I think I'd be more satisfied with a 2nd trimester ban because the "fetus" begins moving before third trimester. And as conscious thought begins anywhere from the second trimester on....
I appreciate you grouping me in that "religious" group though I probably attend church as often as you do. Perhaps I fall back on the emotional argument because I have children and I've been pregnant. And although I hate being pregnant, I love the result of it.
But then we are leaving it up to individuals which can be scary. 3rd trimester abortions as far as I know are illegal most places, but left to an individual they may be perfectly fine. Drawing that line is difficult.
In your opinion. So it would not satisfy you. What surprises me is that you (and others) are surprised at the ardent objections millions of women have to any restrictions on abortions. If there is a ban on 3rd trimester abortions, that isn't enough. You might be happy with a 2nd trimester ban. Oh, wait! You just changed your mind! Nothing but a complete ban will do. The last bit was hypothetical, but explains a lot you don't understand, if you are listening. Women want control of their own bodies.
How did I say I wouldn't be happy with a 2nd trimester ban? I just stated that conscious thought begins in 2nd trimester and on. I understand the want for control of my body...Nothing feels more out of control when you're pregnant. You've no control over the weight gain, the stretch marks, the pain. That's why I hate being pregnant. But as we were discussing the law now in effect that requires all to have a vaginal ultrasound in Oklahoma before an abortion, I stated that I didn't think it was a big deal save for those who had been raped. A woman is going to have an abortion if she wants one and for now that is her right.
That's why I added the "The last bit was hypothetical" to my post. I'm trying to explain to you that millions of women are against any restrictions on abortions because they do not believe anti-abortion rights people will ever really be satisfied until it is outlawed completely. By the way, I'm the father of two kids myself. My significant other, an ardent believer in the right to choose, had the first via natural childbirth. Not even an Advil. He just finished his first year at college. My daughter is about to begin high school. I know all about childbirth, having assisted on a couple, and I've seen ultrasounds of my own kids.
I can see that. Something is never enough for some. And props to your wife...I did both with an epidural. ^_^
Thanks. She had meds for the second (with me saying, "take something, anything, you crazy broad!"). Being a part of that is an amazing experience. Certainly two of the greatest experiences of my life.
Juicy was the opposite. Kept telling me I'd do it drug free. Hahahahahaha. I told him I would have him escorted from my room. I knew going in that I'd be having an epidural. With the first one I went 5 1/2 hours (of 9 1/5) without drugs of any kind. The second time as soon as I walked into the hospital I was saying, "Where's the eipdural?"
what's with this law? it's in 15 states now? ANYTHING the government requires to be done to you that ISN'T for a legitimate medical purpose is an invasion of privacy, PERIOD. how is this a debate?? i don't care if it's merely flashing a picture of some random kid, that is ridiculous. DON'T LEGISLATE MORALITY.
Right to privacy could be an argument for anything. Should I be required to fill out the census forms? Should drugs be illegal? Should the government be able to require you to have insurance? Morality is what governs law. It is morality that makes killing another individual wrong. Its what makes stealing wrong. Its what makes walking around nude illegal. Its all morals. On the bright side, you don't have to get an ultrasound. You don't have to get pregnant. You don't have to have an abortion.
As I said before the heart beat is a terrible standard. You could be brain dead and still have a heart beat. If you can prove that conscious thought starts at some particular point I would support it but I doubt you can. The problem that I see is I can't pinpoint exactly when life starts and as such it seem wrong of me to impose a belief just on a guess on my part. In the end I am not the one who can get pregnant so why should I impose a belief that doesn't directly affect me. As I said though I am not an absolutist at the moment the third trimester seems like a good cutoff point.
Because neither you or me can determine when exactly life begins. As I said before though the third trimester seems like a reasonable cut off point but before then I have a hard time saying it is up to me to impose some sort of absolutists belief.
Rape may have a point. I'm about as pro-life as it gets, and think abortion short of saving another life should be illegal, but as long as it is legal, should rape victims be subject to more of what could be seen as suffering? Probably not.
If it has to exist, I strongly would encourage to keep it within the 1st trimester. You get into the 2nd trimester abortions and the methods become very disturbing.
As a matter of fact, an Oklahoma Tea Party group with whom I communicate is doing just that. But, let me speak for myself. I am opposed to both laws as written. The first is cruel and the second is brutally cruel. As you know, I am opposed to abortion. I also believe a father should have as much say in it as the mother. I understand how the first law was written to make a woman truly understand that she is killing her child, a living human being. However well intentioned, the intent goes well beyond counseling and into pyschological torture. The second violates the patient's right to know everything so that the single parent or couple can make a choice with which they can -- and must -- live. I am confident these laws will be struck down when challenged.
