<333 KSig RC. I also know people who haven't regretted having an abortion -- not that I think the fact that some women may regret it is even close to a valid reason to prohibit abortion.

I don't see how being pro-choice and anti-death penalty is any sort of contradiction. The reasons for being pro-choice and those for being anti-death penalty really have nothing to do with each other. However, I don't understand how someone can be pro-life because "life is sacred" or "life must be protected at all costs" and pro-death penalty. To me, that sounds like OMG WE MUST SAVE BABIEZ BUT KILL THE CRIMINALZ!!!111! I don't get it.

You should check out the "win this thread" thread - now THERE I was being a dick.


Also I was serious - none of this should be a morality issue. I completely respect you for feeling the way you do, and I know you're OK w/ how I feel, but I'm saying from a legal standpoint it just doesn't make sense.

No, i wasn't there, but that's completely irrelevant, and you know it.

HEY, we agree on something!!!!!!! :D

I also don't see any contradiction with being on one side for abortion rights and an opposite one with the death penalty. It's not just about life vs. death you know, there are many more issues involved.

Abortion is the death penalty for a fetus, but now you're trying to argue a right to life before being born. My whole personal opinion is that until you exit the womb, there is a chance something can go wrong and that includes an abortion. No, I don't think 3rd trimester abortions are ok unless there is a serious late-discovered problem for the child. The death penalty is a punishment for a crime against safety and welfare of the public. The only flaw is that sometimes an innocent person can be convicted. But let's not convert this thread into the death penalty debate....

The whole viability of a fetus is recognized in many court opinions. Yes a fetus has a heartbeat, fingers, eyes, brain, toes, etc. before it is born. However, my argument is not whether or not the fetus has the characteristics of life, but can it sustain itself yet. You can stretch the argument that at conception it has developed the genetic characteristics of life, but you don't see fertilized eggs hopping around and eventually turning into kids.


As for legislating based on religious morality, I think that is incorrect. Just because religions follow the same belief that something is wrong doesn't mean the law is based in religion. Thou shalt not steal and robbery are the same, but you won't see any court opinion's quoting Moses as the definitive source. Kepping people from harming other people is why we have laws. They do have their roots connected to relgious beliefs, but I couldn't find the first amendment anywhere in religious scriptures.


I think the modern approach is to say there are 3 positions for abortion:

Pro-life=life is sacred
Pro-choice=if you want one, you should have a choice
Pro-abortion=complete control over a woman's body

Just pick a side and move on I guess :D


RUgreek

I think there are some sick individuals who not only would kill the baby at any point prior to it popping out the mother, but wouldn't mind having a one week grace period to kill it after it's birth.

-Rudey

I don't find it as that strange because a lot of pro-choice people disagree with pro-life people as to when life actually begins. Many pro-life people that I've encountered feel that life begins at conception. Therefore, an abortion=murder.

Myself, being pro-choice, do not believe that life begins at conception so I don't view abortion as murder. I view the death penalty as murder because a life is being taken. (My view on life, not yours.)

Yet, you support a method of death, such as the death penatly in "some cases" even when the system "is not error free." That's flawed to me, and I would never suppprt something that has the potential to take the life of an innocent person.

But that's only my view and I don't expect you to feel the same way, nor would I go as far as to feel that it be necessary for you to feel this way, being forced to by law or otherwise. Which is pretty much the entire point of the thread and one that RC has hit home a few times...

I just wanted to quote this because it's one of the best statements in this entire thread.

I have been thinking about this much of the day and, while I've stated many times that I'm pro-choice on this board, I want us to think about the logistics of making abortion illegal. Many have mentioned that abortions happened before it was legal and it was horrendous, but let's think about other logistics.

It seems that most agree that in the case of rape or incest it might be ok to be legal. So, if we are in a situation where it's illegal EXCEPT for cases of rape or incest, how do we define these things? Does there have to be a rape conviction before the woman is allowed to abort? Do we use an honor system? Will this increase false rape reports by women who are desperate to get an abortion? Do we include all victims of statuatory rape, so all teens would still be able to get abortions? How do we prove incest? Do we do DNA samples on the fetus before the abortion to be sure? Watch Maury's "Who's the daddy" shows and you'll see how hard it is to prove who the daddy is sometimes. Most also agree that if the life of the mother is in danger, it is ok to abort the fetus.

Then, how far do we take this? If a woman deliberately does things that might induce a spontaneous abortion, such as heavy lifting, not staying on bed rest if it's recommended, etc, do we charge her then? What if she continues to smoke, drink or take medications that could be known to harm a fetus? Do we prosecute her then? What if she has a medical condition that isn't completely life threatening, but only life altering and her meds can seriously damage the fetus but if she doesn't take them, then it can also be damaging to the fetus AND herself? Who decides if it is medically necessarily? The doctor who performs the abortion? Another doctor? What if she spontaneously aborts because of things she does BEFORE she knows she is pregnant? What if she gets pregnant while on the pill and continues taking the pill after she knows she is pregnant and the fetus dies? Who do we prosecute for the abortions? The doctor? The nurse? The woman seeking the abortion? Do we toss a 13 year old kid into prison for seeking a back alley abortion?

It was those types of questions that were in the original Roe v. Wade complaint.

I can honestly say that I have several friends who have had abortions who do not regret it at all. Most of them are happily married now with children who they love very much because they had them when they were emotionally, physically and financially ready to have them. One of them is a divorced single mom who didn't have the financial resources to go through a high risk pregnancy since she has two teenagers to support. I have worked with numerous mentally ill teens who have had abortions and I can honestly say that carrying a pregnancy to full term would not have been mentally healthy for them. I'm not sure who made the comment that a pregnancy is a 9 month inconvenience, but I don't think that person is a mother. A pregnancy is a lifetime commitment for a mother.

The primary reason that I am pro-choice is because I don't feel that I can make that type of decision for someone else without walking in their shoes. (I also have thoughts about when life begins.. and it's not at conception). If abortion is illegal, then it follows that since abstinence is the only way to ensure that you do not get pregnant, then if you aren't physically, emotionally and financially capable of having a child, then you shouldn't have sex. I don't see that happening in our society, nor do I think it's fair to expect that.

Dee

excellent post, AGDee

Especially about abortion being "okay" if a woman was raped, etc. Where's the line? What counts as rape? A criminal trial could take well more than the 9 months of gestation. Plus appeals. Some go on for years and years.

If it is so wrong, then why do some people believe that abortion is okay in some circumstances (rape, health reasons) than others? If abortion is murder and wrong, then why is is okay in some circumstances?

Do pro-lifers really want to see a country where abortions aren't out there? All the back alley, illegal procedures that would end up killing many women?

Also, as a general rule, conservatives have been more in favor of state's rights, rather than federal government running more (though recently this has seemed to fly out the window)- why is it the federal gov't's job to rule on this? It's a state's rights issue.

I do think it isn't right but I would rather it be legal and safe then illegal and unsafe. But, I would like to think that our population would be smart enough not to use it as BC.
My objection is we all know how babies are made and should be responsible for our own actions, legality aside there are cases where they are needed.

It will remain legal and the disagreements will countiune, life you don't support them and don't have them there should be no issue.

KSig RC, I had made a response by response list to your post, but am scrapping it only because this is a topic to which there will always be division, and I do not want to be the cause of further animosity.

However, since you did impune my honesty on a few points, I'm going to answer those, as shortly as possible.

Prior to writing my originial post, I did a web search to see what was the earliest point of viability. The majority of the responses said 20-weeks, which is why I went with that. Since you seem to doubt it, try it yourself. I can PM you the last address for the family I know in Atlanta; we have fallen out for other reasons, so the address is 2 years old, but you are welcome to it.

We obviously disagree to the meaning of the word "moral"; it's not worth arguing. I do thank you for calling me "lovely", though.

Yes, I do know know at least one woman who was "almost aborted". She is my foster aunt. At the age of 50, she still suffers from the side effects from the numerous times & ways her mother tried to abort her - up until the sixth month. She does NOT want her name given out; it isn't easy to daily remember how much your own mother must have hated you. There is also a gospel singer whose name I could not find, but whose entire testimony is based on the fact that she was aborted, but a nurse noticed her struggling for breath in the trash can, and saved her life.

The rest of your argument is again based on our disagreement with the word "moral", so I'll bow out here.

I just saw this:

One nurse described an aborted baby who was left to die on a counter in a hospital utility room. The baby was accidentally thrown in the garbage and later found by hospital personnel. Another nurse described a 23-week infant born alive after an abortion and placed in a specimen dish to be taken to the lab, even though the baby was gasping for air. The nurse named the child Baby Hope and held her for three hours until she died.

From http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL10/..._survive_a.htm

Honestly, I don't know that I'd ever heard of it before, nor had I thought about it, but it's interesting.

I can see where people are coming from with their opposition to abortion; but really, is this enough to make a law that takes away the choice? Again, as I said in my first post, I think that what this case meant goes beyond abortion rights, and reversing that decision would be dangerously close (if not equal to) legislating morality.

As much as some of us would want to, this is not an argument we could make based on knowing someone or some people who had abortions.

Whether it's interesting or not, it's not a reason to make laws prohibiting abortion.