Pregnancy & Parenting Communities
Nope. I'm sorry, but it makes absolutely no logical sense for me to be inconsistent. If I say that this decision should not be in the hands of the courts, but rather between the woman and her trained physician, then that should always be the case. Rules for some and different rules for others are at best arbitrary and at worst politically driven. This is the practice of medicine, not political science. Allowing there to be laws against abortion past a certain stage of gestation opens up all kinds of doors for people who would like to have it banned outright. If you take the pro-choice out of the decision, even only for some people, then it's not pro-choice. Plain and simple.
And frankly, I don't feel the need to "concede" any point to pro-lifers. They're the ones who want to impose their laws on other people, not me. I'm not trying to force them to have abortions, or actually force them to do anything at all. But they would like the ability to force me to do all kinds of things, and for that I do not wish nor am I obliged to grant them anything.
Powered by CGISpy.comThanks
I'm with Holly on this one. The one place where we should all be able to come together on is reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. I would think that everyone, pro-choice and pro-life, should be able to agree on increased access to birth control and sex education. But that isn't the case and I'll never understand why. Why is it that pro-choice organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, seem to be the only ones out there working towards making birth control readily available and affordable? And why is it that pro-lifers are the ones advocating abstinence only education?
I have no desire to give up ANY of my decision making when it comes to my health care and my body. But when you have a group, such as the Pro-Life Movement, who, for the most part, won't even attempt to stop the problem that they are so passionately against before the fact, it makes me even less willing to concede on my part. I'm fighting for my own body, my own rights and I won't give that up to a side that is willing to do very little except name-call, intimidate, and reduce women to second class citizens. No, thank you.
> The one place where we should all be able to come together on is reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies<
That and possibly more support systems for women who are in undesirable situations. For example I think if there is a documented history of abuse a man should loose all rights to see and children he fathers with a woman so a woman can make a choice about if she wants to continue a pregnancy without the threat of being tied to an abusive ex for 18 years
I don't feel there's anything to concede. The idea of conceding any ground on a medical decision isn't something that I'd be willing to accept. If we concede on abortion are we willing to concede on ART? How bout concessions on cancer treatment? Diabetes protocols? If the answer is no to concessions on these medical procedures or issues why should the answer be yes to abortion?
I'd like to see less unwanted pregnancy, more education, better post birth support for women who decide to continue a pg in less than ideal circumstances and for the need for abortion to decline because all my other wishes are helping to make it so.
Hear, hear. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
It's a simple question with a simple answer: no.
If there's a human being,
<<"At what point does the baby become a distinct human being?">>
Australia Division 3 - Homicide: Suicide: Concealment of Birth: Abortion
156. When a child becomes a human being A child becomes a person capable of being killed when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not and whether the umbilical cord is severed or not.
Canada (Hansard Extract)
Currently a human being is defined in section 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada as follows: A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
(a) it has breathed, (b) it has independent circulation, or (c) the navel string is severed.
USA In current United States law, at the moment of birth a biological being becomes a human being. By contrast, in declaring in 1973 that abortion is a permissible medical procedure, the U.S. Supreme Court said, "The unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." (Hardin 1982:138) The transition to the status of full humanity is viewed not as a biological fact, but as a legal or cultural fact. There is a practical aspect pointed out by Retired Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark: the moment of birth is known, but the moment of conception is speculative. "...the law deals in reality not obscurity--the known rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation." (Swomley 1983:1)
UK What is a human being?
What do the Courts say about this?
The courts have asked this question in relation to the foetus and a corpse. In this context the courts are very much guided by medical opinion, and less by moral principles. The central question they ask themselves is at what stage in the process of birth does a foetus become a person, and at what stage in the process of death does a person become a corpse. Essentially the courts have decided that foetuses and corpses are not persons. **********************************************************Therefore:A zygote/embryo or fetus does not have rights that supersede those of the woman, whose body, health and life are at risk with each and every pregnancy and/or childbirth. It is well within her rights to choose the health care risks she wishes to assume.