Thread: Abortion: split from stem cell research

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Part of the woman? earlier you said it was a parasite...

Still part of me if its my parasite and I want that parasite. The parasite reference was more of a descriptive term than a scientific classification, I probably should have used the term "like" a parasite, it would have been more accurate.

Then there also isn't anything against defining a new class of crime either.

Originally Posted by Hutch

Seeing as the fetus is still part of the women, negligence or gross negligence causing bodily harm. This would cover the fact even if the women wasn't visibly pregnant. They could also be charge with infringing ones rights, that of the mother's.

What would your charge a person with that, drugged you and stole a kidney?

Negligence causing bodily harm to the women hardly encompasses the horror of killing her baby. If you have ever known someone that went thorugh a simple miscarriage I think that would be clear.

Drugging and stealing a kidney is assault and battery, and they'd probably get creative and through in a lot of aggregating factors (intent to murder, etc.). But a kidney is more valuable than a parasite (no crime in killing someone's tapeworm) and not in the same class as a life, so it's not analagous.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Conversely:Legally the courts hold fathers responsible in paternity cases for support of the child. So, could not the father of an unborn child say that he does not want that, and order that an abortion be performed, even if the mother did not want it? Would that be legally justifiable? As stated, according to DNA evidence the "clump of cells" is just as much "his" as it is "hers", so why doesn't he get a say in the matter?

I do believe that there is already a case just like this in the case law. It was determined by that court, in I believe california, that the father had no right to decide what the mother did with "her body" and yes he would have to pay to support that child.

I only support abortion if a fortune teller tells you that this child will grow up to be a lawyer, in that case I am pro-abortion

My father's father wanted my mother to get an abortion. fortunately for me, my mother's parents told him that they would do everything in their power to help their 16 year old daughter raise a child. Not all people are in that position or have that luxury to be in that position. Speaking as some one who almost didn't make it here, if the parent's don't have the capabilities to be good parents/ there is something wrong with the child/ full term pregnancy puts the mother at risk/ the woman is a rape or incest victim, then by all means, let her get an abortion. but i don't feel that abortion should be used as a form of general birth control. having said that, i can't get pregnant, so i really don't have any say so in a matter that i will never be in. i will NEVER be the person layed back on a medical table about to have a life taken out of me, so what i say doesn't matter.
i'm pretty sure that in the declaration of independence that it said something "the pursuit of happiness". are we telling these women that they can't have their happiness if that means they get an abortion?

Originally Posted by kljr

are we telling these women that they can't have their happiness if that means they get an abortion?

Yes. The pursuit of happiness does not include the caveat "by any means necessary". If they get pregnant and don't want the kid, then give it up for adoption. Just because they allowed poor planning or a lack of self control lead to an unwanted baby, they shouldn't take out their mistake on the life they carry in the womb.

My two cents...probably not popular, but to me life at any stage is life worth preserving.

Originally Posted by loueedacat

Negligence causing bodily harm to the women hardly encompasses the horror of killing her baby. If you have ever known someone that went thorugh a simple miscarriage I think that would be clear.

Drugging and stealing a kidney is assault and battery, and they'd probably get creative and through in a lot of aggregating factors (intent to murder, etc.). But a kidney is more valuable than a parasite (no crime in killing someone's tapeworm) and not in the same class as a life, so it's not analagous.

Murder is a word, not sure how that makes it any better, isn't the penalty the really issue. If they give someone 20 years for negligence causing bodily harm is that not better than 15 years for involuntary manslaughter, or second degree murder?

I know you all want the people who believe in choice to say that it's murder, so you can say "see then abortion is murder", it ain't gonna happen because once again a fetus is not a person. That said it doesn't make the crime unless deserving of punishment for the loss of something someone chose to have, and had it taken from her in a violent unwanted manner.

Originally Posted by TheCrash

If they get pregnant and don't want the kid, then give it up for adoption. Just because they allowed poor planning or a lack of self control lead to an unwanted baby, they shouldn't take out their mistake on the life they carry in the womb.

so rape victims have to give birth to their illegitimate child because they weren't responsible to get raped? is that what you are saying?
oh, and adoption, great idea. that system isn't chuck full of kids already.

Originally Posted by kljr

so rape victims have to give birth to their illegitimate child because they weren't responsible to get raped? is that what you are saying?
oh, and adoption, great idea. that system isn't chuck full of kids already.

Obviously rape victims are not at fault. I could see that as a legitimate reason. So, no, not at all what I am saying. I'm in agreement with your point that abortion is not a form of birth control.

The adoption system needs some things fixed too, but there are so many families that can't have kids that would make great parents if given the chance that there are opportunities out there for unwanted kids to find parents that do want them.

Why isn't there such worry about the children all over the world that starve to death each year that far out number the number of abortions?

Why isn't everyone as concerned about ensuring that the poor children get adequate medical care in the US or their mothers get affordable pre-natal care? To me if some cared about the welfare of children that would be a far better place to start than banning a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

Here's some information on abortions that's interetsing

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

The most likely woman to have an abortion is young, non-white, poor, already have one child, poorly educated, single and religious. How is some one like that suppose to have another child, while taking care of the one they already have. Sometimes I thing the problem is we look at these things through our own reality rather than theirs.

There's a song by Everlast that has always touch a chord in me, one line goes "God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes then you'd really might know what its like to have to choose".

I don't think the majority of woman make this decision lightly, basically the vast majority are victims of circumstance and have very few good options.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I do believe that there is already a case just like this in the case law. It was determined by that court, in I believe california,

I think he was asking if there was a case like that anywhere but California.