A woman's right?

[Daredevel7]

Plus I also don't believe that it's the woman's choice because often the woman experiences pressure to abort and althought I've never been in this possision. I have been in a possition where I was afraid of who I was living with. Being slapped around and having your head slammed in doors does have the result of making you extremely bidable.

I would like to ask something new to you, dreama. You mentioned pressure towards women in the above post. Lets say that we make ALL abortions illegal. What makes you think that there would be no pressure towards women to do abortions anyway? Those type of men who slap around women, do you think a little law against abortion is gonna stop them? I don't even wanna know how many forced miscarriages/back alley abortions there have been.....

 

[lsfoster]

What you do is make the choice for yourself that you are able to live with, and allow others to do the same. JMO.

But that's a tricky argument, because then what's the point of having any laws at all? The fact is, we have a lot of "choices" restricted. I don't have the "choice" to walk around with a gun and shoot whatever I please, or to smoke weed (I don't, but just an example), or even to drive on the wrong side of the street. These choices would all have legal repercussions. Where do you draw that line? Clearly we are willing to admit that there are some things which should not be left to us to decide.

 

[Jiro]

But that's a tricky argument, because then what's the point of having any laws at all? The fact is, we have a lot of "choices" restricted. I don't have the "choice" to walk around with a gun and shoot whatever I please, or to smoke weed (I don't, but just an example), or even to drive on the wrong side of the street. These choices would all have legal repercussions. Where do you draw that line? Clearly we are willing to admit that there are some things which should not be left to us to decide.

that's why the laws are constantly changing. we have been given far more choices than in the past. Look at San Francisco losing up its stance on prostitution... USA's lenient attitude toward to weed... Supreme Court's landmark ruling on DC gun ban...

 

[Mrs Bucket]

I must admire the energy one dedicates to a cause with such rabid militancy especially when I already feel so drained reading two pages.

 

[BradB08]

I don't always agree with abortion but I believe in giving women a right to choose and to me, that's the right thing to do.

It's not my job to tell a woman what to do with her body and no man should be involved in it. Also, legislating morality is a no-no.

Again, if life is so precious, how come we waste so much time killing each other with wars?

 

[lsfoster]

But that's my point, we do legislate morality all the time. You can say women should have the right to make choices for their own bodies, but at the same time we do have laws against prostitution. All the current battles about gay marriage are about legislating morality. I live in MA, and just voted on a ballot about dog racing, that's legislating morality. Where should that line be drawn?

 

[jillio]

But that's a tricky argument, because then what's the point of having any laws at all? The fact is, we have a lot of "choices" restricted. I don't have the "choice" to walk around with a gun and shoot whatever I please, or to smoke weed (I don't, but just an example), or even to drive on the wrong side of the street. These choices would all have legal repercussions. Where do you draw that line? Clearly we are willing to admit that there are some things which should not be left to us to decide.

You are confusing issues. The fact of the matter is that under the law, an abortion under specific circumstances and guidelines, abortion is not considered to be murder because the point of viability has not been reached by the product of conception. It is a medical procedure. Roe v Wade was based on the right to privacy between a physician and patient.

And you can chose to do those things if you wish. You must simply accept the legal consequences for doing so.

 

[jillio]

But that's my point, we do legislate morality all the time. You can say women should have the right to make choices for their own bodies, but at the same time we do have laws against prostitution. All the current battles about gay marriage are about legislating morality. I live in MA, and just voted on a ballot about dog racing, that's legislating morality. Where should that line be drawn?

The laws against prositution are not morality laws. The laws against dog racing, in some states, are not morality laws. It is when people attempt to apply morality to legal decisions that the issue becomes confused.

If you disagree with prositution, don't hire one. If you disagree with dog racing, don't attend one. If you disagree with abortion, don't have one. It really is a very simple concept. If you want the right to make personal and private decisions regarding your own life, then you cannot attempt to restrict the rights of another that may choose differently that you yourself would. Restrict another's choice, and you also loose your right to choose.

 

[lsfoster]

I don't see how I'm confusing issues. My point was that viability is a dangerous argument. Granted, in the first five months, if you removed the fetus, it would almost surely die. But in that case, if you had someone in a temporary coma, and you removed them from life support, they would also die. If I walked into a hospital, and stabbed someone in a coma, wouldn't there be legal repercussions? And how are those not based on morality? What are the laws against prostitution in place for? Why can't you swear or show a naked woman on TV? What is the basis for those laws if not morality?

I'm really not trying to be difficult, I think we have the same point. Laws based on morality are tricky, but for exactly this reason, we legislate some and not others.

(Also, just an interesting side-note, but Roe v. Wade was kind of based on a lie. She claimed she was rape, and later admitted that wasn't true, and ended up joining pro-life movements later. Just thought that it was interesting).

 

[lsfoster]

Wait, maybe I can explain this better. My problem in this case is not the morality of abortions (obviously each person is going to decide that for themselves), it's the consistency of the laws. I think it's strange that if we have the "right to choose", a doctor can help you commit murder, not suicide. It's your body, still, and yet we legislate that. There are a ton of moral issues that we have laws for, and they don't all seem to match up to me, which bothers me.

I also think it's really weird that there's no way for a man to have an "abortion". If a guy gets you pregnant, and you decide to keep the baby, you can make him pay child support for the next 18 years. He doesn't get the choice to not "keep" the baby. If he does want the child, though, you can still choose to get an abortion if you want. I mean, I'm don't want to get into if he should be able to make you keep the child if you don't want to, I just think it's weird that men have no option to decide they don't want the baby.

 

[jillio]

I don't see how I'm confusing issues. My point was that viability is a dangerous argument. Granted, in the first five months, if you removed the fetus, it would almost surely die. But in that case, if you had someone in a temporary coma, and you removed them from life support, they would also die. If I walked into a hospital, and stabbed someone in a coma, wouldn't there be legal repercussions? And how are those not based on morality? What are the laws against prostitution in place for? Why can't you swear or show a naked woman on TV? What is the basis for those laws if not morality?

I'm really not trying to be difficult, I think we have the same point. Laws based on morality are tricky, but for exactly this reason, we legislate some and not others.

(Also, just an interesting side-note, but Roe v. Wade was kind of based on a lie. She claimed she was rape, and later admitted that wasn't true, and ended up joining pro-life movements later. Just thought that it was interesting).

Viability is not a tricky issue. Is is something that can be determined. It can be quantified. Either a fetus has reached a stage of development where it can sustain life on its own or it hasn't. In order to sustain life, certain developmental stages must be completed. If those stages have not been completed, it cannot sustain life, and therefore, is non-viable.

Roe V Wade was a decision regarding the right to privacy between a woman and her physician. That is the fundamental principle behind the decision.

Frankly, the fact that the defendent in the case lied, and then changed her mind at a later date doesn't do much to support the credibility of the other side. Nor does it have a danged thing to do with the rights that are upheld by the Supreme Court decision.

They are different because the removal of life support is simply allowing a person to follow the natural course of the disease process. The artificial component is the life support, not the death from the disease. If you stab someone, you have attempted to remove the life from them by your own choice and your own hand. You have not allowed the disease to take its natural course. One is allowing a natural death to occur, the other is taking alife, or murder. And a person in a coma has reached the point of viability, have been alive, and have sustained life. Therefore, there is a life to loose when death occurs. A product of conception, and embryo, or a first trimester feuts has not achieved life according to legal and medical standards.

 

[lsfoster]

Viability is not a tricky issue. Is is something that can be determined. It can be quantified. Either a fetus has reached a stage of development where it can sustain life on its own or it hasn't. In order to sustain life, certain developmental stages must be completed. If those stages have not been completed, it cannot sustain life, and therefore, is non-viable.

But see, this is where there's a lack of consistency to me. If a woman gave birth prematurely, and the baby wasn't fully developed, and the doctor just decided, "Actually, I don't think I'll put the baby in an incubator, I'll just leave it like it is", and the baby died, then that would be considered murdering that baby.


They are different because the removal of life support is simply allowing a person to follow the natural course of the disease process. The artificial component is the life support, not the death from the disease. If you stab someone, you have attempted to remove the life from them by your own choice and your own hand. You have not allowed the disease to take its natural course. One is allowing a natural death to occur, the other is taking alife, or murder.
First of all, that was specifically why I said if someone was in a coma that they could recover from. It would be considered a form of murder for a doctor not to keep that person on life-support until they got better. Also, if the argument is things taking their natural course, then abortion stops the natural course of life.

And a person in a coma has reached the point of viability, have been alive, and have sustained life. Therefore, there is a life to loose when death occurs. A product of conception, and embryo, or a first trimester feuts has not achieved life according to legal and medical standards.

Again, I just think this becomes an issue of consistency. If the judge is the current state of life, then why would it also be negligent not to attempt to resuscitate someone. If someone flatlined in a hospital, and the doctors just decided not to get a crash cart because the person was already dead, they would be held legally responsible for their decision.

I think we're having two different arguments. I'm not trying to argue against abortion. I'm perfectly happy saying that I don't agree with it, and other people do. My issue is with how that right fits in with other laws and decisions about what we can regulate.

 

[Maria]

That word " abortion " is a terrible and even murder. It's an ugly choice to make.

 

[Jiro]

hopeless...... hopeless......

 

[faire_jour]

Part of the problem, for me, is that premature babies can now be saved at 23 weeks but it is legal to have an abortion at 24 weeks.....

 

[Fresh2Deaf]

It's different because you can show statistically a positive correlation b/w prostitution/gambling and crime rates. Crime is something that affec..............


OBAMA IS PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

I'm so happy for my son. He's so lucky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Aleser]

I believe that a woman has the right to abort pre-viability. Since 'viable' is an ever changing concept, I believe that a woman should have the right to abort up to the point legally allowed with any method that operates under the assumption of removing the fetus from it's support = fetus dies, which is to say, I do not agree with partial birth abortion unless related to the child having a tragic illness that was not caught early.

I think you don't value women very much at all, dreama. You're so caught up in your agenda of 'not killing babies' that you place a fetus as higher priority than a woman. You say that abortion sometimes really isn't a choice because the woman was pressured into it- isn't that really saying 'women are too stupid to make their own choices regarding their own body, so the government should step in because they might not be thinking for themselves'?

You have an agenda, and I don't like it.

D BTW: my soon-to-be-president kicked your failed-candidate's bum.)

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I don't always agree with abortion but I believe in giving women a right to choose and to me, that's the right thing to do.

It's not my job to tell a woman what to do with her body and no man should be involved in it. Also, legislating morality is a no-no.

Again, if life is so precious, how come we waste so much time killing each other with wars?

Yes I second that.

 

[jillio]

Wait, maybe I can explain this better. My problem in this case is not the morality of abortions (obviously each person is going to decide that for themselves), it's the consistency of the laws. I think it's strange that if we have the "right to choose", a doctor can help you commit murder, not suicide. It's your body, still, and yet we legislate that. There are a ton of moral issues that we have laws for, and they don't all seem to match up to me, which bothers me.

I also think it's really weird that there's no way for a man to have an "abortion". If a guy gets you pregnant, and you decide to keep the baby, you can make him pay child support for the next 18 years. He doesn't get the choice to not "keep" the baby. If he does want the child, though, you can still choose to get an abortion if you want. I mean, I'm don't want to get into if he should be able to make you keep the child if you don't want to, I just think it's weird that men have no option to decide they don't want the baby.

Such are the differences in gender that have existed, and will continue to exist as long as two genders exist. Roe v. Wade is one of the few rulings that have favored the female gender in the decision. When a man is capable of giving birth, Roe v. Wade will apply to him as well. At this point in time, however, because a man cannot give birth, the law is relatively gender specific.

Men decide they don't want a baby on a daily basis. That is the exact reason why we have so many children living in female headed households. They just don't have to undergo a medical procedure when they make their decision. They simply walk away.

 

[jillio]

Part of the problem, for me, is that premature babies can now be saved at 23 weeks but it is legal to have an abortion at 24 weeks.....

Only in very specific cases where the life of the mother is an issue, or the child has been found to have a birth defect that is incompatible with life. The cut off for the typical elective abortion is the end of the first trimester.

Since an abortion into the second trimester is a medical decision made between a woman and her physician, we have no more right to involve ourselves in that decision than we do in any one else's decisions regarding their medical care. Would you support a law that forces a person to uindergo chemotherapy of they chose not to?