An unborn child...
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): An unborn child...
I have a simple question that I am sure will have very "unsimple" answers!!!
I am very pro-life. I'll state that now, because I feel it is only fair, since I am beginning this topic. However, my question is this.
If abortion is legal based on the fact that the unborn child is not yet a child, then how can someone who harms a pregnant woman, but kills the unborn child be prosecuted for killing the baby? Don't get me wrong, I agree with prosecution, but this just brings up the question of how one person can be charged with "murder", yet the mother can have an abortion, which essentially leads to the same result, legally?
Has anyone ever wondered where the lines are in cases such as these? If an attack on a woman that is say, five months pregnant, results in the spontaneous abortion, ie a miscarriage, should the attacker be prosecuted for murder?
You are not being prosecuted for "murdering a child" rather you are being prosecuted for depriving the mother (or the family) of the child's life, I think - I need to check it out. Also the person doing the assaulting did not give mother a choice. It is very different.
Ame
A medical abortion is done with the woman's consent. The woman's right to choose.
Actually, I don't think the laws are predicated on depriving the mother or the family of the child's life. I think it is another back-door effort by the pro-life crowd to give legal personhood to the unborn child/fetus. The thinking, I am told, is that if it can be made illegal to cause the death of an unborn child in the process of a crime, that is one step towards making the unborn child have legal rights separate from those of the pregnant woman.
As to how a perpretrator can be charged with two deaths (or, if the mother survives, which does happen, one death and one attempted murder/manslaughter), that's simple. State legislatures pass laws. They stay in effect until and unless they are overruled by a court which has the power to overrule them, which would be the state or federal supreme court. So until some convicted person makes a constitutional challenge, probably up to the U.S. Supreme Court, the laws stand.
I think it should be considered murder of an unborn child if the child was viable outside the womb (which is NOT the case with abortions). For example, Lacy Peterson. Her baby would have been able to survive outside of the womb at the time of her death. Therefore, 2 viable lives were taken by a violent act. I support a surviving parents right to sue in civil court for the death of an unborn child (regardless of gestation) by a **violent crime**, because that parent has suffered emotional pain because of the wrongful termination of an otherwise healthy pregnancy. It gets hairy here, because I am pro-choice, and don't think a father should be able to sue a mother who aborts the baby, because the mother has rights to make medical choices over her own body. This whole subject is a very grey and sticky area. Then again, my whole stand on abortion is it's a woman's right to choose, but the choice needs to be made before that child is far enough along to survive outside of the womb, and as medicine advances that point is getting earlier and earlier.
But would there be a case against the perpetrator if the pregnant woman whose pregnancy was ended by a criminal act didn't want the child anyway?
Doesn't it all come down to whether or not the pregnancy is wanted by the pregnant woman?
We could draw the line at viability, but then partial birth abortion would have to be outlawed, and the pro-abortion (ooops! That's pro-choice) crowd is not about to let that happen without a fight either.
[and the pro-abortion (ooops! That's pro-choice) crowd is not about to let that happen without a fight either.]
Is that necessary?
No kidding! Get a grip!
And Ditto Crystal.
Why so defensive about that remark? Honestly, I have never understood why it's "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" when the Pro-Choice are Pro-Abortion. All that means is that you are not against abortion. So, in turn, that means you are "for" abortion. Not saying that you would have one, or anything like that. But if you are for it, you are for it...
Not at all true. Pro choice is just that- pro- CHOICE. My beleifs lie in the govt not having a say in ANYTHING I do to my body. I don't think anyone is "pro-abortion", it is about our rights as people to not have the govt dictate our ability to make decisions about our own bodies.
And obviously you thought it would be offensive or you would not have purposefully worded it "ooops".
There is a huge difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion! I am personally (for myself) anti-abortion. I can not fathom what must go through the mind of someone who has one but and this is a huge BUT! I am not going to foist my ideas and principles on someone else. I believe that we should have the choice to regulate what will and won't happen to our bodies and that includes whether we should be pregnant or not. I am not pro-abortion but I am pro-CHOICE for all women. I do not think that any one of us is important enough to dictate the services that are available for other women. Choices mean that I can CHOOSE to be pregnant, I can CHOOSE to use birth control, I can CHOOSE to use the morning after pill, I can CHOOSE to put my child up for adoption and I can CHOOSE to have an abortion, just as you can. We can even CHOOSE to abandon our baby (in a safe environment) without repercussions. These are all choices that someone can make and if one of those choices is removed, why can't any of the others be taken from us also? Since many birth control options are abortifacients, should those no longer be available to women? Who decides which are and aren't allowed? Not me...and I don't think you have that right, either.
Well said Cori!
Just to make it clear, I wasn't the one who initially wrote that post. I was just asking a question. I guess I consider pro-choice and pro-abortion hand in hand. Not trying to be offensive or smart here. I'm just saying I think of the terms in a different way. When I say pro-abortion, I don't mean I think anyone goes out and tries to talk people into having an abortion instead of a baby. I just mean that you are for abortion as in that being an option.
I am pro-choice in a lot of things. But when it comes to abortion, I am pro-life. But if I were to make the statement I was pro-choice about something else, people would automatically assume I mean regarding abortion. So I just wonder why it's not called pro-abortion instead of pro-choice when just concerning abortion.
I guess none of this makes much sense, sometimes I find it difficult to get the thoughts in my mind typed out.
Sorry Adena- as I was rereading I realized I combined your post and the other as one!
No worries! 
We aren't "pro-abortion", many of us would personally not have one, but believe in a woman's right to choose. I am quite offended by the snarky little "pro-abortion" remark. How about the pro-lifers leave other people to make their own decisions?? And for the record, I am pro-choice, but am against late term abortions (after 20 weeks) unless medically necessary. You act like we're all "Kill babies and suck their brains out for FUN!!! YAY!!! Another dead baby!!!" In reality, I think it should be a woman's right to CHOOSE what she wants to do. If you outlaw abortion completely, there will be cases where mothers AND babies die, because of problems with the fetus, there will be back alley abortions with clotheshangers (YES, that DID happen pre-RvW, and is documented). This country allows people to make all kinds of decisions about their bodies, and about their children, but because some people don't believe in abortion, they think they have the right to dictate everyone else's decisions. So, I take it back, I'm not pro-choice. I'm PRO-RIGHTS!! I want the right to choose what to do with my body, the right to choose how to raise my children, the right to live in the manner I want to live in. THAT IS WHAT THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON!!!! You want to live in a dictatorship?? I'm sure Cuba will welcome you, Hail Castro!!
Clearly you are so closed minded on the subject that you don't even care to look up basic definitions. Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion.
pro-choice(adj.)
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
Notice the definition does not say "Pro-Choice- Abort Abort Abort! Baby Killers!"
The definition says that a woman (one person) has the right to choose. They can chose for the life of their fetus or not.
And I think the reason that the above statement in particular could make others defensive is because it is written in a sardonic fashion.
sardonic-adjective
Definition: scornful, mocking; disdainfully humorous
Groove
Crystal - cool it. I agree with you, as you know. I think there are better, less heated ways to say it.
Okay, I'm sorry. I guess my smart-a** way of expressing myself isn't flying here, so I will refrain from using anymore snyde remarks.
So, I'll try to put this train back on the rail. What about drawing the line between when it is okay to call it murder and when it is not, which is what Luvn29 was asking in the OP?
I personally believe that it lies in the desire of the pregnant woman to keep the baby or not. If we draw the line at viability, that would rule out partial birth abortion, wouldn't it? Doesn't partial birth abortion apply to late-term pregnancies when the baby in fact could survive out of the womb?
Ginny, and everyone else, my apologies. I've been here long enough to know better, and shouldn't post in such heated terms.
Cocoa, to answer your question about partial birth abortions, they are sometimes necessary because the baby has a defect that will prevent it from surviving outside the womb. There are other instances where it is recommended because of a terminal problem with the baby, or a serious danger to the mother's life. It's a painful and horrible decision for any woman to make, but it can mean the difference between carrying for weeks, and delivering a baby that has no chance to survive. Also, I *believe* partial birth abortion is abortion after 20 weeks, and a 20 week fetus is not viable outside the womb. Here is a link with information and opinions of both sides, as well as Congressional rulings.
partial birth abortion
Remember, by the way, that "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term. It is a term devised by those who saw this effort as another way to make certain kinds of abortion illegal. This is sort of the "stealth" attack outlined by now Supreme Court Justice Roberts in his advice to the then administration when he was working in the Justice Department - nibble at it (Roe v. Wade), don't try to overturn it in one case or effort.
Why so defensive about that remark?
Lisa has already apologized, but I'll answer your question anyway. I interpreted her post as a jab at those who are pro-choice and don't feel those kinds of snide remarks (Lisa's words) are necessary in this kind of emotional debate (because we all know this can become a very passionate and emotional debate). She could have typed it with a smile on her face, as a joke or was intentionally trying to be disrespectful. Without the benefit of seeing her expressions or hearing the tone in her voice, I can't really be sure. OTOH, I also could have taken it the wrong way and posted too quickly, so I felt I should explain.
I think these gray areas are why abortion laws are so hard. I think almost all women would agree that there are times that delivering a fetus before it is viable is the only option. We all seem to think someone who wants an abortion is someone who made poor choices with sex and they should live with the consequences. I am very against the idea of abortion, but consider myself pro choice. I think what constitues okay for an abortion in my mind is a lot stricter than others. The partial birth abortion is horrific to think about. But I can't imagine a women choosing that if there really were other options. Just recently a cousin of mine had a miscarriage. She found out at week 7 the baby had died, and had the choice to wait and let it happen naturally or have a dnc. She chose to wait, probably a choice I would have made. But after all is said and done, she really regrets that decision, it was very tough having a "dead" child inside of her. This is what I feel the women who choose late term miscarriages are like. They realize they baby isn't going to make it and they can't handle "Wasting" weeks, having physical pain only to learn that the emotional pain may be greater. Yes there are women and doctors who are not as honorable. But can't judge society based on the wicked and worse case scenerios, if we do, we give up all hope.
I would love to see abortion laws tighten up so that people wouldn't electively get abortions. But I just don't see a way to do that and not infringe on the rights of the average person.
A close friend of mine had this experience..
She was 13 I think, was going to the 8th grade dance. Had her first real date. Small town, he picks her up, they go to the dance. They leave to "walk around the park". They kissed, it was sweet nice and romantic, till he decided he wanted more. He ripped her dress off and raped her. She was ashamed and embarrassed. The date explained to her mom, that she tripped and fell, hence the mud and rip on the dress. She told me what happened only days later. Turns out, she got pregnant. Can you imagine at 13 being pregnant? Her parents didn't prosecute, I honestly don't think they could have won, and didn't want to be "shamed". It was his word against hers and she did agree for the walk. She certainly couldn't raise a child. So should she be sentenced to the shame of being pregant in jr high? I don't know what I would do. But if the same thing happened to my baby girl, I would be thankful I had options. Think about the physical pain and disfiguring giving birth can have? Not to mention the months of carrying a baby that is just a reminder of bad and ugly stuff?
Yes I can see a high schooler, a college student being made to deliever a baby, but the truth is this kind of stuff happens to young children, babies themselves. No matter what you teach them bad things happen. It would be a tough choice, but at least you have a choice.
I will behave myself, I promise
I have been on here a lot lately b/c I have been sick with some kind of stomach bug. Dh has it now, too, tho MUCH worse than I do. But reading and responding has taken my mind off my ailment and made it much more bearable. And I am in a better mood now with a nap.
A couple of years ago my friend and her 8yr-old son were at my house. He asked her what is an abortion. She gave him just the facts, with no spin. Something very simple like, "An abortion is to end the pregnancy before the baby can be born."
He asked why, and she said, "There might be many reasons why a woman might end her pregnancy. She might have found out that something was wrong with the baby and wasn't going to live anyway. Or maybe the mother wasn't able to survive through all the work it takes to grow a baby and give birth to it. She might have been raped (she had already covered that explanation, as she told me when I asked her later) or she might be too young. She might not have been ready to have a baby yet."
He asked, "You mean she can just get rid of it if she doesn't want it?"
She replied, "Yes, in this country, we give women the right to choose what they want to do with their bodies."
Then he asked something very poignant (and emphatic). He asked, "Why in the world would anyone want to get rid of a perfectly good baby??!!"
Her choked response, "I don't know."
She was so choked up (and I was, too) she didn't know what else to say, and since it seemed that her son got his questions answered, he ran off to play.
Now why he asked this in the middle of all this fun he was having I still can't figure. My son went to the bathroom and was taking a long time, so her son came and sat down with us and we had been chatting a bit with him, and he just popped that question. I nodded to her to let her know that it was okay with me to talk to him right there about it. I would have been thrown completely off guard. But not her. At least, not until he asked that last question.
So, yes, I am totally against abortion. I grant that there are special circumstances. But all in all, I feel that it is an unnecessary waste of life. Just like that boy said.
Okay, I got a kleenex.... 
I really can understand why some feel that it is just wrong to tell someone what is right and what is wrong and what to do with their pregnancies, much less to force them by law. In this country we all have the right to decide what to do for ourselves.
But there used to be a time when more people agreed on what was right and wrong. Now there are so many different versions of right and wrong that we are all clashing, and many times when people do what used to be considered by most people to be the wrong thing, they end up turning their lives upside down and getting hurt, such as when a woman comes to regret her decision to abort, and then experiences feelings of guilt and depression for years to come.
I am disappointed that more women are not choosing to give babies up for adoption. I mean, remember when you were a kid and your mom used to say, "Now you eat all those vegetables on your plate. There are kids starving in Africa!"
Well, what does that really mean? It means that you need to be thankful that you have enough food to keep you healthy and growing b/c there are people in this world who don't even have enough food to keep them alive. Why should you feel it is okay to waste your food? If the kids in Africa were sitting at our table, they wouldn't be wasting it.
Same goes with babies. There are SO MANY people in this country alone who would be GREAT parents. People who WANT to be parents. People who CAN'T conceive their own child. What gives you (general you) the moral right to throw away your naturally conceived baby when there are people that will take it and give it a good home, and a good life?
I heard an interview with on some news talk show some time back with a woman who was thinking of having an abortion (Oh- it was a question and answer type of thing- people wrote in with questions and some religious leader answered them.) and didn't want to go through the heartache of giving up the baby for adoption, but didn't want to give birth and raise it, either. She was confused and didn't know what to do. Now, I didn't agree with the harsh tone this dude answered the question with, but he was basically right. He said something like, "It sounds to me like you would almost rather have an abortion than give this child life. That is just plain selfish on your part. What you don't want you could give away to someone who would love it, nurture it, and appreciate it and regard it as it is- a gift of life from God."
Ok, woman uses protection, gets pregnant anyway, and is in no shape to raise this child. She gives it up, often into foster care because adoption in America is not easy, thus the reason people go overseas for adoptions. We, the tax payers, pay for that child's next 18 years, not to mention the damage to the child's psyche after all of this. What gives parents who can't concieve the moral right to use someone else's sperm or eggs to concieve?? Why not adopt?? That's selfish, much more selfish than abortion in my opinion. Besides, the bottom line should be it's not your body, it's not your choice. Who are you (a collective pro-life group) to dictate what other citizens can do?
Crystal, I agree.
Wow.
I also think it is selfish to go to extreme or extraordinary measures to bear a child from your own womb rather than to adopt.
Many women say, "But it's not the same."
Well, no. But it's not like a woman can't accept an adopted child into her heart with as much love as she could her own flesh and blood. After all, we aren't blood related to our spouses, and we accept that person into our hearts with love and combine with eachother to make a family as well.
As for the difficulty in getting an adoption in this country, I also agree. WOW. The government needs to make it way easier to complete an adoption. Perhaps then there would be fewer abortions yet.
Just a note on partial birth abortions. They happen VERY rarely. Out of the 1.5 million abortions in a year I believe they might make up 150 -200 (feel free to correct me) and don't happen UNLESS there's a significant risk to the mother or the baby isn't viable.
It's an intensly traumatic procedure for everyone involved and just plain wrong to even hint that families, women, doctors and nurses would involve themselves if there wasn't a dire need for it. It take a tremendous amount of despair (a position of sin I might add) in human beings to believe they would do such a thing on a whim.
So it's not a matter of being against partial birth abortions except when they're medically nessacary. They are almost without exception medically nessacary.
But they have tremendous political capital which is why they get exploited without much thought to the people who had to go through or perform them. It tugs heart strings to think of a baby martyred for it's parents indifference. But it's a tactic that relies on ignorance of the matter.
Personally, I'm against abortion but don't think it should be illeagal. I see abortions as a sign of the failure of a community and punishing a women for that choice allows the community to turn away from examining it's part in the issue.
I was on here briefly last night, but couldn't respond at the time. Physically couldn't.
I'll be honest with you. I'm not a confrontational person in life in general, not in person, not by telephone, not behind a keyboard.
First of all, Dawn, I am a well-educated woman who knows how to use a dictionary and who knows definitions. I was not using politically correct definitions nor was I trying to use a literally correct definition. I was telling you my thoughts. And I don't know about you, but my thoughts don't tend to come out sounding like an encyclopedia or dictionary. I don't appreciate the fact that you made me out to be an ignorant and insidious person. I refuse to treat you like a child and post the definition for that word here. I'm sure if you don't know the meaning, you are able to look it up yourself.
Crystal, I know you have already apologized, but I notice your post is not edited, so I feel it is okay to still acknowledge it. I understand that pro-choice people are not just inhumane baby killers. If you notice, in my posts, I state that is not what I consider "pro-abortion" to mean. I stated that I believe the term to simply mean you are agreeable to abortion being a choice you have. I never chose to use harsh words, I never got hateful or judgemental in my post, I simply was explaining my thoughts on a term in what I considered to be an adult manner.
I am not just against abortion, I am also against child abuse, child neglect, child molestation, etc. I believe we should be able to choose how to raise our children, but only to a certain extent. I am very glad that our government has rules against letting us choose to beat or starve our children as punishment. I am also glad our government does not let us choose to prostitute out our children for a living as some countries do. So yes, I am all for the government infringing on our rights to a certain degree. If a mentally incompetent woman gives birth to a child, and is really incapable of taking care of it properly, I feel the government should step in and take the child and place it in a home where it will be safe. Not say, well, it's this woman's child, so it's her choice if she wants to keep it. I guess you could say I am just "pro-child" in all cases. Whatever is best for an innocent child who cannot make decisions for itself. And I am saying this in general, not just regarding abortions.
And, no, I don't have any plans on moving to Cuba. In case you forgot, I'm allowed to have a difference of opinion here, I'm living in America, remember?
I really haven't gotten many answers on the original question, which truly was just that... I didn't know the law in that area, and was wondering if there were specific rulings in that area. But that's okay. I do remember, though, why I never participated much on this debate board. I am just not up for confrontation right now!
Dawn is correct, late term abortions are RARELY done, and almost exclusively because of a medical need. The pro-life activists have blown that out of proportion.
Lisa, see? We don't ALWAYS have to disagree!! Gotta run, will be back later!
Luvn29 it's my fault that your thread went awry. I posted something I shouldn't have and everyone had a hey day with me. I tried to get it back, but if you were really looking for legal facts, Ginny would be the one to ask regarding case history and such. Your OP sounded more like you were asking for opinions. Sorry.
My error in my last post above. It was Justice Alito who proposed the "nibble" tactic to gradually overturn Roe v. Wade.
Adena, I think you got beat up a bit - more than a bit. And I am sorry for that.
But, please understand, we who are pro-Choice take very seriously the charge that we are automatically pro-abortion. I personally am not, by my definition and thinking, pro-abortion. I personally think abortions, when they are not medically necessary because of a risk to the woman's health, almost always a sign of some failure in our social structure - a failure to protect a young woman from abuse, a failure to provide adequate birth control and pregnancy prevention education (and education about why having sex at an early age is simply NOT a good idea, no matter the social pressures), a failure to have systems in place that arrange for a woman to be supported in a reasonable fashion while she bears her child and arranges for immediate adoption of the child so that her life is not totally disrupted by an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, sometimes simply a failure of birth control for a woman who is trying to behave responsibly, and on and on. (I have a friend, by the way, who jokes that she got her second child on the diaphragm, her third child on the pill, and her fourth child on an IUD - after which she had her tubes tied. Birth control failure is a reality.)
Yes, I agree, there are times when the government should intervene to protect the life and wellbeing of a child. Where you and I differ is when that being is a "child". For me, as long as the child is inside the womb - an unborn child - it is the right of the pregnant woman to make the decision as to whether she will continue or end the pregnancy. Once the child is born, it is a separate entity with its own rights and, sadly, sometimes the need for government protection. I do not believe the unborn child is in the same status as the born child, simply because the unborn child is just that - unborn, and living inside the body of a woman. And, having had three children and an early miscarriage, yes, I will say unborn child at the same time I say I am pro-Choice. Because that's what I believe, in both instances.
I am reminded of a roommate in the hospital when my first son was born - she was Catholic, and had a medical condition that put her health and life at risk when she became pregnant. But her priest told her that she could not, by the rules of the Catholic church, do anything to prevent becoming pregnant other than to abstain from sexual relations. She couldn't even, according to her priest, have her tubes tied when her doctor told her that the next pregnancy might kill her. I am also reminded that my father would tell the story of when I was born - that at one point in the process he was told that my mother, his wife, was in serious danger, and he would have to choose between the life of his wife and the life of their child (me). He chose his wife. As things turned out, both of us survived and were healthy - but I will always think my dad made the right decision, and I have never faulted him for choosing my mother over me. And that's where I stand on what some call the rights of the unborn child.
As to the legal issues you raised in your original post (always reminding you that I am not a lawyer) what I said above is what I have read and what is my understanding of the laws that provide for charging a perpetrator with two crimes if he assaults a woman who is pregnant, and both the woman and the unborn child are harmed or killed. I personally wonder about the constitutionality of such laws, but so far no one has challenged them sufficiently to take the question to a federal appeals court. I do think this is a back door attempt to give constitutional personhood to an unborn child. But I am just as glad that such laws have not yet been challenged on a federal level, because I'm afraid of how they would be decided.
I have already asked Crystal to cool it, and I think she was way out of line when she suggested you move to Cuba and in some of her other words. I wish I or another moderator had caught that earlier, because it is just plain wrong. You are right - in this country you are entitled to your opinion, and on this board, as long ideas are expressed with a reasonable amount of courtesy, people are entitled to their opinions. That was clearly out of line. Crystal has apologized, and I hope her apology is sufficient for you.
By the way, Adena, I would not describe you as "confrontational", as such, but I have noted that you are very firm in your convictions and very firm in expressing them. I don't often agree with you, but I appreciate the tone you use. I do hope you understand the difference, for people like me, between being pro-Choice and pro-abortion.
Ladies, please, let's work harder at not using personal characterizations (otherwise known as insults) when people express their personal beliefs. You can, truly, express yourself and your beliefs/opinions without insulting other posters - and we all need to work harder at that when the topic is one that brings out strong personal beliefs.
OH, and Lisa, I don't think you took the post awry. This is a very touchy, hot button topic, and given that Adena's question touched on directly touched on the question of the legal rights or personhood of an unborn child, and her statement of her pro-life position, I think it was a natural digression - if it was a digression.
Oh, and in response to Ame's first post, I don't think the laws were/are intended to give the parents of the child the right to sue for the death or injury to the child, or have anything to do with the rights of or deprivation to the parents. These are criminal laws we are talking about, and they are dealing with the commission of a crime against the unborn child (as I read most of these laws), not the damages to a third party (a parent) who was not physically harmed. I think the civil (as opposed to criminal) issues (i.e., the rights of the parents or the rights of the parents to sue the perpetrator) weren't anywhere in the minds of the legislators who passed such laws.
I didn't mean a civil action - as you have pointed out twice now, Ginny . I meant, as you said, that the perp took the life of the child - defined as viable outside the womb - (thereby depriving the family of that child's life - or murdering it). The distinction is that the perp made the choice to end the pregnancy (not mom) - and now will be punished for it.
When the woman makes the choice it is a federally protected right. When someone else makes the choice it is a punishable crime.
And don't think the right to sue in a civil action won't be far behind ... (Although the recovery won't be that high).
Ame
It's all good with me with everyone. I easily accept apologies, just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't intending to rile people as suggested.
Cocoabutter, no problem at all! I don't mind opinions about my question....to a certain extent! LOL!
And Ginny, you have very graciously explained your point about the way you feel about the different terms. I completely understand that way of thinking. And I appreciate your tone, also.
You're right, Ame, I did. I didn't thoroughly read my earliest post before saying the same thing again.
I am sure people have sued - I have personally worked as a secretary on medical malpractice cases and motor vehicle accident cases that involve the death of an unborn child, so I can't imagine that someone hasn't sued where a criminal event was involved.
What I do mean to point out (in something of a further digression from Adena's original post) is that our criminal laws are not based on anyone other than the immediate victim, and on the right of the state to prevent or punish certain crimes because they are a crime against "the state" - that is, the community. When a husband is murdered, the state is not prosecuting because someone's father and husband was killed, even if the prosecutor raises that in the sentencing arguments, but because a man, a member of the community, was killed. These laws, are based on the idea or belief that an unborn child is just as much a member of the community as an adult or teenager. I disagree with your suggestion that what these laws are about is a crime of depriving the family of the child's life. They are totally about the taking of the life of an unborn child, treating the unborn child as an entity separate from the pregnant woman who may also have been killed or at least harmed in the same incident, and hence a separate criminal charge.
I do see the dichotomy you raise - that when a woman elects to terminate her pregnancy it is a federally protected right for her to do so, but when a pregnancy is terminated by someone else in an assault on the woman, it is a crime. Yes, it is contradictory. And I don't think the legislators who pass such laws are, for a single moment, unaware of the contradiction.
I think that probably 25% of pro choice people would not have an abortion for themselves. I met quite a few people like that. They believe in the right to choice but think an abortion is poor planning and maybe shows irresponsibility somehow. (they might say well the withdrawal method isn't too good or use a condom and a birth control pills.
I don't think anyone like the idea of abortion except a handful of crazies. Actually I think more than 50% of people who had an abortion would think they wouldn't have an abortion until they do have one. They don't think they would get into that situation. Of course we all heard about the woman who had 16 abortions using it as birth control.
I'm personally pro-choice because I don't feel that the government should be able to say what a woman can and can't do with her body. I don't believe I would ever choose abortion for myself, but I don't know I haven't been raped and been faced with the choice of bringing a baby to term.
What I don't understand is that some pro-life people think that in some circumstances the woman should be able to choose an abortion, as Lisa said, like if the mother is going to die etc... So why do these people say they are pro-life? They aren't. They're pro-choice. I don't think you should be able to say you are pro-life unless in EVERY circumstance you would choose the baby. Unless you could look your sister in the eye and say I think you should die rather than your baby and actually go through with it, as the definition for pro life is:
pro-life (pr-lf)
adj.Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion.
There is no clause in the definition that says except in certain circumstances, it says "Advocating FULL legal protection"
Groove
Hey Groove - pro-life means pro life, not only pro unborn life. I don't know where you got your definition, but certainly in my book if it comes to an absolute choice between one life or the other (something that very, very rarely happens in this country today), I would not fault a dedicated pro-life/anti-abortion person for choosing that the life that is saved is that of the mother. I would disagree with that person's anti-abortion position, but I would not think the person is not being true to his/her principals by making that choice.
Even pre Roe v. Wade, with some states having very stringent laws about abortions, abortions were being performed when the mother's life was at risk and they were legal. (And, as I remember, because I *can* remember back that far, a lot of doctors would skate along the edges of the law and say "medically necessary" when it wasn't truly medically necessary. You just had to know the right doctor and the right code words and be able to afford it.)
Feona, I haven't heard of the woman who had 16 abortions, using it as birth control. What is your source for that information?
Thanks for answering my question. I got the definition from Dictionary.com. It's a respectable site. I just don't see how people who are pro-life can tell people who aren't (and I'm not saying this is every pro-lifer) how horrible they are, when if faced with a tricky situation themselves would maybe choose to abort. I haven't read anywhere that says pro-life = save the mother or let her have a choice if she is raped, because that would be pro-choice, because there is still a choice. If you can show me any legal document or medical journal saying so I would change my mind. Everything that I have looked at has pretty much said what the definition above does. I just feel that things are not absolute and it's foolish to join some kind of absolute thought process. I know that might not make sense, but I can't think of a different way to say it. For example saying something is ALWAYS... or NEVER.... That is rarely the case. And if what you say above is true then what makes a pro-lifer a pro-lifer? You can say there are certain circumstances that abortion would be ok but then that is exactly what I believe and as I said above I am pro-choice. So in that grey area where pro-life and pro-choice overlap what makes those pro-lifers pro-lifers? Because they would still be supporting to give the mother a choice = pro-choice.
And I know the question above about the woman who had 16 abortions wasn't directed to me, but I can tell you that is was not uncommon for my patients in China to have had 6-9 of them. I would say 1 in 20 who came to the Gynecology hospital had over 5 and about 4 in 20 had none. The real kicker for me was when the women who had had 5-9 abortions came in because they were having trouble getting pregnant and now wanted to. As a professional you have to hold back all your personal thoughts and help them the best you can, but it's impossible no matter how professional you are to not be thinking "What the H***, do you think I'm a magician?!" But as you know China is different that way, in some cases it is government run, and sex education there is sorely lacking.
Groove
Oh there are plenty of people who use abortion as birth control. A nurse friend told me about it who worked in a abortion clinic. The woman could have been a crack addict or a professional it wasn't said. There crazy people in the world. It is perfectly legal though I doubt it is good for you.
I think I actually remember hear that is russia it was hard to get birth control some woman had alot of abortions too..
http://www.waytorussia.net/WhatIsRussia/Women/Facts.html
Family Planning. Contraceptives and hormone containing remedies are relatively expensive in Russia as the monthly average income salary is 1500 R (54$) and a condom costs around 9 R (0,3$) and pills between 50 and 300 R (1,8 and 10$).
In Russia, abortion still remains the main method of birth control. Abortion is legally permitted under the following instances: at a woman's request within the 12th week of pregnancy; within 22 weeks if there are social conditions under which pregnancy, child birth and child rearing would become a heavy burden for a woman; and at any time if it is established that pregnancy could harm the health of the mother or the child.
Russia's abortion rate is one of the highest in the world. For every 100 births there are approximately 200 abortions.
Due to the lack of funds in the public health services it is not always possible for a woman to have an abortion 'at her own will' free of charge. An abortion costs 5$ in rural regions and 50$ in Moscow.
Programs of family planning were applied between 1992 and 1996, making the number of abortions decline by 25% . But in the following years, there were less or no funds put in the programs, because of pressures mainly by religious groups, and the percentage of abortions raised again. Sexual education is given since 1996 in schools in Moscow and St Pet but not in every establishment
Family Planning. Contraceptives and hormone containing remedies are relatively expensive in Russia as the monthly average income salary is 1500 R (54$) and a condom costs around 9 R (0,3$) and pills between 50 and 300 R (1,8 and 10$).
In Russia, abortion still remains the main method of birth control. Abortion is legally permitted under the following instances: at a woman's request within the 12th week of pregnancy; within 22 weeks if there are social conditions under which pregnancy, child birth and child rearing would become a heavy burden for a woman; and at any time if it is established that pregnancy could harm the health of the mother or the child.
Russia's abortion rate is one of the highest in the world. For every 100 births there are approximately 200 abortions.
Due to the lack of funds in the public health services it is not always possible for a woman to have an abortion 'at her own will' free of charge. An abortion costs 5$ in rural regions and 50$ in Moscow.
Programs of family planning were applied between 1992 and 1996, making the number of abortions decline by 25% . But in the following years, there were less or no funds put in the programs, because of pressures mainly by religious groups, and the percentage of abortions raised again. Sexual education is given since 1996 in schools in Moscow and St Pet but not in every establishment
Feona, please, respectfully, can we keep the discussion to the United States, as it is U.S. laws that were the original subject of the topic.
I may have been the one to start Feona on the other country situation. Sorry.
Groove
And yes in this country I find it hard to believe that many people use it as a form of birth control as it is very expensive here.
Actually if you have an abortion and are covered by insurance it might be less expensive than birth control. I believe most or some insurance companies don't cover birth control but do cover abortions. Medicaid I don' t know their rules but I guess it is the same as regular insurance.
I don't know anyone who has used their insurance to get an abortion, just people who paid out of pocket.
Groove
Kaiser is a hospital here in California that performs abortions for as little as $5, thats using insurance coverage and a minimal co-pay.
Groove, in the case of life-threatening danger to the mother, that choice is being forced on the mother (or father) by medical circumstances beyond their control. Abortion would never ever be an option if it weren't for the unforseen circumstances, and it is a difficult decision to make because the baby is probably very much wanted, but birth is not medically possible without someone losing a life. You cannot equate a necessary medical decision with one that is made when the mother doesn't want the baby.
I am pro-life, but I would want there to be an exception in the case mentioned above. If a doctor says that if this baby is born then the mother will die, then it becomes a medically necessary decision and should be allowed.
I realize that there are times when we need to let go of life, both in old age and severe illness (such as making a decision as to whether or not to resuscitate) and in young. When I was 14, my grandma had a massive heart attack and while she was in the hospital, she went into cardiac arrest 3 times. The doctor asked my grandpa if he wanted them to resuscitate her the next time it happened, and he and my mom said no. Are they still pro-life? I think so.
So I don't join the absolute crowd that you refer to. But I believe that abortion/death should be a last resort. Only after all efforts to save/maintain life have been exhausted. But let's not get into the right to die issue, here, okay?
That's as far as I can go with you without joining you in over-analyzing this.
I don't know of a single insurance company that covers abortions that are not medically necessary.
Interesting Lisa, I'm trying hard to understand your point but I just don't see the difference between your idea of pro-life and my idea of pro-choice. Like I asked above, if we believe the same thing what makes you pro-life? I consider myself pro-choice because I feel like I could not rule every case out, therefore, thinking one person should have a choice would equal pro-choice.
BTW I don't feel I am over-analyzing this. I do feel you skirted around the question though.
Is rape a good reason to have an abortion to you? Where do you draw the line with being pro-life but still giving the woman the choice. As you said above I feel that a woman who is raped is having a choice forced upon her, not medically but emotionally. She was never in the position to let herself get pregnant, it wasn't her choice.
Groove
grove and crystal: from planned parenthood.
http://www.ppgg.org/site/c.esJMKZPKJtH/b.1104389/k.C8FE/Abortion.htm
The cost of an abortion depends on what week of pregnancy you are in, your income, whether or not you have insurance, and your family size. If you do not have insurance or do not make very much money, there may be funding to cover the complete cost of your abortion procedure.
Find out how much an abortion will cost by going to our online Cost Calculator.
Many private insurance companies will pay for abortion services at Planned Parenthood. You may call our Billing Department at (650) 574-5823 to find out if your insurance company provides coverage.
This is also interesting about military oversea abortions:
The history of it.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_abortion_081904,00.html
I know Tricare (military) doesn't cover abortion services in the US without extenuating circumstances. However, I have to get the kids, but when I get a chance I'll check those links.
planned parenthood
Same link Feona posted, I just made it clickable. The military.com one wouldn't convert roperly, so you'll have to cope and past to get to the right page.
Also, in the military one, it does say even with special circumstance, Tricare doesn't cover it, and they are only offering abortions to those who were raped or could die from carrying the child. So, I was incorrect in Tricare's stance. Active duty soldiers have a different version of care than dependents, so I'm not really sure how it works.
I guess to me, pro-choice is more of what you are if you believe abortion is a reasonable choice regardless of circumstances. I am not saying this is the dictionary's definition of pro-choice, this is how I feel. And probably many pro-lifers. That is why we continue to describe ourselves as pro-life, even if we believe that abortion may be a consideration in very extreme conditions. Whatever each individual may feel those are depend on the person.
I think that it is a personal choice.. I think that we have to make the choice on our own and we have to live with it once it is done.. Would I have an abortion, No.... But would I condemn someone that would, No way... But I don't look at people and judge them by their actions of their past... I don't need them to justify themselves to me, because I am not the person they have to answer too... And I wouldn't want anyone not to turn to me, because my views were different than theirs..
I think that we are conditioned to try to get others to be like us.. It starts at birth with our parents and it ends in death with others explaining to you how the process of death happens.. As if there is one way to live and only one way to die.. the world is full of different shades of gray.. And the reason for ones action may never even cross the minds of another. And an abortion, in my opinion is a personal choice. It has been going on since the beginning of time and debate it, create laws about it and condemn it until you are blue in the face it isn't going to stop..
There are so many things in this world we can agree on that need changed... yet for some reason we as a society have a habit of focusing on the things we can't (things that really hold no value beyond our own opinions) we waste time, money and power over some of the most unimportant things. And we let our own people suffer.... Makes no good sense to me..
Side note... I am not saying a baby or what ever you wish to call it has no value.. That is not what the last statement was about.. It was more so about the fact that there are children suffering from hunger in our own country.. Children in foster homes in our own country, with no hope for a "real" family... Parents that are loosing their jobs to out sourcing.. And society wants to debate abortion??? Seems like their are more pressing issues needing to be dealt with, that is all I mean..
|
Members
