Roe v. Wade
Roe Vs Wade did not provide the right to have an abortion.
It clarified the right to doctor/patient privacy. The Government does not belong in the exam room or the operating room.
That said, the Medical Board should be able to review a doctor's records and determine if the mea doctors used to take an oath to protect and preserve life.
Those were the days. Doing abortions is legal in most states, at least under certain circumstance, usually to preserve the life and or health of the woman. Pregnancy and childbirth are life threatening conditions.
And you are right. The State should have nothing to say in the matter since a fetus has no rights anyone is bound to respect, other than as the property of the woman carrying it inside her body. And in this case, it is the woman's property rights in question.
Bob Kolker
ThatRedHairedGrrl
Veteran
Joined: 10 May 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 912
Location: Walking through a shopping mall listening to Half Japanese on headphones
I find it interesting that as of my clicking on this thread, there's an NSPCC ad running up the side, and among the text flashing up (supposed to be things shouted by a parent at the sad little kid in the picture) is 'I wish you'd never been born'.
Unwanted kids suffer hugely. They come out of the womb already damaged, because the emotions around an unwanted pregnancy flood a woman's system with the hormones of stress and anger, and that affects the development of a child's brain and body in ways that can't ever be undone. Even if that child is placed with adoptive parents, even if they love that child with all their hearts, the damage is lasting.
The best solution to the abortion dilemma, of course, is not to conceive in the first place. Reliable contraception needs to be easily available, people need to know how to use it and be motivated to do so. (That means, among other things, get rid of the male antipathy to condoms, the easiest and cheapest method for the young and those without easy access to medical care, because it is still guys who mostly object to using them.)
But, that said, contraception, however carefully used, isn't 100% effective. Women will seek abortions. The question is not whether you're going to be able to stop them, because women who didn't want a child have resorted to some very desperate measures over the years. The Black Museum at Scotland Yard used to have a bag of abortionists' 'equipment', confiscated from backstreet practitioners back when abortion was illegal; most of what was in it could have been obtained at the local sewing store, apart from the 'Juno' anatomical doll which, appallingly, was all one of these women had to educate herself about where exactly her client's uterus was. I, for one, would not want to go back to those days. It should be safe, and legal, even while we undertake efforts to make sure it's not needed so often.
_________________
"Grunge? Isn't that some gross shade of greenish orange?"
If children are technically property up until 18, we should be allowed to abort their life at any time until then. They cannot survive on their own before age 7 (with a lot of luck); kids are just a parasite living off the parents, why not end their life if we decide we don't want them? Is the umbilical cord the deciding factor if a baby is a person or not?
If children are technically property up until 18, we should be allowed to abort their life at any time until then. They cannot survive on their own before age 7 (with a lot of luck); kids are just a parasite living off the parents, why not end their life if we decide we don't want them? Is the umbilical cord the deciding factor if a baby is a person or not?
Are you trying to give Aspies a bad name?
If children are technically property up until 18, we should be allowed to abort their life at any time until then. They cannot survive on their own before age 7 (with a lot of luck); kids are just a parasite living off the parents, why not end their life if we decide we don't want them? Is the umbilical cord the deciding factor if a baby is a person or not?
Are you trying to give Aspies a bad name?
No, just attempting to figure out the logic behind abortions.
As you can tell, I am unsure when a mass of cells becomes a person... what is the deciding factor? Is it that a child is property of the woman? Is it that it cannot survive on it's own? Yes this should be up to a trained medical professional and patient to decide, but logically there needs to be some sort of guidelines.
I have changed my mind on many subjects, once they were presented logically and fact based.
My wife was born at 26 weeks. Our (unplanned) child was born when we were living in poverty & he motivated us to climb our way out of the rut we were in.
If children are technically property up until 18, we should be allowed to abort their life at any time until then. They cannot survive on their own before age 7 (with a lot of luck); kids are just a parasite living off the parents, why not end their life if we decide we don't want them? Is the umbilical cord the deciding factor if a baby is a person or not?
Are you trying to give Aspies a bad name?
No, just attempting to figure out the logic behind abortions.
As you can tell, I am unsure when a mass of cells becomes a person... what is the deciding factor? Is it that a child is property of the woman? Is it that it cannot survive on it's own? Yes this should be up to a trained medical professional and patient to decide, but logically there needs to be some sort of guidelines.
I have changed my mind on many subjects, once they were presented logically and fact based.
My wife was born at 26 weeks. Our (unplanned) child was born when we were living in poverty & he motivated us to climb our way out of the rut we were in.
A mass of cells recently was elected twice to the US Presidency and at the time complaints were minimum. You pose a difficult question.
The evidence is blatantly obvious in this topic, as both parties have equal contributions to the creation of said "item". They equally own said "item".
Wrong. The woman was in mortal danger giving birth. The male was in no danger at all. This is what gives the woman a better claim. You implication of symmetry is faulty. The situation is highly asymmetric. For the woman, danger and possibly death, for the man, no danger at all.
ruveyn
Both parenents have equal part in the creation of a zygote. Equal.
A zygote is a lifeform of it's own. It develops, grows, and further develops. Becoming a fetus, gestating further, and eventually birthed and called an infant human. (Assuming everything goes well)
A fetus requires constant life support for survival, namely, it's mother.
Growing a child and birthing it, can and often does, cause irrepairable damage to a woman.
I accept all of those as true. You should as well, because...they are.
You like analogies I assume, so here is another. Because even though a woman hold more of the danger in the act of producing offspring, that child is still 50% father/mother.
We make a super cool action movie, constant scenes of mayhem and fighting and stuff blowing up! And, this current superstar hunk actor agrees to sign on to be the man character! Can you say blockbuster? Mhm. Only catch is, he wont shoot any sceen that requires anything physical...in real life dudes a wimp. So, we use careful lighting, and use a stuntman for all the action scenes. And, in the end product, turns out that both our movie star, and the stuntman, end up in exactly 50% of the film. And that poor stuntman broke 2 ribs, lost a pinky, and sprained an ankle in the filming.
Guess who gets more recognition overall for the film? Guess which of the two gets paid more? Guess who has higher royalties? And guess which one of em has thier face and name right up on the front cover?
Just because one party in a collaborated ownership, or partnership carries a higher risk, does not immediatly grant them full control of said ownership/partnership.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
The evidence is blatantly obvious in this topic, as both parties have equal contributions to the creation of said "item". They equally own said "item".
Wrong. The woman was in mortal danger giving birth. The male was in no danger at all. This is what gives the woman a better claim. You implication of symmetry is faulty. The situation is highly asymmetric. For the woman, danger and possibly death, for the man, no danger at all.
ruveyn
Both parenents have equal part in the creation of a zygote. Equal.
A zygote is a lifeform of it's own. It develops, grows, and further develops. Becoming a fetus, gestating further, and eventually birthed and called an infant human. (Assuming everything goes well)
A fetus requires constant life support for survival, namely, it's mother.
Growing a child and birthing it, can and often does, cause irrepairable damage to a woman.
I accept all of those as true. You should as well, because...they are.
You like analogies I assume, so here is another. Because even though a woman hold more of the danger in the act of producing offspring, that child is still 50% father/mother.
We make a super cool action movie, constant scenes of mayhem and fighting and stuff blowing up! And, this current superstar hunk actor agrees to sign on to be the man character! Can you say blockbuster? Mhm. Only catch is, he wont shoot any sceen that requires anything physical...in real life dudes a wimp. So, we use careful lighting, and use a stuntman for all the action scenes. And, in the end product, turns out that both our movie star, and the stuntman, end up in exactly 50% of the film. And that poor stuntman broke 2 ribs, lost a pinky, and sprained an ankle in the filming.
Guess who gets more recognition overall for the film? Guess which of the two gets paid more? Guess who has higher royalties? And guess which one of em has thier face and name right up on the front cover?
Just because one party in a collaborated ownership, or partnership carries a higher risk, does not immediatly grant them full control of said ownership/partnership.
You keep making cockeyed analogies. First a plant and now a stuntman. The baby, aside from an itty bitty sperm is formed entirely from the mother's body. No doubt the sperm contributed some information but even the information that formed the male chromosome and its cohort was multiplied from the substance of the woman's body. For all practical purposes the stuff of the baby is from mommy.
As you can tell, I am unsure when a mass of cells becomes a person... what is the deciding factor? Is it that a child is property of the woman? Is it that it cannot survive on it's own? Yes this should be up to a trained medical professional and patient to decide, but logically there needs to be some sort of guidelines.
I have changed my mind on many subjects, once they were presented logically and fact based.
My wife was born at 26 weeks. Our (unplanned) child was born when we were living in poverty & he motivated us to climb our way out of the rut we were in.
That is the heart of the debate. Often you find opinion based factoids about legal terms thrown in to sway the debate. but essentially, "when is a person, a person?" is the question of real importance.
And unfortunately, everyone has a different point of view on the answer. Ranging, from my experience, from conception, even to a point after birth.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
I didn't make the plant analogies, I corrected the one that was proposed by someone else. To which the 2nd one was more or less directed to.
Yes, the sperm contributed "some"(half of it, precisely) information. It also activated the egg. The fusion of both gametes created a zygote. Both gametes are essential in producing it. And the zygote did further multiply and become a fetus, using material from it's mother to do so.
But, by that same line of reasoning. You are implying because the fetus uses it's mother as a source of food, that it is "formed entirely from it's mother's body"? Where are you going with that statement? That a fetus litterally "is" it's mother? Last I checked, that would be a form of self replication...and, well, doesn't really happen. Or are you implying that because a fetus feeds off it's mother is is inherantly hers? By that reasoning, you are your food's.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
If children are technically property up until 18, we should be allowed to abort their life at any time until then. They cannot survive on their own before age 7 (with a lot of luck); kids are just a parasite living off the parents, why not end their life if we decide we don't want them? Is the umbilical cord the deciding factor if a baby is a person or not?
A born human is a person at birth. He/She has the basic natural rights, although not all civil rights. The child is the ward of and in the care of it parents (normally) and is not property. A child cannot be legally bought or sold in the U.S..
ruveyn
I didn't make the plant analogies, I corrected the one that was proposed by someone else. To which the 2nd one was more or less directed to.
Yes, the sperm contributed "some"(half of it, precisely) information. It also activated the egg. The fusion of both gametes created a zygote. Both gametes are essential in producing it. And the zygote did further multiply and become a fetus, using material from it's mother to do so.
But, by that same line of reasoning. You are implying because the fetus uses it's mother as a source of food, that it is "formed entirely from it's mother's body"? Where are you going with that statement? That a fetus litterally "is" it's mother? Last I checked, that would be a form of self replication...and, well, doesn't really happen. Or are you implying that because a fetus feeds off it's mother is is inherantly hers? By that reasoning, you are your food's.
Since when has food had the status of a living being to gain ownership. Very odd thinking. If a farmer owns a cow that he feeds and cares for does the cow belong half to the bull that screwed its mother? These analogies are useless in this discussion.
And yet with abortion being legal you still had the child....Amazing!! ! People actually CAN make their own choices. Hoodathunkit.
Guess that settles it: abortion can be legal because not every single person in the world is going to have one.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson