Bumper stickers of the confused

[puggymom]

What I mean is... supposedly, it is legal because women are supposed to have privacy. How is that private? Unless you diy.

And it is legal for more than just privacy...it is legal because two people cannot have equal rights over the same body. One must have more say so to speak. Right now that is the woman. Having it any other way would just lead down a slippery slope of treating all pregnant women, regardless of their intentions to continue to full term or abort, as second class citizens with the government and courts having more say than the woman.

 

[mindy]

And it is legal for more than just privacy...it is legal because two people cannot have equal rights over the same body. One must have more say so to speak. Right now that is the woman. Having it any other way would just lead down a slippery slope of treating all pregnant women, regardless of their intentions to continue to full term or abort, as second class citizens with the government and courts having more say than the woman.

Well, if you're carrying to term and birthing, then the government has issues if you don't just go along with what they say... so I just can't get it in my head how its okay to kill it as long as it isn't old enough for it to live outside, but once it is, you damn well listen to what they say or have the kid taken away and get yourself locked up.

 

[mindy]

It is just as private as any other medical procedure done by a doctor. I do not mean to make it sound so nonchalant, that is not by any means my intention, but it is in fact a medical procedure regardless of your opinion on the matter.
So I am just saying it should be treated as any other medical procedure in regards to privacy. So while not 100% private, as there are medical staff present, it should not be any more public than going to have a broken limb fixed or being treated for an STD.

Okay, well this I agree with. That's how it has been explained to me before. That abortion is legal because of a woman's right to privacy..which as I said, makes no sense in my head. I'm not trying to be snarky, I honestly think this makes NO sense. Then like my previous post, if a woman can legally be strapped down and knocked out for a c-section against her will if a doctor deems it necessary "for the well being" of the baby, then why does the baby's life trump the mothers health and quality of life at that point? It is still living inside her body, so therefore then it has more of a right to...what? I am so confused on the strangeness of all this. moerso since I've become a mother and am anything BUT mainstream in my views of the medical establishment, especially in birthing in normal, healthy pregnancies.

 

[puggymom]

Well, if you're carrying to term and birthing, then the government has issues if you don't just go along with what they say... so I just can't get it in my head how its okay to kill it as long as it isn't old enough for it to live outside, but once it is, you damn well listen to what they say or have the kid taken away and get yourself locked up.

Once the baby is born it is a legal person afforded all the rights of any one else including you hence a parent cannot endanger its life w/o government involvement.
Before birth it is not a legal person therefore it does not have those rights. And legally speaking (opinions aside) as the laws are right now abortion is not killing or murder.

I could state my opinion but it would be irrelevnt to the discussion on what is or even should be legal.

 

[puggymom]

Okay, well this I agree with. That's how it has been explained to me before. That abortion is legal because of a woman's right to privacy..which as I said, makes no sense in my head. I'm not trying to be snarky, I honestly think this makes NO sense. Then like my previous post, if a woman can legally be strapped down and knocked out for a c-section against her will if a doctor deems it necessary "for the well being" of the baby, then why does the baby's life trump the mothers health and quality of life at that point? It is still living inside her body, so therefore then it has more of a right to...what? I am so confused on the strangeness of all this. moerso since I've become a mother and am anything BUT mainstream in my views of the medical establishment, especially in birthing in normal, healthy pregnancies.

No, a woman cannot, in this country anyway as the law currently stands, be forced to have a c section. She, or a medical proxy, MUST give consent.

If you want to talk about the overmedicalization of pregnancy and it being treated as a medical condition instead of a natural process that should have very little medical intervention than I am all with you. I am appalled by the c section rate in this country but I do not think doctors 'coercison' can take all the blame. I think more woman need to educated themselves and be taught to TRUST THEIR BODIES!!.
I cannot stand hearing a woman say at 38-40 weeks that she just needs to be induced out of convenience. Inductions, which are partially responsible for our high c section rate, should not even be considered unless it is a medical emergency. And being late in and of itself is NOT a medical emergency.

 

[This_person]

No, I"m asking where I claimed a religious or moral issue with it, such that you could claim I did, and then claim I'm what we're fighting in Afghanistan.Which law do you find unconstitutional? Remember, we're talking about a federal law regarding drugs vs. a state one.

 

[libby]

two people cannot have equal rights over the same body

I cannot remember all of the details already gone over in this thread, but I had to jump in here.

The mother and the baby do not have "the same body". The baby is an entirely separate human being, and as you said

, a natural process that should have very little medical intervention than I am all with you

Pregnancy is not a condition or a disease, and intervention at birth, or in an abortion, should be prohibited by law.

Back to your original statement above about equal rights. In pregancy, you have two innocent people who's rights should be considered. If anyone should not be considered "innocent", it should be the woman who engaged in behavior that leads to pregnancy. (at this time, I will not bother addressing the minute number of rape/abuse pregnancies). Regardless of the precautions she may or may not have taken, there is a failure rate for contraception, and if we want to have sex, we accept the possibility.

Viability typically means the point at which the baby can survive on it's own. Well guess what? No baby can survive on it's own, even after birth. And I won't be one bit surprised if this pro-abortion administration will further extend the "right" of a mother to not be a mother by legalizing infanticide. Surely, there will be scoffers at this, suggesting that my fear is unfounded, but in 1973, when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, most people thought that the first three months were the limit, and that beyond that point would never see approval. Now we have partial birth abortion, and a president who does not believe in protecting infants who are born alive after an attempted abortion.
I'm getting off topic...

Y'know, I called the vet recently about neutering my cat (is neuter the term for a female?) Anyway, we were a little late getting the procedure done, and they could not, or would not do anything because the cat was pregnant! WTH is the matter with that?

 

[puggymom]

I cannot remember all of the details already gone over in this thread, but I had to jump in here.

The mother and the baby do not have "the same body". The baby is an entirely separate human being, and as you said
Two bodies sharing one then....one has to take precedence. To me, regardless of the situation it will always be the woman.

Pregnancy is not a condition or a disease, and intervention at birth, or in an abortion, should be prohibited by law.

Back to your original statement above about equal rights. In pregancy, you have two innocent people who's rights should be considered. If anyone should not be considered "innocent", it should be the woman who engaged in behavior that leads to pregnancy. (at this time, I will not bother addressing the minute number of rape/abuse pregnancies). Regardless of the precautions she may or may not have taken, there is a failure rate for contraception, and if we want to have sex, we accept the possibility.
I will never accept forced childbirth as a punishment for consentual sex....which is a natural human instinct

Viability typically means the point at which the baby can survive on it's own. Well guess what? No baby can survive on it's own, even after birth. And I won't be one bit surprised if this pro-abortion administration will further extend the "right" of a mother to not be a mother by legalizing infanticide. Surely, there will be scoffers at this, suggesting that my fear is unfounded, but in 1973, when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, most people thought that the first three months were the limit, and that beyond that point would never see approval. Now we have partial birth abortion, and a president who does not believe in protecting infants who are born alive after an attempted abortion.
Apples and oranges....once the baby is born it needs another HUMAN to survive but it does not need the 'mother'. Until a fetus can be transferred from one womb to another this is not the same comparison. In the case of a born child if she does not want the baby after it is born she can easily and with absolutely no effort on her part relinquish control of the child.In the case of being pregant she cannot relinquish control to someone else.
I'm getting off topic...

Y'know, I called the vet recently about neutering my cat (is neuter the term for a female?) Anyway, we were a little late getting the procedure done, and they could not, or would not do anything because the cat was pregnant! WTH is the matter with that?
And you cannot, as far as I know, give a hysterectomy or a tubes tie procedure to a pregnant woman either. Usually this is done after the pregnancy.

...

 

[This_person]

I will never accept forced childbirth as a punishment for consentual sex....which is a natural human instinct

Your phrasing seems confusing here.

How is it "forced" childbirth if getting pregnant is a known, reasonable risk to consentual sex - even with birth control methods in effect?

How is the natural human consequence of pregnancy/birth a "punishment" and not just a natural consequence?

In the case of a born child if she does not want the baby after it is born she can easily and with absolutely no effort on her part relinquish control of the child.In the case of being pregant she cannot relinquish control to someone else.

This is true. But, where does it become acceptable to kill someone for being voluntarily created, yet not "wanted" by the person/people who willingly, knowingly created that person?

 

[libby]

I will never accept forced childbirth as a punishment for consentual sex....which is a natural human instinct

So, it is your position that people should be able to engage in behavior which is their "natural instinct", without consequence, or responsibility for, those actions?

In other words, people have a right to have sex?

 

[puggymom]

Your phrasing seems confusing here.

How is it "forced" childbirth if getting pregnant is a known, reasonable risk to consentual sex - even with birth control methods in effect?

How is the natural human consequence of pregnancy/birth a "punishment" and not just a natural consequence?This is true. But, where does it become acceptable to kill someone for being voluntarily created, yet not "wanted" by the person/people who willingly, knowingly created that person?

Because abortion is legal...there is a pregnancy out so to speak. And it being killing or muder is a matter of opinion, not legal fact.

I mean if you want my personal opinion (on elective abortion, again NOT talking about rape/ health issues) I just do not see an abortion prior to 12 weeks remotely the same as killing a full term baby (you asked previously about pro choice eventually being pro infantcide). Between 12-19 weeks, 6 days it's iffy. I really causes concern and a sinking feeling but if I were to lose a pregnancy at 18 weeks it would be a miscarriage (not a birth).
After 20 weeks, when medical science distinguishes between miscarriage and stillborn, I can see and understand the idea of it being murder. Honestly if you are 20 weeks pregnant (again my opinion and my opinion should be be used to make any laws) you should not even be considering an elective abortion. Sorry you have had plenty of time and suck it up so to speak. The problem with laws is that like laws for anything in this country it is 'all or nothing'. So for every law you make to prevent a woman from electively seeking an abortion, you are making it that much harder on the woman who chose to have a baby and had to have one for health/medical reasons (which BTW is the reason for most later term abortions).

 

[puggymom]

So, it is your position that people should be able to engage in behavior which is their "natural instinct", without consequence, or responsibility for, those actions?

In other words, people have a right to have sex?

Having the right----> YES, should they---> of course not

Like I have said in the past I am a strong proponent for decreasing abortion through education, not laws. Because laws confront the supply aspect and with that comes illegal/back alley abortions---abortion is still happening.
Education confronts the demand aspect and that leads to less abortions overall (including ones performed illegally).

And by education I mean anything from what parents teach children about the value of all human life to what is taught in schools, just every kind of teaching a child can receive.

 

[This_person]

Because abortion is legal...there is a pregnancy out so to speak. And it being killing or muder is a matter of opinion, not legal fact.

I agree it's not legal opinion currently (unless, of course, it's not a doctor that kills that baby - a la Scott Peterson being convicted of murder for his unborn child).

However, morally, killing a baby is killing a baby

I mean if you want my personal opinion (on elective abortion, again NOT talking about rape/ health issues) I just do not see an abortion prior to 12 weeks remotely the same as killing a full term baby (you asked previously about pro choice eventually being pro infantcide). Between 12-19 weeks, 6 days it's iffy. I really causes concern and a sinking feeling but if I were to lose a pregnancy at 18 weeks it would be a miscarriage (not a birth).
After 20 weeks, when medical science distinguishes between miscarriage and stillborn, I can see and understand the idea of it being murder. Honestly if you are 20 weeks pregnant (again my opinion and my opinion should be be used to make any laws) you should not even be considering an elective abortion. Sorry you have had plenty of time and suck it up so to speak. The problem with laws is that like laws for anything in this country it is 'all or nothing'. So for every law you make to prevent a woman from electively seeking an abortion, you are making it that much harder on the woman who chose to have a baby and had to have one for health/medical reasons (which BTW is the reason for most later term abortions).

The baby stops having the ability to split and become twins at 12 days. At that point, there is a completely separate human with distinctive DNA that was willingly (I agree we're not talking rape/health issues of the mother) placed there. The implicit responsibility was assumed by the people taking the action to place the baby there. Just because they get a consequence they didn't want, that does not absolve them of the consequence. If I drive I assume the responsibility for any accident I cause, even if I didn't want to cause it. I am not allowed to kill people because they got in my way and make my life inconvenient.

 

[puggymom]

I agree it's not legal opinion currently (unless, of course, it's not a doctor that kills that baby - a la Scott Peterson being convicted of murder for his unborn child).

However, morally, killing a baby is killing a babyThe baby stops having the ability to split and become twins at 12 days. At that point, there is a completely separate human with distinctive DNA that was willingly (I agree we're not talking rape/health issues of the mother) placed there. The implicit responsibility was assumed by the people taking the action to place the baby there. Just because they get a consequence they didn't want, that does not absolve them of the consequence. If I drive I assume the responsibility for any accident I cause, even if I didn't want to cause it. I am not allowed to kill people because they got in my way and make my life inconvenient.

I know the science...I have two kids. But the life is so fragile until 12 weeks. That is why the risk of miscarriage decreases dramatically after that time.
Understanding miscarriage | BabyCenter

About 15 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and more than 80 percent of these losses happen before 12 weeks.

 

[This_person]

I know the science...I have two kids. But the life is so fragile until 12 weeks. That is why the risk of miscarriage decreases dramatically after that time.
Understanding miscarriage | BabyCenter

MIscarriage is an awful lot different than abortion, though, don't you think? I mean, I'm not sure I understand the applicability of using miscarriage statistics when talking about abortion legalities.

 

[libby]

Because abortion is legal...there is a pregnancy out so to speak. And it being killing or muder is a matter of opinion, not legal fact.

Legal fact? Is that the foundation of your beliefs on right and wrong?

Do we need to go down the list of things that past and present civilizations have made "legal", that were/are atrocities?

Surely, if abortion is so benign a procedure as to present no moral quandries to the proponent, you must be able to come up with a better defense than that.

 

[puggymom]

Legal fact? Is that the foundation of your beliefs on right and wrong?

Do we need to go down the list of things that past and present civilizations have made "legal", that were/are atrocities?

Surely, if abortion is so benign a procedure as to present no moral quandries to the proponent, you must be able to come up with a better defense than that.

The problem is morals is according to whose morals? I think it is atrocious to even consider making all pregnant women (the overwhelming majority being those who intend on giving birth) second class citizens in the name of fetal rights. Have a class of red wine in public while 8 months pregnant....if the wrong person sees you, you now have to defend yourself from potential child abuse because right now the thought in the US is that no alcohol should be used as it is not known how much is safe on the fetus.

As we all know common sense does not really apply to our laws....they tend to be all or nothing...zero tolerance...period. I am not sure if it is this way to prevent discrimination but we can see this in our laws every day.

There tends to be two beliefs in terms of abortion....either you believe the woman's rights are valued higher than the fetus/baby or your believe the fetus/baby's rights are valued over the woman. We cannot have it both ways. While I do not like abortion I will never believe it is morally acceptable for an actual person losing rights over a potential person.

 

[puggymom]

MIscarriage is an awful lot different than abortion, though, don't you think? I mean, I'm not sure I understand the applicability of using miscarriage statistics when talking about abortion legalities.

I was not really talking about legalities....I was explaining why I have my personal opinion on abortion prior to 12 weeks. However I do not believe my personal opinion should have any bearing on the law.

 

[MrZ06]

I saw a tag today that said "IMACRAB"

I'm not a big fan of bumper stickers. I would never put on on my car.

 

[This_person]

The problem is morals is according to whose morals? I think it is atrocious to even consider making all pregnant women (the overwhelming majority being those who intend on giving birth) second class citizens in the name of fetal rights. Have a class of red wine in public while 8 months pregnant....if the wrong person sees you, you now have to defend yourself from potential child abuse because right now the thought in the US is that no alcohol should be used as it is not known how much is safe on the fetus.

As we all know common sense does not really apply to our laws....they tend to be all or nothing...zero tolerance...period. I am not sure if it is this way to prevent discrimination but we can see this in our laws every day.

There tends to be two beliefs in terms of abortion....either you believe the woman's rights are valued higher than the fetus/baby or your believe the fetus/baby's rights are valued over the woman. We cannot have it both ways. While I do not like abortion I will never believe it is morally acceptable for an actual person losing rights over a potential person.

Whose morals? I think it's fair to say that - regardless of religious beliefs (or lack thereof) or any other standard of morals thought of - virtually everyone will express a belief in the moral of human life being virtually the most protected concept.

The "having a drink while pregnant" argument (or, more realistically and appropriate - the many good arguments you make regarding doctor's instructions while pregnant) have some merit, to be sure. However, they are subjective, a grey area - just like child-care laws for parents today. When abortion was illegal, it was not anywhere near the norm for a mother to be cited for a crime for having a sip of wine - some doctors recommended that women drink a glass a day to keep calm.

The more realistic argument to me is your last paragraph, that people put the rights of one over the other. This is where I believe you and I disagree. I believe the right of the woman to engage in sexual activity of her own volition, with the consequences reasonably expected to be known, are where the mother's "rights" ended. By engaging in an activity that was known to her to potentially create a child, she subjegated herself to the responsibility for that potential child - just like the father did. If the child is born, virtually every state requires the father to financially support that child to the best of his ability. Other than JPC and his idiotic ilk, virtually everyone agrees that this is how it should be. Similarly, from the moment of placing her eggs in a position to be potentially fertilized, the mother has implicit responsibility to properly (this is where your argument comes in - "properly") care for her child.

The question isn't whether the mother or child have more rights, to me anyway. They both have equal rights. However, the person creating the child also has the responsibility to care for that child until such time as someone else can take that responsibility. There is no right to kill a child that is unwanted, in my mind. That robs the child of his/her basic human right to exist.