Abortion

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

The 2 from my "young and stupid" days didn't last, so I guess that's a mute point.

I believe you mean "moot"

 

[puggymom]

I believe you mean "moot"

No, moo, as in cow

 

[Gwydion]

What about if the other twin kicks the one that can't survive right out of the womb? Does that make me a murderer, because my mother miscarried my twin and when they were going to do the DNC for it, they realize she had another viable fetus (me) within her?

According to this_person, yes.

According to pc, xaq, and I, no.

 

[This_person]

ok.
so remove it and let the patch of tissue, with its own DNA, try and survive.
There have been numerous folks born with a "twin" attached, with its own DNA, but it can't survive on its own...is the doctor a murderer if he removes it for the convenience of the healthy child?

You mean, remove something that's actually naturally not-viable for the medical health of the mother and/or child?

That seems a fairly reasonable thing to do, and very different from unnaturally removing a viable child.

 

[This_person]

So I don't understand. If murder is the killing of a person, how can the predetermined killing of an innocent person not be murder?

That's easy. People like you treat a baby that's still in the womb as not a person, and therefore the laws were bullied into changing to allow for a particular style of murder.

 

[This_person]

I should actually amend this to women....all pregnant women despite their 'want' for the child. If you give a fetus equal rights under the law it is a very slippery slope than can lead to all pregnant women treated as second class citizens. Things like having a glass of wine, well that is child abuse. Your OB insists you need a c-section, well your say means nothing because he can seek a court order to force such all for the rights of the child. That to me is very scary.

When abortion was illegal, were these fears you have the accepted way of treating pregnant women?

 

[This_person]

Right, and why not? I really don't get This_person's logic then. If you aren't killing a living person by having an abortion, then how is he "legally" correct? How is it a living person?

An even better question - if Scott Peterson could be convicted of murder of his unborn child, but a doctor isn't convicted of murder for an abortion of convenience, why is there this difference? Which one makes less sense?

 

[This_person]

According to this_person, yes.

According to pc, xaq, and I, no.

Clearly, you haven't read my posts.

Natural miscarriage and unnaturally/intentionally killing a baby are two very different things. Like dying of old age, or dying of a gunshot wound to the head are different things.

 

[puggymom]

When abortion was illegal, were these fears you have the accepted way of treating pregnant women?

This issue stems from the fairly new movement of 'Fetal Rights'. It was started by anti-abortion movement. Here are some links to more info. These issues deal strictly with pregnancy with the intention of bearing a child all stemming from the fetal rights issue.

A very informative book:
Making Women Pay, Rachel Roth, Book - Barnes & Noble

When a corporation, medical authority', or the state asserts or accepts rights claims on behalf of a fetus, the usual justification involves improving the chance of a healthy birth. This strategy, Roth persuasively argues, is not necessary to achieve the goal of a healthy birth, is often counterproductive to it, and always undermines women's equal standing.

Maternal vs. Fetal Rights

This one actually gives both sides to the Maternal vs Fetal rights argument

Research in medicine continues to reveal more and more ways in which a baby's health can be jeopardized by what a woman does during pregnancy. And, developments in genetics and obstetrics continue to provide us with more and more prenatal diagnostic tests and medical treatments that enable us to prevent birth defects. Most women welcome these developments. There are some, however, who are unwilling to avoid those activities or behaviors that could harm their offspring and who refuse to undergo medical treatments that would prevent birth defects.

As our knowledge of prevention and prenatal harm grows, so too has public pressure to change the behavior of "non-compliant" pregnant women. Almost half of the maternal-fetal specialists surveyed in a recent national study thought that pregnant women who refused medical advice and thereby endangered their future children should be detained in hospitals and forced to "follow doctors orders." A growing number of legal cases throughout the U.S. show a trend toward forced treatment of pregnant women--court ordered Caesarean sections, mandatory diet restrictions and, as in Janet's case, incarceration for failing to follow medical advice. But does society have a right to control the behavior of pregnant women?

The other side

Those who support forced treatment of pregnant women agree that every person has a right to freedom of choice. But when a woman decides to carry her pregnancy to term, we can expect that a child will be born, and this future child has a right to be protected from avoidable harm. Certain behaviors during pregnancy are known to cause harm to offspring. Poor nutrition can retard fetal growth and impair brain development. Use of heroin can result in fetal addiction. Heavy alcohol use can cause mental retardation and physical malformations. Altering one's diet or refraining from alcohol or drugs presents no serious risk to a pregnant woman's life or health. When a pregnant woman who has decided to give birth to a child engages in activities that she could reasonably avoid and that will damage that child, society has a duty to protect the future child, even if this means forcing the pregnant woman to change her behavior. Are we as a society OK with this? I know I am not! What is 'good' and 'bad' for pregnant woman changes all the time

Maternal-Fetal Conflict: Ethical Topic in Medicine

The use of court orders to force treatment on pregnant women raises many ethical concerns. Court orders force pregnant women to forfeit their autonomy in ways not required of competent men or nonpregnant women. There is an inconsistency in allowing competent adults to refuse therapy in all cases but pregnancy. Hospital administrators, lawyers and judges have little warning of impending conflicts and little time for deliberation; this time pressure makes it unlikely that pregnant women will have adequate legal representation. Furthermore, forced obstetrical interventions have the potential to adversely affect the physician-patient relationship. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has stated that "Obstetricians should refrain from performing procedures that are unwanted by pregnant woman....The use of the courts to resolve these conflicts is almost never warranted."

Rights, Duties and the Body: Law and ... - Google Book Search
I have not read this book but you can get the gist from the summary:

If a pregnant woman refuses medical treatment needed by the fetus - for instance for religious reasons - or conducts some aspect of her life in a way which risks fetal harm, there may arise an instance of maternal-fetal conflict". This is an unfortunate term since pregnant women are generally renowned for their self-sacrificing behaviour but it may well reflect the reality of certain maternal choices and actions. Should a pregnant woman have the legal right to refuse medical treatment needed by the fetus or should she owe it a legal duty of care which precludes her acting in ways which may harm it? Does the debate hinge simply upon the appropriateness or otherwise of legally compelling presumed moral obligations or is it more complex than this? Indeed what are a pregnant woman't moral obligations towards her fetus? In England and in some US states courts have held that a pregnant woman has the right to refuse medical treatment needed by the fetus. In similar fashion the idea of a general maternal legal duty of care toward the fetus has been rejected most recently in Canada. The cases however leave the impression of an uncomfortable split between the ethics and the law as if the problem were entirely one of not legally enforcing presumed moral duties. The effect is both puzzling and polarising: puzzling in that the cases leave unanswered - as largely they must - the huge question of a pregnant woman's moral rights and duties; polarising in that the cases leave troubling tensions about a pregnant woman's rights in the face of fetal harm or death. The tendency is to deny these by ever more strongly asserting a woman's rights. In turn this encourages a reaction in favour of fetal rights one which is unlikely to attend to a woman's interests and difficulties in pregnancy. This could have serious legal repercussions for various instances of maternal-fetal conflict including in those US states or other jurisdictions which have yet to address these issues. It might also increase the pressures on the issue of abortion. This book which seeks a way between these polarised positions tries to explain and justify a woman's moral and legal rights in pregnancy and at the same time to explore the extent of her moral duties toward the fetus. The aim is to resolve as far as possible the ethical legal and social tensions which undoubtedly surround this area. Innovatively in work on this issue (and unusually in the field of medical law and ethics) the author adopts a joint philosophical and legal approach directed to issues both of principle and policy revealing strong conceptual links between the ethics and the law. In addition to an ethical exploration of the maternal-fetal relationship the author explores and analyses the relevant English American Canadian (and sometimes Australian) arguments from the law of treatment refusal abortion tort and rescue as well as relevant jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights. This important book breaks new ground and will be of great interest to academics in law and philosophy lawyers health professionals policy-makers and students of medical law and ethics

If you want more all you need to do is google Maternal vs Fetal rights.

 

[This_person]

This issue stems from the fairly new movement of 'Fetal Rights'. It was started by anti-abortion movement. Here are some links to more info. These issues deal strictly with pregnancy with the intention of bearing a child all stemming from the fetal rights issue.

A very informative book:
Making Women Pay, Rachel Roth, Book - Barnes & Noble




Maternal vs. Fetal Rights

This one actually gives both sides to the Maternal vs Fetal rights argument



The other side


Maternal-Fetal Conflict: Ethical Topic in Medicine



Rights, Duties and the Body: Law and ... - Google Book Search
I have not read this book but you can get the gist from the summary:




If you want more all you need to do is google Maternal vs Fetal rights.

There's a lot of good, thought-inspiring information here.

I guess one thing I would ask, though, is to compare this to an infant. Let's say that a mother of an infant chooses cow's milk vs. breast milk, or smokes in front of her child, etc. Do we, as a society today, punish (not criticize, but punish - legally change the habits of) the mother (or father) for these actions? I mean, there's no debate here as to whether the infant has rights, right? So, if the fetus is given the rights of actually being what it is - a human - why would it be any different?

Clearly, the anecdotal evidence you've posted here demonstrates that some people believe there would be a difference. I think they're wrong in some ways. I would compare it to how a parent of a born child is treated. If you are putting the child (remember, the human that you voluntarily took action to create thus assuming responsibility for) in physical danger, you are wrong as a parent. Some of those things are criminally negligent or abusive, some are not.

When one chooses to become a parent, they subordinate their rights to the responsibilities they've chosen to take on. I, as a father, cannot travel and drink myself into a stupor every day and spend all of my money on cars, wine, and women. I have obligated myself to caring for my children until they reach at least 18 years since birth.

There are sexually satisfying actions that can be taken without risking becoming (or, in the male's case - causing) pregnancy. If you choose the risk, you've chosen the responsibilities of the risk.

JMHO

 

[Gwydion]

Clearly, you haven't read my posts.

Natural miscarriage and unnaturally/intentionally killing a baby are two very different things. Like dying of old age, or dying of a gunshot wound to the head are different things.

No. According to you, her viable mind sought to murder her living human being twin.

That is murder.

But yesterday was spent compiling. Today is testing. So enjoy yourself here, murderer.

 

[Beta84]

ok..

So are many other things.



Fairly certain that as you walk into an abortion clinic you are thinking "Hey, I think Im gonna get an abortion!"

So, how is a murder not a murder?

You highlighted the wrong thing. You shoulda started with the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law since that is what allows for the remainder of the definition to be effective. It opens with that to narrow the definition, then gets specific. You basically ignored the narrowing part and then picked out other pieces of the definition that made you happy. Since it's not specifically covered by law, the rest of the definition does not apply to abortion being considered murder

I think your problem is you're having a hard time understanding the difference between killing and murdering. Abortion is the killing of a being, but it's not the murdering one since murder is defined by law.

 

[This_person]

No. According to you, her viable mind sought to murder her living human being twin.

That is murder.

But yesterday was spent compiling. Today is testing. So enjoy yourself here, murderer.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[puggymom]

There's a lot of good, thought-inspiring information here.

I guess one thing I would ask, though, is to compare this to an infant. Let's say that a mother of an infant chooses cow's milk vs. breast milk, or smokes in front of her child, etc. Do we, as a society today, punish (not criticize, but punish - legally change the habits of) the mother (or father) for these actions? I mean, there's no debate here as to whether the infant has rights, right? So, if the fetus is given the rights of actually being what it is - a human - why would it be any different?

The difference is that you can take the infant away from the 'bad' situation and the woman and still act as she wishes. You are not making her change the way she acts. I am also thinking about the more gray areas where what is good and bad for pregnant woman changes almost from doctor to doctor. I have a friend who's OB told her it was perfectly OK to have a RARE small glass of red wine in her 3rd trimester when she needed to relax. Other's view that there is no acceptable amount of alcohol and that would constitute fetal/child abuse. Who is right in the eyes of the law and the fetus?

Clearly, the anecdotal evidence you've posted here demonstrates that some people believe there would be a difference. I think they're wrong in some ways. I would compare it to how a parent of a born child is treated. If you are putting the child (remember, the human that you voluntarily took action to create thus assuming responsibility for) in physical danger, you are wrong as a parent. Some of those things are criminally negligent or abusive, some are not.

When one chooses to become a parent, they subordinate their rights to the responsibilities they've chosen to take on. I, as a father, cannot travel and drink myself into a stupor every day and spend all of my money on cars, wine, and women. I have obligated myself to caring for my children until they reach at least 18 years since birth.

Not necessarily and again the child can be removed without affected your rights to do whatever. And in some cases the child is not even removed. What you are talking about is being a responsible parent.

[/quote] There are sexually satisfying actions that can be taken without risking becoming (or, in the male's case - causing) pregnancy. If you choose the risk, you've chosen the responsibilities of the risk.
JMHO[/QUOTE]

See I do not believe forced pregnancy and childbirth should be a risk of sex so we will have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[This_person]

The difference is that you can take the infant away from the 'bad' situation and the woman and still act as she wishes. You are not making her change the way she acts. I am also thinking about the more gray areas where what is good and bad for pregnant woman changes almost from doctor to doctor. I have a friend who's OB told her it was perfectly OK to have a RARE small glass of red wine in her 3rd trimester when she needed to relax. Other's view that there is no acceptable amount of alcohol and that would constitute fetal/child abuse. Who is right in the eyes of the law and the fetus?

That's a valid question, and goes to what I was saying. Some psychologists and sociologists will tell you that spanking is an essential part of parenting, and others will tell you it's abusive. There always are gray areas, and there's never a definitively correct answer (obviously, or they wouldn't be gray areas )

As for taking the child away - to me that's the obligation the woman takes when she takes an action voluntarily that could cause pregnancy.

Not necessarily and again the child can be removed without affected your rights to do whatever. And in some cases the child is not even removed. What you are talking about is being a responsible parent.

Exactly. Responsible, responsible to the child I created. I can choose to relinquish that responsibility to another person, or the state, or whatever; but I do not have the right to extinguish the life of my child to eliminate my responsibility to the child.

See I do not believe forced pregnancy and childbirth should be a risk of sex so we will have to agree to disagree on that.

And, here, where I think we disagree is whether the pregnancy is forced. If she was raped, she was forced. If she has sex voluntarily, she's accepted the potential outcome (as has the male).

It's similar to driving a car. I do not want an accident. I take great pains to not cause an accident - I keep my car in good mechanical order, I keep my windshield clean, I keep my eyes on the road and my distractions down. But, if I choose to drive, and I cause an accident, I've not relinquished my responsibilities to the person I injur just because I was careful not to cause one. It's highly unlikely I'll cause an accident (I drive A LOT without accidents), but that doesn't mean I'm not responsible if I do cause one.

 

[Pete]

I forgot the "officially" engaged part. We were engaged 6 months prior to the official popping of the question (the ring was bought, just travel kept us both apart for long periods, and he wanted to plan a big surprise thingie for me for the "official").

OH... and 4 of the miscarriages were in that relationship.

The other 2 came from HS when I was young and stupid... but I was with the same guy for about 6 years :shrug:

So what you are saying is you got pregnant every 5 weeks during your "unofficial" engagement, then once right after the "official" engagement? Then there are those 2 pregnancies that pre-dated the "unofficial" and "official" engagements when you were High school?

7 Pregnancies! Seems to me you had buckets of man seed tossed at you.

One would think that after the first pregnancy in the High School period would kind of smarten you up. If that didn't do it then certainly the second one would have given you a clue.

 

[cattitude]

So what you are saying is you got pregnant every 5 weeks during your "unofficial" engagement, then once right after the "official" engagement? Then there are those 2 pregnancies that pre-dated the "unofficial" and "official" engagements when you were High school?

7 Pregnancies! Seems to me you had buckets of man seed tossed at you.

One would think that after the first pregnancy in the High School period would kind of smarten you up. If that didn't do it then certainly the second one would have given you a clue.

Good Lord.

 

[kris31280]

So what you are saying is you got pregnant every 5 weeks during your "unofficial" engagement, then once right after the "official" engagement? Then there are those 2 pregnancies that pre-dated the "unofficial" and "official" engagements when you were High school?

7 Pregnancies! Seems to me you had buckets of man seed tossed at you.

One would think that after the first pregnancy in the High School period would kind of smarten you up. If that didn't do it then certainly the second one would have given you a clue.

One was in high school, one was post high school but with the same guy... you'd have thought I had learned after the first one... but it took the second one before I finally went to Planned Parenthood and got on birth control.

Now the 4 miscarriages with my son's father... like I said... we were TRYING to get pregnant knowing that the chances were slim I'd get pregnant or carry it to term. He said the day he met me he knew he was going to ask me to marry him :shrug:

 

[sunflower]

Miscarriages suck..

 

[Pete]

One was in high school, one was post high school but with the same guy... you'd have thought I had learned after the first one... but it took the second one before I finally went to Planned Parenthood and got on birth control.

Now the 4 miscarriages with my son's father... like I said... we were TRYING to get pregnant knowing that the chances were slim I'd get pregnant or carry it to term. He said the day he met me he knew he was going to ask me to marry him :shrug:

Funny he never really got around to it.