There is no right to have an abortion

Those are cases of wrongful prosecution, not necessarily bad laws.
I do agree though these laws should establish more of a burden of evidence to help prevent them from being misused by prosecutors.

Example: Just because I am charged with assault for shooting a stranger with a squirt gun does not necessarily mean that was a bad law. The law was just inappropriately applied.

 

And this still does not address my point that the cohort of women having abortions are more likely to be in the category of poverty and disadvantageous social conditions - something your "study" (read pro-life blog) glossed over

Maybe too - what you would call at "reckless life" is really women having a life

When one looks at Finnish law the question of the socio-economic impact on this study becomes more questionable

One doctor's signature is enough in the case of terminations 0-12 weeks when the applicant is under 17 years old or has passed her 40th birthday, or if the applicant has already given birth to 4 or more children regardless of age. Otherwise two doctors' signatures are required. Reasons for approval are the potential physical or mental distress if the pregnancy runs to term; or if the pregnancy arises from a serious crime (e.g. rape or incest) or if an illness of either parent would make it difficult to provide a normal upbringing for the child

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Finland

The law itself seems to stratify according to socio-economic situations

And this answers quite nicely why the study was done in Finland and not, say Australia, which has a nationalised health service much like Finland and has the added advantage of being able to track the abortion rate (federal) despite the varying state laws

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Finland

 

Really???


]Hundreds of women have been arrested, convicted, jailed, detained in mental institutions or forced to endure medical procedures as a result of the "criminalisation of pregnancy" over the last four decades, a new report has found.

In the first study of its kind, to be published on Tuesday, researchers from the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) identified 413 criminal and civil cases across 44 states involving the arrests, detentions and equivalent deprivations of pregnant women's liberty between 1973 and 2005. NAWP said that it is aware of a further 250 cases since 2005. Both figures are likely to be underestimates, it said.

The report, which will appear in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, found that women were denied a wide range of basic human rights, including the right to life, liberty, equal protection and due process of law "based solely on their pregnancy status".

It found a wide range of cases in which pregnant women were arrested and detained not only if they ended a pregnancy or expressed an intention to end a pregnancy, but also after suffering unintentional pregnancy loss.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/15/criminalisation-pregnancy-women-study

Actually this deserves it's own thread

 

"liberty" to inflict harm on their fetus?

 

If the foetus is harming them - yes

And since a large proportion of women seeking abortions live under the poverty line - harm comes not only from physical stressprs but also from socio-economic stressors

But are you willing to jail every woman who wants an abortion? How about women taking abortifacients? Eating Paw Paw (known abortifacient)? Drinking while pregnant (known to cause foetal alcohol syndrome)?

 

If there is an over 50% chance that the woman will die if she continues the pregnancy (incredibly rare), then there are virtually no pro-lifers who would advocate forcing her to continue the pregnancy.

Most pro-lifers do not believe socio-economic stressors are an adequate justification for abortion.

 

I include socio-economic factors - if the woman is living below the poverty line at the time of pregnancy then the pregnancy will cause harm

Who are you to declare what degree of harm she should accept?

 

So are you saying you prefer to lose a few women as long as we save every possible fetus? If that is the case with pro-lifers your judgement is suspect.

 

Great post as usual but I especially liked this little gem, it is too, too perfect and dead on accurate:


""" Maybe too - what you would call at "reckless life" is really women having a life""""



It really speaks to the core of the Anti-Abortion Squadron.....the loss of control of women scares the beejaysus out of them

 

You do NOT know what most "pro-lifers" believe.

What do you think is an "adequate" reason for a woman getting an abortion?

She's unconscious, close to death after hours of agonizing pain , the fetus is grossly deformed and will die the second it is born, her financial status and criminal record have been checked, there are signed character references...and the doctors call you to get your approval for an abortion....Gee, then can she?

 

So does this mean you would block an abortion if there is 25% chance of the mother's death? That's still pretty risky (but it's not your life so I guess you don't really care about the woman or any other small children she might be trying to raise).

Most pro-lifers are fixated on rescuing every fetus so their opinion about socio-economic stressors is suspect.

By the way I am still waiting to learn if you believe the government should have the right to force somebody to donate part of their liver to rescue a fetus in utero.

 

Certainly liberty to abort the process before the fetus has reached the point of becoming sentient. After that, you might have reason to start balancing its right to survive versus the mother's right to survive. By that point in the process, the woman generally WANTS to have a baby but has encountered serious problems with the pregnancy. Legislation only serves the purpose of winning votes for politicians and puffing up the egos of the pro-lifers.

 

You mean those often debunked, factually incorrect studies that fail to take into account previous mental history

- - - Updated - - -

the study also fails to take into account any previous mental issues (ie before pregnancy and/or abortion)

 

1. So if she "only" has a 49.5% chance of dying....she can't have an abortion?

2. Most "pro-lifers" do not believe there is ANY justification for abortion. In some cases, not even....if not having one...would kill the woman (as long as the fetus survived).

 

I've already destroyed your self defense argument in several threads now. You still don't seem to grasp what justifies a self defense killing. Let me help you again, it involves UNCERTAINTY. You must be in a situation in which you do not know if the attacker will kill you. There must be uncertainty in your mind, whether true nor not, that you might not survive the attack. Most pregnant women do not possess this state of mind (and if they do, there are exceptions for life/health of the mother). Oh, and you can't premeditate a self defense killing. That makes no sense.

 

No , you have never destroyed the self defense argument.....and obviously you have no clue what it is....

 

But if you insist on pretending that a fetus is a sentient person, then you have to accept the consequences. We have to consider motive of the fetus, choosing to stay inside the womb, and consent by the woman. I do not have the right to demand that you give me one of your kidneys just because I need it to survive.

Personally, the weight of the scientific evidence convinces me that the fetus is NOT a sentient being until sometime in the third trimester, so in my opinion there is only one sentient being involved until that point in the pregnancy.

 

Every time an abortion is performed a living human being dies. What exactly do you say to this fact?

 

I know enough about it to understand that uncertainty is a key principle in justified self defense killing, and premeditation is not.

 

But a woman's uterus is designed to have a baby, it's not at all unnatural or extreme in the sense of having to give up a kidney. The body is just carrying out a natural function, and if left to itself, the eventual result will likely be a baby coming out.

Because it is a natural function, and because it is unlikely to impose severe harm on her person, one could argue that the woman does not have the right to say no when another life hangs in the balance.

Then, add in the fact that the situation probably resulted from the woman's own choices, and it becomes hard for the woman to try to shift away culpability (when you are culpable, that means you give up certain rights).

 

You are ignorant of the principles on which this nation was founded.

1) Individual rights and freedoms were put "Above" the legitimate authority of the State.

In general, an individual has the right to do anything they want with their body or their time so long as they are not interfering with the rights of another.

Rights end where the nose of another begins.

 

I imagine it will be very safe for you in the waiting room. How nice

- - - Updated - - -

Let me fix this sentence for you


Rights end where the nose of another PERSON begins.

 

But you would only be inconvenienced for a few days (compared to months of inconvenience for the woman). Often a woman is NOT well designed for birth (Cesarean deliveries in 2014: 1,284,551). If the government has the right to force ANY woman to accept an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy, then it has the right to force ANYBODY to give up a kidney, or a lobe of their liver, to save a fetus.

Most women, in fact, do NOT say no to a new baby. But when a woman says NO, neither you nor the government has the right to force her to continue the pregnancy. Technically the fetus has "life," but it certainly cannot be a sentient being until sometime in the third trimester. After that investment on her part, you would find even fewer women who would want an abortion.

If a woman made the choice to have a baby, then she will not be trying to have an abortion. If she finds that she is pregnant against her wishes, it is not really your business whether she was raped, or coerced, or birth control failed, or she lost her job, or she found out she has cancer, or any number of reasons. There is no person to protect until there is (at least) a sentient mind present.

 

Why do people keep pretending there is nothing to protect a fetus from before the 3rd trimester? Is your position that no ill will, or intentional injury, can be inflicted upon a fetus before it has a "sentient mind"? Or is it your position that we should not protect a fetus from such ill will?