Abortion compromise...what do you think?

[Tgace]

Some people think that abortion is the destruction of human life and object to it....I guess that does make them evil, control freak people that are thinking of nothing but themselves......

Personally Im "against" abortion but not quite to the extreme of mandating all abortion illegal or equating a bunch of cells to a fetus that is obviously human life. I do take exception to "demonizing" pro-life supporters. I find it strange that folks who are against what they believe is the killing of life are BAD. While other people who burn down laboratories because they kill animals in tests are GOOD.

 

[rmcrobertson]

And I find it strange that PETA would be dragged in to this topic, but wotthell...just FYI, I know of no case in which PETA types have bombed labs, or ambushed scientists....

If men--and it is primarily men--impose their beliefs on women, and they do so out of religious beliefs, what would you call it?

 

[Flatlander]

Robert, your floccinaucinihilipilification with regard to the relevancy of men in directing this type of policy is quite in line with my belief.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Robert, your floccinaucinihilipilification with regard to the relevancy of men in directing this type of policy is quite in line with my belief.

Just like the word floccinaucinihilipilification itself

 

[Flatlander]

Rich, I just found the word, and simply HAD to use it somewhere. :rofl: Like it?

 

[Phoenix44]

Shouldnt there be a line drawn somewhere?

Who draws the line? You? Me?

In Jewish law, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body. In the Jewish tradition, the adult woman ALWAYS takes precedence over a fetus. Or is Christian law the only law that's appropriate?

For the purpose of a community standard, I think viability outside the mother is reasonable, probably around 23 weeks, unless the mother's life is at stake. I also believe that by 23 weeks, the mother should have a pretty good idea that she is pregnant, and that she wants the baby.

 

[Tgace]

Who draws the line? You? Me?

In Jewish law, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body. In the Jewish tradition, the adult woman ALWAYS takes precedence over a fetus. Or is Christian law the only law that's appropriate?

For the purpose of a community standard, I think viability outside the mother is reasonable, probably around 23 weeks, unless the mother's life is at stake. I also believe that by 23 weeks, the mother should have a pretty good idea that she is pregnant, and that she wants the baby.

OK...you drew a line. So where do we disagree? I didnt ask "who" should draw it. Only asking if there should be one.

btw: Are there no "pro-life" women out there...or are they all under the control of religious wacko men??

 

[Tgace]

If a pregnant woman is murdered...should the baby's death (fetus...whatever) compound the crime (if the baby would have been viable)?

 

[michaeledward]

If a pregnant woman is murdered...should the baby's death (fetus...whatever) compound the crime (if the baby would have been viable)?

I don't think a 'Yes' or 'No' answer is acceptable to this question. It is possible to imagine that a woman's death may occur where the killer was unaware of the woman's pregnancy, in which case, the obvious answer is 'NO'. (I'm thinking the Washington DC sniper - gunshot to the head of a woman seated in a car).

Then, there is 'Scott Peterson', who, no doubt, knew, that when he ended the life of Laci Peterson (has that been proven to verdict yet?), was also ending the life of the fetus, and was intending his action to accomplish ending both the life of the person and the life of the fetus, in which case, the obvious answer is 'YES'.

And seldom will the lines be drawn so clearly as these two examples.

I think, however, this has little to do with what decision a woman makes in the company of her conciousness and her doctor.

 

[Tgace]

Why would those 2 cases be "different"? Negligent homicide is a crime...as is intentional Murder.

The legal lines get hazy here. How do you convict Peterson of the fetus' death without making some sort of legal ruling regarding the "status" of the fetus? Is it murder only if the mother wants the child?

 

[michaeledward]

Why would those 2 cases be "different"? Negligent homicide is a crime...as is intentional Murder.

The legal lines get hazy here. How do you convict Peterson of the fetus' death without making some sort of legal ruling regarding the "status" of the fetus? Is it murder only if the mother wants the child?

In the event of a sniper killing a pregnant woman, without knowing the woman was pregnant, I don't believe you can justify a negligant homicide charge.

In a case similar to that brought against Scott Peterson, it seems his intention was to end the life of Laci, and to prevent the birth of a child.

Yes, the legal lines get hazy. That is because we are taking the decision away from the woman, aren't we?

 

[Tgace]

Just to repeat...I guess Im kinda "middle of the road", leaning to the pro-life side.
Im not against abortion in all cases and I am not for making it entirely illegal.

I just find the whole issue leaves a "bad taste", so to speak, because we are talking about intentionally ending life here, either a bunch of living cells or something that looks like human life....sometimes such things are necessary though, I just dont think it should be on the same level as having ones gall bladder removed.

 

[Tgace]

Yes, the legal lines get hazy. That is because we are taking the decision away from the woman, aren't we?

I dont quite understand this statement in terms of legal prosecution. Are you saying the woman, if she survives a murder attack, should be able to decide if her attacker should face a murder charge in her baby's death?

 

[michaeledward]

I dont quite understand this statement in terms of legal prosecution. Are you saying the woman, if she survives a murder attack, should be able to decide if her attacker should face a murder charge in her baby's death?

No. I am saying the choice of terminating a pregnancy belongs to a woman, her belief system, and her doctor.

If a woman survives a murder attack, and the pregnancy is ended by the attackers intention or otherwise, charge the attacker for 'attempted murder'. If a finding a guilt is made by a jury, the woman should be able to make a statement before sentencing, which may, or may not, affect the sentence received for the crime.

 

[Flatlander]

For the purpose of a community standard, I think viability outside the mother is reasonable, probably around 23 weeks, unless the mother's life is at stake. I also believe that by 23 weeks, the mother should have a pretty good idea that she is pregnant, and that she wants the baby.

This is approximately my opinion as well.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'd be curious to know exactly where you derive your authority, gentlemen, for deciding whether or not a woman has a child.

I'd also note that much of this talk is disingenuous. We already have a compromise; at least a couple of the folks on this thread pretty clearly see any further changes as a stage on the way to complete banning of safe, legal and rare abortion.

Oh yes. Since some of you are arguing that murderers should be prosecuted for taking an "unborn," (the language, incidentally, is the language of the anti-abortion movement) child's life, you are also arguing that either a) that child is to be classified as human because it is already possessed of a soul; b) that murderer took away a potential life.

If you believe that it's a matter of a, could you explain how you know this, and why everybody should have to go along with your religious beliefs; if you believe that it's b, then logically speaking, you also must believe that we should prosecute murderers of men for all the children that their victims might have had.

Have any of you guys ever worked in a newborn ICU? I have. You should try it; it might give you a whole new insight into this topic--get acquainted with them 500-600 gram preemies! do the support for a very damaged newborn with multiple brain bleeds, RDS, RLF, and organ failure, whose parents can look down the road to a desperate attempt to raise a severely damaged child! learn new words, like compound spiral fracture, which is what you'll be seeing in abused kids whose crazy parents had them without the slightest hope of raising them decently!!!

Funny how none of these threads, and none of the hot discourse on morality we get from the likes of Phyllis Schafly, ever seem to get all wrapped up in the question of the millions of immiserated kids we have, right now. In fact, these are the types who attack Head Start and similar programs, on the theory that they're anti-family. Huh. I'll be darned.

But oh boy, can't have them women making their own choices!

Try to be less lost in theory and highfalutin' abstractions, some of ya.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

As a possible referent for those interested, this is what my students learn in my Developmental Psychology class - different definitions of when "life" begins. Thought some of you might find it interesting. If not, please skip.

1) metabolic view - there is no one point at which life begins. Sperm and egg are just as alive as any other organism

2) genetic view - a new individual is created at fertilization

3) embryological view - individuals are not created before day 12 of embyrogenesis (since identical twinning can occur in humans as late as day 12 postconception)

4) neurological view - development or loss of cerebral EEG pattern. Acquisition in humans at 27 weeks, postconception.

5) ecological/technological view - life exists separately from the maternal environment. (right now - preemie can survive at about 25 weeks gestation (lung maturation))

6) immunological view - when organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self (about the time of birth in humans)

7) integrated physiological view - life begins when child is independent of mother, with own functioning curculatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. (about the time of birth in humans)

 

[raedyn]

On compromise:
The fact remains there currently exists a compromise. It is not satisfactory to everyone, but it's a compromise. I don't believe there will ever be a middle ground that will satisfy everyone. There are, and will continue to be, over-zealous uncompromising it-must-be-my-way campaigners on either end of the spectrum.

On men having a say:
I understand why a man desires to have a voice in the fate of a pregnancy he helped create. But until he is the one that has to carry a child, give birth to it, and all that comes with mothering... he gets out-voted. You can't imagine the depth of committment this requires until you've been there. It re-shapes a woman's entire being, and I whole-heartedly and emphatically believe only that woman can decide for herself if she can go through that.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich, I just found the word, and simply HAD to use it somewhere. :rofl: Like it?

I liked it, for I had to look it up :rofl:


As to the discussion at hand, I like the data that Fiesty Mouse has presented.

As to males being able to discuss the issue, I have a real hard time with this. I agree that it is the right of the woman to choose. Yet, legally males are responible for the fetus after it is born, until it becomes a legal adult, both emotionally and financially. So, here is the paradox, women can decide to get pregnant, and then men are requried to be involved against their will or voluntarily. Yet, women can also decide to abort, and men are not allowed to give their opinion, either. If a single women decides to have a child she may. If a single male decideds then he must have the co-operation of a female, and still deal with legal issues of the child, and what was the reason for havng the child. I do not have a solution. I am not saying it should be fair. I am not complaining about it specifically. I am making comments about our society as I see it.

It is ok for a single woman to be involved with children, including volunteering and such. When a single male does it, he is put under investigation to try to understand why would he do such a thing? Is the male in question a child molester, as has been the case of some/many in the past? Fair? Ntt really, yet safer for the children, even though they may loose out on interactions of some.

As to compromise, I am not sure how to define one. If one was to make a religious jump straight to law, then I would disagree, for there would be / are different points of views on different religions including those who do not have a religous belief. If people decide to ask questions and make points of views to try to persuade public opinion, to decide what is ethical, and then the people decide from this ethical discussions to make it law. Either through referendum, or through our elected officials.

 

[Xequat]

Cool, this is getting good, now. I proposed the idea to see what people thought and I'm starting to think it might not be a very good idea. I heard the idea on the radio when a conservative and a liberal were talking about it and both seemed to think it was a pretty good idea. What I haven't seen, however is a definition of the compromise that we supposedly have. Two people have stated that we already have one, but have not pointed out how we have one. To say that men control womne's reproductive rights has nothing to do with compromise, so please clarify that for me; maybe I'm just missing something.