Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

Originally posted by LanaDan
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Do you seriously consider fetuses and born human beings equal? To me it is two different things. As long as fetuses cannot survive without a womb, they cannot have equal rights.

I guess then that in the future when we have better incubators and fetuses can survive by themselves very early after conception you will agree to cut down on the allowable time for abortions?
there have been fetuses that can survive as premature babies at around 20 weeks
which is why current USA law draws the line for abortion at 20 to 24 weeks
if future incubators can sustain fetuses as early as 6 weeks
then I'm assuming you will agree with not allowing abortions after 6 weeks right?

edit: I posted this without reading the pages ahead
I see you have answered this already
sorry for that, you can ignore this

Originally posted by Annee
There is ALWAYS a Story.

I spontaneously miscarried my first pregnancy at 4 months. A year later I had my first daughter.

IF I had not aborted the first pregnancy - - I would not have my daughter.

Would I have missed my daughter if the first child lived? NO - - because I would never have known she existed.

if you spontaneously miscarriage, that's not abortion

reply to post by quietlearner


To be honest, I do not know. All I know that women should have right to have an abortion if they think it is necessary. In my country that is know for a high rate of abortions, it is legal to have an abortion until 12 weeks only. After 12 weeks only medical prescription for an abortion. The best way in my opinion to reduce abortions is to help mothers: better social conditions such as paid maternal leave, some kind of monetary pension monthly while mothers take care of infants. I really believe it would help some women to change their mind and keep a baby. But please do not say that they could give a child for an adoption if they could not support a child. No, some people cannot go ahead with an adoption.

reply to post by LanaDan


I'm all for better social conditions
I think women should get more help during pregnancy, specially with employers
what I'm afraid of is abortion being used as freely as morning after pills
I see the future and it seems that it could be a future were abortion becomes
something everyone does and is common place

you already see some posters here fully dehumanizing the fetus
calling them parasites, or a lump of cells
those are the comments that make me fear what could happen later on

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by Annee
There is ALWAYS a Story.

I spontaneously miscarried my first pregnancy at 4 months. A year later I had my first daughter.

IF I had not aborted the first pregnancy - - I would not have my daughter.

Would I have missed my daughter if the first child lived? NO - - because I would never have known she existed.

if you spontaneously miscarriage, that's not abortion

Really.

The fetus is still aborted.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by Annee
There is ALWAYS a Story.

I spontaneously miscarried my first pregnancy at 4 months. A year later I had my first daughter.

IF I had not aborted the first pregnancy - - I would not have my daughter.

Would I have missed my daughter if the first child lived? NO - - because I would never have known she existed.

if you spontaneously miscarriage, that's not abortion

Really.

The fetus is still aborted.

Annee if you had a spontaneous miscarriage then you did not have an abortion
you can call it a spontaneous abortion if you want but the abortion we are talking
about here is not spontaneous at all

one is natural and the other one is induced by the doctors

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by Annee
There is ALWAYS a Story.

I spontaneously miscarried my first pregnancy at 4 months. A year later I had my first daughter.

IF I had not aborted the first pregnancy - - I would not have my daughter.

Would I have missed my daughter if the first child lived? NO - - because I would never have known she existed.

if you spontaneously miscarriage, that's not abortion

Really.

The fetus is still aborted.

Annee if you had a spontaneous miscarriage then you did not have an abortion
you can call it a spontaneous abortion if you want but the abortion we are talking
about here is not spontaneous at all

I've had both.

Plus 2 living daughters.

No matter how you peel this onion, the issue of abortion has already been decided by law, and no matter one's moral or ethical stance, the law is the most important aspect of this debate.

When a word is used in a legal framework, it has a very precise definition, which often differs greatly from the socially accepted connotative definition.
The word of most importance in this debate is the word viable.

Here is the legal definition of the word viable.

Vitae habilis, capable of living. This is said of a child who is born alive in such an advanced state of formation as to be capable of living. Unless he is born viable he acquires no rights and cannot transmit them to his heirs, and is considered as if he had never been born.

link to source

Viability is the single most important legal concept in the abortion debate.
The Roe decision, after several revisits by the court, has shown that the fetus becomes viabile sometime betwen the 24th and 28th week.
This timeframe has become what is commonly known as the viability standard.

The Roe decision did not legalize abortion. It was already legal in several states.
What the decision did was guarantee that abortive medicine would be available to all women in all 50 states.
It should then be obvious that overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal.
What overturning Roe would do would be to allow each state's legislature to decide upon the legitimacy of abortive medicine.

Use your brain machines to think for a second about the newly passed "Obamacare" medical act folks.
This act essentailly sets a standard for socialized medicine in the US of A inc.

Do you pro-lifers really think that the Roe decision will be overturned now that its status as case law has been used to form the foundation for the newly passed socialized medicine bill?

Some of you might accuse me of being on one side or another, but have you ever stopped to think for a second that I am trying to get YOU to actually....



Think.




Let's talk a bit more about this viability standard.

The court was tasked with deciding between the interests of the fetus and the interests of the pregnant woman, and it decided that a fetus did not qualify for protection until it was viable, and it was not viable until it was capable of prolonged life outside of the mother's womb.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in a 1983 decision that future medicine will push the viability standard closer and closer to the point of conception, but this has not been the case.
Some hospitals view viablity as beginninng in the 22nd week, so the 22nd week might now become the new viability standard, but neonatologists believe that this timeframe is the ceiling and it will not be broken.
The reason for this is the fact that the lungs do not begin to form until around this time and breath is not capable.

The lack of oxygen leads to lasting cognitive deficits.

41% of children born between the 22nd and 25th week have mild to severe learning disabilities.
They are also more likely to have depression, have less gray matter in the frontal lobe, and require the services of physical, occupational, and/or speech therapists.
You see, simple survival is not the qualification for success when discussing pre-term births.

The long term deficits must also be discussed.

And this is important to the debate because it shows why the justices use this timeframe to decide viability.

Pro-lifers like to paint a picture of a fully formed child inside each and every pregnant woman from the point of conception and that is not the truth.
Before viability, a fetus is a part of the woman, literally.

It is not an individual and it does not have rights.

It is no different than a parasite using the lifeforce of its host to develop.
The only thing that it has of value at this point is potential, and even potential can be damaging, as is seen by the statistics.

Sappy appeals to emotion only cloud this debate and they shadow the rights of each and every individual woman.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


I will ask you the same question I asked before
since you put so much emphasis on viability
will you accept reducing the accepted pregnancy time for abortion
if new technology makes fetuses viable since conception?

Originally posted by Annee

I've had both.

Plus 2 living daughters.

I see, it seemed like you were referring to the same pregnancy earlier

Originally posted by quietlearner
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

I will ask you the same question I asked before
since you put so much emphasis on viability
will you accept reducing the accepted pregnancy time for abortion
if new technology makes fetuses viable since conception?

No, because THE FETUS is not capable of prolonged life outside of the mother's womb.

This is similar to the standard that applies to DNR orders.
If a person's body is not capable of life outside of a machine, then it is not murder to turn off the machine if the person turning it off has power of attorney to make that decision.

The viability standard is very clear, and that is why I discussed the issue.

Outside of the mother's womb it must be capable of prolonged life.

If a fertile woman has consensual sex and takes the chances of getting pregnant and actually ends up being pregnant, then her rights were not in any way violated. She is just facing the natural consequences of her actions. Her rights are not at stake. The only rights at stake in this situation are the rights of her child.

Leftists are hypocritical about women's bodies. They shun the people that think a woman's virginity is valuable i.e "purity", because they think women are being reduced to their physical existence. Yet from their rhetoric, their major concern is a 'woman's' body' and how it will be forever changed or 'ruined'.

This may have been brought up, but how someone can justify the act of abortion because it has always existed is beyond me. Murder, rape, child molestation, theft, etc. have been around since the beginning of humanity. This does not mean people have a 'right' to these actions nor does it mean these actions are just.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
No matter how you peel this onion, the issue of abortion has already been decided by law, and no matter one's moral or ethical stance, the law is the most important aspect of this debate.

you are missing the point of this thread
nobody is debating if there are laws right now or not
we all know there are laws right now

we are just debating what we think the laws should be like
your only arguments are:
1) the law is like this right now so you are wrong (which is a circular argument)
2) you can't change the law because it's already like this and that

the ability or inability to change the laws is not the main topic of this thread
we are trying to discuss what should be not how to do it

nevertheless, there are many ways to render a law impractical
rewriting it is not the only way
so can you try to get on topic now?

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by Annee

I've had both.

Plus 2 living daughters.

I see, it seemed like you were referring to the same pregnancy earlier

NO.

My first pregnancy at age 20 was a 4th month spontaneous abortion. That is what it is called because the body/fetus aborts itself. You can also call it miscarriage.

I had 2 daughters following that.

The abortion was the last pregnancy.

I've also had a partial hysterectomy as the result of a separated lining.

I also have 3 grandchildren. The oldest had to be sewn in (cervical cerclage) - - he made it to 25 weeks - - weighed 3 pounds - - and was in neonatal intensive care for 3 months. No lasting problems.

I've also been raising my 4 year old grandson who's father died before he was a month old. I suppose we could have given him up for adoption.

My viewpoints don't come from standing on the sidelines.

reply to post by Charmed707

If a fertile woman has consensual sex and takes the chances of getting pregnant and actually ends up being pregnant, then her rights were not in any way violated. She is just facing the natural consequences of her actions. Her rights are not at stake.

Correct. They are not at stake.

She now has the ability to abort the pregnancy.

The only rights at stake in this situation are the rights of her child.

Not until it has become viable.

Leftists are hypocritical about women's bodies.

You mean hypocritical like believing that abortion is murder but the death penalty is a-okay.

They shun the people that think a woman's virginity is valuable i.e "purity", because they think women are being reduced to their physical existence. Yet from their rhetoric, their major concern is a 'woman's' body' and how it will be forever changed or 'ruined'.

I am a fan of virginity.

I take it as often as possible. (I kid foks)

This may have been brought up, but how someone can justify the act of abortion because it has always existed is beyond me.

No... I think that is you just making up an argument to have with yourself.

Originally posted by LanaDan
I also agree that it is up to us individually to change it. But the government needs to step us as well.

I have to admit, I am not the biggest fan of the government, or relying on them. Its not so much the typical "freeloader" type argument, but more that I do not trust the governments intentions. Truth be told, my political ideology is considered absolutely unacceptable to most people. It is going too far off topic to expand on it, but I will say that my notion of such a thing is idealism, and currently, not feasible or realistic. As I said previously, I believe in the sovereignty of individuals, but most are not capable of accepting such responsibility.

Now, with that said, I think it would be better for the immediate local community to assist you with such needs. This is a bit more realistic. If we make each community "node" stronger, then we can rebuild the strength of a nation from the ground up, benefiting all, including those who are truly parasites in our world. So.. *puts miniature soapbox away*

All women I know had abortions mostly because they could not afford a child, they could not take a time off from work and etc. So it seems that the main reason for abortions is not the ability to have a child financially. Just look the the American law, few employers provide paid maternal leave for mothers. Women only have 6 weeks unpaid leave after birth when your job is guaranteed. . I think it is the shortest leave in the whole world. It is definitely not enough. I stayed with my son for 6 months. Then I had to work to support us. I wish the government would think more about these things and may be abortion rate would drop.

I want to remain on topic on this one, because you are bringing up an amazing point. Working towards this goal is something both pro-life and pro-choice advocates can really get behind. Government or not, support for a pregnant mother would undoubtedly reduce abortions. I think the time after a birth is really important for the development of the child, and the parent as well. I dont mean to get too personal, but did the father help in this situation as well? I ask because I think this has an effect on this topic as well, as being able to share the load like that benefits both the child and the parents.

What steps do you think we can take to help expecting mothers feel more supported? What types of things would you liked to have had, other than increased leave? Maybe even something like free education on relevant topics (like first aid, nutrition, information on toilet training, etc)? Free childcare situations where you absolutely need to go somewhere where a child isnt appropriate, and cant find someone to watch them? I fully understand such services would be abused, and currently exist in some form or another, but one problem at a time.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
No, because THE FETUS is not capable of prolonged life outside of the mother's womb.

This is similar to the standard that applies to DNR orders.
If a person's body is not capable of life outside of a machine, then it is not murder to turn off the machine if the person turning it off has power of attorney to make that decision.

The viability standard is very clear, and that is why I discussed the issue.

Outside of the mother's womb it must be capable of prolonged life.

edit on 26/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)

you are not reading what I'm saying
I proposed to you a hypothetical scenario
in where a fetus can survive outside of the mothers womb through new technology
I wasn't asking you about the current state of affairs

pulling the plug from a comatose person in critical condition is not the same as
abortion (mind you we are still with the hypothetical scenario)
first, it's is not clear if the power of attorney is granted to women at conception
second, "pulling the plug" is only legal in situations were the patient is in critical condition
and the doctors think the chances of survival is very low
in a developing fetus, as long as the fetus can develop then
the chances of survival are high

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Correct. They are not at stake.

She now has the ability to abort the pregnancy.

If abortion was illegal in the case of consensual sex, then she would not be having her rights violated in any way. No one forced her to take the chance of getting pregnant.

You mean hypocritical like believing that abortion is murder but the death penalty is a-okay.

You're seriously comparing an unborn, innocent human being to mass murderers who violate the rights of others including the right to life?

No... I think that is you just making up an argument to have with yourself.

Go to page 2 and scroll to the very last reply.

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
No matter how you peel this onion, the issue of abortion has already been decided by law, and no matter one's moral or ethical stance, the law is the most important aspect of this debate.

you are missing the point of this thread

I though that this was the point of the thread-

Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.,

That is what the link said that I clicked.

nobody is debating if there are laws right now or not
we all know there are laws right now

we are just debating what we think the laws should be like
your only arguments are:
1) the law is like this right now so you are wrong (which is a circular argument)
2) you can't change the law because it's already like this and that

the ability or inability to change the laws is not the main topic of this thread

I would swear to God that I clicked on a link that said something about civil rights and abortion in the OP.

Let me see if I can find what the OP stated.

Oh... Here it is.

FROM THE OP!!

Arguments go about defending abortion because;
Men have no say, it's no-ones business but the womans.
Women have the RIGHT to do whatever they want with their body.
It's the law.

I'd like to address these points from a civil rights perspective. Because I feel that it is a civil rights issue. The rights to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness.

I don't know about you but it seems pretty clear to me that the OP was trying to address this issue from the civil rights perspective.

I don't know. Maybe I am misunderstanding what was stated.
You tell me.
What do you think that the OP meant when they typed that they wanted to address the issue of abortion from the civil rights perspective.

You did say this-

we are trying to discuss what should be not how to do it

nevertheless, there are many ways to render a law impractical
rewriting it is not the only way
so can you try to get on topic now?

Can you point me in the right direction to the correct thread then mister, because I am trying to post in the thread discussing abortion from the civil rights perspective.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


please reread this as many times as you can

we are just debating what we think the laws should be like
your only arguments are:
1) the law is like this right now so you are wrong (which is a circular argument).
2) you can't change the law because it's already like this and that.
the ability or inability to change the laws is not the main topic of this thread
we are trying to discuss what should be, not how to do it

I even fixed my punctuation so that it's easier to understand