Or not
**
Ok. Had to chime in. As someone who is currently 24 weeks pregnant, I have to say I am still pro-choice. Now, it’s interesting that people bring up the third trimester debate, being that I felt this baby move for the first time after only about 13 weeks. This would be considered the very end of the 1st trimester or beginning of the 2nd, depending upon which time measurement system you’re using. My little girl (sonograms say) is currently flipping around and doing all kinds of things. I’ve even felt her have the hiccups! If you put your hand on my belly, you could feel her kicks/punches/movement.
I choose to have this baby because I want it. I would never, however, tell someone else that they HAD to have theirs, or that the must terminate one. And that would be at any stage of the pregnancy.
I would believe that any woman who finds herself making the choice to terminate a pregnancy is making the hardest decision of her life. And it is just that… HER decision/HER life. Now, just because I am loved, and love this baby, doesn’t mean that the person down the street has the kind of wonderful life I do. And it’s not my right to tell her what she must do. I wish I could help her.
I also think that anyone going into this kind of decision didn’t get there by calculated thought. Seems there probably aren’t a lot of women out there who say, “What the heck! Let’s do it and if I get pregnant, I can always have an abortion!” Abortions are (usually) considered for “oops” type pregnancies.
As for testing for abnormalities, too, they come later in the pregnancy than 1st trimester. The quad test, for example, tests for Down Syndrome, trisomy 18, and neural tube defects. It is done between the 15th and 20th week of pregnancy and measures substances that come from the developing fetus and placenta and are present in the mother’s blood. The substances measured are alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), estriol (a form of estrogen) and inhibin-A.
Now, these tests also don’t PROVE you have a problem. Test results show a woman being in a higher risk group. Further tests are required to determing if you REALLY have one of these (although they scare the hell out of the mother if you’re told this)
So, by the time all this has been done (quad tests and sonogram/amnio), you’re well into your 2nd trimester, or even beginning your 3rd. Say your results show a problem. Then you have to make a harder decision… Do I terminate this fetus that’s been moving around inside me, or do I have it and deal with the consequences (whatever they may be).
Only the person carrying the child can make that determination. One can only hope that she has a “supporting cast” to help her through the rough time to come. Even after the decision is made, it will be one she’ll live with the rest of her life, no matter which direction she chooses.
Pyffe:
And presumably fewer still who go around thinking, “Gee, rather than mess with all that icky contraception stuff, or bother to get an abortion in the first couple weeks after I’m late with my period, I think I’ll wait until the seventh or eighth month and let it grow in me and eat all my calcium and nutrients and give me morning sickness and a sore back and stretch marks, and then I’ll go in to have them hack on me with surgical instruments and carve it into pieces and remove it from me. Yep, that sure appeals to my sense of laziness and entitlement!”
Maybe I missed something- did you misread me, or are you replying to someone else who did? I never said anything about morality in my OP. All I talked about was the circumstances under which each group thought abortion should be permitted by the government.
Anyway, I think many of you have picked up on the entire point of the OP. It’s a little strange to see pictures in the news of demonstrations in which limited-choicers are screaming “babykillers!” at extensive-choicers. Why don’t you ever see pro-lifers screaming at limited-choicers? Aren’t they babykillers too? If you grant that abortion is never permissible because it’s murder, then the situation starts to seem like the International Red Cross teaming up with serial killers to scream accusations at Nazis. “Murderer! At least I only kill homosexuals!”
Personally, I think it’s because morality is, as I’ve said several times before, largely a matter of fashion. People are told “this is how the lines are drawn, this is what’s right and what’s wrong,” and they don’t really think about it too much beyond that. Abortion is generally presented as being the absolutely uncrossable gulf in American politics. Either you’re pro-life or pro-choice, there’s no middle ground, and never the twain shall meet. If the pro-lifers realized that many, if not most, of them are really pro-choice, then maybe people would find a way to take a deep breath and think rationally about this debate.
To address the OP: there are not two sides to the abortion issue. There are in fact no sides to it. Let me explain…
If two folks wanna have an arguement about something (and reach at least the semblance of an agreement) they must agree upon the point that they are arguing. But this is not the case with abortion. All you hafta do is look at the labels to see why abortion will not be resolved given the current environment.
Pro-Life: pretty powerful, I mean how can you be “Anti Life” (though I have read of a legal arguement that would fall in that category).
Pro Choice: we all love freedom right? And freedom is dependent on choice.
You see the problem yet? Choice. Life. We’re not even arguing about the same thing!!!
The real “problem” with abortion is, really when is a person a person? When does do they enjoy the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of being an American citizen?
And there’s the real rub.
Roe v Wade is wrong and should be overturned because it skirts the issue. But then the 14th Amendment does say " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. " Notice the word “BORN”. Seems pretty clear to me.
Abortion is a constitutional issue alright. But it has NOTHING to do with the ramblings of EITHER side of the current problem.
I would go further than pro-choice. I feel that if a woman doesn’t want to have a child, she not only has the right to terminate it up to and including the moment of birth, but even after birth.
If she feels that she can’t love or care for a two year old, for example, she should be able to just leave it by the side of the road. Why is this different than killing an 8 month old fetus? Both are helpless. In both cases, the woman makes a choice, a personal choice, that no one should be able to judge.
I feel there are very few women who would choose to get pregnant and then have an abortion for the heck of it at 8 months and there are very few who would have the child and kill/leave it by the side of the road at 2 years. So, it would obviously be for a good reason, otherwise they wouldn’t do it.
One church even says abortion is OK, b/c fetuses are not people. They are parasites. At least this was how one friend put his church’s position in college. But 2 year olds are parasites too. So women should have the choice.
What is wrong with the above logic, if anything?
This is the most important constitutional barrier in play? What are you talking about? Even if your point is accurate, where in the Constitution does it say that the law protects only U.S. citizens? Can I kill a non-citizen with impunity? The 14th amendment argument in Roe v. Wade was weak all right, but not because of this silliness.
bri1600bv
Effectively, yes, except “not by the side of the road”. A woman should have the right to terminate pregnancy any time she pleases, but not (IMHO) to insist that the embryo/fetus/baby die as a consequence. Within the margins of trivial additional risk to her, it is reasonable for the state to decide to invest the additional resources to keep it alive. And, similarly, a parent of either sex shoudl have the right to terminate parental authority and responsibility. The “she” in your example should be able to leave it, if not by the side of the road, then at least at the appropriate office where people surrender their children for adoption or placement in an orphanage. That’s assuming, of course, that there is not another custodial parent, into whose care the child would be remanded instead if such were the case.
And, of course, again by the same logic, child support would be voluntary-only, as it is cruel and ridiculous to make a non-custodial parent retain responsibilities that a single parent could surrender. (But if you decline the responsibility you relinquish all the authority)
the religious right has consistently been a enemy of basic human rights in the face of some vague morality. Personally,im sick of it. No one should expect anyone to relinquish control of thier bodies to the state. Afterall, there are religious sects who consider organ transplants to be immoral. No one wants those outlawed.
What alwasy made me wonder, back when abortion was illegal, was :
Why were the doctors arrested or threatened with arrest?
Why not the women?
Weren’t they capable culpable beings, or were they just considered victims of doctors?
It doesn’t make logical sense.
I don’t know about your options Ben, I’m reallly not interested in whether abortion is right or wrong, murder or not.
I just believe I don’t have the right to interfere in what someone wants to do with their body (beyond offering advice and support), and that no one should have the right to interfere with what I do with mine.
That’s what makes me pro-choice. I will support people in their choices, whether or not those are the choices I would make.
What if someone wants to take their body and pick up a shovel and bash someone else’s head in?
Why is that wrong? Would you still say that you don’t “feel you have the right to tell someone what they can and can’t do with their body” (beyond offering support)?
Why? Why does society have laws against using your body to bash someone’s head in? Isn’t that interfering with their “choice”?
If it were me, I would support someone bashing someone else’s head in, even if I wouldn’t personally have made that choice.
In my thought this IS the only contutional barrier. Again, and please pay attention this time: no PERSON has the RIGHT to deprive another PERSON “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. The only question that really should be addressed is “When is a person a Person”. Once that is settled (for at least the time being) the current “abortion issue” is moot.
Well at least you acknowledge that. I hate to be inaccurate about little things like our Constitution.
You’ll notice the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment. A person that is under the jurisdiction of the US (whether they be citizens or not) are entitled to the protections of the US. So no, you can’t kill them. Sorry.
Again, IMHO, the 14th Amendment argument is not “weak”, it is in fact the ONLY relevant arguement. Just look at any discussion about abortion including this thread. Nothing but folks pointing the finger at each other and screaming. One side is Fascist, the other Murderers.
Lacking a uterus, frankly, I couldn’t care less. But until we as a group decide exactly what is that we disagree about we’ll never, at the very least, decide to argue about the same thing.
let me ask you this, bri. How would you feel if you needed a transfusion and were told no. A group of hardline Jehovah’s witnesses lobbied for a law against it because they believe it is immoral, all this man made technology interferes with God’s plan for your body. So now you are forced into living thier way. Making the choice THEY made FOR you. You didn’t decide what to do with your body, they did. And i’m not even a Jehovah’s Witness, you think.
My point exactly.
Of course, definitions are just practical tools developed to communicate about a shared, inter-subjective reality, so it will never be settled unless we start to have a common practical purpose relating to fetuses. Naturally, the moment we have a common practical purpose, the debate itself will disappear.
Or do you wish to suggest that the word “person” reflects some objective Form which connects with it self-evidently? Oh, wait, if that were the case, we’d have no debate going on, either.
For illustration, a “common practical purpose” the sort of which tends to sort our reality would be, oh, communication. In some cultures a child is not truly a person until it can speak, which also helps avoid the troubles related to high mortality.
A 1992 survey of nine educated professionals, namely the US Supreme Court, found there are indeed more that two positions on abortion. See Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) 505 US 833.
There are lots of questions which can be asked
Should a waiting period be required before an abortion?
Should the doctor be required to give the patient a set of mandated information on potential health risks?
Should a minor be required to get parental permission before an abortion?
Should a married woman be required to notify or consult her husband before an abortion?
Should the husband have a veto power over the procedure?
Should certain means of abortion (chemical, Late term D&E) be disallowed, but other maintained?
Should a doctor or pharmacist be obligated to assist or perform an abortion?
And so on…
Moreover, the justifications behind the answers to the above questions varies from person to person. In short, there is not a clear division of “sides.” I think this is healthy. People should consider their views carefully, and not adopt a position simply because their ideological compatriots do.
I disagree. Allow me to outline an argument which does not rely on the status of the fetus as a human:
In the US, you can’t be forced to so much as donate your organs after death, even if this decision costs someone their life. You have a nearly absolute right to control what happens to your body.
Suppose your eight year old is in need of a bone marrow transplant. You are the only known potential donor. No one is going to force you to donate your marrow. Your right to control your body is too important.
Now suppose you are pregnant. Don’t you have the same right to control your body? Even if the fetus is a full human, you can kill it to maintain your right to control your own body, just as you can kill a ordinary human (as above). Abortion should be kept legal, even allowing a fully human fetus.
A 1992 survey of nine educated professionals, namely the US Supreme Court, found there are indeed more that two positions on abortion. See Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) 505 US 833.
There are lots of questions which can be asked
Should a waiting period be required before an abortion?
Should the doctor be required to give the patient a set of mandated information on potential health risks?
Should a minor be required to get parental permission before an abortion?
Should a married woman be required to notify or consult her husband before an abortion?
Should the husband have a veto power over the procedure?
Should certain means of abortion (chemical, Late term D&E) be disallowed, but other maintained?
Should a doctor or pharmacist be obligated to assist or perform an abortion?
And so on…
Moreover, the justifications behind the answers to the above questions varies from person to person. In short, there is not a clear division of “sides.” I think this is healthy. People should consider their views carefully, and not adopt a position simply because their ideological compatriots do.
I disagree. Allow me to outline an argument which does not rely on the status of the fetus as a human:
In the US, you can’t be forced to so much as donate your organs after death, even if this decision costs someone their life. You have a nearly absolute right to control what happens to your body.
Suppose your eight year old is in need of a bone marrow transplant. You are the only known potential donor. No one is going to force you to donate your marrow. Your right to control your body is too important.
Now suppose you are pregnant. Don’t you have the same right to control your body? Even if the fetus is a full human, you can kill it to maintain your right to control your own body, just as you can kill a ordinary human (as above). Abortion should be kept legal, even allowing a fully human fetus.
**I am paying close attention. Now, please explain how a phrase from the Declaration of Independence is applicable in constitutional arguments.
**What exactly is the argument you were advancing in your prior post? Were you suggesting that only people born in the U.S. (who would enjoy 14th Amendment protection) are persons? If not, what did you mean by this:
**What exactly is pretty clear? If you are suggesting that it states that citizenship exists only with those who are born or naturalized in the U.S., um, yep, no argument here.
**No apology necessary; I believe it’s a fine public policy. Also, no need to laude my acknowledment that U.S. citizens are either born or naturalized in the U.S. Doesn’t seem like a large concession on my part.
Again, then what was your point? Since you allow that the 14th amendment phrase you cited does not imply that the law will not protect the lives of non-citizens, what are you saying?
Indeed. What 14th amendment issue are you invoking? The one in Roe v. Wade–the one I referred to, the right to privacy–is indeed a weak one. Whichever one you are arguing isn’t clear to me. May I have some of the clarity of definition you espouse?