Bumper stickers of the confused

[puggymom]

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.

whose life? If abortion is made illegal do you want to see numbers life this again?
Abortion - Risks Of Abortion

Pregnancy itself is not a harmless condition; women can die during pregnancy. The maternal mortality rate (the proportion of women dying from pregnancy and childbirth) is found by dividing the number of women dying from all causes related to pregnancy, childbirth, and the puerperium (the six-week period following childbirth) by the total number of live births and then multiplying by a constant factor such as 100,000. For example, the maternal mortality rate in the United States in 1920 was 680 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (Lerner and Anderson 1963). It had fallen to 38 deaths per 100,000 live births by 1960 and 8 deaths per 100,000 live births by 1994. Illegal abortion accounted for about 50 percent of all maternal deaths in 1920, and that was still true in 1960. By 1980, however, the percentage of deaths due to abortion had dropped to nearly zero (Cates 1982). The difference in maternal mortality rates due to abortion reflected the increasing legalization of abortion from 1967 to 1973 that permitted abortions to be done safely by doctors in clinics and hospitals. The changed legal climate also permitted the prompt treatment of complications that occurred with abortions.

Do you want to see numbers like this again? Because simply making abortion illegal will bring back the back alley butchers. Making abortion illegal may decrease the numbers of abortions but it will not help make them non existant (of course still refering to elective abortions). And how accurate can the numbers be if you are not able to account for every illegal abortion performed? Education is key to see a true reduction in abortion.

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 difference is that the idea behind 'fetal rights' did not exist back then. It is a fairly new movement in reaction to the legaliztion of abortion.

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.

They both cannot have equal rights under the law. One's rights must take precedence over the other.

 

[This_person]

whose life? If abortion is made illegal do you want to see numbers life this again? Do you want to see numbers like this again? Because simply making abortion illegal will bring back the back alley butchers. Making abortion illegal may decrease the numbers of abortions but it will not help make them non existant (of course still refering to elective abortions). And how accurate can the numbers be if you are not able to account for every illegal abortion performed? Education is key to see a true reduction in abortion.

I believe that there are a couple of issues here. The first is that medical knowledge/practices are far superior now. The numbers quoted included all deaths from pregnancy, not just those from "back alley" abortions. Kinda misleading.

Also, you're asking if I think that there should be consequences to people performing illegal acts. Yes, I do. I hate that it is true, but when people do things that are illegal and/or immoral, they usually end up with some kind of negative consequence. Those consequences usually help people decide whether to perform those illegal or immoral actions - because they don't want to risk those consequences.

Again, that abortions will still exist even if they're illegal is not a reason to not make them illegal. If it were, the fact that we have murder would mean murder should be legal (by the same logic - murders happen anyway, so make them legal).

The difference is that the idea behind 'fetal rights' did not exist back then. It is a fairly new movement in reaction to the legaliztion of abortion.

You're suggesting that the new movement would disappear when the need goes away. I believe it would.

We can agree that, to a fine line, the mother and father are responsible for how to conduct their pregnancy, and the law should not be involved. To me, that fine line includes intentionally causing harm (as would be determined by the "reasonable person" factor - punching in the gut, slicing yourself open, drinking poison, sucking the baby out and grinding up the body, etc.) - not whether to have a C-section, or EXACTLY what is eaten, etc. You make a good and valid point with that.

They both cannot have equal rights under the law. One's rights must take precedence over the other.

They do - the mother has the right to her body up to (but not including) the point where she intentionally inflicts harm on someone else. Just like with all other rights.

 

[libby]

So, if a woman's rights have priority, would you support or disdain a woman who chooses to smoke like a chimney, or drink like a fish, while pregnant?

 

[puggymom]

So, if a woman's rights have priority, would you support or disdain a woman who chooses to smoke like a chimney, or drink like a fish, while pregnant?

Again it goes back to the point of just because you have a right to do something does not mean you should. With everything we know about smoking and drinking and its effects on a non pregnant body let alone a pregnant one, no woman thinking of her baby's best interests would do such. That being said it is not up to the government to tell her she cannot.

 

[puggymom]

I believe that there are a couple of issues here. The first is that medical knowledge/practices are far superior now. The numbers quoted included all deaths from pregnancy, not just those from "back alley" abortions. Kinda misleading.

Also, you're asking if I think that there should be consequences to people performing illegal acts. Yes, I do. I hate that it is true, but when people do things that are illegal and/or immoral, they usually end up with some kind of negative consequence. Those consequences usually help people decide whether to perform those illegal or immoral actions - because they don't want to risk those consequences.

Again, that abortions will still exist even if they're illegal is not a reason to not make them illegal. If it were, the fact that we have murder would mean murder should be legal (by the same logic - murders happen anyway, so make them legal).You're suggesting that the new movement would disappear when the need goes away. I believe it would.

We can agree that, to a fine line, the mother and father are responsible for how to conduct their pregnancy, and the law should not be involved. To me, that fine line includes intentionally causing harm (as would be determined by the "reasonable person" factor - punching in the gut, slicing yourself open, drinking poison, sucking the baby out and grinding up the body, etc.) - not whether to have a C-section, or EXACTLY what is eaten, etc. You make a good and valid point with that.They do - the mother has the right to her body up to (but not including) the point where she intentionally inflicts harm on someone else. Just like with all other rights.

I do not think that anyone could argue something like not having the legal definition of murder being against the law. I do not know if that makes sense I am just, for arguments sake, making a distinction between murder, as defined under the law, and abortion, as defined under law.
However I would rather our goal as a society to make abortion be safe, legal, and rare then illegal and dangerous.
I know someone who was about 16 when abortion was illegal. She told me about going with her friend to a back alley 'clinic'. She then told me how her friend started hemorrhaging after they left and had to be rushed to the hospital. She almost died. Luckily she lived but needed a full hysterectomy, at 16. And apparently that situation was not an uncommon one. I do not want to ever go back to that...ever.
My goal is the same as yours...to decrease all elective abortions to almost nonexistent numbers. I just cannot agree to making it illegal and sending some one's child to a butcher. I want that child to have access to a safe, medical procedure. Well depending on the situation I would advocate for adoption first but assuming a decison to abort has already been made.

 

[libby]

Again it goes back to the point of just because you have a right to do something does not mean you should. With everything we know about smoking and drinking and its effects on a non pregnant body let alone a pregnant one, no woman thinking of her baby's best interests would do such. That being said it is not up to the government to tell her she cannot.

But it sounds like you disdain such choices, correct? Why? I have to conclude because abortion is inherently wrong, and you know it in your heart.
Why would you desire for abortion to be safe, legal and rare? Why rare? If a woman has the right to do with her body as she chooses, and there is no one else she is hurting, why rare? Do you desire tatoos to be "rare"? What is the difference?

 

[This_person]

I do not think that anyone could argue something like not having the legal definition of murder being against the law. I do not know if that makes sense I am just, for arguments sake, making a distinction between murder, as defined under the law, and abortion, as defined under law.

But, if the argument is "people will do it anyway", then there should be no laws, because virtually all laws are broken anyway. That was my point.

However, why is it illegal for a man to kill his wife's baby (a la Scott Peterson), but okay for a doctor to do it?

However I would rather our goal as a society to make abortion be safe, legal, and rare then illegal and dangerous.

I agree. I just don't think that saying "hey, don't do this, but it's okay to do it" sends the wrong message. It's really, actually, totally wrong - but go ahead anyway? I'd rather they not go to bad "doctors" for "back alley" style as well, just like I'd rather there be no cocaine dealers (or users). But, that's their choice, not a requirement.

 

[mindy]

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.

Yes they can. They can potentially get a court order and force a csection or threaten to and call the police to convince. I know a couple of people who saidf no, but were knocked out and had csection anyway. Technically, yes, the woman can say no, but really, if they think its in the baby's best interest, or if you sign the general consent form in the hospital then if they deem it necessary, they have your consent.
Most people aren't going to argue if a doctor says its "necessary" though which is incredibly sad and maddening!! Just like the fact that if youre pregnant/birthing then who gives a #### that your entire life you are told to not let anyone touch you "there" unless you give permission and want them to..and yet if some random medical person wants to slice you up and shove hands, arms, and medical junk in there any time they want, then you damn well better let them because "they know whats best" and if you don't, you're killing the kid and yourself.


And YES, women need to know what the heck is going on with their bodies. "OMG, I'm 40 weeks and 2 days and if this kid isn't out in 5 hours, my baby will be 15 lbs and die!!" is such a load of bs. UGH!!!

Csan you tell this bothers me?

 

[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]

Keep bumping your question. I cannot be the only one who has noticed the conspicuous lack of response.

 

[This_person]

Keep bumping your question. I cannot be the only one who has noticed the conspicuous lack of response.

Andy hates being caught stupid. Makes me wonder why he posts so much.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

I've asked you - what other reasons are there for you, someone who calls them self a conservative, to support an unconstitutional law that limits states' rights?

 

[This_person]

I've asked you - what other reasons are there for you, someone who calls them self a conservative, to support an unconstitutional law that limits states' rights?

So, you are suggesting that you have no reason to believe I've ever mentioned any religious or moral argument - which is what you claimed my arguments are?

Good of you to acknowledge you lied. And then used that lie to say I'm equivalent to a Taliban enemy. It's big of you to acknowledge that you fly off the handle like an ####### after only many, many, many attempts to get you to admit it.


It's certainly arguable that the law is unconstitutional. However, until it has been determined as such, the Supreme Court ruled better than a century ago that federal laws supercede state laws - so the state laws are already proven without legal basis until such time as the federal law is successfully challenged and defeated.

No religion nor morals involved, other than following the process of law.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

No religion nor morals involved, other than following the process of law.

So, you support unconstitutional laws?

 

[libby]

So, you support unconstitutional laws?

Any law that supports the killing of an innocent, unborn baby is wrong. It matters not what the SCOTUS says, or any federal or state law. Nothing can make it right.
The question at hand should not be whether or not abortion is legal or constitutional, but is it right.

 

[This_person]

So, you support unconstitutional laws?

Nope, I support the rule of law.

If the law is believed to be unconstitutional, we have a process to follow to make that determination and act on it. There's currently no reason to treat it as unconstitutional, but supporting the state laws that defy the federal law has already been determined to be the wrong way to go.

Do you support defying the Supreme Court?

Do you have an apology for claiming my reasoning was religious, or that you believe I'm comparable to the Taliban?

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

Do you support defying the Supreme Court?

Do you still believe President Obama is not a natural-born citizen?

Do you support defying the Supreme Court?

 

[This_person]

Do you still believe President Obama is not a natural-born citizen?

Do you support defying the Supreme Court?

I never suggested that I felt he was not a natural born citizen. I said that he should end the question by providing the paperwork asked for instead of information which does not answer the question, and that there should be a process to ensure this question cannot be raised again. I've repeatedly said I don't know - because I don't have the information needed. I also said I believe him to be the president until such time as the determination is made that he is not should he ever be required to provide the information sought.

So, no, I do not support defying the Supreme Court (which has never definitively dealt with this question yet, so I'm not sure why you'd ask these two question together).

Do you support defying the Supreme Court, which ruled a long, long, long, long time ago that state laws are superceded by federal laws?

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

Do you support defying the Supreme Court, which ruled a long, long, long, long time ago that state laws are superceded by federal laws?

Yes, I do.

 

[This_person]

Yes, I do.

That would make you a dual-wing extremist, according to our current administration. Left wing because of your belief in violating the law for drug issues, right wing for belief in violating the concept of federal government superceding state government. Kinda funny how that works.



Oh, and in reality (the world away from Obama-think), it just makes you wrong.