Limits on Abortion

Okay. So let's say it's five months in. The mother has a condition that needs to be treated now, but can't have a baby in the womb to do so. (Let's say chemo, just as an example.)Without the treatment, she'll live the four months, and the baby will be born, but she'll die soon after.Should she be allowed to abort the fetus to save her life? Even if we assume the fetus is a fully-functional human, it's still self-defense.EDIT: You know what? Let's make it even simpler. The complications of the pregnancy will allow her to live long enough to get that kid, at the very least, into an incubator. But not long thereafter. She gets the abortion, she'll be fine. But if she delivers a healthy kid, she'll die. Should she be allowed to have an abortion?Edited by Dan Carroll, : to simple things up a bit

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

I've addressed everything you've brought up regardless of the ridiculous nature of your invented scenarios. Secondly, you've neglected to relay any information about what happens in countries that criminalize abortion. So how can I have ignored that which was never presented in the first place? Lastly, in America we have due process. If any one were to automatically assume that ALL miscarriages must be the cause of some nefarious attempt by the mother, then those people who make baseless accusations will be dealt with in court. Murder! That's all we're talking about here! We aren't discussing promiscuity. I have never once even mentioned it. I've even tried to clarify this for you, but you are bent on misrepresenting my stance that the issue is about murder.

quote:

---

My desire to have abortion banned is because it is tantamount to murder.

---

Its real simple. If (remember: this whole thread is hypothetical) abortion were to ever become illegal, that would entail that all clinics could not, by law, conduct any abortions. In the event that there was some underground movement, which I have no doubt would happen, there would be investigations run like ANY other crime. If a woman tried to induce an abortion herself, then a gynecologist would determine that it was intentional, then she will have to deal with the authorities. If she "got away" with it, then she will have to deal with her choice on the day of her Judgment.NONE of your excuses and scenarios would prohibit abortion so much that we just say, "Oh well.... Some people might end up getting away with it so we might as well just legalize it again." Imagine if we did that with all forms of murder. There are lots of people who get away with murder. But we don't just sigh, shake our heads in dismay, and give up because some people have committed a crime so successfully that they avoid prosecution for it. No Crash, that's what you want to believe because it makes it easier for you to deal with. But maybe you can tell how you can be promiscuous if you are faithfully married. Do not married women get pregnant? Hmmm? I wonder...??? Therefore, making it illegal has NOTHING to do with heaping insults on "sluts." Crash, I was the biggest man-whore imaginable prior to my conversion, m'kay. I would indict myself if forgiveness was not a possibility. Every one understands how and why promiscuity happens. Condemning those people because they are confused about love and sex would be tragic. And woe to the people who would do that, because they're wrong for doing it. Crash, its on a case by case basis! If somebody used, say, a coat hanger to induce an abortion, the gynecologist would probably be able to tell that. If you couldn't establish intent or there was no definitive signs of a self-induced abortion, then there is no investigation. They got away with it... For now. As for how to handle a woman falling down the stairs, she would go to the hospital and the fetus would pass through the birth canal. If there was hematoma's or signs of hemorrahging inconsistent with the fall, they will make that determination. But establishing intent is on a case by case basis. I've said, repeatedly, that it would likely be a gynecologist who first makes the inspection, because they would do that for all stillborns anyway. If something was really troubling, perhaps a forensic pathologist would make that ultimate determination.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Murders that, despite your claim to oppose, you're not interested in taking the steps to prevent. Schraf has already shown you the scientific evidence on what policies are effective in reducing abortions and which policies simply make abortions more costly to women and women's health.But still, you persist in advocating policies that are detrimental to women and don't reduce the incidence of abortion. What else can we conclude from that but that you're motivated not by preventing abortions, but by punishing women you describe as "selfish"? Er, wait. I thought we were allowing exceptions for rape or for the health/life of the mother. Now it's no abortions ever? Or is it? You don't seem so sure. It's this confusion on your part that, again, indicates to me that your true motive is not the prevention of abortions - you don't really care about the "unborn" any more than anybody else does - but the punishment of women who don't behave in the manner you lay out for them.If you were really concerned about abortion, you'd be acting a lot differently. You'd be working with feminists and pro-choice groups to get things like contraception, sex education, and various vaccines against STD's into schools and other arenas. You'd be advocating for a national health care system to provide pre-natal care to expecting mothers. You'd be advocating for fair wages that don't put working women in the position of getting an abortion or starving.But you're not. You're not doing any of those things, and neither is any national or local "pro-life" organization, which is proof that the whole exercise is simply about control of women and their behavior. It's why every abortion clinic has stories of pro-life demonstrators showing up on their doorstep one day to get an abortion for their pregnant teenage daughter.It's not about preventing abortions, and it never has been. If it were you'd be advocating policies that successfully reduce the number of abortions instead of policies that are just moralistic control fantasies over female behavior. How else do you explain the discrepancy, NJ? Indeed they do. Sometimes when they don't want to. Can they have abortions, then? No?Then it's pretty clearly about controlling women's choices and behavior, isn't it? (On behalf of my wife I'll thank you to keep your mitts off her uterus. The two of us are more than capable of deciding who is allowed to live inside it, thank you.) This is what I'm talking about. You say it's murder but it's a kind of "murder", apparently, that you feel no need to investigate or punish.That's the proof that you don't really consider it murder at all - nobody does. It's just an excuse to control women and shame them for what they do. It's disturbing and sick how interested you are in doing that. Why? What makes you think every miscarriage happens in a hospital?

This question hasn't gotten enough attention.I'd like to know more about what you believe the consequences of abortion are.

quote:

---

When somebody dies mysteriously, there is always an autopsy performed

---

It doesn't necessarily have to be an autopsy. It can be any type of medical inquiry. But all this is aside from the point because none of these reasons would justify abortion in the event that it was made legal. This is all semantical distraction.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

You are a friend to women everywhere, Crash.I thank you.

I think this is a fantastic list of things that the pro-forced preganacy and birth movement should advocate and work for.But they never will, and I'll tell you why.They don't want to prevent abortion if it means that the sluts will still be having sex. That's why the anti-choicers don't ever advocate for greater access to contraception or comprehensive sex education or any other well-proven methods other countries have successfully used to drastically reduce the incidence of abortion.The overriding motivation of these people is their intense desire to punish women for having sex and also to make everyone else feel as ashamed and dirty about sex as they do.

I think that's the only criteria worth contemplating.That is, unless the father is willing and able to carry the child himself.

It has been a while, but, abortion has not always been legal in this country. The horrors of back-street abortions were one of the reasons most states liberalized their anti-abortion laws.This all occurred decades prior to anything like the internet and I'm too lazy to go google to see if any of the old horror stories and statistics are out there. Newspaper archives from the 50's and 60's will be full of them, however.

I run my mouth on the internet, and I vote Democratic, but I'm honestly not sure what else to do. I don't have the time to volunteer or the money to donate. At this point in my life I can't even decide which state I live in.I guess I'm not sure what else to do. I don't think I've done anything worth celebrating and I don't deserve the praise.

First time you've been wrong in this thread, Crash.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Seriously, what in the world are you talking about? This has nothing to with the conversation. The issue is that you claimed a fetus "forces" itself inside its mother. You say this as if the mother or father had nothing to do with it, but some how the fetus willed itself in to existence. LOL! This coming from a man who is supposed to be pragmatic about nature. Well, this how nature has meted it out. And perhaps its escaped your attention that this is how you got your start in life. Are you here to fault nature and malign it by doing something unnatural and unabashedly anti-Darwin-- the destruction of one's own progeny. If sanity is synonymous with being clueless, then I'll gladly be clueless.Lets see, I believe that upon conception that a brand new human being is procreated. You believe that something that does not yet exist can force itself upon its mother. Who, then, is clueless? I mean, come on RAZD. Just because you don't see anything morally wrong with abortion doesn't mean that you have to ridiculous invectives about an innocent being.Lastly: "If its not a baby, then you aren't pregnant."

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

phenomenal.
thank you.

take one weekend a year to be an escort. you should be able to get some info from planned parenthood about that. they walk women through the crowds of protesters in an effort to give them a little of their dignity back.also, it is enough that you speak. you might not convince nj, but you might change the mind of a lurker. and then we have one more who might be able to volunteer or otherwise. never forget the value of teaching and inspiration.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Secondly, you've neglected to relay any information about what happens in countries that criminalize abortion.

---

This happens in countries that criminalize abortion:http://www.sapphireblue.com/25years/GerriSantoro.jpg{Added by edit: 25 Years is the source page for the above cited jpg. It includes the relevant text. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.