Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Judge rules abortion ban unconstitutional

Abortion late-term abortions

  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#41 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 06:40 AM

The child's rights shouldn't supercede the parent's, they are both equal as humans.  However, there is a point where a woman can make a decision to not get pregnant and take steps to ensure that it doesn't happen.  After that point, through the error or irresponsibility, if she does become pregnant, then she has stepped over the line.  A child can no more help who it ends up gestating within than it can help being born poor and in a third world nation.  

The problem here is that women have always had the choice whether to get pregnant or not except in the case of rape.  Yes, society has made it difficult to exercise that choice in the past in some instances, but that's a social problem that can be corrected without killing anyone.  The solution to the "brood mare" issue is entirely a problem that not only can be handled, but needs to be handled outside of the scope of abortions.  The fact is that abortions have no effect on the fact that partners act imperiously or irresponsibly towards women.  The women may abort a child, but that won't keep her away from the situation that got her pregnant the first time, whether it is an overbearing male or her own ignorance or irresponsibility.  

To properly balance the rights of women and children, abortion needs to be illegal except in cases of medical necessity.  Abortion is no boon to Women's Rights, it's divergence from any real progress on that front.

Edited by Uncle Sid, 03 June 2004 - 06:41 AM.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#42 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 07:15 AM

Drew, on Jun 2 2004, 05:25 AM, said:

emsparks, on Jun 2 2004, 07:07 AM, said:

One last point, I am a male, and I have no right to tell a woman what to do in the case of a unwanted pregnancy, or judge her afterwards.
Just addressing this point of logic. It's always bugged me, but philosophically, this statement makes about as much sense as saying "I don't have a dog, so I really can't speak to the morality of beating one's pets," or "I'm not Jewish or a Nazi, so I have to right to pass judgment on Hitler's final solution."

I understand the reasoning behind the statement, but it's a very bad philosophy. Having different genitals does not excuse someone from having to personally decide upon the morality of an act. Logically speaking, one has already made a judgment about the morality of abortion by refusing to make a judgment about it.

So . . . fellow human beings . . . let's not recuse ourselves from our responsibilities as humans.

Back to your regularly scheduled rant.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. I would no more tell you what to do about your body than sprout wings and fly, but somehow many men seem to think it would be ok to take control of our bodies away from us and force us to make whatever decision you deem morally responsible.

That makes about as much sense as letting women decide when to get a vasectomy.  :wacko:

Not only that, it sends a sh*tt* message - that the life of the prospective baby is far more important than the life of it's mother. We're not brood mares or cows - we have the right to make decisions about our body.

And oddly enough, I wouldn't want an abortion. But I can imagine circumstances where I would have one (I've been working in special ed too long  :pout: ).

Edited by Rhea, 03 June 2004 - 07:17 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#43 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 07:19 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 2 2004, 03:30 PM, said:

Delvo, on Jun 2 2004, 03:16 PM, said:

Questions of the mother's health and/or life being threatened by the pregnancy are fair game if we're talking about abortion in general, but not with just partial-birth abortions, which are what this ruling was about. The mother's health and survival with a medically troublesome pregnancy and/or birth is just not something that this particular procedure addresses.
You're wrong.  It's not 100% one way or the other.  If you read the statute you'll see that the statute itself attempts (very vaguely and confusedly) to address the very issues you say are not implicated by partial birth abortions.  I'm not saying it's a question in every or even most instances.  But your blanket assertion that it's never an issue is simply wrong.

Lil
What Lil said. I never took the boards, but I finished nursing school. I can tell you that I've seen certain circumstances where the baby couldn't survive and the mother's health is threatened for some reason. In your perfect world, you would force the mother to die to save a baby who couldn't survive anyway. Where's the humanity in that?
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#44 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 09:47 AM

Rhea, on Jun 3 2004, 06:17 AM, said:

In your perfect world, you would force the mother to die to save a baby who couldn't survive anyway. Where's the humanity in that?
Sometimes, some people's habit of concocting flagrantly false accusations ex nihilo is just astounding. :wacko:

Quote

I've seen certain circumstances where the baby couldn't survive and the mother's health is threatened for some reason.
And this would be solved by a partial-birth abortion, which means she has already carried the fetus for a full gestation period and actually gives birth? Then give more details, because I've never heard of such a thing, nor has anyone else I know of, nor had anybody at Ex Isle last time this subject came up here, and there's got to be an impressive explanation for how having the mother carry the fetus full-term and give birth can be better for the mother than having her carry the fetus full-term and give birth.

#45 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 09:58 AM

Rhea, on Jun 3 2004, 06:13 AM, said:

I would no more tell you what to do about your body than sprout wings and fly, but somehow many men seem to think it would be ok to take control of our bodies away from us and force us to make whatever decision you deem morally responsible.

That makes about as much sense as letting women decide when to get a vasectomy.  :wacko:
Except for the little detail that in one case there's an innocent bystander that we're pondering killing, and in the other there isn't. The pro-abortion side keeps saying stuff like this to misdirect from the bigger issue, but it is NOT just about the mother's body.

Quote

Not only that, it sends a sh*tt* message - that the life of the prospective baby is far more important than the life of it's mother.
Another flagrantly false accusation! Anybody who actually bothered to read what people are writing here knows perfectly well that that's not what's being said here. Show me where anybody said that abortion should not be allowed when not aborting threatens the mother's life. (And then show me how that quote from that person, if you find it, applies to other people saying other things about the other 97% of abortions where that wasn't the issue.)

#46 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 10:21 AM

Of course, that gets back into the sticky definition of what constitutes a human being.

Delvo, can I ask, at what point do you feel a foetus should have all the rights and privelidges we associate with people after birth?

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#47 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 11:33 AM

If the answer is "we don't know," perhaps it's best to err on the side of caution. Children born premature have a great survival rate, and I doubt anyone would argue that they are "non-persons" just because they didn't make it past week 30. But those same children could also have legally be killed. And that's where the concerns about late-term abortions come in.

So is it really a simple question of location: inside = non-person. outside = person? That's a pretty cold equation.

Perhaps it's best to say "this is a person" until it can be proven otherwise. Because the alternative is that we're killing "persons" under the cloud of ignorance.

From personal experience I can tell you that seeing a heart beating on an ultrasound image at 9 weeks . . . seeing tiny arms and legs . . . well it ain't a "clump of cells" people. And anyone who tries to sell that line has got an agenda.

Edited by Drew, 03 June 2004 - 11:34 AM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#48 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 01:03 PM

Cyberhippie, on Jun 3 2004, 09:19 AM, said:

Of course, that gets back into the sticky definition of what constitutes a human being.
For abortions in general, maybe, but not for partial-birth infanticide. These are really two separate topics, because not a single one that I can think of of the justifications used by the pro-abortion side for abortions overall applies to this specific procedure.

Quote

Delvo, can I ask, at what point do you feel a foetus should have all the rights and privelidges we associate with people after birth?
I won't answer... it's not some kind of secret (in fact I've probably stated it before somewhere around here), and I'm not annoyed at being asked or accusing you of trying to drag the debate from one thing to another... but the effect of even talking about that issue at all would be to distract from what's really going on with partial births anyway, because by the time partial birth versus "full birth" (?) is the question, the time anybody could seriously and honestly suggest it even MIGHT not be a person is already LOOONG gone. It's just not an applicable question in this case at all. It's like asking what the temperature is at point where the bottom of Lake Ontario is deepest.

#49 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 03:39 PM

I've read a lot of talk here about rights:  father's, mother's and unborn children's.

I've read a little talk here about responsibilities of the mother and father.

I've also read a very important question to this discussion, not just when does life start; but when do rights and responsibilities start.

In a list of things that a person can do that can give other people power to decide their rights and responsibilities, no one listed being born.

Simply being born places humans in a position of very limited rights.  Adults decide where and how and with whom children will live.  

If the child's rights begin before birth, then the child's responsibilities must also begin before birth.  Rights are accompanied by responsibilities.  The (born) child has both limited rights and limited responsibilities.  The unborn child is incapable of engaging in responsibility.  

I'd suggest that one of the basic issues about rules/rights/responsibilities we deal with as humans is where one person's right begins and another person's right ends.  "At the other person's nose" is the cliche answer to that question.  Whether individuals come down on the side of the unborn child or the mother or the father, the other side can make the argument that one individual's rights are being considered more important than another's.  

Folks who have said that father's rights get short shrift are correct.  The state of father's rights regarding born children is abyssmal.  With unborn children, fathers often get even less say.  Yet, no man should be able to force a woman to carry and deliver a child.  If the technology of artificial wombs were more developed, I'd suggest them as a potential solution for fathers who want the child the mother doesn't want to carry.  Perhaps someday that will be an option which increases the rights of men with their children.  Until the development of viable artificial wombs, however, I'd have to say that the individual who must undergo unavoidable physical hardship has the first right of refusal and that the rights of the already born supercede those of the unborn.
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#50 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 03:47 PM

Quote

Yet, no man should be able to force a woman to carry and deliver a child. If the technology of artificial wombs were more developed, I'd suggest them as a potential solution for fathers who want the child the mother doesn't want to carry. Perhaps someday that will be an option which increases the rights of men with their children. Until the development of viable artificial wombs, however, I'd have to say that the individual who must undergo unavoidable physical hardship has the first right of refusal and that the rights of the already born supercede those of the unborn.

Well said!
Posted Image

#51 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 03:55 PM

Good decision, the ban is a joke.  Something done so the anti-choice people could say they were doing something.  And a way they hoped to get that slippery slope starting to slide in their favor.


And, way to go SPARKY!!!!!!  

It's amazing what blinders people have, or selective memory, or ignorance of other people's situations, and hyprocrosy has always been a serious pet peeve of mine.  How short people's memories are.  And how amazing that it's often those that feel government should stay out of our business that seem to think they have the right to control my body!

Women are people, not incubators. We can not be forced against our will to do something we don't want, something that endangers are lives, never mind all the emotional and psychological dangers, anymore than men should be forced to do something.

If we are so worried about abortions and unwanted pregnancies, the easiest solution would be for every male to get snipped as soon as he hits puberty.  It can be temporarily undone when he chooses to have a child with a willing party.  It would be the easist solution, and far less tramatic and dangerous than abortions or being pregnant.

But that won't happen, it would affect males, not females.   :suspect:

#52 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 03:57 PM

StarDust, on Jun 3 2004, 09:53 PM, said:

But that won't happen, it would affect males, not females.   :suspect:
sweeping generalisation.

I have no problems with that concept.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#53 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 04:04 PM

Consubstantial, on Jun 3 2004, 03:37 PM, said:

If the child's rights begin before birth, then the child's responsibilities must also begin before birth.  Rights are accompanied by responsibilities.  The (born) child has both limited rights and limited responsibilities.  The unborn child is incapable of engaging in responsibility.
Well, I've got a six-month old. Can you please tell me what responsibilities I should be handing off to her?  :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#54 WildChildCait

WildChildCait

    And from the ashes of fire, she is reborn

  • Islander
  • 3,416 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 04:05 PM

Sparky : whooohoo, you rock!
Uncle Sid: please, enlighten me, how have women always had the choice? before contraceptives ?  
modern day still, in some cases they are not available - mostly in the developing nations, I grant you, but there are situations where less than reliable means (anything but abstinence - i'm not going to get into full sets of chromosomes and cells gestating, which does happen) things happen. does that mean that a clump of cells has more rights than the mother? NO, in my opinion, the mother is the one who decides. On that tract, any male who has not had a vasectomy and has sexs  is irrisponsible as well as the mother. And very often they get off scot free.

yes, there are men who want to be fathers, granted, and they are given pitifull few rights, even after birth. Totally agreed.

Rhea, I agree with you on the sh*tt* message, and that is what irks me most...

in a way it's condecending, in my opinion, to be told a clump of cells has more rights.

Cyberhippie : my personal definition is that of old Rome....before the woman feels a 'quickening' aka movement, it's a clump of cells. After that it is murder. That is the standard I hold.

But just because that is my cutoff point does not mean that I will deny other women the right to a different cut off point.
But they Some of us are not pro-abortion...it is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Just because I chose to have a choice does not mean I make the pro-abortion one.

But I want to right to decide over my own body

Anything else is making me a broodmare.

just my mileage

Cheers
Chaddee

edited to add : StarDust : interesting concept, enforced sterility making ever baby one that was chosing for...interesting concept. The economics would be interesting too....but your right, it will not happen as society as it is currently set up is set up to hold women responsible. Never mind it takes two.

Edited by Chaddee, 03 June 2004 - 04:08 PM.

RIP Ruby Medallion: 31-10-1999/21-05-2007
one gender-reassigned, world travelling, world class snake.

FKA Chaddee, amongst other things.
http://scentedalchemy.webs.com Custom handmade bath and body products

#55 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 04:09 PM

Cyberhippie, on Jun 3 2004, 04:55 PM, said:

StarDust, on Jun 3 2004, 09:53 PM, said:


But that won't happen, it would affect males, not females.   :suspect:
sweeping generalisation.

I have no problems with that concept.
Generalization, yes.

But probably true of the majority, which is why it won't happen.  Men are such babies when it comes to these things.  Most couldn't survive as women.  You mention vasectomy and all the men in the room cross their legs and act as though you want to remove their 'manhood'.  It's actually quite funny!

#56 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 04:12 PM

i'm going to go on my pet peeve about unproved 'facts' again.

You say 'most men' based on what? I've just told you i wouldn't have a problem with the concept.

You say most men couldn't survive as a woman, based on what?

as far as vasectomies are concerned, i've never actually looked into the possibility of having it reversed. If that possibility exists then i really don't have a problem with it.

I don't know how to argue for my entire gender, because i'm not my entire gender, i can only comment on things from my perspective.

#57 WildChildCait

WildChildCait

    And from the ashes of fire, she is reborn

  • Islander
  • 3,416 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 04:13 PM

that's not the problem...get them young enough, and they wouldn't realise...

The problem is the societal perception of the whole issue....it could be done at birth together with circumcision, which would be pretty ideal, but the cost would probably be too high.

edited to add: I can confirm cyberhippie is a guy...
as to reversing it, low success rates, you'd be talking artificial insemmination, which would again, cost a fortune.

Edited by Chaddee, 03 June 2004 - 04:14 PM.

RIP Ruby Medallion: 31-10-1999/21-05-2007
one gender-reassigned, world travelling, world class snake.

FKA Chaddee, amongst other things.
http://scentedalchemy.webs.com Custom handmade bath and body products

#58 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 04:13 PM

I basically agree with Stardust and Chaddee.  This is not however to say that women (just like men) shouldln't be SMART about sex.  For crying out loud, contraception in this country is too damned easy to come by NOT to use it.  That said, the most common (and safest) form of contraception remains the condom.  And you'd be surprised at how many men simply refuse to use them (despite the myriad reasons to do so).  At any rate one thing I run across is people who think that pro choice people think that abortion is or should be an*easy* decision or a substitute for birth control.  Of course that's not true.  The point is that it should be *a* decision, a choice, no matter how difficult.
Posted Image

#59 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 04:15 PM

i'm curious Lil, as a guy who does use a condom, where do you stand on the female condom?

Should the man be the one primarily concerned with not getting the girl pregnant or does she have a roll to play as well?

I appear to move in very different circles than either yourself or Stardust, so i'm genuinly curious.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#60 WildChildCait

WildChildCait

    And from the ashes of fire, she is reborn

  • Islander
  • 3,416 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 04:15 PM

I swear, i'm the only person I know who carries spare condoms to events in the first aid kit ;-)
RIP Ruby Medallion: 31-10-1999/21-05-2007
one gender-reassigned, world travelling, world class snake.

FKA Chaddee, amongst other things.
http://scentedalchemy.webs.com Custom handmade bath and body products



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Abortion, late-term abortions

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users