Do-It-Yourself - Abortion.

[michaeledward]

Full Disclosure - I did not watch the Republican Party, CNN, YouTube Debate.

The vast majority of the Republican Party has consistantly supported over-riding the Supreme Court's Roe-V-Wade decision which federalized protections for a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy. One of the conundrums' of this position is, what to do with those who terminate a pregnancy, if the law is repealed. What is the appropriate punishment for an agent who breaks the law?

If (or When according to their Party position) Roe-v-Wade is overturned, and a woman chooses to terminate, who is the criminal?

This question came up in the YouTube / CNN debate this past week. Senator Thompson's response was

The question is who get penalized and what should be the penalty. I think it should be fashioned along the same lines it is now. Most states have abortion laws that outlaw abortion after viability and it [the criminal penalty] goes to the doctor performing the abortion not the girl, the young girl, her parents, or whoever it might be. I think that same pattern needs to be followed.

The interesting phrase here, is "whoever it might be" ... as long as that whoever is not a doctor. Medical Doctors will be charged and held as criminals if they carry out the wishes of their patients, but the patient will not be held responsible for the "crime". Also, according to Senator Thompson, it will not be criminal for a parent to terminate the unwanted pregnancy of his or her daughter.

"[W]hoever it might be" would probably also mean that the life sentence of Geraldo Flores would be overturned. A couple of years ago, young Mr. Flores punched his girlfriends' abdomen repeatedly to terminate her unwanted pregnancy. He was convicted of two counts of capital murder, for the two induced miscarriages.

As I understand it, from the debate podium's, there was not one candidate who would have taken a different position. A pregnant woman will, apparently, be able to terminate her own pregnancy without fear of criminal jeopardy. But, any person skilled and knowledgeable with human health care will not be able to assist, without fear of criminal charge and punishment.

Something just doesn't seem right about that.

 

[Kreth]

So if the "pro-lifers" win here, will they be satisfied, or will the next step be pressure to make vasectomies and tubal ligations illegal?

 

[KempoGuy06]

Something just doesn't seem right about that.

That does seem a litt bassackwards! So basically a girl who is pregnant and doesnt want to keep the child can perform the abortion herself and be charged with nothing? But if someone knowledgable of human health care will be charged with murder? What qualifies as knowledgable?

So if the "pro-lifers" win here, will they be satisfied, or will the next step be pressure to make vasectomies and tubal ligations illegal?

Honestly, I wouldnt be suprised if they did

B

 

[shesulsa]

I've got five words for the republican party ...

:stoplurk: Stay away from my vagina. :wuguns:

​

When the first woman who self-treats dies, will we get to try the SCJ's who voted such legislation in for double murder if they do? Manslaughter?

 

[MBuzzy]

The two big issues that I see here are 1) The entire abortion issue itself and 2) The self termination attempts.

Personally, I see a use for abortions. I don't think that they should be used as birth control, but there are situations where it makes sense. When the mother is in danger, obviously....and if the child is in danger. Now, that doesn't mean that they might not survive afterwards, but there are alot of situations where the mother simply cannot take care of the child - or will not. The child will end up in an orphanage or in a bad home. If the mother is mature enough to know that she CANNOT take care of the child, I feel that it is for the greater good. If abortions are made illegal, society will be inundated with children that cannot be taken care of, with no or bad homes, and who society as a whole will be forced to take care of, by way of taxes and government assistance. Politicians really need to look at this with a pragmatic approach in my opinion.

If we put those who would perform the abortion in jail or otherwise punish them, women may start doing them on their own. This may not only hurt the mother, but it may also end up in a severely damaged child...


But then, my honest opinion is that Politicians just need something controversial to argue about. I don't see this as an issue needing federal intervention....it is an ethical problem - if you don't agree with it, don't do it!!! If you don't want other people to do it....too bad, that's life. There's lots of stuff that I don't want other people to do and that I don't think is ethical, but they do it anyway. Nothing I can do about.

 

[Ray]

Medical Doctors will be charged and held as criminals if they carry out the wishes of their patients, but the patient will not be held responsible for the "crime".

In general MDs shouldn't necessarily just carry out the wishes of their patients.

 

[Tez3]

Pardon my ignorance of how American laws are enacted but is abortion legal because of the court ruling or a law passed by the government?
In the UK abortion is legal because of an Act of Parliament, it was debated in the House of Commons voted on and passed then the same in the House of Lords, it is the law now and can only be overturned the same way that it was passed and that's not likely to happen now. It's not even an issue in elections now, I can't remember the last time it was even mentioned.

Shesulsa, love that post! I agree!

 

[shesulsa]

Pardon my ignorance of how American laws are enacted but is abortion legal because of the court ruling or a law passed by the government?
In the UK abortion is legal because of an Act of Parliament, it was debated in the House of Commons voted on and passed then the same in the House of Lords, it is the law now and can only be overturned the same way that it was passed and that's not likely to happen now. It's not even an issue in elections now, I can't remember the last time it was even mentioned.

Shesulsa, love that post! I agree!

Thanks.

Here it became legal via a court ruling in the legal case of Roe vs. Wade. Google it or look it up on Wiki, it's a lot faster than my retyping - I'm sure I'd screw something up anyway.

So you'll often hear right-to-lifers crying to 'overturn Roe V. Wade' to make abortion illegal again.

 

[shesulsa]

Here is the link to the Wiki article on Roe v Wade.

 

[arnisador]

Pardon my ignorance of how American laws are enacted but is abortion legal because of the court ruling or a law passed by the government?

The Supreme Court overturned the laws banning it on constitutional grounds. So, it's a court ruling that makes it legal in some states and specific state laws that allow for it in others (e.g., if memory serves it's a constitutional right in California--I could be wrong).

 

[newGuy12]

The problem as I see it, is that the pro-life side wants to protect the child fully until it is born. Then, it can go to hell for all they care.

I'm not sure of the motivation. I understand that the churches wish to make abortion illegal, but I can't see the logic of that. Let me explain why I am confused.

As I understand it, the Christian religion teaches that you have ONE SHOT at getting into heaven (or else you end up in hell). Now, there
*may* be various LEVELS of heaven and hell, but let's keep it simple for this argument.

A human is born, and then comes to some age of accountability. At some later point they die. They are then assigned to EITHER heaven or hell. So, there is some chance that they will go to hell.

Okay, now, consider this. A pregnancy is aborted. IF that fetus is human (and has a soul), that human has not yet reached the age of accountability. Therefore, upon its death, the soul enters into heaven. We have a 100% guarantee that the soul makes it to heaven. What could be finer? The soul in question "hits the lottery", big time. Not only do they not have to experience this world (which is so sorry that it itself should be aborted, IMHO), but they also get to go to paradise, no questions asked.

???

Where exactly is the problem with this???

Why would churches be so opposed to this? It makes no sense to me!

 

[shesulsa]

Actually ... if memory serves (dusts it off and shakes it a little), I believe most Christians believe we are all born sinners and one could logically and emotionally conclude that since many in the church believe a baby is a baby from conception and that life beings at conception that original sin is already present from that moment on and that the soul will indeed spend eternity in the service of Satan. Only if the entity is successfully born (regardless of status) and baptized can the soul enter heaven.

 

[newGuy12]

I suspect that it has something to do with this:

I for one, see things my own way, which admittedly may be quite strange, but this is how I see it:

The world sucks (if you REALLY have a good look at it). I'm not talking about "our" world. I'm talking about the world of suffering which we are protected from. Our hearts cry out, "Why will God not fix things?" Why all these diseases, heartache, etc.

Some voices cry out, "Its up to us, the humans to fix things". But, that does not work. We cannot manage to fix things. So, we cry out again, "Please, God, fix things."

But, He does not.

So, the only way to REALLY beat the game is to NOT HAVE OFFSPRING. One way or another, if no one spawns children, the game comes to an end. No more human suffering.

This "opting out" is scary to some, perhaps.

 

[newGuy12]

Actually ... if memory serves (dusts it off and shakes it a little), I believe most Christians believe we are all born sinners and one could logically and emotionally conclude that since many in the church believe a baby is a baby from conception and that life beings at conception that original sin is already present from that moment on and that the soul will indeed spend eternity in the service of Satan. Only if the entity is successfully born (regardless of status) and baptized can the soul enter heaven.

I remember being taught differently. Of course, teachings can vary WIDELY, and there is no way that I know of that it can be confirmed one way or another. There are warring factions within Christianity, as well as other religions.

If only it were simpler, more "sure", validated by some measurements! For something so important to be left up to such interpretation is very unsettling!

 

[morph4me]

The problem as I see it, is that the pro-life side wants to protect the child fully until it is born. Then, it can go to hell for all they care.

Well said!!

The whole abortion issue has always seemd to me to be one of the government butting in to protect a fetus at the expense of a child. Much like the pro lifers who blow up abortion clinics, they are pro life only if that life is a fetus, and yet they don't seem to see the irony :idunno:

 

[Tez3]

I suppose I'm a cynic but I feel the abortion argument like most things isn't actually about religion but control. Religion is the means of control in this case, it could just as easily be argued the other way around as in China where you are made to have abortions if you get pregnant after having your one 'allowed' child all for the general good of course but it is still other people wanting the control of the majority.
I will allow that there are people who are genuinely concerned for the unborn child but how many are really just wanting people to conform to a rigid set of rules? Made by them of course!
Why should other people worry whether I'm going to hell or not?

 

[michaeledward]

The problem as I see it, is that the pro-life side wants to protect the child fully until it is born. Then, it can go to hell for all they care.

I'm not sure of the motivation. I understand that the churches wish to make abortion illegal, but I can't see the logic of that. Let me explain why I am confused.

As I understand it, the Christian religion teaches that you have ONE SHOT at getting into heaven (or else you end up in hell). Now, there
*may* be various LEVELS of heaven and hell, but let's keep it simple for this argument.

A human is born, and then comes to some age of accountability. At some later point they die. They are then assigned to EITHER heaven or hell. So, there is some chance that they will go to hell.

Okay, now, consider this. A pregnancy is aborted. IF that fetus is human (and has a soul), that human has not yet reached the age of accountability. Therefore, upon its death, the soul enters into heaven. We have a 100% guarantee that the soul makes it to heaven. What could be finer? The soul in question "hits the lottery", big time. Not only do they not have to experience this world (which is so sorry that it itself should be aborted, IMHO), but they also get to go to paradise, no questions asked.

???

Where exactly is the problem with this???

Why would churches be so opposed to this? It makes no sense to me!

Wow ... this sure mucks up the thread.

I was discussing the politics of the United States of America.

You are discussing theology.

As I recall, our Constitution states that there will be NO Religious Test for service in our government, EVER.

 

[newGuy12]

Wow ... this sure mucks up the thread.

Sorry for mucking the thread. It was not intended. The argument is a political one. People elect presidents, who appoint Supreme Court judges. Groups sometimes vote in blocks. The religious community sometimes votes as a block.

To wonder about what motivates their vote I thought would be fitting in the thread. I was wrong.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

As I recall, our Constitution states that there will be NO Religious Test for service in our government, EVER.

True, but it also bans passing laws based on the beliefs of one religion.

The only justification for anti-abortion laws is that one (powerful and perhaps still in the majority) religion says it's a no-no.

I have my own opinions about abortion at the personal level. Everybody does, and they're strong opinions. But it is not the government's place to have an opinion on this issue.

 

[michaeledward]

I have my own opinions about abortion at the personal level. Everybody does, and they're strong opinions. But it is not the government's place to have an opinion on this issue.

Which begs the question(s) ...

Why does the Republican Party have such an opinion?

Why would someone vote for a Republican Candidate when the principles of that Party are in conflict with the principles of Government they hope to serve?

I don't ever expect this discussion to reach those who are religiously motivated to a 'pro-life' position. I'm not trying to reach them. There are, however, many people who look to the Republican Party for other reasons.

One begins to wonder when those who support the (theoretical) smaller government/less taxes/more individual responsibility positions within the Republican Party will be driven away from the Party by the incredibly radical idea of medical self-diagnosis and treatment, which can only endanger young women at difficult points in their lives.