invented specifically to split hairs and rationalize on this very subject.

Quite simply, if society chooses to define fetuses as people, then they have Constitutional rights. If it does not, they don't. But the Constitution itself doesn't speak to who is and is not a person at all.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

so essentially, are you saying, if the girl has sex by choice, she should be forced to have her child...as some sort of punishment for having unprotected sex.

Punishment has nothing to do with it. Every adult knows that, no matter how careful they are, there's always the chance the woman could get pregnant. If a couple has sex at all, both of them have to accept responsbility for the consequences - which IMO means not taking a third life just because it happens to be an inconvenience for the next 9 months.

According to the Constitution, yes.

When medical technology gets to the point where we can remove an embryo and keep it alive for someone else, the law might change. I would hope that it does.

it implies the child to be, really means nothing to you, and only controlling the woman's life that you don't approve of does....?

And I've shown how you'd be wrong. Abortion is always homicide, but one of the great tragedies of life is that sometimes homicide is justifiable or even necessary.

but according to our constitution, unborn children did not achieve personhood or protection via the bill of rights /constitution, under the constitution...they were not considered protected and i don't believe that was changed...these things were left up to legislators of each state...and not untill the middle of the 1800's did the states begin to make abortion illegal prior to ''quickening''....?
fyi!
IT WAS LEGAL at the time of our constitution and founding fathers up until the point of quickening....up until the point of the baby to be's first kick....those women who could not afford the 9th kid as example, would get a mixture of drugs from the drugist or midwife, that made them abort....early on in pregnancy.

THIS WAS Common Law of which all the states followed on this, until they started writing their own individual state law on it when a very strong evangelical movement came about...

so, i take issue that you say abortion is unconstitutional because at the time of the creation of the constitution, it was legal, up until...quickening....and the founding fathers made no mention of including the UNBORN in the constitution's protections???
**
not legal in the sense of it writen in to law as a ''right'' but legal in the sense that it was not punished or talked about for the most part...

I'm not saying that abortion is unconstitutional at all, any more than homicide is unconstitutional.
The constitution doesn't come into play except in the case of rape, when you have a case of involuntary servitude on the mother's part.

 

[Father Time]

How is that being reasonable and understanding to the fetus or embryo?

If the fetus or embryo is going to be aborted anyway, isn't it better that the woman be safely alive?

How is it reasonable to the fetus or embryo that results from a rape? It isn't.

Legal abortion beats both dying in a back alley.

Who said anything about fetuses that were going to be aborted anyway? Where was THAT in the previous posts?

And good GOD, will you kneejerk fear mongers PLEASE spare us the panicked alarms about apocryphal "back alleys"? I am so TIRED of the disingenuousness of this. Until you can actually find me ONE documented case of a woman dying in a "back alley" abortion because she couldn't get one from a licensed physician prior to Roe v. Wade, you need to frigging STOP trying to hammer on everyone's buttons with this shit.

If you can't conduct your debates on logical, honest grounds, don't debate at all.

Nancy Ward
Google

 

[Anguille]

I find it remarkable that anyone who claims a fetus or and embryo has a right to life would deny that right to some just because they resulted from a rape.

How is that the fault of the fetus or embryo?

Simple. If the sex isn't voluntary, the pregnancy is involuntary. And involuntary servitude is unconstitutional.

What do the conditions contraception happened have to do with the fetus/embroyo and their purported right to life?

 

[Anguille]

why wouldn't the child to be of a raped woman still be a separate human beings life to save?

This is something no anti-abortionist who allows exceptions has ever been able to explain to me.

 

[Anguille]

I find it remarkable that anyone who claims a fetus or and embryo has a right to life would deny that right to some just because they resulted from a rape.

How is that the fault of the fetus or embryo?

I completely agree, but if it came to an 11 year old rape victim... well, sometimes I think we have to be reasonable and understanding.

Immie

You might want to restrain yourself a bit from automatically equating your personal opinions with a universal standard for "reasonable and understanding". Not everyone instantly assumes the "reasonable and understanding" action in such a case is abortion.

Oh? What is it then?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I find it remarkable that anyone who claims a fetus or and embryo has a right to life would deny that right to some just because they resulted from a rape.

How is that the fault of the fetus or embryo?

Simple. If the sex isn't voluntary, the pregnancy is involuntary. And involuntary servitude is unconstitutional.

What do the conditions contraception happened have to do with the fetus/embroyo and their purported right to life?

The woman's constitutional right not to be enslaved trumps the child's right to life. It's a Hobson's choice, but it's still morally correct. (And BTW, it's not to say that a rape victim can't birth the child of her own free will. Many such women have done so.)

 

[Anguille]

And I've shown how you'd be wrong. Abortion is always homicide, but one of the great tragedies of life is that sometimes homicide is justifiable or even necessary.

Oh? How do you justify it to the fetus/embryo? To God, if you believe in God? Why should some be punished because their father-to-be raped their mother-to-be?

 

[Anguille]

Yes, an actually it is moral to save the mother if the pregnancy would otherwise kill her. She is already alive and it's the baby inside of her that's potentially killing her. The rights side to the mother on a purely medical standpoint. To allow the baby to live at the inevitable death of the mother, as the only possible prognosis is also defying moral conduct. In accident cases where the pregnant mother is badly hurt, doctors will make an attempt to birth the baby while attempting to save the mother. But if such a procedure would conceivably kill the mother as a direct effect, such as blood loss, or excessive added trauma, the mother would be saved. If the mother is close to death with no connection to her preganancy, and if it is at all possible, she will be kept on life support, to bring the baby to a close enough term of a safe birth.

Anne Marie

But why? If the fetus has as a right to live? Why do you kill it so another person can live?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

And I've shown how you'd be wrong. Abortion is always homicide, but one of the great tragedies of life is that sometimes homicide is justifiable or even necessary.

Oh? How do you justify it to the fetus/embryo? To God, if you believe in God? Why should some be punished because their father-to-be raped their mother-to-be?

"Justifiable" in the context I'm using it means justifiable in the eyes of society. And quite honestly, I don't believe that there's any overarching order or purpose to it: unfair things happen to everyone, every day.

 

[Anguille]

I'm not saying that abortion is unconstitutional at all, any more than homicide is unconstitutional.
The constitution doesn't come into play except in the case of rape, when you have a case of involuntary servitude on the mother's part.

Isn't that what forced birth, by means of denying access to abortion, is? Involuntary servitude? In other words, slavery?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the fetus or embryo is going to be aborted anyway, isn't it better that the woman be safely alive?

How is it reasonable to the fetus or embryo that results from a rape? It isn't.

Legal abortion beats both dying in a back alley.

Who said anything about fetuses that were going to be aborted anyway? Where was THAT in the previous posts?

And good GOD, will you kneejerk fear mongers PLEASE spare us the panicked alarms about apocryphal "back alleys"? I am so TIRED of the disingenuousness of this. Until you can actually find me ONE documented case of a woman dying in a "back alley" abortion because she couldn't get one from a licensed physician prior to Roe v. Wade, you need to frigging STOP trying to hammer on everyone's buttons with this shit.

If you can't conduct your debates on logical, honest grounds, don't debate at all.

Nancy Ward
Google

Nice try, but no. Note the part of my post that said, "because she couldn't get one from a licensed physician". Nowhere is it indicated that this woman had absolutely no choice but to go to an ear, nose, and throat doctor for an obstetrical procedure. I have zero sympathy for anyone who kills herself through her own dumbassery.

Just for starters, off the top of my head, she got her ass on a plane and flew to Kansas City to see this butcher. She could just as easily have flown to any of the states that had extremely liberal abortion laws at that time. Instead, she chose to fly to Kansas, which had very restrictive laws, to see someone unqualified. For that matter, Kansas had more abortions per 1,000 live births in 1971 than three of the five states that had legal abortion, so you can't tell me she couldn't have found a qualified physician to perform the abortion if she'd really wanted to.

 

[Anguille]

The woman's constitutional right not to be enslaved trumps the child's right to life. It's a Hobson's choice, but it's still morally correct. (And BTW, it's not to say that a rape victim can't birth the child of her own free will. Many such women have done so.)

So once a woman becomes pregnant her right to life is stripped from her?

 

[sidneyworld]

but according to our constitution, unborn children did not achieve personhood or protection via the bill of rights /constitution, under the constitution...they were not considered protected and i don't believe that was changed...these things were left up to legislators of each state...and not untill the middle of the 1800's did the states begin to make abortion illegal prior to ''quickening''....?
fyi!
IT WAS LEGAL at the time of our constitution and founding fathers up until the point of quickening....up until the point of the baby to be's first kick....those women who could not afford the 9th kid as example, would get a mixture of drugs from the drugist or midwife, that made them abort....early on in pregnancy.

THIS WAS Common Law of which all the states followed on this, until they started writing their own individual state law on it when a very strong evangelical movement came about...

so, i take issue that you say abortion is unconstitutional because at the time of the creation of the constitution, it was legal, up until...quickening....and the founding fathers made no mention of including the UNBORN in the constitution's protections???
**
not legal in the sense of it writen in to law as a ''right'' but legal in the sense that it was not punished or talked about for the most part...

The constitution is not and never has been infallible. To imagine that the Constitution of the United States is absolute in natural law as relates to human beings is a legally defective perspective. Simply because something is legislated does not constitute absolute morality.

Also, not everything should "have" to be held to a legislative standard. Human beings are naturally expected to exercise a collective value system which includes a respect for all human life, when living among eachother as a society. This deals with, among other things, self regulation self respect and the lack of encroachment of the chosen quality of life within that community within any society.

Anne Marie

And anyway, this is not a statement of fact concerning the actual wording of the Constitution. What this REALLY is is a statement of fact concerning one group of people's INTERPRETATION - colored with their own biases and agenda - of the wording of the Constitution. It is not the Constitution that does not grant unborn chidren rights or "personhood", which the Constitution doesn't grant to anyone inasmuch as it is a made-up concept invented specifically to split hairs and rationalize on this very subject.

Quite simply, if society chooses to define fetuses as people, then they have Constitutional rights. If it does not, they don't. But the Constitution itself doesn't speak to who is and is not a person at all.

The Constitution, through it's interpretation of Property Rights and Right of Privacy purports to define the value of the life of a fetus as an exclusive arbitration by it's mother of its inherent worth, whereby she can either consider her pregnancy the makings of a human being and bring the child to term, or simply cut out what she has a right to consider simply a piece of her flesh. And most often, actually 83% of abortions in this country, that are not the result of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother, are performed to accommodate the current lifestyle of the mother.

Anne Marie

 

[Cecilie1200]

I completely agree, but if it came to an 11 year old rape victim... well, sometimes I think we have to be reasonable and understanding.

Immie

You might want to restrain yourself a bit from automatically equating your personal opinions with a universal standard for "reasonable and understanding". Not everyone instantly assumes the "reasonable and understanding" action in such a case is abortion.

Oh? What is it then?

Wouldn't that depend on the woman, or in Immie's shock-value example, her parents? Shockingly, a number of rape victims who become pregnant decide the reasonable response is to give birth. It is not even unheard-of for the parents of a very young victim to make that decision.

 

[Anguille]

And I've shown how you'd be wrong. Abortion is always homicide, but one of the great tragedies of life is that sometimes homicide is justifiable or even necessary.

Oh? How do you justify it to the fetus/embryo? To God, if you believe in God? Why should some be punished because their father-to-be raped their mother-to-be?

"Justifiable" in the context I'm using it means justifiable in the eyes of society. And quite honestly, I don't believe that there's any overarching order or purpose to it: unfair things happen to everyone, every day.

However society seems not to think it justifiable and that is why abortion is legal in this country.

 

[Anguille]

I have zero sympathy for anyone who kills herself through her own dumbassery.

Wow!! Such respect for life you have there, Cecilie!