The right to choose

[lilcountriegal]

Maybe it differs by state then. The hosp. I was referring to is in Mich. They did refuse to do a tubal after a friends delivery since they're a Catholic Hosp.

I thought this was completely unfair since my friends ins. carrier didn't pay for her to go to the other hosp. in town.

How old was the friend? I'm not sure if this is so much a "religious" issue as it is an "age" issue. Hospitals around here have age requirements and/or birth requirements for tubals. They dont want an 18 year old single mother on her first child who had a hard pregnancy and/or labor to make a rash decision and get her tubes tied only to come in a few years later when she is married to undergo a reversal....

I cant say for sure what the age limit is, but I had a friend who was around 22 when she had her daughter and wanted a tubal then. She was refused due to the reasons above.... they discharged her and made her consider the decision for a couple months to make sure that she was sure it was what she wanted. she went back 3 months later and had her tubal. She is now 32 years old and scheduled for a reversal next month so her and her new husband can conceive.

 

[Trigg]

How old was the friend? I'm not sure if this is so much a "religious" issue as it is an "age" issue. Hospitals around here have age requirements and/or birth requirements for tubals. They dont want an 18 year old single mother on her first child who had a hard pregnancy and/or labor to make a rash decision and get her tubes tied only to come in a few years later when she is married to undergo a reversal....

I cant say for sure what the age limit is, but I had a friend who was around 22 when she had her daughter and wanted a tubal then. She was refused due to the reasons above.... they discharged her and made her consider the decision for a couple months to make sure that she was sure it was what she wanted. she went back 3 months later and had her tubal. She is now 32 years old and scheduled for a reversal next month so her and her new husband can conceive.

This Hosp. didn't refuse the tubal because of her age. She was older and this wasn't her first pregnancy. Her insurance carrier only covered procedures done at this hosp. so having the tubal done at another hosp. was a financial hardship.

I know doctors what people to make an informed decision when talking about tubals and vasectomies. My husband is 35 and we have 4 kids, and he was made to wait a month to make sure he wanted to go through with it.

 

[Said1]

I know doctors what people to make an informed decision when talking about tubals and vasectomies. My husband is 35 and we have 4 kids, and he was made to wait a month to make sure he wanted to go through with it.

I had a tubal at 25, my doctor didn't want to do it, and held out for months until I threatened to go somewhere else. I have one child, and do not regret doing it - I'll be 31 in two weeks. I also think people shouldn't do anything drastic without having had children until at least 30.

 

[manu1959]

i am pro choice and pro life as i like being able to make choices and i like life

i also belive that abortion should be legal, and i belive that women should not use it as form of birth control and that if the choose abortion they do so promtly before their life is put at risk

 

[InfitiasFatalis]

Ok, first let me say i am against abortion. However, as far as i know(correct me if im wrong) the varying religions of the world have many opinions of when an embryo or fetus actually has a soul. So in a sense it is a religious belief that a law against abortion would be made and that gets sticky with the constitution a little(again correct me if im off)
I would suggest education for teens etc or the groups that often get abortions about safe sex and all that. Encouragement of adoption over artificial insemination. Helping the children of shit head drunk lazy parents so they come out with a hope that they can be better than thier parents. These things could all be done with legislation and religous groups. These would be solutions everyone would like to participate in and i like to think would work better than arguing over when a soul is in a body, or a "right to choose".
And to end my post i have a story of when abortion was defeated. One of my friends and his girlfriend had already been engaged secretly(i dont know why) and made the bad choice to start having sex. Sure enough she got pregnant, they were both 17 at the time. And all of their family(consevative and liberal) and all of their friends(conservative and liberal) was overjoyed when they got jobs continued their education and decieded to raise the child as thier own(with help from thier families). And now i know they and every one that has come to love their little baby boy knows their life is better for the choice that was made.

 

[wade]

Am I persecuting my kids because I force them to abide by my opinion?

Depends on what your opinion is and how much force you apply.

 

[ChrisH]

Right on! What people do not realize is that making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. Making it legal did not cause abortion. A legal abortion just makes it safe for the mother. Women died and suffered for years prior to Roe vs. Wade.
Regardless, if we think it is right or wrong, we should make it safe for women.

When serious circumstances exist, such as rape, I can understand abortion to some extent. The problem I have is with women who have unprotected sex, willingly, become pregnant, and then have an abortion. Most abortions are as a result of this, not rape. It is one thing when the woman is a victim, but the child becomes the victim when sex is between two consenting people.

 

[wade]

When serious circumstances exist, such as rape, I can understand abortion to some extent. The problem I have is with women who have unprotected sex, willingly, become pregnant, and then have an abortion. Most abortions are as a result of this, not rape. It is one thing when the woman is a victim, but the child becomes the victim when sex is between two consenting people.

The whole issue with Roe vs. Wade hs to do with the right of the poor woman to an abortion. Before this descision, the poor were denied abortions while the rich were able to get them.

If we are going to make abortion illegal, it needs to be illegal for all. That must include the rich girl who can afford to goto another country if necessary to have an abortion. She needs to be prosecuted when she returns.

If your argument is about the rights of the unborn child, it does not matter if the woman was raped. The unborn child is guilty of no crime, and she should have to have it just like any other pregnant woman. You cannot deny one person a right because of the actions of another - that is never justified.

 

[Hobbit]

The whole issue with Roe vs. Wade hs to do with the right of the poor woman to an abortion. Before this descision, the poor were denied abortions while the rich were able to get them.

If we are going to make abortion illegal, it needs to be illegal for all. That must include the rich girl who can afford to goto another country if necessary to have an abortion. She needs to be prosecuted when she returns.

If your argument is about the rights of the unborn child, it does not matter if the woman was raped. The unborn child is guilty of no crime, and she should have to have it just like any other pregnant woman. You cannot deny one person a right because of the actions of another - that is never justified.

You can't do that. We can't enforce our laws overseas. It's legal to smoke pot in Holland, so we don't prosecute those who go to Holland, smoke pot, and come back. Yes, the rich have more options and it doesn't seem fair, but that's the way the world works. Money gets you things.

 

[wade]

You can't do that. We can't enforce our laws overseas. It's legal to smoke pot in Holland, so we don't prosecute those who go to Holland, smoke pot, and come back. Yes, the rich have more options and it doesn't seem fair, but that's the way the world works. Money gets you things.

Taking your wife to Holland so you can murder her is still conspiracy to commit murder and procescutable in the USA if it can be shown you intended to murder her before you left the USA.

The whole basis of the absolute right-to-life argument is that abortion is murder, so someone going to a foriegn country to commit such a murder is quite prosecutable.

 

[sagegirl]

Taking your wife to Holland so you can murder her is still conspiracy to commit murder and procescutable in the USA if it can be shown you intended to murder her before you left the USA.

The whole basis of the absolute right-to-life argument is that abortion is murder, so someone going to a foriegn country to commit such a murder is quite prosecutable.

You really need to think this opinion thru......what do you propose, that every women leaving the US take a pregnancy test before she leaves and another one when she gets back?????? Put your concerns for the unborn into actions for those that are born......plenty of work to do there, and they really need people to care for all the unwanted children that get born.

 

[Gem]

Wade,


I understand that point you are trying to make here...but I think that unfortunately it is attempting to make a black and white issue out of an issue that is, and always will be gray.

We can not prosecute people for what they do overseas if what they do overseas is legal there. If a person goes to Holland for the specific purpose of smoking up, we do not arrest him for conspiracy to purchase drugs when he/she gets back...the same would go for abortion...even if the "crime" in the US is more severe here...so while I understand where you are trying to take the argument...it is simply a useless "n-th" degree that would never happen.

What we should be concentrating on in this country...is a solution that best represents what we want this country's position to be on unborn children and abortion...while realizing that, plain and simple, no one is going to be entirely happy with the outcome. Thus is the nature of compromise...and thus is life in an organized country with a democratic republic form of government...as opposed to an anarchy or even a dictatorship...where, if abortion was illegal, you COULD be arrested (or killed) for going to another country to break the law.

 

[wade]

You really need to think this opinion thru......what do you propose, that every women leaving the US take a pregnancy test before she leaves and another one when she gets back?????? Put your concerns for the unborn into actions for those that are born......plenty of work to do there, and they really need people to care for all the unwanted children that get born.

Sagegirl, I'm just making an argument here. You evidently have not followed my positions on this whole right to life/right to choose issue up to this point.

As I've said before, I believe that human individuality begins when the cerebral cortex becomes active. Before that, the zygot/embreo is just a bunch of cells. Therefore, I favor laws which limit abortion to the time before the cerebral cortex becomes active as a first step in dealing with this issue. After that, I'm in favor of even further restrictions, as are reasonable and feasible within our society, to limit abortion to an even narrower time period after conception, just in case I might be wrong.

Remember, I'm the guy who favors development reversible vasectomy technology for all males of fertile age. Ideally some kind of electronically coded switch that can be flipped w/o even needing any surgery. Then there'd be no excuse for "unwanted pregnancies".

 

[manu1959]

Taking your wife to Holland so you can murder her is still conspiracy to commit murder and procescutable in the USA if it can be shown you intended to murder her before you left the USA.

The whole basis of the absolute right-to-life argument is that abortion is murder, so someone going to a foriegn country to commit such a murder is quite prosecutable.

so if i plan to smoke hash in christania where it is legal and then smoke hash when i am there then come back i can be arrested for smoking hash in christania because it is illegal in california

​

 

[dilloduck]

Sagegirl, I'm just making an argument here. You evidently have not followed my positions on this whole right to life/right to choose issue up to this point.

As I've said before, I believe that human individuality begins when the cerebral cortex becomes active. Before that, the zygot/embreo is just a bunch of cells. Therefore, I favor laws which limit abortion to the time before the cerebral cortex becomes active as a first step in dealing with this issue. After that, I'm in favor of even further restrictions, as are reasonable and feasible within our society, to limit abortion to an even narrower time period after conception, just in case I might be wrong.

Remember, I'm the guy who favors development reversible vasectomy technology for all males of fertile age. Ideally some kind of electronically coded switch that can be flipped w/o even needing any surgery. Then there'd be no excuse for "unwanted pregnancies".

The cells of which you speak are alive, Wade and in the process. of becoming human. Rationalize away if you makes you feel less guilty tho!

 

[wade]

so if i plan to smoke hash in christania where it is legal and then smoke hash when i am there then come back i can be arrested for smoking hash in christania because it is illegal in california

​

No, because no plan to commit a crime against another American has been perpetrated. It is when you plan to commit a crime against another person that you become subject to American law when you leave the USA. The laws concerning smoking hash are "within the USA", but the laws concerning murder are not so bound.

 

[wade]

The cells of which you speak are alive, Wade and in the process. of becoming human. Rationalize away if you makes you feel less guilty tho!

I feel no guilt mate. I've never had an abortion ( ) and I've never had a girlfriend who had one (at least not mine - I wouldn't know about this before/after our relationship began/ended of course).

"In the process of becoming" is the key issue. That could be said of every ovum released from a woman's ovaries.

Next thing you are going to be saying we are obligated not to let ovums go unfertalized!

 

[Trigg]

The whole issue with Roe vs. Wade hs to do with the right of the poor woman to an abortion. Before this descision, the poor were denied abortions while the rich were able to get them.

If your argument is about the rights of the unborn child, it does not matter if the woman was raped. The unborn child is guilty of no crime, and she should have to have it just like any other pregnant woman. You cannot deny one person a right because of the actions of another - that is never justified.

Women have been ending pregnancies since they started getting pregnant. If abortion is made illegal it won't stop them!!!

It does matter if a woman is raped! I have four children and have never had an abortion. If I were raped I don't think I would want to carry the monsters child. NO it isn't the childs fault but neither is it the womans!!

I don't think abortion should be used as birth control, but in the case of rape or incest the woman isn't choosing to become pregnant. She deserves a CHOICE.

 

[KarlMarx]

The whole issue with Roe vs. Wade hs to do with the right of the poor woman to an abortion. Before this descision, the poor were denied abortions while the rich were able to get them.

If we are going to make abortion illegal, it needs to be illegal for all. That must include the rich girl who can afford to goto another country if necessary to have an abortion. She needs to be prosecuted when she returns.

If your argument is about the rights of the unborn child, it does not matter if the woman was raped. The unborn child is guilty of no crime, and she should have to have it just like any other pregnant woman. You cannot deny one person a right because of the actions of another - that is never justified.

No, Roe vs. Wade was not about the right of women to get an abortion. Abortion was legal in several states before Roe vs. Wade. What Roe vs. Wade did was to take away the States' right to ban abortion. Before Roe vs. Wade, a woman could have had an abortion if she went to a state that allowed it.

This sounds like judicial activism to me. The 10th amendment says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Now the question is where in the Constitution is a woman's right to "choice" specifcally defined? The Constitution does not provide for a woman's right to "choice". Since the Constitution does not specify a woman's right to an abortion, the states have the right to ban it. Therefore, Roe vs. Wade violates the 10th amendment because it takes away the States' right to ban abortion.

Second, the 14th amendment says:

"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

if an unborn child is a person, then any law that allows abortion violates the 14th amendment in that it denies equal protection to the unborn, it also deprives the unborn the right to life without due process of law.

Pro-choice people get around this part of the Constitution by claiming that a fetus is not a person but a blob of tissue. However, medical science now is able to save the lives of children born as early as, what, 4 months?, 5 months? 6 months?, perhaps even earlier? How is it that these blobs of tissue are suddenly people?

 

[Bonnie]

No, Roe vs. Wade was not about the right of women to get an abortion. Abortion was legal in several states before Roe vs. Wade. What Roe vs. Wade did was to take away the States' right to ban abortion. Before Roe vs. Wade, a woman could have had an abortion if she went to a state that allowed it.

This sounds like judicial activism to me. The 10th amendment says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Now the question is where in the Constitution is a woman's right to "choice" specifcally defined? The Constitution does not provide for a woman's right to "choice". Since the Constitution does not specify a woman's right to an abortion, the states have the right to ban it. Therefore, then Roe vs. Wade violates the 10th amendment because it takes away the States' right to ban abortion.

Second, the 14th amendment says:

...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

if an unborn child is a person, then any law that allows abortion violates the 14th amendment in that it denies equal protection to the unborn, it also deprives the unborn the right to life without due process of law.

Brilliant as always Karl!!!!!!
I might add that the woman used in that ruling was never raped, she was used as a pawn byt the abortion lobby so I would suggest the whole ruling has no foundation in fact.