Abortion is NOT a woman's right

Why shouldn't women that have abortions be sterilized? It will stop them from having more abortions.

 

There is a difference between the state intervening and preventing births and a mother preventing her own birth. It's her right.

 

Women should be sterilized if it is her CHOICE. And women should be informed of all methods of birth control at the time of having an abortion. Very few women ever have more than 2 abortions. That's pretty low considering that women deal with almost 40 years of fertility with no birth control achieving 100% effectiveness.

 

And if they choose not to be sterilized, to continue to engage in vaginal sexual intercourse, and to not simultaneously use multiple forms of contraception, then it is their CHOICE to risk getting pregnant.

 

(My bold)

Tks, I'll look @ your examples. @ least the one case in IN was overturned, on grounds of double-jeopardy (see: http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110527/NEWS/105270353). Time to look 'em up.

 

What's the big deal if a woman is sterilized? I believe that the laws should state that if a woman has an abortion, she must get sterilized afterwards. If she wants to be a selfish jerk and kill her own offspring, then she at least should not be allowed to reproduce anymore.

 

Forcing people to be sterilized is a Nazi/Hitler type of thing, it's not the American way. Let's consider this for a moment....suppose a young girl has her punch spiked by a guy at the prom and he proceeds to take advantage of her. She becomes pregnant as a result of the encounter which, I remind you, she did not choose. The most likely solution for her problem is abortion, and now you think a 16-year-old girl should be sterilized. If you people can't ruin a girl's life in one way, you find another way. Why can't you just butt out and let her solve her problem as she sees fit?

Oh, BTW, a "selfish jerk" in this situation would have the baby and expect the taxpayers to pick up the tab.

 

Absolutely not. Throughout history, society changes and law must change to keep up with it. Some laws are outdated, some are just plain silly, etc. Slavery used to be acceptable, until people realized that it was morally wrong, hence the changes in the law. Abortion is no different. What was acceptable 40 years ago is not necessarily correct for today.

Would you like more examples of unreasonable laws?

 

That's a totally different story. If she was raped or somebody tricked her into becoming drugged so that they could take advantage of her, then she would not have to be sterilized, since she didn't even chose to get into that situation in the first place. However, if the sex was consensual, and then she had an abortion, then she should be sterilized afterwards.

 

She just wasn't thinking clearly. She didn't put up a fight, you know like a REAL rape. She can't prove to the abortion gestapo that it was a rape. So you want her to be sterilized at age 16, for one brief mistake. I repeat that's a Nazi/Hitler type of thing.

You just can't get off this punishment train of thinking. If the woman were to be required to be sterilized, we should also sterilize the man responsible for making her pregnant. Even if it was a brief mistake. One time only.

 

If the woman became pregnant as a result of the rape, she would not have to be sterilized. But women that have consensual sex, get pregnant, and then have an abortion, should be sterilized.

So what if she is sterilized? What harm does it do?

 

(My bold)

It's actually quite the US thing. The NAZIs lifted most of their eugenics ideology from the US, through the Brits - see War against the weak: eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race / by Black, Edwin. New York : Four Walls Eight Windows, c2003.
Subjects
• Eugenics -- United States -- History.
• Sterilization (Birth control) -- United States.
• Human reproduction -- Government policy -- United States.
• United States -- Social policy.
• United States -- Moral conditions.
Description: xxviii, 550 p., [14] p. of plates : ill. ; 24 cm.

It's reading to give you nightmares.

 

What do you think sterilization is? Perhaps being boiled in water for fifteen minutes? Sterilization means a man or woman can never have more children. It's a very big decision and not one that government should be making. Unless you're a Nazi/Hitler supporter. Regardless of what you think, pregnancy and children should not be used to punish women for choosing to have sex. Regardless of what you think, sterilization is not a reasonable punishment for choosing to have sex.

 

None of the cases mentioned has been convicted, I've looked through the Internet & don't find anything to that effect. The last two, of course, are recent. The OH case is particularly problematic:

Ariel Castro - OH - kidnap, etc. - http://www.worldmag.com/2013/06/cle...h_murder_for_terminating_victim_s_pregnancies -
"Defense lawyer Craig Weintraub told The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer, “It would be unprecedented to pursue the death penalty for the alleged death of a fetus, without the death of the mother. We are hopeful that the prosecutor’s office and the public understand and agree that the death penalty should never be used as leverage to attempt to obtain a plea bargain.”

"The fact that no human remains of any kind were found on the property adds complications: “How does the prosecution prove a pregnancy? How do you prove that Castro caused the termination of the pregnancy?” said Michael Benza, a Case Western University law professor who has also represented death row clients.

"The nature of the crime makes it likely that, death penalty or not, Castro would face a life sentence if convicted on rape charges alone, said Hofstra University law professor and death penalty expert Eric M. Freedman."
(My bold in quote)

 

Thanks for the information. Perhaps we can all look forward to more of the same in our future if Anders and Sam's Ego have their way.

 

Conviction was the criteria you originally challenged. I would like to know, in the first case, why was a man charged with murder as a result of a traffic accident?

Of course I know the UVVA was a thinly veiled anti-abortion bill from the beginning. Not, as it was purported, a law to protect pregnant women. If the pro-life movement must resort to trickery to achieve their goals, maybe they should rethink them.

 

OK - You're welcome. "Looking forward" isn't the phrase I'd use, more like Orwell's characterization of the future under the Fascists: A boot in the face forever.

I'm sure I won't get invited to join the Master Race, & besides, I hate marching, & my German is quite poor by now ...

Confusion to our enemies!

 

It's not to punish the woman-it's to stop her from having abortions in the future.

 

It sounds like you want the government to use all its resources policing and punishing women. It is not the government's job to discourage abortion.

 

I believe that abortions should be illegal.

 

Right, just like El Salvador.

 

What's so wrong with El Salvador's abortion policies?

 

And.....

The opinions of those scientists, medical professionals, lawyers and dictionary editors (quoted for you ad nauseum) do not make any sense?

A corporation is a "person" for the purposes of law too. However, it's quite different as the way that prenatal children are being recognized.

You see, no-one can be charged with "murder" for killing a corporation.

And they can be charged with murder for illegally killing a prenatal child.

I hope you can appreciate the difference.

Disagree all you want to...

The child already has life.

Non living things don't metabolize, grow, develop and mature.

Prenatal children do all of those things.

 

Do you still claim that a person can only be charged for the murder of the prenatal child if they are accused of murdering the mother too?

 

Ironically, he was deemed to be more responsible for the untimely death of the child than the mom would have been held had she pain him to kill it at an abortion clinic.

There was no trick.

Those lawmakers have kept their promise and the UVVA has not been used to criminalize abortions.

They have - however - left the door open for others to use the wording and premises established in that law at a later date.