Is there a middle ground on abortion?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2005
Is there a middle ground on abortion?
13
Wed, 04-28-2010 - 11:34am
Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, is there something you could concede to on the other side? Why or why not?


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Wed, 04-28-2010 - 1:53pm
Sure elective abortion up til 26 wks, and only AFTER that point if for fetal and/or maternal health issues.
.
.
.



iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Thu, 04-29-2010 - 1:55am

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.com


Thanks to Spencer (gespenst) for the beautiful signatures!
Lilypie 2nd Birthday PicLilypie 2nd Birthday Ticker
Photobucket
Photobucket




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2009
Thu, 04-29-2010 - 7:50pm

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.

Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding TickerPhotobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-19-2006
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 2:58pm

> 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

Photobucket
*
Follow me to the Unplanned Pregnancy board!Follow me to Hot Debates!Follow me to Abortion Debate!
Photobucket

Lilypie Pregnancy tickers
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2008
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 3:37pm

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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 4:53pm

<<>>

Hear, hear. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Photobucket



Lilypie Second Birthday tickers



Lilypie Fifth Birthday tickers



Photobucket
Photobucket

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-20-2007
Sun, 05-02-2010 - 8:34pm
I sometimes don't know if I can pick a side and stick with it. I think abortion is reprehensible and evil, but there also are extenuating circumstances where I think someone would be justified in having one.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-14-2008
Sun, 05-30-2010 - 3:51pm

It's a simple question with a simple answer: no.


If there's a human being,

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Sun, 05-30-2010 - 5:46pm

<<"At what point does the baby become a distinct human being?">>

At birth:

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.

.
.
.



iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2010
Sat, 06-12-2010 - 12:30am
Why is it that if a someone kills a pregnant woman he is charged with 2 murders but it is okay for a mother to abort? Murder is ending a life, therefore the above law says an unborn baby is living.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting



pregnancy

Pages