Abortion, expanded

[Sky Dancer]

I respect her life. I just don't respect her intelligence. And respect for life doesn't require me to be sympathetic to the results of stupid decisions.

No, it doesn't. Your "respect for life" certainly hasn't provided you with much empathy or love for other humans. I've learned a new understanding of what "respect for life" means to some and it's rather chilling.

Untrue on several levels. One, love for others does not require you to develop a bleeding heart every time they suffer the consequences of their own actions, or to harm others in an attempt to protect people from the consequences of their own actions. Two, while I'm certainly not glad that she died, I reserve my empathy and sympathy both for helpless and innocent victims, neither of which she was. Three, if you want chilling, cast your thoughts toward the millions of dead babies produced every year by the "empathy" and "love for others" shown by the pro-choice crowd. Brrr!

You are by definition, 'pro-choice' in your mercy. Shall we have prisons for pregnant women? Tie them down and shackle them and make them produce babies?

I don't have abortions. I don't advise anyone to have one. I don't condemn women who have them.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Been there and done that. It was called back alley and coat hanger abortions, at one time the only choice for a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

Remember also that back then, a woman couldn't legally abandon a newborn at a hospital or fire station, either.

Yes, so let's not go back there folks. Magdalene prisons for pregnant women in Ireland---not so long ago.

The Irish don't have the same attitudes about civil rights. Sending a woman to a nunnery against her will would obviously be unconstitutional here.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

You're not answering my question.

Why do you say it's not abortion when the 11 year old victim of rape terminates her pregnancy?

I said abortion isn't universally the "reasonable" choice in every case, even in every case with an 11-year-old victim, simply because HE considers it to be. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's a bad idea to say, "This is what I think is correct, and therefore that's the objective standard for EVERYONE."

I agree with you but I did not state that was the objective standard for everyone or even anyone except for me.

To clarify the misinterpretation of my words, what I meant was that was what I believed to be reasonable and understanding to a young victim of rape. I never said it was an universal opinion nor that it should be.

Also, I did not say it was an reasonable choice in every case. I don't even think it is a reasonable choice in ANY case except for maybe... maybe the case where the life of the mother is in serious jeopardy... and as you so correctly pointed out in an earlier post, that is very rarely the case and is becoming less and less so to be the case as medical technology improves.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

Remember also that back then, a woman couldn't legally abandon a newborn at a hospital or fire station, either.

Yes, so let's not go back there folks. Magdalene prisons for pregnant women in Ireland---not so long ago.

The Irish don't have the same attitudes about civil rights. Sending a woman to a nunnery against her will would obviously be unconstitutional here.

I'm Irish American. These are my relatives we are talking about. It wasn't that long ago that this kind of attitude prevailed. The Cecilies of the world haven't changed much.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Yes, so let's not go back there folks. Magdalene prisons for pregnant women in Ireland---not so long ago.

The Irish don't have the same attitudes about civil rights. Sending a woman to a nunnery against her will would obviously be unconstitutional here.

I'm Irish American. These are my relatives we are talking about. It wasn't that long ago that this kind of attitude prevailed. The Cecilies of the world haven't changed much.

Which is why we have each other on ignore.

EDIT: Many of my relatives have different attitudes from mine. It doesn't necessarily make either of us right or wrong.

 

[sidneyworld]

For the record, I am pro-life. I am this, to such an extent, that a fly on the wall has a better than 90% chance of surviving in my house, albeit, without a perceived threat of some unlikely infestation. I can say this with a great deal of confidence because nothing in my house carries a scent that would attract them. I suppose it’s somewhat of an inadvertent measure of preventative maintenance that reflects a daily routine, as does with most of us. So I have every expectation that the 20 or 30 days this fly will survive in my home will be realized in my graces.

I am also a woman. This automatically qualifies a natural predisposition.

In matters of Constitutional designation, the Supreme Court has the obligation to rule on matters that could not be determined, through the natural delegation of authority issued to each state, by due process in court.

It could be reasoned, though, that on issues of moral constitution, we are, at times, better left to our own devices which are borne of “root” influences, as with family. The moral majority having instilled life sustaining values which regulate our behavior for the rest of our lives. And these values become, essentially, the general moral standard of any country. This should be enough. It isn’t. Not anymore. And the changes are not progressive.

In exercising our freedom to choose whatever course better fits our lifestyle, there’s one issue in particular where that freedom goes well beyond an individual’s personal discretion. The creation and preservation of life. It had been suggested many times that it’s far easier for a healthy woman to conceive a child then to obtain a drivers license. The state issues licenses not only as a form of identification, but as a legal confirmation of that person’s ability to drive a car well within the safety protocols that would otherwise inevitably pose a life threatening situation on the road. This is a responsible law enacted by the state for the sake of its citizens. Every citizen.

When the Supreme Court made it’s general determination of pro-abortion, not only did it legalize the capacity by which a woman can deal with her unwanted pregnancy, but it legally corrupted the general moral standard of this county, by furthering, perhaps even encouraging the irresponsible and reckless selfishness of unprotected sexual intercourse when pregnancy is not intended. They opened Pandora’s box. Literally.

It should have remained an issue exclusive to extreme cases of rape or incest, whereby the quality of the life of the child would otherwise be instantly compromised due to the nature of its conception. And most certainly should never have been legislated one way or another. On matters concerning procreation it is far more efficient to leave these viable personal issues to the moral majority or the blind faith even of an individual’s conscious because legislation cannot interfer with such things as a human right of procreation. This is the real issue, the real problem because the natural trend of human beings, is to suddenly want what a higher court has taken away, or to grab what it’s suddenly granted through a decision. In this case, setting, though inadvertently, a destructive precedent..

Our liberties should not have to be realized in a court of law. We, as both individuals and a country should not have to rely on a higher elected authority to reaffirm what should have been instilled in our values to begin with. Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness and above all respect for LIFE………….

Anne Marie

 

[Sky Dancer]

The Irish don't have the same attitudes about civil rights. Sending a woman to a nunnery against her will would obviously be unconstitutional here.

I'm Irish American. These are my relatives we are talking about. It wasn't that long ago that this kind of attitude prevailed. The Cecilies of the world haven't changed much.

Which is why we have each other on ignore.

Cecilie has you on ignore? Funny way to have a discussion or debate isn't it? Put the opposition on ignore and stick your head in the sand.

Maybe I misunderstand you about the relative thing. I only underscored my ethnicity to explain my passion for the topic.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Cecilie has you on ignore? Funny way to have a discussion or debate isn't it? Put the opposition on ignore and stick your head in the sand.

I don't bother trying to discuss or debate with those who obviously don't want to. To me that's an exercise in futility.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Cecilie has you on ignore? Funny way to have a discussion or debate isn't it? Put the opposition on ignore and stick your head in the sand.

I don't bother trying to discuss or debate with those who obviously don't want to. To me that's an exercise in futility.

You're smarter and less feisty than I am, obviously.

 

[BrokenAngel]

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.

The article I read said her father chose the doctor and the location.. not like she had the internet to hop on and pick a doctor from either. He probably just got the name via word of mouth through a co-worker or family member. -Shrugs- The choices were limited and to be honest, she may not have felt she had a choice other than to listen to her father. The father of the unborn was with her on the trip. Remember.. those were different times..

 

[BrokenAngel]

I think the issue is pretty straightforward. You can be personally opposed to abortion but open to respecting other women's LEGAL and ETHICAL choices.

What I want to know is how you can be a so-called 'pro-lifer' and for the death penalty?

Ahh that one is easy. If you are a pro-lifer you are thinking about the innocent child where as a Teddy Bundy needs to be put down for the good of society.

 

[BrokenAngel]

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

Sure, let's kill all pregnant women.

Been there and done that. It was called back alley and coat hanger abortions, at one time the only choice for a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

Some people want to go back in time to when a woman had childbirth to death--one pregnancy after another with NO family planning choices.

I don't think anyone wants to truly go back to that time. The difference is the number of birth control methods available today versus back then. With all the different ways you can keep yourself from getting pregnant in the first place there shouldn't be much of a reason for abortions.

Again, for the record I am pro-choice lol. I could never have an abortion myself, but I don't believe in inhibiting the rights of anyone else to have one.

 

[BrokenAngel]

Sure, let's kill all pregnant women.

Been there and done that. It was called back alley and coat hanger abortions, at one time the only choice for a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

Remember also that back then, a woman couldn't legally abandon a newborn at a hospital or fire station, either.

No.. they would have to admit to their "indescresions" and give the child up for adoption, thereby dirtying their name a little.. and we just can't have that can we?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Been there and done that. It was called back alley and coat hanger abortions, at one time the only choice for a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

Remember also that back then, a woman couldn't legally abandon a newborn at a hospital or fire station, either.

No.. they would have to admit to their "indescresions" and give the child up for adoption, thereby dirtying their name a little.. and we just can't have that can we?

What are you saying? You're opposed to ppl who have abortions and you're opposed to ppl who abandon their children for adoption?


What other choices are there in an unwanted pregnancy?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Sure, let's kill all pregnant women.

Been there and done that. It was called back alley and coat hanger abortions, at one time the only choice for a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

Some people want to go back in time to when a woman had childbirth to death--one pregnancy after another with NO family planning choices.

I don't think anyone wants to truly go back to that time. The difference is the number of birth control methods available today versus back then. With all the different ways you can keep yourself from getting pregnant in the first place there shouldn't be much of a reason for abortions.

Again, for the record I am pro-choice lol. I could never have an abortion myself, but I don't believe in inhibiting the rights of anyone else to have one.

Actually, there are ppl who want to return to the past. They want to make all abortion illegal and they want us to go back in time. Some even are opposed to all forms of birth control except for abstinence.

 

[sidneyworld]

Not everything can be regulated nor should it be. The government was created as society's managing agent. Not supreme ruler. Nor did the founding fathers perceive the overwhelming statistics of unwanted pregnancies who when brought to fruition become either a commodity to that household in terms of government support, and a burden on society who pays for that.

Those who can afford to abort will if they are as irresponsible as those who will file for support who need the added income in claiming that child(ren). No matter how you look at it, identifying abortion as an exercise to a woman's right to privacy has clearly increased the depraved indifference to human life in this country.

Anne Marie

 

[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?

Not if the woman chose to have sex. With that choice, it becomes voluntary.

Sex is voluntary. Pregnancy is involuntary. Women cannot tell their eggs to stay away from sperm. All they can do is take preventative measures to try and insure that they never meet up. Sometimes those measures fail or are not taken. Having sex is not a agreement to carry a pregnancy to term.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Not everything can be regulated nor should it be. The government was created as society's managing agent. Not supreme ruler. Nor did the founding fathers perceive the overwhelming statistics of unwanted pregnancies who when brought to fruition become either a commodity to that household in terms of government support, and a burden on society who pays for that.

Those who can afford to abort will if they are as irresponsible as those who will file for support who need the added income in claiming that child(s). No matter how you look at it, identifying abortion as an exercise to a woman's right to privacy has clearly increased the depraved indifference to human life in this country.

Anne Marie

I don't think you can back up your claim that identifying a womans right to privacy has increased depraved indifference to human life in America.

We're at war now, there is depraved indifference to the innocent lives lost in war. There is depraved indifference to suffering and the budget cuts that affect the most vulnerable, the poor, children and the elderly.

I'd like you to follow up your argument with some facts. And I question how you can measure 'depravity' and why you select women's rights as an arena for depravity.

I consider capital punishment depraved too.

 

[sidneyworld]

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

Not if the woman chose to have sex. With that choice, it becomes voluntary.

Sex is voluntary. Pregnancy is involuntary. Women cannot tell their eggs to stay away from sperm. All they can do is take preventative measures to try and insure that they never meet up. Sometimes those measures fail or are not taken. Having sex is not a agreement to carry a pregnancy to term.

Okay, now I have to believe that you must be a young individual to make such an ignorant statement. Having sex carries a risk of pregnancy no matter what agreement you might not make, no matter what outcome you might have intended and no matter what type of birth control you might actually utilize.

Good grief, wake up, darlin.

Anne Marie

 

[Anguille]

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

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

The point being that there are times when a mother, in this case an 11 year old girl, did not make the choice to risk becoming pregnant. It was forced upon her without her consent.

I do not believe there should be a hard and fast rule in this case. Quite simply some 11 year old girls would not be able to handle the situation and those that cant should not be made to feel guilty for it.

You are not answering my question, since the fetus/embryo is not the one who raped her and it had no say in the matter, why is it's "right to life" no longer a valid right in your eyes?
If all fetus/embryos are living beings with a right to life, why do you discriminate against those resulting from rapes of certain 11 year old girls?
How could the rape possibly be their fault? Why should they be denied birth for a crime they did not commit?
Also why should any rape victim be made to feel guilty?