AllDeaf.com - View Single Post

jillio · 01-31-2008, 08:44 PM

When life begins is a point that differs depending upon whether you look at it from a scientific perspective, a legal perspective, or a spiritual perspective. There is also the concept of viability that goes into the legal decisions regarding this matter.

The Consitution was not designed to cover embryos. In this country, children who are already born are afforded very few legal rights, as they are considered dependents. Do you propose that we provide greater civil rights to an embryo than to a child that has already been born?

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that abortion is used primarily as a form of birth control? I would very much like to see that evidence.

Regarding you reference to "nine months of discomfort"...how many pregnancies have you experienced? Regarding adoption...that, too is a choice that can be made, but it is a choice that one has the freedom to make as well. No one forces a consenting adult to have an abortion. A woman is free to choose adoption if she wishes. And, she can choose adoption without consulting the father of the child, the same as she can choose abortion without consulting the father.

While your argument cerrtainly appeals to the emotions, it is hardly logical and well thought out. A woman who has a medically supervised abortion is not guilty of manslaughter, nor would she be guilty of manslaughter if abortion were illegal. Once again,the concept of viability comes into play in the legal realm, and the child would have to be born, have survived the birth, and drawn its first breath before a charge of manslaughter could be levied against her. At the very worst, the child would have to have been well into the 3rd trimester of gestation and capable of surviving on its own before one could even consider charges of manslaughter. Since abortions are not performed, unless the mother's life can be proven to be at stake, past the 12th week of gestation, your point is moot. Even therapuetic abortions performed after the 12th week are prior to viability. There is no such thing as a 3rd trimester abortion. At that point it is considered to be induced labor.

Would you prefer that we have more babies born and thrown in trash cans shortly after their birth to suffocate or starve to death? Or would you prefer that women go back to illegal abortionists who don't even have a medical license? What about women who loose their lives under such conditions? Their lives are protected under the consitution. Are their lives not just as valuable as the potential life of an embryo?

The fact of the matter is, a woman who chooses not to carry a pregnancy to term will find a way to act on her choice. The question is not whether women will abort pregancies, as they have done so prior to Roe vs. Wade, and will continue to do so. The question is whether they are provided a safe medical environment in which to do so.

Unless you are willing to financially, emotionally, and physically care for all the children that would otherwise be aborted, you have no right to tell anyone what they can and can't do with their own bodies. If you disagree with abortion, then don't have one. That is your choice to make. But you have no right to force your beliefs on anyone else, and that is a right afforded under the Constitution that you tried to invoke.

If you are truly so concerned about the fate of children, there are several organiztions designed to serve abused children that would appreciate your time.

01-31-2008, 08:44 PM	#3 (permalink)
jillio Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,731	When life begins is a point that differs depending upon whether you look at it from a scientific perspective, a legal perspective, or a spiritual perspective. There is also the concept of viability that goes into the legal decisions regarding this matter. The Consitution was not designed to cover embryos. In this country, children who are already born are afforded very few legal rights, as they are considered dependents. Do you propose that we provide greater civil rights to an embryo than to a child that has already been born? Do you have any evidence to support your claim that abortion is used primarily as a form of birth control? I would very much like to see that evidence. Regarding you reference to "nine months of discomfort"...how many pregnancies have you experienced? Regarding adoption...that, too is a choice that can be made, but it is a choice that one has the freedom to make as well. No one forces a consenting adult to have an abortion. A woman is free to choose adoption if she wishes. And, she can choose adoption without consulting the father of the child, the same as she can choose abortion without consulting the father. While your argument cerrtainly appeals to the emotions, it is hardly logical and well thought out. A woman who has a medically supervised abortion is not guilty of manslaughter, nor would she be guilty of manslaughter if abortion were illegal. Once again,the concept of viability comes into play in the legal realm, and the child would have to be born, have survived the birth, and drawn its first breath before a charge of manslaughter could be levied against her. At the very worst, the child would have to have been well into the 3rd trimester of gestation and capable of surviving on its own before one could even consider charges of manslaughter. Since abortions are not performed, unless the mother's life can be proven to be at stake, past the 12th week of gestation, your point is moot. Even therapuetic abortions performed after the 12th week are prior to viability. There is no such thing as a 3rd trimester abortion. At that point it is considered to be induced labor. Would you prefer that we have more babies born and thrown in trash cans shortly after their birth to suffocate or starve to death? Or would you prefer that women go back to illegal abortionists who don't even have a medical license? What about women who loose their lives under such conditions? Their lives are protected under the consitution. Are their lives not just as valuable as the potential life of an embryo? The fact of the matter is, a woman who chooses not to carry a pregnancy to term will find a way to act on her choice. The question is not whether women will abort pregancies, as they have done so prior to Roe vs. Wade, and will continue to do so. The question is whether they are provided a safe medical environment in which to do so. Unless you are willing to financially, emotionally, and physically care for all the children that would otherwise be aborted, you have no right to tell anyone what they can and can't do with their own bodies. If you disagree with abortion, then don't have one. That is your choice to make. But you have no right to force your beliefs on anyone else, and that is a right afforded under the Constitution that you tried to invoke. If you are truly so concerned about the fate of children, there are several organiztions designed to serve abused children that would appreciate your time.