Bacchus Posted November 6, 2003 Report Posted November 6, 2003 I saw on the news that Bush just ratified a law which restrict abortion to 14 weeks. I know that pro-life/pro-choice fights are very fierce in US. Can't professionals just use common sense? We also have issues about abortions and our laws might be a little lax regarding it but the woman who needs or wants to be aborted goes through a psycho/social test, her antecedents (drug use, multiple abortions, irresponsibilities, etc) are checked. She's followed before, throuhout and after the abortion. Then she's counciled toward using pills or other contraceptive (as severe as sterilization - so long as she's consenting). Private clinics are available but they're operating with the same pattern. I feel that those new measures goes against women rights and put all the pressure on them. The guy on tv said they would be encouraging adoption and abstinence...i never heard anything about men's responsibilities or women's rights, just protect the babies. It sounded like: Protect the babies, kill the mother thing...and that's quite...going back 50 years and more... hehe, guys, go buy a life insurance on those balls of yours
Yupa Posted November 6, 2003 Report Posted November 6, 2003 Court Blocks New Abortion Law Shortly After Bush Signing Ceremony
MonteZuma Posted November 6, 2003 Report Posted November 6, 2003 I don't have an opinion on this issue in particular, but in general I support the woman's right to choose....but 3 months? Wouldn't a woman know she was pregnant before then? Seems a late stage to make up your mind that you want an abortion? The thing about the whole issue of abortion, especially in the US, is that it is overly politicised. Get the issue off the political agenda altogether. Bush is wrong for making a song and dance of this issue in the courts. But I guess he has to do something now to save face. Monte.
Bacchus Posted November 6, 2003 Author Report Posted November 6, 2003 yea, it's possible that a woman wouldn't know after 6 actually. It's very rare because it needs quite a lot of contingency to happen but it's not unheard of. Consider this: A woman gets pregnant at the beginning of her ovulation, or shortly after her period, which is also possible. If she doesn't suffer from nausea and other short term symptome (which are easily !@#$%^&*ociated with gastro-intestinal trouble...like food poisoning, etc.), she'll have to wait for 3 weeks for her next period. then 1 week before trying the test if the period isn't coming. That is if she have reason to belive that she's pregnant. then she can begin the abortion process. That's !@#$%^&*uming she's regular. In case of irregular cycles this can change dramatically. some women can go without period for a month and a half and more. Plus the time it takes to know you're late, plus the time it takes for the administrative process to take its course. Plus anything personal that can go wrong. Furthermore, More often than not, heavy handicaps (mental and/or physical) can't be seen before 5 to 6 months i think. i think it would be tragic to coerce a 19 years girl who just had her first experience to live trhough the trauma of having to raise a heavily impaired baby. that's just an exemple but i'm pretty sure there's a lot such stories.
MonteZuma Posted November 7, 2003 Report Posted November 7, 2003 Yes...I guess so.....OK. I have an opinion now..... If the US invested more into education and social services instead of fighting this never-ending battle against abortion in court and in government then they would probably have a better outcome (ie less unplanned pregnancies - and less abortions - and probably a more cohesive society to boot). US abortion rates are already higher then other comparable countries with less restrictive abortion policies and more flexible at!@#$%^&*udes to sex, pregnancy and abortion in general. The best solutions to social 'problems' are through education and awareness programs - not top-down regulations from government and ill-informed preaching by clueless do-gooders.
shellshock Posted November 7, 2003 Report Posted November 7, 2003 monte, i don't think the us CAN educate anymore about safe sex and make people more aware. from the time I was 10 years old, it was taught every year of public school, but we still had girls getting pregnant. Guys are too lazy to buy condoms, don't wanna use them, girls let them continue with their lame excuses, oops they got pregnant, BAM want an abortion. Except maybe in private schools, where they can teach what they want, I don't know ANYONE who wasn't taught all about safe sex, making wise decisions, and the risks of unsafe sex, including STD's and pregnancy. I personally would rather see someone have an abortion than raise a child they don't want. It's not fair to bring a kid into the world who has parent's that don't care for him. Adoption is a great option, but has it's own set of problems. I understand having the limits on how far into a pregnancy an abortion can be performed, and yes, I DO believe the government should control that. If a person is having unprotected sex, and feels that they could be pregnant (whether or not they've missed a cycle) they can always go to a doctor and find out. I think a woman should have the right to choose always in those first three months (or however long the actual limit is) but not after. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be having unprotected sex in the first place. As far as handicaps go bacchus. that's a whole SEPERATE discussion about human engineering/quality of life. Who is to decide when a child's handicap is severe enough to warrant a late abortion? Many handicapped people (some with severe handicaps) are happy in life (even if we don't understand why). I don't know where I stand on that, other than I want to have children who are handicap free (but I don't know whether or not my wife and I (future) would abort to try for handicap free children). That was a long rambling paragraph, my apologies
Aileron Posted November 7, 2003 Report Posted November 7, 2003 Well, I somewhat don't agree with the courts. It is the legislature's job to make laws and the court's job to interpret it. Yes, technically they are interpreting the cons!@#$%^&*uion in this case, but they are getting closer and closer to trying to power away from Congress. I will respond to the pro choicers with Don Marquis' arguement on the subject. In his artical, (which I cannot remember the name) he first asks the question: Why is murder under normal cir-*BAD WORD*-stances wrong? He then points out that a murderer does not take away his victim's life. That would be impossible. What the murderer DOES do is deny the victim the remaining portion of his/her life. Marquis came to the conclusion that murder is wrong because it denys a victim a Future Life like Ours (FLO). He then came to the conclusion that since fetus's have a FLO, that abortion is immoral under most cir-*BAD WORD*-stances. Exceptions include cases of rape, and less than two weeks from conception. If anyone is interested, I can find an exact name of the article an post it. It is kinda lengthy though.
Bacchus Posted November 7, 2003 Author Report Posted November 7, 2003 Although I understand this position i've always been uneasy with it. I mean i'm not sure what to think about that. Following this line of thought the youger you are the more value you have. A foetus life seems more important than it's mother's... That's where it hurts for my part.
VEGGETO Posted November 7, 2003 Report Posted November 7, 2003 Am not even going there! http://www.gohome1.com/nutkick.gif
Aileron Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 Although I understand this position i've always been uneasy with it. I mean i'm not sure what to think about that. Following this line of thought the youger you are the more value you have. A foetus life seems more important than it's mother's... That's where it hurts for my part. I personally don't have a problem with that. That explains why infantcide is regarded worse than homicide by some. However, Marquis does answer it on your concerns as well. Murder at any age is grounds for the most severe punishment we give. Thus, no matter what, you are always giving the greatest punishment possible. Basically, murdering a 60 yr old is 100% wrong. Murder of a 40 yr old would be instinctively worse, but the value at 60 is already 100%. Since you cannot get higher than 100% wrong, murder us the worst crime possible at any age.
Fluffy White Bunny Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 Is it really murder if they arent even alive yet?
Darkflare Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 Is it really murder if they arent even alive yet? well thats part of the debate is when is it actually considered "living" i.e when there are brain waves or when the heart starts beating?
Fluffy White Bunny Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 Scientifically speaking, an organism needs to have 6 things in order to be defined as living. 1) MovementYes, the fetus can move.2) Ability to consume energy.Yes, the mother provides that through the umbilical cord.3) Ability to excrete.Yes, same as #2.4) Ability to maintain a controlled body temperature.I don’t think so. The mother keeps the baby warm, and it probably can't produce any heat on its own.5) Ability to react with its surroundings.Hard to say. Because of the lack of brain development of an unborn feturs and the spontaneous nature of an infant's movements when they are born, I would say No.6) Potential to reproduce.Yes, the fetus can eventually grow up into an adult and reproduce. In my optinion, a fetus does not fit all of these requirements, so they cannot be classified as living.
Wild Luck Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 i see it from this perspective: human female is only capable of getting pregnant in 3 day that lives its ovulo, you add the 48-72 hours an espermatozoid lives and its 5-6 days of 1 full month, abortion is for stupid pplz!!!
Yupa Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 In my optinion, a fetus does not fit all of these requirements, so they cannot be classified as living. a fetus is obviously a living thing, don't be re-*BAD WORD*-ed the question (if there is one in this -*BAD WORD*- thread) is whether or not one living thing (mother) should be allowed the right (that they already have in many cases) to end the life of the living thing they are partly responsible for creating and perhaps what cir-*BAD WORD*-stances would give them that right
Darkflare Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 4) Ability to maintain a controlled body temperature.I don’t think so. The mother keeps the baby warm, and it probably can't produce any heat on its own. cold blooded animals need an external source to warm their bodies up.
Fluffy White Bunny Posted November 8, 2003 Report Posted November 8, 2003 They still maintain a body temperature different from the outside, and external sources help them do that.
Yupa Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 I don't care if their temperature is -800 degrees, they're a living organism and you are ridiculous if you think otherwise now, if you want to argue whether or not they are sentient - that's something else altogether
Paine Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 So, what the people agreeing with the law are saying is "I wish i was killed in the womb because my life sucks"
Yupa Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 no, they're probably either saying a) "ahhhh, I got raped, -*BAD WORD*-...I don't want this kid" or "ahhhh, I'm an irresponsible hoe - I didn't mean to have this baby and it'd be a real drag to do so - -*BAD WORD*- it, I'm going to kill the little -*BAD WORD*-er..." or c) "ahhhh, I'm an irresponsible hoe - I didn't mean to have this baby and it'd be a real drag to do so - I'd be really wrong to kill it, but I'm selfish and I may as well"
Silk Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 theyre either saying 1) Aaaaaah! That stupid -*BAD WORD*- Akai knocked me up, must destroy his seed! or 2) Theres a garden tool in my womb?
Aileron Posted November 9, 2003 Report Posted November 9, 2003 Is it really murder if they arent even alive yet? Actually, yes, as long as there is a being to be considered and it has an FLO, it qualifies as murder. This byp!@#$%^&*es the question of whether or not the being is currently alive and rational.
Bacchus Posted November 9, 2003 Author Report Posted November 9, 2003 But don't you think a woman also have a FLO? I mean, even if i get a woman pregnant i can always just go away and -*BAD WORD*- responsibilities. I won't be accused of murder, merely of being irresponsible. But in a woman's case it looks different, she becomes a murderer. I think laws should be made for both parents at the very least. the father should also be accused of murder. And what about the woman's life? why does it always come second best? And what about vasectomy (spelling)... you'd be denying a lot of "possible" FLO...
Recommended Posts