Aftermath of Abortion

NO, the purpose of the law is to discourage anyone from driving drunk but you are NOT prevented from doing so.

That is EXACTLY my point. With certain restrictions and education (just like with drunk driving), we should strive to discourage abortion. But to outright ban it is unAmerican.

Heck, you can even murder somebody if you please but doing so effectively revokes ALL of your freedoms as you will then be incarcerated when caught.

Is that what you would like, put women in jail if they have an abortion?

 

krosfyah- you are getting over your head here, Max is a lawyer,
the purpose of a law is not to discourage anything. A law is a rule of action and comes with punishment for every violation. The purpose of the law is to establish correct behavior and the punishment for violation.

It has nothing to do with trying to discourage anything. I was a criminal for many years of my life and the only thing I was discouraged from doing was getting arrested. A good lecture is not in the punishment phase of any law on the books.

Any restriction on the killing of babies is not an abridgment of freedom or the constitution or women's rights.

The freedom of choice stops at the point of sexual activity.

No woman in the world has ever had the power or right to determine if pregnancy results. That is a factor of the sexual activity and the fertilization and conception itself cannot be a choice the woman makes, only the sexual activity is a personal choice.

Once conception occurs a woman is past making any choice over which she has determination over her body. That was her choice with respect to the sexual activity. That is why rape is a crime. Because the rights of the woman are violated.

If we define abortion as killing both mother and child no one in their right mind would support abortion.

But if we can hide one of the murders or redefine one of the murders as 'removing a part of the woman's body' then we can start thinking some very crazy thoughts. Killing a baby can actually be redefined by using words like 'parasite' 'tissue' 'nonliving' and we can convince ourselves that wrong is right.

Now we are vilolating the rights of the unborn child. This goes against nature and everything that was American in this country for 350 yrs.

You can discourage women from getting abortions. I think you are right. I have done it myself successfully. I totally agree with that. I am for starting that tomorrow at every abortion clinic and Planned Parenthood center in the country, on that point you and I are in total agreement. How can we get that started? If we can come up with a plan I will do my part.

 

Again, we get back to timelines. I personally think that elective abortions should ALL happen in the first trimester. At that point, mandating an ultrasound doesn't really strike me as too bad a restriction.

And now we get back to the issue of education. Sex education in this country is an absolute joke. I literally learned just about everything about sex from my peers and Variations magazine. It is sad that in a time of unlimited information and instant data transfer that this society could fall so flat on its face when it comes to teaching its children about sex.

Our abortion rates are so much higher here because nobody teaches children about sex, reproduction, and contraception. And the truly sad part is that this fact exists because parents are so tense about sex, which makes the kids tense about asking, and since the parents are tense they overreact to anything approaching honest education about sex. Does it strike anyone else as strange that the abortion rates have gone up since only "Abstinance Education" initiatives are funded by the Bush administration?

Honestly, if your side would give up on fighting for that first three months and spend that energy educating our youth, I would bet we could cut abortion rates by half or more over a decade. A couple of generations could see a tenth of that level if we made it a national priority that everyone could get behind.

If we were working together instead of fighting each other, it could happen.

 

I honestly can't say I know for sure, and neither can you. The point is, can't we find a line? Viability, brain waves, something that will allow us to embark on a project of education and change rather than fighting and vitriol.

My point, and the one krosfyah seems to be trying to make, is that we can do more actual good by spending that money and energy in a way that is pretty well proven to reduce abortion rates (education) where a ban does not. I honestly don't think that the first trimester (your interpretation of Roe and I am sure you have looked into it far more deeply than I ever will) is a bad line, but why push for a law that will not solve the problem and will create a whole host of others to add to the problem of illegal abortions?

 

Generalizations. You have undoubtedly encountered countless lost, dazed, and confused girls and women who may very well have been taken for a ride (no pun intended). Education would solve that.

You are also assuming that all women are like the ones who you encounter. Women who go looking for groups like those are by definition lost in one way or another and you cannot project their faces onto the 3,999,999 other women. I can relate to such projection, when I worked in chemical dependancy hospitals, I thought for sure that everyone was either addicted or recovering. I have since found that not to be the case, but you have to admit that you are putting the same face onto a LOT of people it doesn't belong to.

 

As long as you maintain that this is the only line that is acceptable, we will make no progress.

You don't successfully reduce abortions by protesting clinics. You do it by educating our young people. Learn from other places in the world where abortion rates are far lower than here.

 

Doing well except for recovering from a seperated shoulder but thanks for asking.

I see andymoon has already addressed this but since its directed at me pardon me if I reply in my own words. (Especially since I'm in love with reading my own text)

I can see why you think it is inappropiate but for the moment I'm not considering the starting point of human reproduction, purpose, or the end point of a child being born but the process of pregnancy itself. In mamalian reproduction the fetus is a parasite on the body of the mother. It is totally dependent upon the resources of mother's own body to survive and develop and in return doesn't confer any biological benefits to the mother. In fact it hijacks the mother's metabolism forcing her body to undergo some major changes. Its a blunt description but accurate.

Yes I agree its a good starting point and I like others would agree with an abortion ban at the point of viability outside of the womb. I would even go farther and support a ban at the point consciousness begins when I would say the fetus is human and not just a mass of potentially human cells. When that is and how to determine that though I don't know. Thats a sidenote to the point of this post though.

True reproduction requires fertilization but one would presume that if someone where to hook themselves to take advantage of my liver at some point they were fertilzed and conceived.

I think your point is that fertilization and conception takes place inside the woman's body so its not like someone outside has hooked themselves to them. That's partially correct but given that we have invitro fertilization where an embryo is fertilized outside of the human body and implanted into a woman I presume you would be against aborting a pregnancy started that way. For that matter for fertilization to happen half of the DNA introduced comes from an outsider so its not something that is internal to the woman. Anyway if it was internal to the woman that would strengthen the argument its her body and no one else should dictate what to do with it.

I bring up this example and bluntly describe a fetus as being a parasite on the mother's body because it illustrates a critical point regarding this debate. That banning abortion is forcing the woman to biologically support another being. Even accepting that being is human our laws wouldn't compel someone to be hooked up to a person and let them share their liver even if that meant the death of person needing that support. At the same time if someone were to voluntarily allow someone to hook themselves to their liver it would still be their perogative to detach.

But as I pointed out above even someone who is born still cannot be expected to compel someone to biologically support them even if without it they would die. Strictly viewing this you're painting a situation where the unborn would have more rights than the born and the mother's rights are subbordinate to the fetus'.

Of course she's making a decision about her body. The fetus is taking her body's resources and even causing all sorts of metabolic changes. Its not like this is an egg she is sitting on. As I said you're making her right to use of her body subbordinate to the fetus. Its the same as if someone where hooked to my liver and I had to go along with it since they would die otherwise.

I agree moral issues need to be considered. What I'm doing though is illustrating how this situation puts rights into conflict. A ban puts the rights of the woman above the fetus and abortion puts the woman above the fetus. This currently isn't a legal problem because legally a fetus isn't a person until its born. I agree that we probably need a better definition of when life begins since we have a mishmash of laws regarding whether a fetus is human or not, but even if we did define a fetus as a person then we would still have the problem of compelling a woman to biologically support the person, its right over the womans.

I'm sorry to hear that and my sympathy goes out to you and your wife.

I'm not trying to make light of human dignity or the preciousness of life but pointing out that there is a conflict of rights in this situation. Ironically there is no specifically enumerated right to life in the Constitution. Obviously it would be ludicrous to think that that means the state can take life without due cause but it does point out that Constitutionally there is no absolute standard of preserving life and that conflicts can arise regarding rights.

I know that's about as clear as a chocalate milkshake.

 

Yes and no. If you needed a bone marrow transfusion to live and I was the only one in the world who was a match I would still be within my rights to refuse even if it there was no risk of serious harm to me and without it you would die.

Not saying that I would but it would be my right to refuse.

 

Not even close according to some statistics only about 25% of fertilized embryos will ever even attach to the womb and will end up getting expelled without ever developing to the point than a formless clump of cells.

But then again I'm aware you were being facetious so pardon me for stating the obvious.

 

OK one more posts here then I gotta call it a night.

The mechanism of the law is that but I don't think that's the purpose otherwise the idea of a deterrent value of the law would be meaningless.

I find this attitude very disturbing because from a rights standpoint it makes the woman totally subordinate to the fetus. She becomes nothing more than vessel with which to bring the fetus to term. Strictly speaking under your attitude sex leads to slavery with the woman serving the fetus.

I'm not even talking about whether she can abort the child or not. Since you say Once conception occurs a woman is past making any choice over which she has determination over her body. So you're saying she can't do anything that would be counter to the interests of the fetus. Obviously she couldn't do things that are otherwise legal like drinking or smoking but your argument potentially goes much further. If she worked in a job that was stressful and might lead to damage to the fetus she would have to leave that job, her nutritional requirements would have to be tailored to optimally meet the needs of the fetus. She has no determination over her body. The Fetus does.

That's a condition that we wouldn't even accept for people already born even if otherwise it would cost them their lives.

Also saying women don't have the power or right to determine conception. Of course they do its called Birth Control. Unless you are also for outlawing that too.

As for rape being a crime yes its a violation of the woman's right so would you compound that violation by further subjugating her right to the pregnancy that results? If conception was forced upon the woman then she's back to the situation you advocate of being the vessel to bring the fetus to term? You would then support a double violation of her rights since she wasn't given the choice of engaging in the sexual act and then has no determination over her own body to the resultant pregnancy.

First I have to point out that this in no way goes against everything that was American in this country because as far as I'm aware of a fetus has never been fully considered a person. Personhood in terms of legal status has always been granted upon birth and not conception. I may be wrong about that and if so I would like to see the examples.

The problem is that you are not just dismissive of the rights of woman you are saying that rights of woman are forfeit in comparison to the rights of the fetus. Again I understand that there is a concern regarding the value of potential human life but at the sametime we wouldn't tolerate allowing someone who is born to have their rights subjugated to someone else's biological need. Even if it it was entered voluntarily and even if otherwise meant the death of the other person.

As you say we should consider the rights of the potential life but we should also consider the rights of the woman which if we are a country that respects individual rights we can't dismiss out of hand. That's why I believe reasonable accomodation can and must come about on this issue.

Actually Planned Parenthood does a lot to prevent unwanted pregnancy I think if you talked to them you might actually find a lot in common.

 

I don't need to be a lawyer to make this point. It is unarguable but you managed to anyway.

An abortion law aims to stop ALL abortions from ever occuring by stopping them at the source...the doctors. Therefore the women's choice is completely removed, the choice is in somebody else's hands.

DUI laws still give the potential driver the choice to drive drunk but face punishment. But the choice is his/hers.

See the difference? I don't need to be a lawyer to see freedom.

So are you willing to allow doctors to still perform abortions and arrest the women if they chose to do so? That is the equivilent.

Notice your opinion. We don't (shouldn't) take away personal freedoms based on opinion.

Well, do you support abortion in rape cases?

An unborn child is not recognized as a person ANYWHERE in the world. Do they have a social security #? Are they eligible to receive benefits? etc etc etc. As such, an unborn child is NOT recognized by our government as being a human...yet. Therefore, the unborn child is not afforded the same rights as the mother.

Sounds cruel but this is OK because we have the power to address it anyway...stop the unwanted pregnancy.

I think it would be a VERY interesting campaign that could catch a lot of headlines if a liberal and religious right got together for a joint campaign. I've never seen such a thing in this country and could start the dialogue to bring the two sides closer together on some common ground.

 

Sishir Chang-
Now we are really getting down to fundemental differences and I think these are the issues at the heart of the abortion crisis. Now that we have pushed past (hopefully) conservative vs. liberal and republican vs. democrat let me clarify my points as they are at the heart of the matter.

1. The parasite issue is a very good issue to address the fundemental problem with abortion. A parasite is a 'different' species of organism that lives upon a host and offers no benefits to the hosts in return, parasites are damaging to the host. A parasite has no relationship to the host, no extension of family and the host has no responsibility to the parasite.
Mamalian reproduction and human reproduction depend upon the mother. Motherhood is not an invasion but a natural reproduction of life. Motherhodd is life giving. In other words the mother gives life by definition. There is a uniqueness in this statement. To say the nature's definition of motherhood is to give death is perverse to any species. The provision, host and protection of the mother define reproduction.
The views and opinions may see correlation to a parasite, but that can only happen if the natural role of mother is twisted or distorted. If any of us were meant to be or better yet deserve to live, then that right to life began with the mother. The rights of women get their protection by definition by their right to be born. If the right to be born did not exist there would be no rights at all. You don't have to determine when life begins to understand that reproduction and birth are the fundemental mechanisms to life. To say the reproduction is a 'choice' of the mother between life and death is to deny the very function of reproducing life. Birth is not a way of killing. Birth is the method for living. That is why fundementally all the efforts of midwives, doctors and mothers was to give 'Live' birth. Until you can see the fundemental point that life begins in the reproductive process and not in a test tube you cannot ever appreciate what your mother did for you.

If you cannot see this fundemental difference, (I don't mean agree with it, but see it) then you will never understand the right reason for women to have babies. It will never be a gift of life but rather a matter of convenience.

The process of pregnancy cannot logically, medically or morally be separated from birth and life. If you fail to see the process neessary in your own life then you have forfeited your own right to life. If you were miscarried you would not be here. That is why women take precautions to avoid miscarriage. There is a protection and provision mechanism, it is called mother. Your own right to life didn't begin with your birth, it began when you were in the womb and you were fed, protected and alive. If you cannot be protected in the womb, you have no chance- this is where you are most vulnerable.

Also no mother has children for biological benefits. THere are no personal biological benefits for anything you do for children at any age. Biological benefits are for eating your vegeables, exercising and getting good rest.

2."True reproduction requires fertilization but one would presume that if someone where to hook themselves to take advantage of my liver at some point they were fertilzed and conceived. " Nothing could be further from the truth. Again you are talking apples and oranges. You have no responsibility whatsoever to go to a hospital and offer a blood transfusion or an organ or a liver. And if you did you would not be conceiving a life. You would certainly be sustaining a life. That could be a motive for going over to Iraq and fighting. That could be a motive for going to medical school and becoming a doctor. But it cannot be a responsibility. Not in the sense that conception is a responsibility.
You are not responsible to raise another person's child and pay their way through college. I didn't say you couldn't make that choice but there is no implied responsibility. In other words by definition parents raise children. That is the fundemental responsibility. But conception is different. No one can reduce pregnancy to a fundemental platform that says I can get pregnant and it is someone else's responsibility. That is a violation of the fundemental responsibility of the parent. If you think your kids are my responsibility you are wrong. There is a unique relationship between mother and child that is not inherent with your example of a liver hook up. It is responsiblity.

3. "That's partially correct but given that we have invitro fertilization where an embryo is fertilized outside of the human body and implanted into a woman I presume you would be against aborting a pregnancy started that way. For that matter for fertilization to happen half of the DNA introduced comes from an outsider so its not something that is internal to the woman. Anyway if it was internal to the woman that would strengthen the argument its her body and no one else should dictate what to do with it." No it is totally correct. Invitro fertilization is a choice made to conceive with donar sperm. Outsider insider husband lover stranger boyfriend, none of these donar sources hit the heart of the issue. With sex or invitro, there is no logical way to deny that we are talking about reporducing human life. A mother is a mother, not based upon attempts to reproduce or methods, a mother is a mother by giving birth. It is motherhood that is under attack.

And all science, medicine and nature itself knows, affirms and accepts that their are two separate bodies. A baby has never in history been the mother's body. All the parts of the mother are left behind.

4. The very basis of life on planet earth are rights in conflict. Let us not misunderstand that what is a right to one person is a violation to another. Freedom is not the right to do what you want but the power to do what is good. The right to live is the only right in question. That rights should be protected for the mother and the unborn child.
Conflicts of rights determine responsibility. I could give you hundreds of pages that illustrate this. Rights cannot be assumed to be correct. They must be supported by responsibilities. Murder is not a right because we have the responsibility to protect life. That is why there are laws and policemen and courtrooms. Stealing is not a right because we have the responsibility to protect property and ownership. When a right violates responsibility you have a crime.
The arguement of rights in conflict is the very arguement for ban. I wouldn't think this is the course that pro-choice should follow. But they do talk about rights because they abandon the rights of the unborn child. If the unborn child has no human rights then there are no rights in conflict. You said yourself that these rights were in conflict so I am assuming you are giving some human right to the unborn.

If we define a fetus as a person then all the arguments are gone, we then have a conflict of rights and responsibility to protect the life of the unborn must then be addressed. Either we are going to kill them or we are going to protect them. There is no protected choice in this matter any more than there is a protected choice whether to murder, steal or harm another individual.

Something else you should remember is that the abortion issues is not an issue of choice, but one of protected choice. Every crime involves choice. The question is always what choices are protected choices.

5. The Constitution specifically extends the blessing of liberty to us and our CHILDREN.

Sishir Chang- my points are not given to change your mind. I post my opinions to present them as such. To give the 'other' side. There are a great many things wrong with abortion, but the basic and fundemental issues are the ones that prevent solutions.

I would never favor making changes that do not take into account all the negative impacts that might result.

I would favor us first to change our mindsets to understand the purpose, value and protection of human life, especially and most importantly in the reproductive process. THere is no place in the life of a human that we are more vulnerable, needy and innocent.

Abortion flies in the face of what is good and right in humanity for the sake of convenience and self-satisfaction.

I have never said that life begins at conception or that a person is a person at conception. I have not said this because it is too obvious, but painfully argumentive. My point in this thread has always been that the growing embryo is living and not dead because there is no argument to this position.

Killing the 'fetus' can be defined many ways. God will judge our definitions. But trying to separate the human process of reproduction from life, dignity and virtue is violating the very principle by which we all live- Life itself is valuable and should be protected.

 

In America, Freedom + Life is greater than just Life. Since it can't be proven that a fetus is human life, the mothers freedom + life is more important than one "possible" life.

Period.

If you do not agree with this premise, then go live in China where you don't have to abide by American Constitutional principals. There you are free to make unilateral decisions as you see fit...as long as you are in power.

Period.

I agree with you that this sounds cruel. But we can't compromise American ideals based on the morals of a few. The morality can change over time. But American principals must remain the same. Since we can accomplish the same end result another way, I'd much prefer we go down that road.

 

Exceptionally well said.

 

but it doesn't. that was the thought...but it's been eroded.

 

objection: irrelevant. i'm not arguing about Iraq. i'm certainly not saying all military actions are unjust, though...or not worth it. i can hear arguments both for and against what we're doing in iraq, and agree in part with either. but none of that has anything to do with this discussion.

 

if my side would give up arguing about the first three months?? Andy we can't even get a bill passed and held up that disallows a procedure that has the baby, ready to take its first breath, pulled from the womb and immediately meeting the feel of scissors piercing it's skull. that's where we are, andy.

i have no problem with decent sex education in this country. that's a red herring, because i'm not arguing with you on that at all.

 

you know the problem with it, right? we've talked about this before.

Roe said that you could only have abortions past the first trimester if there were health issues for the woman. at the time, everyone assumed that meant if carrying the baby or delivering the baby would hurt the woman physically. but they expanded it...to include mental health reasons, as well. and doctors with dollar signs in their heads saw this as opportunity...and they expanded it out to mean that if a woman is concerned whether or not she'll be able to afford the baby, she can still have an abortion in the final term of her pregnancy. ya know..when the baby is kicking..has brain waves...is days from birth. in fact, the vast majority of abortions past the first trimester are for these very soft reasons. that's not me talking...that's the abortion doctors themselves, talking, in congressional testimony that i know i've shared here roughly 100 times.

so fine...at this point, i think you'll find most of us on my side a lot more reasonable than you'd think. but are many of us angry?? hell, yes! i am angry about this issue. because we've softened every standard so as to create an environment of abortion on demand...and we still allow barbaric procedures like dilation and extraction which sound like something out of Dr. Mengele's Medical Journal. so those emotions are real...and yes, you will have to counter them...because they're freaking justified.