LMAO....around 26 weeks, you THINK THAT IS RIGHT? Then you want to restrict her rights to her own womb....right? How is this pro-choice? The position then becomes anti-woman, anti-choice and freedom.
And the way you prevent that is EARLY access to abortion. However there will always be those who do not recognise pregnancy early, either for mental health reasons or social reasons or age who will require an abortion at that stage The 11 year old raped by her step father The mentally handicapped girl who has been "playing" with her boyfriend (yes it happens - and what do you do with a daughter with the mental age of a three year old who is pregnant - and likely to have a disabled child?) The woman who already has four children and her husband and her have both lost jobs as the only factory in town closed The woman who has been told it is either her or the baby. Now at the low rate of abortions seen in other countries at this stage (notably UK where it is cheap and available) that just about accounts for all of the abortions done at this stage. We could screen if you like but who is to sit in judgement?
You keep repeating this argument - same thing over and over and we keep ignoring it Why? Because it is irrelevant. It does not apply
This is NOT a thread about late term abortion. If the thread title refers to late term abortion, you can discuss it. Otherwise, can members (certain members only) STOP turning every thread into the same old discussion about late abortions. If you continue, I will consider this to be trolling, and will have to start deleting posts.
And I will keep making the arguments because they are relevant and they speak directly to the hypocrisy of the pro-abort position. Usually those that ignore it...are the ones who are not sure of their position, and whose backs are against the wall, so its better not to enter in to the conversation.
To be clear....then you will not tolerate any discussion of abortion beyond 24 weeks...in any thread, unless it has late term abortion in the thread title? Because past 24 weeks is late term. I just want to be clear on what you mean.
LMAO I can't for all the obvious reasons....LMAO. I will say this. Not all women can get abortions if they want. Our laws restrict them...as do the people who condone them.
You guys can always take this part of the discussion to one of churchmouse's late term abortion threads so that neither of you are in violation of the rules or going off topic when Mak said to get back on. =)
No they cannot and that is a fault of the creeping legislation restricting access, for "people who condone them" well in the main that is pro-lifers
You are welcome to discuss late term abortions - in the relevant threads. Do not turn every single abortion thread into a discussion on late abortions. That is all I ask.
Often seems that pro-choicers are almost like the Libertarian wing of the Liberal party, if that can be said. I guess since you love government control so much, you can focus all your energy in battling the one area where you do not want it.
We have to assume that the woman will make the best choice for herself while also acknowledging that people do make mistakes. About 20% of women that have abortions later regret their decision while about 80% believe that having the abortion was the right thing for them to do and they would do it again in the same situation. But the woman has a very limited amount of time to make her decision. She basically has the first three months to decide. This is where over 90% of women that do have an abortion decided to have the abortion. From the 4th month through the end of the 6th month she can make the decision to have an abortion but she must also get a doctor to agree with her as a doctor must consent to allowing the abortion. After the 6th month an abortion can only be performed based upon a medical necessity. The woman can elect to no have the abortion but she places her life or health in serious risk by not having an abortion. Having an abortion is not elective choice of the woman per se but instead she's making a decision about whether to risk her life or health by allowing the pregnancy to continue. Very, very few abortions occur after the 20th week of pregnancy and all are based upon preserving the woman's life or health. But the choice, in all of these cases, must be the woman's because we cannot make that decision for her. We can only provide her with as much information as possible, which the doctors do, and then hope that she makes the best possible decision for her life. None of us are qualified to make that decision for her.
We absolutely do not have to make such an assumption. We make no such assumption in any other homicide cases so there is no justification to make it here.
Pointing out hypocrisy of someones statement is not discussing the topic. I do not discuss late term abortion...but point out the hypocrisy when someone says..they don't deny women rights and then say they are against abortion past 24 weeks. This is making a statement not debating the issue of it.
Did you just make up those stats? And stats can be wrong. Unless someone has talked to every woman who has had an abortion...all you can do is to guess. You have no clue how many women suffer....because MOST WOMEN don't admit to the abortions they had. Don't you find it odd that I am the only women on this entire site that will talk about her abortion? How many women debate on this site? Based on stats that even Guttmaucher gives, there should be more women represented here who have had them. If women suffer...most do it alone. Please discuss how the restrictions relate to the freedom the pro-abort position says women have. Is there freedom? You just mentioned a timeframe where women can decide. These restrictions tie women's hands behind their backs and they take freedom away. The pro-abort position is all about CHOICE and FREEDOM. Why should a woman loose the right to her body? Your last sentence...."But the choice, in all of these cases, must be the woman's because we cannot make that decision for her." This is not true based on what you said in your post. You remark about all the restrictions...that are placed on the woman. So the choice is NOT HERS IN ALL CASES. What you said is wrong...it's not the case. And the decision is made for her past 24 weeks. That is the law...she has until then to decide.
Homicide relates to the Right to Life which is addressed by the 14th Amendment which states, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life.... without due process of law" and while this relates to government the same prohibition applies to individuals that cannot deprive another "person" of their life except as provided for by law. Homicide is that taking of the life of a "person" outside of "lawful sanctions" and the "preborn" are not "persons" under the US Constitution. Under the US Constitution homicide (i.e. the taking of a life outside of lawful sanctions) cannot be committed against the "preborn" even though we have "fetal homicide" laws that are actually addressing the battery or murder of a woman that results in the death of a "non-person" within her body. In none of the "fetal homicide" laws do they refer to the "preborn" as "persons" and the laws are addressing a violation of the Rights of the Woman that is a Person and not the "preborn" that is not a person. It is the battery and/or murder of the woman that the 'fetal homicide" laws are actually addressing under the Constitution. They are fundamentally no different than passing a law that imposes a greater penalty if the assault on a person results in the losing of an arm or a leg. It is the victim (i.e. the Person) that is suffering a greater loss that warrants additional punishment regardless of whether its a woman losing her "potential child" or any person losing an arm or a leg because of an attack. http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/amendment.html This has always been a problem for the "anti-abortionists" because they simply refuse to read and understand the US Constitution and the related Supreme Court decisions. The purpose of government in the United States, as so eloquently expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is to protect the Rights of the People (persons) and the "preborn" are not "persons" under the US Constitution. The "Preborn" do not have a "Right to Life" because they're not "Persons" and all Rights exclusively relate to "Persons" under the US Constitution.
The fact is though that even if one woman doesn't suffer then her Rights as a Person must be protected under the Constitution related to abortion. Since none of us can possibly know how many women "suffer" or "don't suffer" there is no way we can impose our "opinions" on the woman. Always remember that if a woman "suffers" it was her choice as there are no mandatory abortion requirements. Not one single woman has been forced under the law to have an abortion, not one. People suffer all of the time because they make wrong decisions but we allow that because individuals are responsible for their own decisions so long as those decisions don't violate the Rights of another Person and no one's Rights are being violated because a woman chooses to have an abortion. We can't logically legislate "good decisions" when we would be legislating "bad decisions" in so many cases.
Shiva_TD said, Does her rights include being able to have a late term abortion? Does the law protect her choice and rights to have one? Does "rights as a person"...apply to that? At least you admitted that no one can know how many women suffer. Many here say...that women don't suffer at all...and one can't say that, it is an untruth. Your saying that if a woman suffers its her fault. ...the suffering is deserving because she is the one who did it to begin with, right? She should not blame anyone but herself. Right? That it was by her actions that the suffering came about, right? Great!!!! That is what I am saying about abortion. If a woman has sex and gets pregnant, she has no one to blame but herself. She brought on the suffering, the consequence and thus should do the right thing. Is killing the right thing? If it was her actions...then the father should not be held liable...its her fault...she should have to deal with it. She should have to suffer, pay for the abortion herself. We allow people to make the wrong decisions...but should killing another living human be one of them. Should we tolerate that in society? I believe an abortion violates the rights of the unborn in the womb. And if you are for ANY RESTRICTIONS AT ALL...you are essentially taking rights away. Do you believe in taking the womans rights away as far as when she can abort? SCOTUS....changed morality in America. They stated in their ruling that basically killing living human children is ok. They said women had the right to privacy.....ONLY UNTIL 24 WEEKS. Then...they take women's rights away...because the morality issue kicks in. Where they wrong?
I have covered this repeatedly, there is a MUCH more recent Federal Law that takes exception to your assertion that children in utero are not persons, and this law has not been challenged constitutionally. As you also mention below, there are numerous fetal homicide laws that OBVIOUSLY recognize the personhood of fetuses. Nothing you posted here makes a rational argument. In actual reality, the Constitution is silent with regard to the rights of children in utero. I am sure our forefathers never envisioned a society wherein women wanted to kill their own unborn children intentionally. "Fetal homicide" laws OBVIOUSLY recognize the personhood of the fetus, as a homicide cannot be committed against a non person.
Late term abortions can only be authorized based upon a medical necessity. It is never an elective option of the woman. The only "elective" option really presented to the woman is whether she doesn't want the abortion and is willing to possibly die or suffer serious medical harm if she chooses to continue the pregnancy. None of us has any "moral" authority to require a woman do die by requiring her to continue a pregnancy. Not all "suffering" is equal. By analogy a person might have an infection in the leg and they could "suffer" pain in having a doctor treat it. They would suffer far more pain if they didn't allow the doctor to treat it and later had to have their leg amputated. I personally believe that all women "suffer" to some degree when they have an abortion but studies have also shown that 80% of them, even though they suffered, believe they did the right thing and would do it again. By a "small amount of suffering" the abortion prevented a "greater amount of suffering" for them which is why, under the same circumstances they've said they would do it again. The laws of the United States are never supposed to be based upon subjective morality but instead are supposed to be based upon protection of the Inalienable Rights of the Person. Protection of the Rights of the Person were the foundation for government in the United States as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Once agian "killing" refers to the wrongful taking of the life of a "person" and the US Supreme Court was very progressive in it's Roe v Wade decision in allowing any restrictions on abortion under the law because, as established in Roe v Wade the "preborn" are not "persons" under the legal definition. The fact that the "preborn" were not "persons" under the law was undisputed in Roe v Wade. Had a "conservative" interpretation of the Constitution been applied then there would be no restrictions on abortion at all because the "woman" is the only "person" related to pregnancy. As I've stated, and it's true, the Roe v Wade decision was a huge victory for "anti-abortionists" because it was a very progressive interpretation of the Constitution where "Rights of the Person" (i.e. the Woman) were infringed upon based upon "potential personhood" where the fetus at viability was not a "Person" entitled to a Right to Life under the Constitution. To make the argument that the Rights of the Woman were not infringed upon "enough" under progressive interpretation in the Roe v Wade decision is really a hollow argument because the real argument is why were they infringed upon at all?
Shiva_TD said, So our laws take womens rights away is what you are saying. And the pro-abort community backs up those laws...laws that they say deal with privacy. And if a woman would want for whatever reason (it is her business, right?) her hands are tied. Why does some of the pro-abort community support this restriction? I had an abortion and I never was part of a study. I know a lot of other women and none of them were ever in a study. Who are in these studies? Certainly not all women suffer from abortion. To make an observation just about the women on this forum...and the ones I debate, I highly doubt any of them would suffer...they are rabidly pro-abortion to the point that a few are even pro-late term abortion. Who knows however you never know unless you have one. I don't believe stats are that legitimate. They can't in any way get a correct sampling. I don't know where you pulled that stat from but...your using it to legitimatize abortion, and you can't do that. Not so. Our laws tell us basically what is moral. And the people making law...are biased. SCOTUS did not take into account the unborn pre-24 weeks. Science says something completely different than how they ruled. If the Constitution did not protect the unborn before 24 weeks...why does it after 24 weeks? Pro-aborts say there is nothing there that speak to personhood at all...throughout nine months...yet SCOTUS gave personhood at some point...because today abortion is illegal after 24 weeks. Does the Constitution speak to unborns past 24 weeks? Could you show me where if this document does that? Why do you suppose it is against the law to abort in later weeks? They aren't people are they? The conservative interpretation is the MORAL ONE. The liberal one is devoid of anything good. It is the one covered in innocent blood. That is the one you support. What is progressive about taking womens rights away? The courts TAKE THE RIGHTS OF THE WOMAN AWAY...BY NOT ALLOWING THEM TO GET AN ABORTION IN LATER TERMS. There is nothing potential about the life in the womb. Pro-aborts say reproductive freedom is a womans basic right. Do you agree with this? Do women have control over their bodies? No...so says SCOTUS. The fact is in relation to the right to control my life....in abortion....it becomes the right to hurt and oppress others for MY advantage. Kill the unborn human in my womb...for MY ADVANTAGE. But progressive interpretation....still denies women the right to their bodies. Why can't you see this? For pro-aborts....abortion rights are fundamental for the advancement of women. But the fact is abortion rights are not inherently linked to the right to abort. How can women achieve equality without control of their reproductive lives? The only way they will have control..and to be equal to men...is to allow them total freedom of their bodies...in this case the right to kill at nine months. ARe you in favor of this? "There is no I in uterus"...so I would say....you would say yes. Right? SCOTUS...NOT IN THE UTERUS, LAWS NOT IN THE UTERUS, YOU AND I NOT IN THE UTERUS.
