mc mark: Realize it or not, we agree; I'm not sure wherefrom comes the confusion. The "right to choose" belongs to the mother in a situation where an abortion may be an option to protect her health. That is an awesome responsibility and an frightening choice to have to make but nevertheless, to me, poses a LEGITIMATE right to choice. Some women would refuse even that kind of legitimate abortion. Now that's a choice where they put their OWN life on the line and eschew the abortion option. This dismal baby-flushing is cowardly, cruel, and selfish. Most abortion-rights activists are seeking an after-the-fact birth control option. That is brutal and should be stopped. That is my JUDGEMENT in all of this, eagerly made. ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils. PowerbizOnline.com
Personally, I don't see a real contradiction. I think that if a woman has already made the choice to carry the fetus to term then certain rights are politically bestowed upon the fetus. Which is why, for example, women who take drugs can be punished upon delivery. A woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, but absent of termination, one must view the fetus as a future member of society. In a sense then, the decision to terminate or not is a priori to the question of legal rights of the fetus. See? ------------------ Why is it that everytime BC defeats a major conference opponent, that opponent promptly goes on a losing streak? PS. Notre Dame sucks
One of the leading causes for fetal death is death of the mother. If the mother's life is in danger, both lives are in danger. If an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother -- then it's probably early enough in the pregnancy that she couldn't carry the baby to term anyway. If the mother's life is in danger later in the pregnancy, they do a delivery. In either case, the mother would be consulted, and would have to consent to the procedure -- so someone else probably wouldn't be making that decision for her. mc mark -- that's a strange arguement. I imagine there are very few politicians, or doctors, who would suggest not allowing an abortion in a 'medical emergency.' ------------------ Stay Cool... [This message has been edited by dc sports (edited February 22, 2001).]
RichRocket and DC, You may have missed my point. And we've covered this topic up, down, right, left and middle. I think most people on the board know on what side of this debate I fall on. And to rehash tired arguments on both sides is well...tiresome. Especially when both sides believe that they are right, and there is no changing anyone's mind. ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is.
I can understand the "medical emergencies" scenario simply because a choice has to be made. What I think is a bit silly is the "rape and incest" exceptions that some people support. I still fail to see how that is rationalized. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
Minds do change. Remember when abortion, as practised now, was illegal? Now it is legal, out of control, and a brutal money-making industry. It is my fervent hope that the safety and sanctity of an INNOCENT human life be protected. As far as convicted murderers, hang 'em high! I've not been on this board but about a year. I don't know everyone and I don't know their positions. shanna-- as far as rape and incest situations, that is a tough one, but as I see it, that is what adoption is for. Yes, it would take courage but isn't that what vital living is about? ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils. PowerbizOnline.com [This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited February 22, 2001).]
I don't think so...If someone raped your wife, or daughter, would you go through the pregnancy with the accompanying pain, bills, and pyschological trauma?!? I would terminate that **** in a heartbeat! I'm sorry, if that makes me a Killer, than so be it!!! Further if I had my way, I'll show the SOB who did that how much of a Killer I would be! ------------------ Sometimes you gotta do the next best thing!
I think you can have it both ways. Abortion is done with consent of the woman (obviously), so it should be legal. Someone asaulting a woman and hurting the fetus is not an abortion, so it should be a major crime. It all depends on whether the morther wanted the fetus to be killed or not. ------------------ "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning how to put food on their family while being put to death."
ZRB: Could you re-read what you wrote...it all depends on whether or not the mother WANTS the fetus KILLED. What's wrong with this (word) picture?!? Forgive me for questioning your language but you are advocating the KILLING of little human beings. ROXRAN-- I agree with you about the rapist but the child is an innocent party and genetically half-related. This is the part where courage and selflessness is called for. No one said it was easy. Doing the right thing is sometimes not easy but it is always the right thing. ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils. PowerbizOnline.com [This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited February 23, 2001).]
She's not pregnant, she's "with property". lol ------------------ "Relax... kids swallow quarters all the time. If she craps out two dimes and a nickel then start worrying!" -Grumpier Old Men
Thanks for that link mc mark. Undoubtedly this is something that will some day find it's way to the US Supreme Court. I found this sentence interesting as well because apparently the court had previously tried to determine when a fetus is considered a living person. "The opinion overturned an April 1999 ruling by the state Superior Court that if a fetus could survive outside of the womb, injuring the unborn child should bring the same repercussions as injuring anyone else - and not just in cases of criminal homicide and manslaughter." ------------------ "Relax... kids swallow quarters all the time. If she craps out two dimes and a nickel then start worrying!" -Grumpier Old Men
This is a frightening deal here. You're not only giving a woman the right to choose abortion but you're also trying to give her the right to determine the legal status of a fetus. That's dangerous stuff there. I'm sorry but I find it very troublesome for any law to say that the determination of whether a fetus is a person or not is based on the woman's desire to be a parent. ------------------ "Relax... kids swallow quarters all the time. If she craps out two dimes and a nickel then start worrying!" -Grumpier Old Men
Forgive me for questioning your language but you are advocating the KILLING of little human beings. Here's the problem. There's a legitimate and inconclusive argument of whether or not a fetus is a little human being... and that is the reason people rarely change their minds on the topic of abortion. If you fundamentally believe a fetus is a human being, then you're probably going to be pro-life and see abortion as a form of murder. If you fundamentally don't think so, then you're more likely to be pro-choice. That's what makes this debate so tough and so heated. This is a frightening deal here. You're not only giving a woman the right to choose abortion but you're also trying to give her the right to determine the legal status of a fetus. That's dangerous stuff there. I disagree here. Not that I necessarily agree with the logic, but if you make the determination that a fetus is NOT a human being and instead make it "property" of some sort, then the law makes sense. A person has the right to destroy her own property, but someone else cannot do so. If you look at it that way, the wrongful death law can fit with current law. It's a dangerous supposition to make, but it can work... ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
I know this ain't Texas, but I found this interesting. "Court rules death of fetus not a homicide" http://www.nandotimes.com/healthscience/story/0,1080,500312537-500503226-503557701-0,00.html ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is.
Its a nasty way of saying it, but I think mothers should be able to determine the status of the fetus. ------------------ "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning how to put food on their family while being put to death."
Shanna: I know what you said is realistic but it is also BS. A fetus turns out to be NOTHING BUT a human. Can you show me even one instance in which a fetus comes out as a pizza or a toolbox or a tree. If you can, I'll surrender the argument. At conception it IS a being-- maybe hardly recognizeable but it is a human being. It's genetic code is that of a human and it rapidly morphs into a human form that smiles and frowns. Soon it is kicking and within a few months breathing air. The only other outcome WE EVER SEE is its demise-- sometime natural but all too often unnatural. Anyone who argues that point is only doing so to justify their position on abortion. How can you even attempt to argue that without being self-serving? ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils. PowerbizOnline.com
A fetus turns out to be NOTHING BUT a human. No one's arguing that it turns into a human. However, murder is defined as the killing of another human, not the killing of something that turns into a human. The legal question is whether a fetus is already a human when it's not fully developed. I believe the Roe v. Wade decision concluded that abortions are legal in the 1st trimester because the fetus is not really human enough yet, while that's not true in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters (I personally have problems with this rationale, but whatever). If what you said was the generally accepted definition of a fetus (fetus = human), then abortion would already be illegal under murder statutes. Since it's not, we can conclude that your definition is not the widely accepted way we look at things. That point -- when a fetus becomes a human -- is the core of the entire abortion debate. Anyone who argues that point is only doing so to justify their position on abortion. Thank you for demonstrating why this argument can never be "won" by either side. Lots of people honestly believe that their view of what a fetus is -- whatever the view may be -- is the only correct view and that anyone who thinks differently is just plain wrong. As long as that's true, no one's going to change any minds. ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
Roe v. Wade says that the state cannot regulate abortions during the 1st 2 trimesters, not just the first. A woman can have an abortion when she's 6 months pregnant, and there's nothing anyone can do about it, according to Roe v. Wade.
Shanna: I regret my word choice. I meant turns out as in "comes out" not "turns into" as you have interpreted it. Immediately and at the most basic chromosomal level, the fetus is and never WILL BE anything but human-- not chimpanzee, pizza, or tool box. That is certain and that is what I meant to say. What I say next is very important: If people didn't want the privilege of aborting a fetus at will, would we even be discussing this? They are arguing backward to justify their position. That's why it is just self-serving. The fetus is a human child; that passes the smell test. Nothing else does. ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils. PowerbizOnline.com
