think of this...
a government must function secularily, so one must look at what it can prove.
It can prove when a fetus is viable, ensuring an abortion does not occur after that time, yet allowing the mother the option of abortion until that time...
but it can not prove when or if a soul comes into play.
the law
val wrote:Abortion, in my opinion, is not about women being in charge of their bodies. If it was, then,I repeat, why not an abortion in the eighth month of pregnancy? The right would be appliable no matter the age of foetus is.
You talk about the right to choose. But you also establish limits. So, the question is: what is the basis of that right? Why do you think that a woman has the right to choose to bring a pregnancy to term and give birth, or, instead, make an abortion?
And why, in the last case, establish a temporal limit?
Val . . . it's the LAW.
In order for you to have an understanding of the law, please read
ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and its progeny.
You will learn about the individual, fundamental right to privacy -- the right to live your own life free from unreasonable government intrusion. Rights are not absolute; rights are qualified.
You will learn that the government may not intrude upon an individual's fundamental right to privacy unless the government has a compelling interest in doing so -- and the means used are necessary and narrowly tailored to serve the state's compelling interest.
You will learn how the Court evaluated and balanced the competing interests of the individual and the government -- initially -- using the trimesters of pregnancy.
See:
Quote:A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
If you read the cases that were decided after Roe v. Wade, you will learn that the Court determined that our state governments could regulate early term abortions (for reasons other than maternal health) so long as the regulations were not unduly burdensome.
If you educate yourself, all your questions will be answered.
Re: the law
Debra Law
I must apologize myself. I didn't understand that this discussion was about US legislation about abortion. I had the idea that it was a discussion about abortion in itself, and moral problems associated to it. Since I am not american and ignore american legislation on the subject, it was absurd from me to enter this discussion.
I believe this discussion was commenced based on the position of the world health organization that reproductive health includes several factors, including the right to determine when, how often, and how many children a person will have.
And . . . if this is a recognized right (the right to choose), then why is there so much debate about it today?
Then the original poster asked whether abortion was right or wrong . . . and for each person to substantiate their answer with an unbiased response.
I gave my view that whether abortion is right or wrong is an individual decision. What I believe is wrong is for others to IMPOSE their views on others.
In America, the United States Supreme Court has answered the "legal" questions for us based upon our supreme law. In our country, women legally have a right to privacy -- a right to self-determination -- a right to determine if they will have children -- and if so, when they will have children and how many . . . .
In our country, a woman has a right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy so long as she does so BEFORE the fetus is viable.
Once the fetus is viable, the government can prohibit abortions (except to save the life of the mother) in order to serve its compelling interest in protecting possible life.
Yet . . . the debate of whether abortion is right or wrong (morally, rather than legally) still rages . . . and some people believe it is WRONG (morally) and seek to impose their views on others.
You have every right to enter this discussion and express your views. What country are you from? How do your fellow countrymen view the abortion issue from both a legal and moral standpoint?
In your country, do you have the right of self-determination or must you carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term or risk criminal sanctions?
Debra Law
I am portuguese. Portugal has laws making abortion legal in the first six weeks of pregnancy. And, of course, without limits in the case of any risk to the mother's health.
Men and women have the right of self determination, based in a strict equality between man and woman, in and outside marriage.
That legislation is similar to legislation of other west european countries, with possible exception of Ireland.
But, as I said, I was not discussing abortion in a legal perspective.
It is rather a moral issue. I am against abortion - except in cases of rape or risk to the mother's health - because it means the destruction of a life - and, potentially, an human life. Since I am not religious, and do not believe in any metaphysical entity, I see this life as the only we have. If I had this unique opportunity of living, with what right would I deny it to the others?
This said, I don't want to impose this point of view to anyone else. It is only a personal position.
Looking at it from that view does pose some interesting thought. Who are we to impose in the life of another is a view already stated, but we haven't looked at it from the fetus's standpoint.
hyper426 wrote:think of this...
a government must function secularily, so one must look at what it can prove.
It can prove when a fetus is viable, ensuring an abortion does not occur after that time, yet allowing the mother the option of abortion until that time...
but it can not prove when or if a soul comes into play.
Well, this wasn't a real issue until the 19th Century.
A LINE ON LIFE
5/3/92
The Origin of
Catholic Sexual Values*
David A. Gershaw, Ph.D.
wrote:
And here is the section on Abortion from the Judaism article:
A LINE ON LIFE
5/10/92
Sexuality Â- A Jewish View
David A. Gershaw, Ph.D. wrote:
Personally, abortion cannot really be murder if the fetus is not neurologically sentient. If there no neurones have been developed, how can the fetus feel? Yes, its cells would be able to sense the environment, but that's in the same way that your skin would be able to sense the environment and would killing off your skin be considered murder?
As for a soul... What is a soul? A soul is something that was defined by humans and it has so many definitions it becomes quite difficult to say what it is and when we get it.
If you think of the fact that brain damage can cause a complete change in personality, including robbing a person of one's memories, effectively turning them into a different person, it all makes you wonder whether there is such a thing.
thunder_runner32 wrote: So no, a woman dosn't have the right to decide to kill the child in the early stages of development because it's like killing a retard or someone severly handicaped. Is that right? No, its not,
well, if i remember correctly, handicapped and retarded people have been executed in Texas. is that right. is the death penalty right. if you say that killin a fetus is wrong then shouldnt killing a living human be wrong as well? is war right?
i think that an abortion is a womens choice to make. not the supreme court, not me, not the president, not anyone other than the lady that has to make the decision. her moral code has to be the only one that makes the decision. but there does have to be legal injunction to protect even this basic right of freedom. If we allow roe v wade to be overturned, what next? seriously, will loud, ovensive music be banned b/c its "wrong"? i wont stand for that and neither should anyone else.
now as to the issue of when a fetus is considered human, i believe it to be at birth, b/c it is then functioning on its own in most cases. that is when it is issued its SS#, its birthday, it comes into society/life when it is born. If life began at conception then all of our birthdays should be roughly 9 months earlier.
ben_dover wrote:i feel that no matter what a woman should never get an abortion because she has had her life to live and the baby should get a chance to live and maybe change the world yournever know
i think it is safe to say that you also disagree with abortion on a religious question, but i could be wrong. but on a relgious note, if God has a plan, then isnt abortion part of that plan and that the fetuses that were aborted supposed to be aborted? im not religious, but i remember that when my parents took me to church everyone always said that God has a plan, if so arent all the things in the world part of his plan, even the things that are "morally wrong" part of his plan? correct me if im wrong.
sorry for the double post but i didnt know how to quote from two posts at once.
Quote:it is not just the womans choice to get the abortion the father should have a say in it too!! yeah it is the mothers body but that does not mean that she can get an abortion just because she cant bear the birth process
What do you mean if "she can't bear the birth process"? If you are implying that a woman should go ahead with her pregnancy even if it endangers her health, then I have a few words of choice for you.
In my opinion the father has not right whatsoever in deciding whether a child should be aborted or not. The woman might allow him to voice his opinion, but it's her right to decide.
I believe I've also explained my stance on the issue.
True, if the life of the mother is at stake, she is the one who needs to be protected, or, in the case of rape, where it was not her fault...but I am going to argue the pro-life side for awhile. I have a question for everyone on this post...Do you believe that I am important to society? yes, I know that you don't know me very well, but please answer anyway. The reason I ask is this...
I was taking the jr. TAKS last week(boy, do I feel young), and the essay was over an event that has a lasting impact over someones life. My original intent was to write a pro-choice essay over abortion...but it turned out to be extremely pro-life.
You see, I was a "mistake." My parents did not want me, and almost aborted me (well, my mom anyways, my parents have never been married, even though I have a full sister and multible half-siblings). But even though I lived in poverty, children's homes, etc. until i was 11, I still always enjoyed life, and being alive. I just never really realized until i wrote that essay how close I came to never getting a chance at life.
My goal is to be a productive member of society, and help those less fortunate. If I had been aborted, I would never have had the opportuntiy to grow up to do so.
So, here is my question...Would that have been right, or moral? Would my never getting a chance of life been fair? How do you feel when you apply my true scenario to yourself? Wow, I really have crossed the border, haven't I?
Not really, if I hadn't been born I wouldn't know better because I wouldn't have existed, and the same goes for you.
When people talk about the oportunities that an aborted child might never have, I just think of the millions of children world wide who are much alive and still don't have them; and it's our fault.
Eryemil
What has one thing to do with the other? The fact that there are millions of children - ant not only children - with no opportunities is a crime. We must fight to change that.
But that has nothing to do with abortion.
Please, let me ask a simple question: in your opinion, what are the reasons that lead a woman to make a abortion - excepting the cases of rape or risk to her health?
Val,
What I value the most in this world is the right to choose. I have never said that I liked abortions, I do not, yet I am strongly pro-choice.
If it was my choice to make, I would never get rid of my child, but it's not my choice. A mother carries a child, she feeds it life from fer own blood. Before there is brain activity, that child is just another part of her.
If I were to sit here and say that women shouldn't have the right to abortion, that would be very hypocritical of me, when just a few moments ago I said that I value the right to choose above all else.
Regarding me earlier post. There are so many children that are given away to end up in the system until they are legal of age, or worse. So many children out on the streets, many kicked out of their own homes, and many others that simply never had one.
Shouldn't we first focus on the ones that are already suffering, instead of trying to increase the pile?
eryemil
I must confess that I always feel uncomfortable talking about abortion, since I am a man, and abortion has to do, at least biologically and psychologically with the woman.
And I am not a fanatic about this issue - or others.
I agree with you that there are terrible problems in our world that deserved more attention and action than abortion.
But, since this topic his about abortion, we must express our opinions about it.
I am not religious, as I said before, and I understand that churches position has mutch to do with their perspective of women: second class citizens.
So, my point of view has nothing to do with any idea of "sacred life", or "God's will". I also accept that the right to choose is fundamental.
The problem is: to choose based on what? If the womans life is in danger or the pregnancy is due to rape, abortion is entirely justified.
But, make an abortion for futile reasons? Like professional reasons or financial reasons? There is always the solution of adoption...
An abortion is to deny life to a potential human being. And I think life is a wonderful thing. And extremely rare. The conditions that must be assembled in order to make possible life are so problematic that we can say we live in a dead universe. Perhaps in some planets there is life but that is almost nothing compared to the extension of space where life is impossible.
Quote:U.S. Pushes U.N. on Abortion Declaration
Mon Feb 28, 2:11 AM ET Health - AP
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS - Ten years after the world's nations pledged to achieve equality for women, a follow-up meeting has become embroiled in controversy over a U.S. demand that its final declaration state that women are not guaranteed the right to abortion.
In informal consultations ahead of Monday's meeting to take stock of progress in implementing the landmark platform adopted at the 1995 U.N. women's conference in Beijing, the United States raised the abortion issue as a first order of business.
The U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, which organized the high-level meeting, had hoped the two-week session would focus on overcoming the roadblocks to women's equality in 12 critical areas from health, education and employment to political participation and human rights.
But the dispute over abortion is likely to dominate the headlines and the closed-door debate on the final declaration.
The assessment of Beijing starts with three days of ministerial speeches and meetings, with numerous events on the sidelines. Over 100 countries and 6,000 advocates for women's causes are expected to take stock of what countries have done to implement the 150-page Beijing platform for action.
"The review provides an opportunity to confront the major obstacles that are preventing women from advancing in the economic, political, and social spheres," said Rachel Majanja, the top advisor to Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) on the advancement of women. "It is time to recommit to the promises made to women 10 years ago in Beijing and make gender equality a reality."
The Commission on the Status of Women drafted a short declaration which it had hoped to have adopted by consensus before Monday's opening session.
It would have nations reaffirm the Beijing platform and an accompanying declaration, welcome progress toward achieving gender equality, stress that challenges remain, and "pledge to undertake further action to ensure their full and accelerated implementation."
But at an informal closed-door meeting on Thursday, the United States said it could not accept the declaration because of its concerns that the Beijing platform legalized the right to abortion as a human right,"These amendments are consistent with U.S. government views."
At the 1994 U.N. population conference in Cairo, delegates approved a platform recognizing that abortion is a fact that governments must deal with as a public health issue. At Beijing the following year, delegates reaffirmed this and went further, asking governments to review laws that punish women for having abortions.
But attempts to approve stronger language on access to abortions failed at Beijing, and references to sexual rights and sexual orientation were dropped. Nonetheless, the Beijing platform stated for the first time that women have the right to "decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality ... free of coercion, discrimination and violence."
Source - Yahoo News
Emphasis is mine. I thought we already had a legal right to an abortion. What's the difference in the current Roe law and findings that followed, and making it a human right?
Quote:But, make an abortion for futile reasons? Like professional reasons or financial reasons? There is always the solution of adoption...
Things are not that easy I am afraid. Only very few of the children that enter the system are adopted. Most are just switched between foster homes, or worse. (Much worse) I've heard stories from people that have been in these situations that would make you want to rip off your ears.
Quote:An abortion is to deny life to a potential human being. And I think life is a wonderful thing. And extremely rare.
I appreciate human life as much as the next guy, and the thought of abortion makes me uncomfortable. Yet as I've said before, the issue is not about whether allowing abortion is right, but whether forbidding it is wrong.
Abortion laws are a very tricky subject, and finding common ground is even trickier.
Abortion is not "good". But to tell women that they cannot choose to abort a pregnancy is worse. To say they have no right to kill an "infant" is hypocrtical when we kill people on death row and when we almost casually send young adults to die in wars that are not essential for our survival.
woa...I disagree. Aguments concerning abortion as a sexist issue are totally unfounded. Men and women are not equal. And yes, I am a women, and I believe in equal treatment, but the fact remains that certain aspects of the sexes cannot be equalized. I can give birth to a human being. I can kill that human being shortly before birth. Or, I could choose to "fix" myself if I didn't want any children (ya know, they have pill, shots, etc for that). These three right are what you just told me I had. But, with equality (since it goes both ways), you could still apply these, and they would not be legal. A man could technically "give birth" to a baby through cloning (which i still believe is illegal). And, if a man killed a baby inside of a mother, (even if the baby was one he had created by illegal cloning), that would be illegal even if he did not kill the new "mother" of the fetus. But, he can "fix" himself, i guess. I don't know.
