Recommended Posts
billvon 3,098
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Well, actually, many of these miscarriages happen during the first
> couple of weeks, due to the fact that although a zygote was formed,
> there was something wrong with it and the body aborts it after a few
> rounds of cell division.
Most spontaneous abortions are simply fertilized eggs that do not implant. Around 60% of fertilized eggs do not implant.
> couple of weeks, due to the fact that although a zygote was formed,
> there was something wrong with it and the body aborts it after a few
> rounds of cell division.
Most spontaneous abortions are simply fertilized eggs that do not implant. Around 60% of fertilized eggs do not implant.
kallend 2,138
QuoteQuote
It's a person when it has a Social Security number and you get a tax deduction for it. Until then it's up to the mother to decide ....
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteQuote
It's a person when it has a Social Security number and you get a tax deduction for it. Until then it's up to the mother to decide .
Tell that to the lawyers prosecuting Scott Peterson.
never pull low......unless you are
elfanie 0
Quote>What this has to assume is that there are situations in which the
> mother's life is at risk which ABORTING the baby would better protect
> the mother - whereas simply removing the baby (not aborting it)
> would put mother's life in greater jeapordy.
There are cases where aborting one fetus can help ensure the health and safety of the mother (or the other fetus.)
The ONLY instance that I can think of is in the case of selective reduction...which is not done for the health of the mother, but to try to give the remaining child/ren a better chance at survival. (and that is done very early in the gestation)
Now..there are times when a condition present at the beginning of the pregnancy would cause the life of the mother to be in jeapardy (for example, an ectopic pregnancy, or if mother had a severe heart condition or cancer which requires immediate treatment)....
but even prolifers agree with abortion being an option in those instances. Even prolifers agree that you should be able to protect yourself against someone else who is threatening your life, even if it means using lethal force.
Quote
>if you're going to put a minimum level of brain activity as a marker
> at which abortion can not be performed...then do you also support
> legislation legalizing euthenization of children/adults who also do
> not show that same level of brain activity?
Yes. Most states have legislation that allows withdrawal of support (including feeding and normal care) for someone who is brain dead.
Withdrawl of support does NOT equal euthenasia.
withdrawl if support is inducing labor...it is not an abortion. Abortion is euthenasia....quite a different thing.
--------------------------------------------
Elfanie
My Skydiving Page
Fly Safe - Soft Landings
elfanie 0
QuoteQuoteQuote
It's a person when it has a Social Security number and you get a tax deduction for it. Until then it's up to the mother to decide .
I didn't have a social security number until I was 15 years old.
As for a tax deduction...since when was that a preclude to deserving human rights?
Wendy W said the best prochoice argument that there is....that she doesn't believe that it is a human yet deserving of human rights and protection. Absolutely understandable if she feels that way that she's prochoice and that's really the ONLY argument that prochoicers have. (just like the ONLY argument prolifers have is that they believe it's human. All the bible arguments and spirituality doesn't really hold water when you're talking about the law)
--------------------------------------------
Elfanie
My Skydiving Page
Fly Safe - Soft Landings
kallend 2,138
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
It's a person when it has a Social Security number and you get a tax deduction for it. Until then it's up to the mother to decide .
I didn't have a social security number until I was 15 years old.Quote
But you are old. The law is different now, no SSN, no tax deduction.
As for a tax deduction...since when was that a preclude to deserving human rights?
It's a matter of recognition.
If the state doesn't recognize it, then it is no business of the state. If the state recognizes it as a person, it should have the same rights as anyone else, including tax advantages....
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
elfanie 0
Quote
If the state doesn't recognize it, then it is no business of the state. If the state recognizes it as a person, it should have the same rights as anyone else, including tax advantages.
But when discussing abortion, we aren't discussing what IS...we discuss what we think SHOULD BE.
And there are people who have children and do not submit a birth certificate...don't get their children social security numbers...do not put them on their taxes...
(I've worked with several of these people)
Are you saying that they should be able to kill that child without being brought up on murder charges because the child's records aren't filed with the state?
Or are you saying that if abortion is made illegal, that fetuses should be given social security numbers and used as a tax deduction?
--------------------------------------------
Elfanie
My Skydiving Page
Fly Safe - Soft Landings
billvon 3,098
>The ONLY instance that I can think of is in the case of selective
> reduction...which is not done for the health of the mother, but to try
> to give the remaining child/ren a better chance at survival. (and that
> is done very early in the gestation)
Or fairly late, as the problem becomes apparent. Such a lifesaving reduction would be prohibited by the recently proposed law against "partial birth" abortions. There was no provision for selective reduction for health reasons. Which is the problem with laws - they replace common sense and medical good judgement with inflexible laws passed by a bureaucrat.
My wife is a doctor. If we ever have a problem with her pregnancy, I very much hope that we (and our OB/GYN) can decide what to do without government interference. We know better than the government what to do with our (future) children.
>Withdrawl of support does NOT equal euthenasia.
It does when there is no brain activity. A person with no brain activity cannot care for themselves. Withdrawal of care equals killing them. It's legal, because we don't consider someone without a mind a human being.
>withdrawl if support is inducing labor...it is not an abortion.
Brain activity shows up between 8 and 12 weeks. Inducing labor before brain activity is abortion; there's no chance the fetus will survive. Spontaneous labor at that point is called a miscarriage.
BTW this whole situation will get a lot more sticky when we can support a fetus of any age outside the mother. We're already at 20ish weeks. Right now, labor before that time is effectively abortion; an 18 week old fetus cannot survive outside the womb. That won't always be true.
BTW #2 - Personally, I think the decision of abortion should always be left up to the parents. They are the best ones to decide how to deal with the issue of wanted or unwanted pregnancies, a pregnancy that threatens the health of the mother or other children etc. I think human life equals a human mind; life begins when a child's brain begins to work and ends when their brain can no longer house their mind. Nowadays, this can happen before the body dies. But after the mind is gone, the shell that is left is no longer a human being.
> reduction...which is not done for the health of the mother, but to try
> to give the remaining child/ren a better chance at survival. (and that
> is done very early in the gestation)
Or fairly late, as the problem becomes apparent. Such a lifesaving reduction would be prohibited by the recently proposed law against "partial birth" abortions. There was no provision for selective reduction for health reasons. Which is the problem with laws - they replace common sense and medical good judgement with inflexible laws passed by a bureaucrat.
My wife is a doctor. If we ever have a problem with her pregnancy, I very much hope that we (and our OB/GYN) can decide what to do without government interference. We know better than the government what to do with our (future) children.
>Withdrawl of support does NOT equal euthenasia.
It does when there is no brain activity. A person with no brain activity cannot care for themselves. Withdrawal of care equals killing them. It's legal, because we don't consider someone without a mind a human being.
>withdrawl if support is inducing labor...it is not an abortion.
Brain activity shows up between 8 and 12 weeks. Inducing labor before brain activity is abortion; there's no chance the fetus will survive. Spontaneous labor at that point is called a miscarriage.
BTW this whole situation will get a lot more sticky when we can support a fetus of any age outside the mother. We're already at 20ish weeks. Right now, labor before that time is effectively abortion; an 18 week old fetus cannot survive outside the womb. That won't always be true.
BTW #2 - Personally, I think the decision of abortion should always be left up to the parents. They are the best ones to decide how to deal with the issue of wanted or unwanted pregnancies, a pregnancy that threatens the health of the mother or other children etc. I think human life equals a human mind; life begins when a child's brain begins to work and ends when their brain can no longer house their mind. Nowadays, this can happen before the body dies. But after the mind is gone, the shell that is left is no longer a human being.
elfanie 0
Quote
Or fairly late, as the problem becomes apparent. Such a lifesaving reduction would be prohibited by the recently proposed law against "partial birth" abortions. There was no provision for selective reduction for health reasons. Which is the problem with laws - they replace common sense and medical good judgement with inflexible laws passed by a bureaucrat.
that's because there is never ever an instance in which partial birth abortions would be beneficial for the life of the mother. If it's late enough to perform a partial birth abortion..then it's safer on the mother to simply remove the baby without killing it.
To perform a partial birth abortion, it is required to do an external version (or rarely they are able to do an internal version) to rotate baby to a footling presentation...deliver all of the baby except the head...remove the contents thus collapsing the head...then complete delivery.
to do all of this is more dangerous than birthing a baby in a cephalic presentation.
the problem isn't of removing a baby because mom is now being threatened by the pregnancy...
the problem is the killing of the baby first before delivery.
Quote
My wife is a doctor. If we ever have a problem with her pregnancy, I very much hope that we (and our OB/GYN) can decide what to do without government interference. We know better than the government what to do with our (future) children.
That is because you're prochoice...so of course you'd feel that way. Like all prochoicers feel.
However...to a prolifer, to say that is the exact same thing (to them) as saying, "If we ever have a problem with our 3 month old baby
I very much hope that we (and our pediatrician) can decide what to do without government interference. We know better than the government what to do with our children."
Quote
>Withdrawl of support does NOT equal euthenasia.
It does when there is no brain activity. A person with no brain activity cannot care for themselves. Withdrawal of care equals killing them. It's legal, because we don't consider someone without a mind a human being.
>withdrawl if support is inducing labor...it is not an abortion.
Brain activity shows up between 8 and 12 weeks. Inducing labor before brain activity is abortion; there's no chance the fetus will survive. Spontaneous labor at that point is called a miscarriage.
Actually, brain activity has little to do with viability...because there are babies with little brain activity and yet are viable, and there are babies that dream and smell and hear and have full brain activity that aren't viable yet.
If you remove life support before viability...they won't survive.
but again...that's not the same as taking active steps to end the life before the birth, which is what is done in second and third trimester abortions.
Quote
BTW #2 - Personally, I think the decision of abortion should always be left up to the parents.
Again, that's because you're prochoice.
If you were prolife, obviously you'd feel differently. If you were prolife - if you saw the unborn as equal in value to that of a born child - then you'd be saying the exact same thing prolifers are currently saying...
which is that abortion should be illegal.
after all...you believe infantcide should be illegal, correct?
why? Why should that not be a parental decision...a parental choice?
because of how you view that infant.
QuoteI think human life equals a human mind; life begins when a child's brain begins to work and ends when their brain can no longer house their mind. Nowadays, this can happen before the body dies. But after the mind is gone, the shell that is left is no longer a human being.
However...if my brain stops working (yet my brain stem remains strong)...my body can continue on for YEARS after life support is stopped.
and if you walk into my hospital room and put a bullet into my head...you will be brought up on murder charges. Even though my mind is gone.
(edited to add: There have been several instances of anencephalic babies born - these are babies born without a brain but with an intact brain stem - whose parents favored euthenizing the baby so that organs could be donated to help other sick babies. They legally were not allowd to do so..and had to watch as the organs deteriorated and waited weeks/months for their baby to die. If at that point they had euthenized the baby...they'd be brought up on murder charges. If they'd euthenized the baby 3 minutes prior to delivery (depending on the state), that would have been perfectly legal.)
It's the moment that the head is born that causes them to be viewed as human by the courts (again, depending on the state and depending on in what way you're talking - for example some places allow a fetus to inherit even though it's not born yet)...
not brain activity.
--------------------------------------------
Elfanie
My Skydiving Page
Fly Safe - Soft Landings
billvon 3,098
>That is because you're prochoice...so of course you'd feel that way.
>Like all prochoicers feel.
Perhaps I come about my feelings backwards, then. Abortion has always been abhorrent to me; it seems, based on my gut reaction, that it should be illegal. It's removing the potential for a new life. I could have been aborted; I know a lot of people born into bad family situations who turned into wonderful people, and to abort them surely would have been a kind of murder.
But a long time ago I thought long and hard about how I feel about life. Does life begin at conception? Not reasonably, no. Most conceptions are spontaneously aborted via implantation failure; that does not mean millions of children die every year. The failure of some embryos to implant is simply how our reproductive systems work. It's not a tragedy (as long as things otherwise work as designed) - just a part of being a mammal.
It follows, then, that means of birth control that cause spontaneous abortions (like IUD's) are mimicking what our bodies do normally. A fertilized egg has the potential for life, but is not likely to become a child until it successfully implants and begins to grow.
So when is it really a person? At some stage in cell division? That seems pretty arbitrary to me. To me, the defining characteristic of humanity is that we can think. Hence, lack of brain activity means the person is no longer (or not yet) a person.
So based on that, to me, an abortion before 8-12 weeks is not killing a person. It is removing the POTENTIAL for a person, but morally is equivalent to using an IUD for birth control.
From your statement I understand that you decided you are pro-life, and thus base your philosophy on what they do. I sort of came about it backwards. I believe that children begin when their brains begin to work, and thus have no moral objection to abortions before that phase. That makes me more pro-choice than pro-life, but those groups don't define my morality; the pro-choicers are simply closer to my own personal morality than the pro-lifers.
>after all...you believe infantcide should be illegal, correct?
Yes. A person gradually accrues rights as soon as they become human (which, in my definition, happens when their brain starts working.) Parents of a newborn cannot kill it, but they can force upon it a risky procedure for cosmetic reasons, they can circumcise it, they can decide that it should remain separate from other children (essentially imprison it.) All those things would be illegal for an adult to do to another adult, but is legal for a parent to do to a child. Why? Because at birth, a child has some rights but not others.
As they grow, they accrue more rights. A child of 15 who does not want to be circumcised has a much better case than the newborn; he could conceivably be heard by a court and granted protection from parents who want to force the procedure on him. By the time they are 21 they have all the rights of an adult.
>However...if my brain stops working (yet my brain stem remains
> strong)...my body can continue on for YEARS after life support is
> stopped.
Most people die after a few days/weeks with no food or water. People with no working brains can't eat or drink. Withholding care of these people quickly kills them.
>Like all prochoicers feel.
Perhaps I come about my feelings backwards, then. Abortion has always been abhorrent to me; it seems, based on my gut reaction, that it should be illegal. It's removing the potential for a new life. I could have been aborted; I know a lot of people born into bad family situations who turned into wonderful people, and to abort them surely would have been a kind of murder.
But a long time ago I thought long and hard about how I feel about life. Does life begin at conception? Not reasonably, no. Most conceptions are spontaneously aborted via implantation failure; that does not mean millions of children die every year. The failure of some embryos to implant is simply how our reproductive systems work. It's not a tragedy (as long as things otherwise work as designed) - just a part of being a mammal.
It follows, then, that means of birth control that cause spontaneous abortions (like IUD's) are mimicking what our bodies do normally. A fertilized egg has the potential for life, but is not likely to become a child until it successfully implants and begins to grow.
So when is it really a person? At some stage in cell division? That seems pretty arbitrary to me. To me, the defining characteristic of humanity is that we can think. Hence, lack of brain activity means the person is no longer (or not yet) a person.
So based on that, to me, an abortion before 8-12 weeks is not killing a person. It is removing the POTENTIAL for a person, but morally is equivalent to using an IUD for birth control.
From your statement I understand that you decided you are pro-life, and thus base your philosophy on what they do. I sort of came about it backwards. I believe that children begin when their brains begin to work, and thus have no moral objection to abortions before that phase. That makes me more pro-choice than pro-life, but those groups don't define my morality; the pro-choicers are simply closer to my own personal morality than the pro-lifers.
>after all...you believe infantcide should be illegal, correct?
Yes. A person gradually accrues rights as soon as they become human (which, in my definition, happens when their brain starts working.) Parents of a newborn cannot kill it, but they can force upon it a risky procedure for cosmetic reasons, they can circumcise it, they can decide that it should remain separate from other children (essentially imprison it.) All those things would be illegal for an adult to do to another adult, but is legal for a parent to do to a child. Why? Because at birth, a child has some rights but not others.
As they grow, they accrue more rights. A child of 15 who does not want to be circumcised has a much better case than the newborn; he could conceivably be heard by a court and granted protection from parents who want to force the procedure on him. By the time they are 21 they have all the rights of an adult.
>However...if my brain stops working (yet my brain stem remains
> strong)...my body can continue on for YEARS after life support is
> stopped.
Most people die after a few days/weeks with no food or water. People with no working brains can't eat or drink. Withholding care of these people quickly kills them.
Elfanie-
just out of curiosity, what would you say to the 13 year old victim of stranger rape who finds herself pregnant?
Should our society force that child to have a child, simply because the fetus itself is innocent? what would that child have to go through emotionally were she to carry a child to term and give birth to it?
would you prefer that our government make the decision for her, that she must carry the child, or that she, her doctor, and her family are permitted to decide what is best for her, both physically and psychologically?
I realize this is an extreme situation, but it is a situation that must be taken into account. Either, the fetus is alive and human and should have all the protections of a born, human baby, in which case, an abortion would not be the right choice under ANY circumstances, or, because at this point, the fetus is very much a part of the mother, should she be permitted to choose its fate under circumstances such as these?
just out of curiosity, what would you say to the 13 year old victim of stranger rape who finds herself pregnant?
Should our society force that child to have a child, simply because the fetus itself is innocent? what would that child have to go through emotionally were she to carry a child to term and give birth to it?
would you prefer that our government make the decision for her, that she must carry the child, or that she, her doctor, and her family are permitted to decide what is best for her, both physically and psychologically?
I realize this is an extreme situation, but it is a situation that must be taken into account. Either, the fetus is alive and human and should have all the protections of a born, human baby, in which case, an abortion would not be the right choice under ANY circumstances, or, because at this point, the fetus is very much a part of the mother, should she be permitted to choose its fate under circumstances such as these?
Michele 1
Let's turn it around for a second...
What if the government - state or federal - said "you must have a genetic test. If it is found that there is a genetic defect that will place a burden on the welfare system, by law you must abort that fetus. You must have additional testing to determine if there is a congential defect which will place a burden on the welfare system, and, if so determined, you must abort that fetus."
How would you feel then? (**YOU**, in this case, means anyone, on any side of the discussion...)
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
What if the government - state or federal - said "you must have a genetic test. If it is found that there is a genetic defect that will place a burden on the welfare system, by law you must abort that fetus. You must have additional testing to determine if there is a congential defect which will place a burden on the welfare system, and, if so determined, you must abort that fetus."
How would you feel then? (**YOU**, in this case, means anyone, on any side of the discussion...)
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
benny 0
I'm staying away from what this thread has evolved into, i wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. I do however have to say that it's freakin hilarious if the ACLU filed anything supporting Limbaugh. It's like feeding the mouth that continually bites you.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
elfanie 0
Quote
So based on that, to me, an abortion before 8-12 weeks is not killing a person. It is removing the POTENTIAL for a person, but morally is equivalent to using an IUD for birth control.
*nodsnods* Which is exactly what I said previously...which is that if you feel that it is not a "person" yet, then it's understandable that you'd be prochoice.
If you feel that it is a "person"...then it's understandable that you'd be prolife.
Quote
From your statement I understand that you decided you are pro-life, and thus base your philosophy on what they do.
You only came to this conclusion because you are prochoice.
if you were prolife..you'd probably have come to the conclusion that I was prochoice.
I have not stated my opinion on the subject...just tried to clarify the prochoice/prolife viewpoints...
QuoteI sort of came about it backwards. I believe that children begin when their brains begin to work, and thus have no moral objection to abortions before that phase. That makes me more pro-choice than pro-life, but those groups don't define my morality; the pro-choicers are simply closer to my own personal morality than the pro-lifers.
that makes you prochoice, period. Most prochoicers would say that they don't like the idea of abortion..or that ideally it would never be done...and/or that they themselves would never obtain one..
but these things have nothing to do with being prochoice. Prochoice simply means that you beleive that it should remain a legal option for those who WOULD wish to persue that option.
Quote
>after all...you believe infantcide should be illegal, correct?
Yes. A person gradually accrues rights as soon as they become human (which, in my definition, happens when their brain starts working.) Parents of a newborn cannot kill it, but they can force upon it a risky procedure for cosmetic reasons, they can circumcise it, they can decide that it should remain separate from other children (essentially imprison it.) All those things would be illegal for an adult to do to another adult, but is legal for a parent to do to a child. Why? Because at birth, a child has some rights but not others.
Excellent point!
However...the counter-argument to that is that 'we' can force proceedures upon certain adults, too....those that the courts have deemed unable to decide for themselves...and that is irrelevant.
What abortion is talking about is specifically the right to end their life (if you're prolife)...or specifically the right of a woman to do with her body what she wants to (if you're prochoice..because at that point there is not other "person", there is only the woman)
Quote
As they grow, they accrue more rights. A child of 15 who does not want to be circumcised has a much better case than the newborn; he could conceivably be heard by a court and granted protection from parents who want to force the procedure on him. By the time they are 21 they have all the rights of an adult.
So your point is that you support the idea of slowly attributing rights to individuals based on age...
and that the right to protection from death at the hands of another individual is one of those rights?
*nods* Fair enough...so at what point of development do you believe that this right of protection should occur? Brain activity? A certain gestational age? Birth?
Quote
>However...if my brain stops working (yet my brain stem remains
> strong)...my body can continue on for YEARS after life support is
> stopped.
Most people die after a few days/weeks with no food or water. People with no working brains can't eat or drink. Withholding care of these people quickly kills them.
withholding food/water....you don't get brought up on murder charges.
Inducing labor and removing the baby...you don't get brought up on murder charges (even if abortion were illegal).
taking a gun into the room and shooting the person...THAT would get you brought up on murder charges...even if they are terminally ill or brain dead. THAT is more comperable to abortion in tht there is a direct action taken to intentionally end the life (if you believe that there is a life there).
--------------------------------------------
Elfanie
My Skydiving Page
Fly Safe - Soft Landings
elfanie 0
QuoteElfanie-
just out of curiosity, what would you say to the 13 year old victim of stranger rape who finds herself pregnant?
Hee hee..
I've intentionally NOT given my opinion...
However, if I was prochoice then I'd say that she should confer with her parents and make a decision that she and her parents feel are best for her in that situation.
If I was prolife then I'd say that she shouldn't punish an innocent child because of the sins/crimes of another person and should give birth to the baby and it would be her choice whether to raise the baby or place it for adoption.
Quote
would you prefer that our government make the decision for her, that she must carry the child, or that she, her doctor, and her family are permitted to decide what is best for her, both physically and psychologically?
Depends on if I'm prolife or prochoice.
If I'm prochoice then I'd say that the 13 year old who has already been traumatized should do whatever she feels is best and she's been traumatized enough.
If I'm prolife then I'd say that because she's been victimized shouldn't give her the right to harm an innocent child...just like if she did give birth to the baby and tried to raise the baby and resented the baby so she abused the baby....her resentment and trauma doesn't give her the right to abuse the baby.
If you assume that the thing inside the uterus is NOT a baby, NOT a person...then the response of a prochoicer is very simple to understand and to come to.
If you assume the thing inside the uterus is the exact same thing as a born baby....then the response of a prolifer is very simple to understand and to come to.
Quote
I realize this is an extreme situation, but it is a situation that must be taken into account. Either, the fetus is alive and human and should have all the protections of a born, human baby, in which case, an abortion would not be the right choice under ANY circumstances,
Nope...
because in this situation an abortion would be the right choice if the woman's life were endangered...just like murder is justified if you feel that someone is about to end your life.
Quoteor, because at this point, the fetus is very much a part of the mother, should she be permitted to choose its fate under circumstances such as these?
Exactly..
exactly exactly. other than the self-defense exemption...you've hit it exactly right. either the unborn is just like a baby or it isn't...(given any specific stage. There are many people that beleive it's a baby after X stage of gestation and not before...)
--------------------------------------------
Elfanie
My Skydiving Page
Fly Safe - Soft Landings
elfanie 0
QuoteLet's turn it around for a second...
What if the government - state or federal - said "you must have a genetic test. If it is found that there is a genetic defect that will place a burden on the welfare system, by law you must abort that fetus. You must have additional testing to determine if there is a congential defect which will place a burden on the welfare system, and, if so determined, you must abort that fetus."
How would you feel then? (**YOU**, in this case, means anyone, on any side of the discussion...)
Ciels-
Michele
big big difference between keeping a choice open to people...and removing a choice.
If you are prochoice you aren't advocating that they must abort a baby...you're only saying that it should be up to the parents.
what you're talking about is mandating abortion..big difference.
Unless you're referring to the prolife point of view...in which instance there's also a big difference between forcing an action and preventing one. We can prevent you from doing any number of things (child abuse, molestation, rape, robbery, etc)...but we can't force you to do things...
--------------------------------------------
Elfanie
My Skydiving Page
Fly Safe - Soft Landings
billvon 3,098
>*nods* Fair enough...so at what point of development do you
> believe that this right of protection should occur? Brain activity? A
> certain gestational age? Birth?
In "Bill's Ideal World" (tm) it is a gradual process. Before 8 weeks, you can't be prosecuted for anything. After that, if you abort it because you were raped, that _could_ go before a judge, but he would be given leeway to decide that it was a good decision. If it's a family that has 3 kids and can simply not afford to raise a fourth? Same thing. In those cases, 90% of the time, no charges are even filed.
But if you abort it for cosmetic/convenience reasons? You could be fined, charged with something like "negligent termination of a pregnancy."
As the fetus ages, it accrues more rights; prosecutors are less likely to be reasonable. At 8 months, the only permissible reason would be to preserve the health or safety of the mother or another child.
In the real world, of course, this would never happen. You can't legislate common sense or reasonable reactions. Defense attorneys would make it the doctor's fault; prosecutors would go after anyone and everyone who's had an abortion for any reason, including rape. Then they'd let her plead to a lesser charge so they can claim a conviction. After all, being "tough on crime" gets people elected. That lack of good judgement in the legal system is why I think that only things that are solidly crimes should be illegal. Things that are morally bad, but might be a good idea in some cases - they should not be made illegal, and the people involved should be allowed to make a decision. Nine times out of ten it might be the wrong decision, but it's better for people to make a mistake and live with the consequences than have the government prevent you from making a decision that could help you or your family.
>taking a gun into the room and shooting the person...THAT would
> get you brought up on murder charges...even if they are terminally
>ill or brain dead.
That's under review right now. Assisted suicide is legal in some places, and people are talking about allowing families to make similar decisions in cases where a person is profoundly brain-damaged, terminally ill and likely to suffer a great deal of pain before they die.
> believe that this right of protection should occur? Brain activity? A
> certain gestational age? Birth?
In "Bill's Ideal World" (tm) it is a gradual process. Before 8 weeks, you can't be prosecuted for anything. After that, if you abort it because you were raped, that _could_ go before a judge, but he would be given leeway to decide that it was a good decision. If it's a family that has 3 kids and can simply not afford to raise a fourth? Same thing. In those cases, 90% of the time, no charges are even filed.
But if you abort it for cosmetic/convenience reasons? You could be fined, charged with something like "negligent termination of a pregnancy."
As the fetus ages, it accrues more rights; prosecutors are less likely to be reasonable. At 8 months, the only permissible reason would be to preserve the health or safety of the mother or another child.
In the real world, of course, this would never happen. You can't legislate common sense or reasonable reactions. Defense attorneys would make it the doctor's fault; prosecutors would go after anyone and everyone who's had an abortion for any reason, including rape. Then they'd let her plead to a lesser charge so they can claim a conviction. After all, being "tough on crime" gets people elected. That lack of good judgement in the legal system is why I think that only things that are solidly crimes should be illegal. Things that are morally bad, but might be a good idea in some cases - they should not be made illegal, and the people involved should be allowed to make a decision. Nine times out of ten it might be the wrong decision, but it's better for people to make a mistake and live with the consequences than have the government prevent you from making a decision that could help you or your family.
>taking a gun into the room and shooting the person...THAT would
> get you brought up on murder charges...even if they are terminally
>ill or brain dead.
That's under review right now. Assisted suicide is legal in some places, and people are talking about allowing families to make similar decisions in cases where a person is profoundly brain-damaged, terminally ill and likely to suffer a great deal of pain before they die.
elfanie 0
Quote
In "Bill's Ideal World" (tm) it is a gradual process. Before 8 weeks, you can't be prosecuted for anything.
(except that abortions aren't usually performed before 7 weeks gestation because the several reasons...so you're only leaving a 1-week window in which a family would have to A) realize that she's pregnant and B) set up, get money for, and obtain an abortion )
Quote
But if you abort it for cosmetic/convenience reasons? You could be fined, charged with something like "negligent termination of a pregnancy."
Prove that I did it for cosmetic/convenience reasons. I could say any number of reasons...it would be SO EASY to lie about this.
(although you did say this was in your 'ideal world'. *grin* so I doubt if you created your ideal world that people would lie about it..
)
Quote
As the fetus ages, it accrues more rights; prosecutors are less likely to be reasonable. At 8 months, the only permissible reason would be to preserve the health or safety of the mother or another child.
Like I said...doesn't happen. there's not an instance in which an abortion at 8 months is safer than do a straight delivery without ending the fetal life first. If a health issue was found at 36 weeks gestation...what is the benefit to killing the fetus prior to removing it?
Quote
Things that are morally bad, but might be a good idea in some cases - they should not be made illegal, and the people involved should be allowed to make a decision.
But there are two issues you're talking about..
one is morality and moral legislation...which a prolifer would argue is NOT what abortion legislation is about.
legislation regarding prostutition...that's a moral law. If we had a law about adultery..that would be a moral law.
but laws protecting other individuals from our actions aren't laws of morality..
rape laws aren't laws on morality...it's not illegal because of the morality of rape. It is illegal to protect the person being raped from you. (not you, Bill...but general "you"
)
and a prolifer would argue that abortion laws would be to protect someone (baby) from your actions.
Quote
>taking a gun into the room and shooting the person...THAT would
> get you brought up on murder charges...even if they are terminally
>ill or brain dead.
That's under review right now. Assisted suicide is legal in some places, and people are talking about allowing families to make similar decisions in cases where a person is profoundly brain-damaged, terminally ill and likely to suffer a great deal of pain before they die.
NO..
NOT the same thing.
Assusted suicide is SUICIDE...allowing someone to take their OWN life.
It is not under review ANYWHERE whether someone shoudl be able to end your life FOR YOU...which is why Kavorkian didn't administer the medication. he set it up..but the person HAD to be able to administer it themselves.
We're not talking suicide here...or allowing someone to end their own life. We're talking about YOU ending it FOR them...
and legally there is a big difference..
--------------------------------------------
Elfanie
My Skydiving Page
Fly Safe - Soft Landings
kallend 2,138
QuoteQuote
If the state doesn't recognize it, then it is no business of the state. If the state recognizes it as a person, it should have the same rights as anyone else, including tax advantages.
But when discussing abortion, we aren't discussing what IS...we discuss what we think SHOULD BE.
And there are people who have children and do not submit a birth certificate...don't get their children social security numbers...do not put them on their taxes...
(I've worked with several of these people)
Are you saying that they should be able to kill that child without being brought up on murder charges because the child's records aren't filed with the state?
Or are you saying that if abortion is made illegal, that fetuses should be given social security numbers and used as a tax deduction?
The state recognizes a child after birth, whether or not the parents choose to register it.
The state does not recognize a fetus as a person. It will not grant a tax deduction to a fetus, nor issue a SSN or a passport to one - these are fairly reasonable and accepted symbols of recognition by the state.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Jimbo 0
QuoteIt's like feeding the mouth that continually bites you.
It's a publicity stunt, nothing more. Sure, Rush will benefit from it, but how many similar cases did they turn away?
-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
billvon 3,098
>Sure, Rush will benefit from it, but how many similar cases did they turn away?
Probably most of them; they have limited funds, so they choose the higher profile ones, ones that have a better chance of setting policy.
BTW, if you're critical of them not taking on more cases - how much have you contributed to them?
Probably most of them; they have limited funds, so they choose the higher profile ones, ones that have a better chance of setting policy.
BTW, if you're critical of them not taking on more cases - how much have you contributed to them?
the ACLU isn't really out to assist individuals, although it does try to do so when necessary. It exists to help set legal precedent. The Limbaugh case makes sense, because they are more likely to be able to set precedent with a higher profile case.
Well, actually, many of these miscarriages happen during the first couple of weeks, due to the fact that although a zygote was formed, there was something wrong with it and the body aborts it after a few rounds of cell division.
Sometimes this happens so soon after conception that the woman never even knows she was pregnant. So it wouldn't necessarily be WRONG to say the the woman hadn't developed an emotional attachment to it.
--------------------------------------------------
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites