Aftermath of Abortion

In America, we treat people like adults. They are free to make their own mistakes and pay the consequences. People are free to commit murder and pay the consequences.

Banning doctors from performing abortions does NOT give the woman the freedom to make her own mistake. That choice has been removed from her since no doctor would be willing to even perform the procedure.

 

doctors are the prohibited class under all proposed legislation i've ever seen. if such a bill becomes law...they'll be free to do it...but they'll risk prosecution.

 

rhester, I still intend to respond to your post. It is a very well thought out but will require me to provide a well thought out response since you are using such strong sources.

But for starters, look up the definition of Liberty. I'm sure you'll see where I'm gonna go with this. Since the mother DEFINATELY has a right to liberty, the baby's right to life is questionable because was it ever really alive. Its an opinion. Since that is in question, we must fall back on what IS known and that is the mothers liberty.

Edit: Fixed http link that wasn't closed correctly.

 

Yes, Exactly. And as such that puts ALL the control in the doctors hands...and it isn't the doctor's body at question...its the woman's. As such, the woman should be the one that needs the decision making ability...at least she needs SOME say in it. Its her body!

With regards to guns, that would be like preventing gun manufacturers from making guns because somebody MIGHT shoot somebody. We all know how that debate will turn out.

In America, we don't prevent people from things they might do. We put in deterants to discourage undesireable behavior...but you're free to do as you like...as long as you are prepared to deal with the consequences.

An abortion ban would be more than a deterant...it is outright proactive prevention. That flys in the face of the concept of Liberty.

 

abortion isn't the only thing doctors are prohibited from doing to people...even with their consent.

i could not disagree more with your assertions about the state of the law, generally, in the US. but what else is new?

 

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
-- Patrick Henry (framer of the Constitution)

I'm sure you are right but do you care to expound on that?

 

doctors take a hippocratic oath and are highly regulated...at least in theory. not everything that you might consent to, even as an adult, could they do to you..and not be in violation of the law or their own standards before the board that licenses them. ask Dr. Kevorkian.

i understand the Constitution. i understand the principles behind the Constitution. i disagree with your statements about the law. would it help if i posted quotes from people in the 20th century who talked about the perversion of the Constitution under the New Deal courts? the government is bigger and more regulatory than ever. freedom was a lot easier to come by, in many measures, in eras gone by. we do have laws that prevent people from doing things...we have laws that imprison people from doing things...we have laws that deter people from doing things. we have all sorts of laws with all sorts of different purposes. and whether or not it's "Constitutional" isn't decided by some all-knowing eye in the sky; but rather, 9 men or women who wear funny robes. that's it. what THEY say are the principles are ultimately all that matters...and they're not accountable to you and me, because they're appointed for life. ask most liberals if they feel freedom has been expanded by the courts in recent years. i'm guessing the answer is a resounding, "no." but it all depends upon perspective...as does this issue.

 

Yea, thats true. Doesn't necessarily make it right.

Regarding Dr. Kevorkian, I also beleive a patient should have the right to decide their own fate particularly if they are terminally ill. But that is the current law until somebody is willing to challenge it.

Just answer me this. What is to preventing me from commiting murder tonight? Who would be there to stop me if I had a gun? It's an ugly subject! I know.

I know you disagree, and thats fine, but we are talking about a society of free will.

Not really. Because we are talking about principals here. The principals will be everlasting...they never change. New Deal courts or not. Interpretation may change...the principals don't.

...And W has taken that to new heights. I'm sure you know what I'm gonna say next, huh?

Actually, no. The legislature creates the laws...not the courts. The Supreme Court does not have the ability to indiscriminantly impose its will. A law must be challenged in court and only then through a series of appeals will the Supreme Court even hear it. So the characterization that we have some zany bunch of mavericks doing their own thing is soooo waayyy overblown, IMO.

Not really. What the legislative branch beleives are ultimately what matters. The courts only have the power to preside a court case.

So you DO, in fact, question the legitimacy of the Constitution?

That is a GOOD thing...not bad.

Well, they are appointed by elected officials as outlined in the Constitution. But one time tested principal is that elected officials are easily manipulated and/or subject to corruption. That is why our forefathers put in protections against run-a-muck politicians by removing judges from the typical pressures imposed on politicians.

Mind you, judges don't implement or decide ANYTHING. The legislative branch makes all the decisions. The courts simply make sure they stay on course of Life, Liberty and Justice for All.

Checks and Balances are good.

The courts don't retract freedoms. The legislature does. And yes, I definately feel freedom is constantly being attacked by morality based issues from the right. This is why I feel so strongly about this issue even if it means, as you would phrase it, innocent lives are at stake.

Again, soldiers in Iraq, if already enrolled, didn't have a choice about whether they were going to fight for freedom. Same as any war particularly where we implemented the draft. Those are all instances where freedom was more important than life itself.

 

Krosfyah- Let me simplify it for you- Abortion is murder.

The mother is commiting the crime and hiring the Doctor to play hit man.

That should be simple enough.

Max has been trying to say that the Constitution protects life, but in the case of murdering babies it no longer gives protection because the definition of life has changed. The comments about 'static' was infering that legal interpretations have changed the protections that people in the 18th and 19th century understood were constitutional. All states had laws prohibiting abortion without challenge during this time period.

That is what I think he meant by it not being a static document.
And he is right about that.

Please don't get me started on changes to the Constitution in this thread, Amendments that were never legally ratified that destroyed states rights.

To keep my position simple.

1. The baby is alive not dead. (you can use fetus- I still know it is living when it goes into the clinic)
2. The baby is a human. (the next non-human baby conceived by humans will be the first)
3. The mother murders the baby. (Yes, she has made the choice to murder)
4. Hiring a doctor to do it all nice and tidy. (doctors are doing this for money- take away the money and abortion would go away in about 3 days)
5. I am against bombing clinics or harming doctors or mothers in any way.

If my position is not clear to you please let me know.

 

I have to say that was an excellent and very well thought out post with some very thought provoking viewpoints. I've had a long and busy day and will try to respond to it in more detail when I get the chance.

 

Not exactly. My point was that we don't compel people to biologically sustain another. Someone's right to their own biology cannot be infringed even in regard to saving someone else's life.

 

Since my last big post I've only had a chance to skim this thread but a lot of interesting stuff out there. Almost wish I didn't have to work.

I'm too tired to respond in detail but wanted to throw out a few hypothetical questions for the pro-lifers to get a sense of their dedication:

1. I think this has been brought up but I don't recall direct answers. Would you allow an abortion in the event of a rape and to make it more specific, in the event of a rape of a minor?

2. It wasn't that long ago that childbirth itself was the leading cause of death for women so would you allow an abortion when there was a high probability the women would die bringing the child to term?

2a. Would you allow for abortion if there wasn't a high probability of death of the woman but a high probability that the woman would suffer major health consequences?

3. Lets say somehow a crazed reproductive doctor forcibly implanted an embryo into woman making her an involuntary surrogate ala Boys from Brazil should she be allowed to abort?

4. If amniocitos and other tests showed that the child would likely only be able to survive out of the womb for a very short time and would likely be in severe pain that time should the woman be allowed to abort?

5. If test showed that the fetus' neural tube didn't close and was developing without a brain should the woman be allowed to abort?

 

I HAVE to respond to this. YES there are teens that get pregnant despite the fact that they know that sex can get you pregnant. BUT, they can still be uneducated when it comes to birth control, safe sex, etc.

THIS HAS HAPPENED TO SOMEONE I CARE ABOUT!

My ex wife was raised in a right-wing, religious, conservative home. I was raised in a spiritual, catholic, fairly liberal home. My folks taught me about condoms, the pill, std's, etc when I was very young. More than anything, this dispelled the many sexual myths I would hear in "locker rooms, etc." from my peers.

My ex did not learn this. An abusive boyfriend convinced her that if he "pulled out" she would not get pregnant. I know that isn't the case, but (judging from my peers) a lot of young people don't!

She got pregnant, at 16, and had an abortion.

CASE CLOSED (IMO): EDUCATION HELPS ALL SOCIAL ILLS!

Sex ed would have saved a "life" (Depending on what you believe)

I think everyone is entitled to their opinion. No "pro-choicers" believe abortion is a good thing. I just don't understand how ANYONE, regardless of partisanship, can argue with education.

 

Here goes (and please give me the consideration that hypothetically for me the unborn child is a baby)

1. Don't punish the baby for the man's crime, punish the man- no capital sentence for the baby. Adding murder to rape is wrong.
2. The risks of pregnancy vary greatly and (excluding the death of the mother) are always there. Even doctor's errors cannot be forseen. No need to associate these risks as separate from motherhood. That is why doctors are always researching new ways to reduce the risks to the mother. This is a medical question and I am not sure how to answer that. I first would have to understand what is determined to be a major health consequence. I am not being evasive. I just cannot answer that not knowing if the risk you speak of means blindness, brain damage and organ damage or infection, damaged uterus and sickness. Let me first address the issue of the death of the mother, because the health risks to a mother in pregnancy don't in themselves justify the killing of the child. If the mother WILL die in childbirth, then and only then should a mother have a CHOICE concerning if the baby should live. To give your own life for another should be your own choice.
3. Let's stop putting the baby on trial and giving the death penalty to the baby. The baby is the innocent party. Even if the mother is victimized the one punished should be the perpetrator not the other innocent life.
4. This is a very good hypothetical situation (and I wish all abortion were already only being performed under these extreme cases) It gets down to the heart of the issue. This case works for many classes- the elderly, the severely handicapped and the terminally ill. It is the quality of life, value of life, right to life issue in a nutshell. Who determines when to die? It would be great if every person in that situation could make that determination for themselves. Once someone else makes it for you then the definition of suffering and quality of life become very serious for you. It becomes a point of how much protection should we give life? If you cannot make the determination for yourself- ie. babies, severely handicapped etc. Then I would err on the side of life. For example if a mother saw the suffering her own poverty brought to her children and was convinced they were better off in heaven she might rationalize that she should drown them in the bath tub. This issue is so difficult because the answer can lead to very abusive situations if not carefully thought through. I would have to consider this more before I would be in favor of legislation determining 'when to put people out of their suffering' I know you wanted a direct yes or no, for me to kill the baby there has to be a lot more understanding before it becomes right.
Suffering is a difficult word to define. Jews in Poland were put out of their suffering, they suffered being less than human. They suffered by definition then because they were parasites on the planet.
5. Same as above - I am the first to admit that the extreme cases provide the greatest challenge to parents because what is best for the baby will come down to one's value assigned to life and the rights of the baby and the responsibility of the parents. If one baby could live in spite of severe risks then obviously a handicapped person is of no lesser value than you or I. I cannot find a reason to kill the baby because of factors that might inconvenience the parents. So in all these examples I don't think the suffering of the parents would warrant killing the baby.
I am not sure how to determine when death is the right and loving thing to do to the baby. That is very sticky. If that is what you were after you got it from me.

I only wish today's rulings were only dealing with the most extreme hypothetical situations. If this was the current law we would not even be discussing abortion it would be so rare.

I know I could not answer all your questions clearly yes or no but I can't. I am not wise enough.

 

Let me simply it for you in return. If you want to treat abortion as though it is a run-of-the-mill murder case, then treat the women the same way.

If I wish to commit murder of a full grown adult today, I am free to do so knowing that I will face consequences.

If a woman wishes to have an abortion, she (edit: correct spelling) would be absolutely prevented from doing so. The government would be absolutly dictating the situation. Again, look up the term Liberty.

Treat people like adults. Let them take personal responsibility. We let people make up their own minds about shooting guns or driving drunk. Why can't we let them make up their own minds about abortion?

Then why aren't you trying to prosecute the mothers directly? Why do you only seek to go after the doctors? Going after the doctors completely eliminates the say-so of the woman in this matter which is unAmerican. Again, look up the term Liberty.

No, the definition has NEVER changed. A life is not recognized in this country, legally, until birth. That is why we don't give social security cards to a fetus.

We are talking Apples/Oranges. Yes, interpretations change. But the basic principals of Life, Liberty and Justice have NEVER changed...not once. (except in cases that were later repealed). Please, give me just ONE lasting example where the constitution changed that jeapordized the principals of Life, Liberty and Justice. I have yet to have a response to this from the pro-lifers in this thread. Please, I want to hear it.

There have been over 10,000 attempts to modify or amend the Constitution. Only 27 have gone into effect. So to say some were never ratified is kindof meaningless. That's the point, the Constitution is HARD HARD HARD to change. Any changes made were in the context of clarifying Life, Liberty and Justice.

I understand your position fully.

Here's my position...

1. You can't sacrifice the constitutionally protected principal of Liberty in the name of Life...particularly since your notion of life is based on opinion.

2. In America, we sacrifice lives all the time in the name of freedom. We instituted a draft in time of war to save America. Protecting basic natural rights is of the utmost importance.

3. Since we can protect the lives by preventing unwanted pregancies, there is definately no need to sacrafice the principle of Liberty and Feedom.

 

That's understandable from your position but since one of the keys of the whole issue is whether to consider a fetus a baby so I'm going to stick to the term "fetus" as its agreed upon and unbiased.

I was running over some scenarios but left it vague so I would follow up with: Would any of the health consequences to the woman you just brought up be acceptable for abortion?

I raised those questions specifically because they would be difficult to answer quickly so its fine that you can't give a simple 'yes' or 'no' and am interested in your elaboration. I'm not trying to lay a rhetorical trap but trying to get a sense of what boundaries pro-lifers would consider in their positions. I think this debate shows that there are potential grey areas between an absolutists stands of both side.

Any other pro-lifers care to take a crack at these questions?

 

But the government isn't REQUIRING anyone to sustain a baby inside them...nature requires it. It is what it is. And you have sex knowing full well the possible consequence is a developing life growing inside you. That's where more education would be helpful.

I realize the above sounds really silly coming from a man. But the law doesn't put the burden on women...nature does. It's an inherent consequence. It's who we are. It's how we work. Government can't do much about that.

 

I only wish the debate was over the type cases you mentioned Sishir Chang.

I would be very glad to attempt to give you a well thought out and specific answer from a pro-life view if you would be willing to acknowledge that the conflict over abortion centers on all the cases where the justification is only convenience and preference of the parent. If you would acknowledge that these extreme situations aren't the majority reason for abortions.

Do this and I will take responsibility to address each case yes or no with reasons.

I ask this not because I felt your questions were attempts to trap, but because I don't want to give the impression that it is these cases that have defined the debate. The debate over abortion on demand to my knowledge has never been battled over cases as you have mentioned.

 

Since my posts tend to be long, I have another question that I've asked several times to no avail.

So while you are answer Sishir Chang's question, also answer this question.

Please provide ONE example when the Constitution was amended that jeapordized the principals of Life, Liberty and Justice.

(Warning: If your example includes an ammendment that was later repealed, that wouldn't be a good example because I will use that in support my argument.)