The PL slippery slope

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-15-2008
The PL slippery slope
55
Mon, 11-24-2008 - 9:16pm

I was talking to a PL friend of mine. He knows I'm passionately PC. ...and I've helped him realize that being PL is a slippery slope.



Powered by CGISpy.com

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2008
Mon, 11-24-2008 - 9:40pm
I would have a hard time having a civil discussion with anyone who would abort a fetus to save another fetus but would refuse to allow a woman to abort a fetus to save herself. That, to me, is disgusting and not worthy of a response.

pregnancy Photobucket Photobucket
BARACKED2.jpg picture by irishnutmeg
Phot
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-19-2006
Tue, 11-25-2008 - 7:58am

I think restrictive abortion law CAN be a slippery slope depended on how it is worded.

For example labeling a fetus as a full human being and citizen under the law would be a bad idea for more reasons than I care to list, however making a fetus a separate class under the law but still offering it some protection would not be slippery if done properly.

Yes some PLers want ALL abortion illegal but that doesn't mean that has to become the law, some want only abortions for maternal health, some want exceptions for maternal or fetal health, some would allow exceptions for rape.

If abortion were made illegal tomorrow there would be a huge amount of disagreement amongst PLers. Just as not all PCers agree on what (if any) restrictions should be placed on abortion , parental consent, late term abortion, etc.

So yes your friends ideals on what should and should not be legal may (om probably would)set up a very slippery slope but I believe it is possible to provide fetal protection without completely outlawing all abortion or completely ignoring the woman in the situation.

Photobucket
*
Follow me to the Unplanned Pregnancy board!Follow me to Hot Debates!Follow me to Abortion Debate!
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2008
Tue, 11-25-2008 - 1:20pm

I completely disagree, but for the sake of discussion I have a couple of questions.


If we were to provide some rights to a fetus, there would be provisions for fetal and maternal health. Who would be in charge of deciding what that means? Would it be up to each doctor to decide when a woman's health or a fetus' health merits an abortion? Would it be law makers who set an arbitrary and rigid definition? If it's doctors, do they get to decide if "maternal health" includes a woman's mental health? What if she is unable to take a medication because of pregnancy? She's not going to die without it but it will make her life far more difficult for 9 months. Is that a valid reason for an abortion? And who decides what merits an abortion in terms of fetal health? Do we only abort for fatal diseases? What about Down's Syndrome?


I see it as a very slippery slope as it is all highly subjective. One person's "maternal health" is another person's "abortion of convenience." So how would we possibly decide?


pregnancy Photobucket Photobucket
BARACKED2.jpg picture by irishnutmeg
Phot
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-19-2006
Tue, 11-25-2008 - 1:47pm

>> One person's "maternal health" is another person's "abortion of convenience." So how would we possibly decide?<<

we start by not trying to make everyone happy. No matter what law we pass IRT abortion it is going to peeve someone off.

>>If we were to provide some rights to a fetus, there would be provisions for fetal and maternal health. Who would be in charge of deciding what that means? Would it be up to each doctor to decide when a woman's health or a fetus' health merits an abortion? Would it be law makers who set an arbitrary and rigid definition? If it's doctors, do they get to decide if "maternal health" includes a woman's mental health? What if she is unable to take a medication because of pregnancy? She's not going to die without it but it will make her life far more difficult for 9 months. Is that a valid reason for an abortion? And who decides what merits an abortion in terms of fetal health? Do we only abort for fatal diseases? What about Down's Syndrome?<<

Honestly I am not even going to pretend to have all the answers on that one, I wish I did but I am not quite that smart. When looking at maternal health the best guidelines I could come up with would be similar to self defense guidelines. How much risk does a born person have to post to your life before killing them would be legal? Could the same amount of risk work for fetal threat?

Fetal health IMO is WAY harder because we don't allow euthanasia of the born so it would be hard to give a fetus essentially more rights than a born person.

Honestly I don't even think abortion is the place to start IRT offering fetal protection. I would start with much stiffer penalties for women who give birth to a fetus with illegal drugs in it's system or that has Fetal alcohol Syndrome. Abortion can be dealt with without legislation I believe, however I don't think legislation against it has to be a slippery slope if it was worded very carefully.

Photobucket
*
Follow me to the Unplanned Pregnancy board!Follow me to Hot Debates!Follow me to Abortion Debate!
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2008
Tue, 11-25-2008 - 6:56pm

In Canada we did have legal restrictions on abortion to provide some protections to the fetus,

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2008
Tue, 11-25-2008 - 11:15pm

I think that your intentions are good, but I don't see how it could work. In my country, there is no hard and fast rule for justifiable homicide or self-defense. It really is up to the discretion of the police department, the district attorney's office and, if need be, a jury and a judge. The law also differs from state to state. For example, some states require you to try to flee the situation before resorting to physical violence. How do you flee pregnancy? Some states require you to be in imminent danger, meaning your life is in danger now. The threat of your life being in danger isn't enough to justify self-defense. So what constiutes "imminent danger" in terms of abortion? Does PIH that is about to turn into preeclampsia work? Or do a woman's kidneys

Phot
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-19-2006
Wed, 11-26-2008 - 10:02am

I would assume they would have an easier time because the guidelines would already be in place and at least they would have somewhere to start.

As for the rest I am not quite sure how teh laws change from place to place but I do know there is a lot of grey area in self defense laws I just figured it would be a good place to start

Photobucket
*
Follow me to the Unplanned Pregnancy board!Follow me to Hot Debates!Follow me to Abortion Debate!
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-11-2005
Sun, 11-30-2008 - 8:25pm

>The voters in Washington just voted to allow doctor-assisted suicide to terminal patients. Does that mean women in Washington would have an easier time acquiring abortions for fetal health issues because they do have a provision for doctor-assisted euthanasia?<

Ok I live in Washington and help get this voted into law. We can go get abortions for fetal health issues with no problems now. Washington has had their own RvW since 1970.

~Sam

~~Sam stitches well with others, runs with scissors in her pocket. Cheerful and stupid.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 1:23pm

<<*abortions* to D&C miscarried babies>>

It's not possible to abort something that has already spontaneously aborted. You can't end a pregnancy that has already ended or kill a person that is already dead. You can poke the body with a stick, but not kill them a second time.

Everything else you said, though, yes it's a slippery slope to that.

Photobucket

pregnancy calendar








Photobucket

Photobucket




iVillage Member
Registered: 01-13-2006
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 3:55pm

<<*abortions* to D&C miscarried babies>>


I think the above statement was in reference to some women having difficulty getting a doctor to remove a dead fetus in the manner safest for the woman due to restrictions on the types of procedures a doctor can perform.

"It is right to be contented with what we have, but never with what we are."

Pages