In some ways. In some ways not. Third term yes. Others no.
Why? Where does this artificial barrier come from?
You have to be careful with the comparison though; a fetus exists within someone elses body, wholly connected and dependent upon it for its existance. Once the baby is viable, there is no question in my mind. However, its that point of absolute dependency early in development where the ambiguity lies. Slavery was viewed more as an issue of property and ownership; the reason this is more of a pure privacy issue is because it involves questions of domain within an individual's body.
I tend to sympathize with the pro-lifers that morally, this is a black and white issue. However, legally, one must be careful not to oversimplify and make invalid comparisons in order to advance and agenda.
I should have proofread that, but you get the idea 
.
So if it isn't a baby until it is "viable," then what is it beforehand?
All this talk about aborted fetuses...I'm getting hungry all the sudden!
While Mike M. makes himself a fried fetus sandwich, let me try to elaborate...
If the fetus cannot live without the mother, and is still attached to the mother, then it is wholly a part of the mother and part of her domain. Of course, to say that the "third trimester" is the cut off is incredibly artificial, and the decision about viability should be made based on hard science instead of simple mathematical division.
Also, I know you have stong feelings on this Mellora, and I'm not trying to change your mind in any way, only elaborate on what I was saying. Quite frankly, this is a difficult issue for me; morally, I do not subscribe to abortion, period. However, I think there is a strong Constitutional argument that protects a woman if she can live with her decision, though I also think that after 5-6 months if a decision is not made, then the viable or soon-to-be viable life must be protected.
Sorry for another double entry, but I missed my main point. It is simply this: oversimplified terms such as "pro-life" or "pro-choice" don't necessarily either reflect any common sense, but ideological driven rhetoric aimed at gaining a political edge. This issue is too important for that sort of thing, and should be regarded with the gravity and complexity it deserves.
A 9-year old also thinks with absolute clarity that when you need more money you just go get some out of the cash machine.
But that is exactly correct. When I want more money I go to the cash machine. When I want more income, that's another story.
In any case, err on the side of life.
lol - for some reason, it made me think of the South Park where Cartman's mom tries to have him aborted even though he's like 8 or 9. But perhaps that's a bit off topic...
And nice job quoting the Republican talking points Ryan. Another fantastic example of Republicans attempting to simplify a complex issue with absolute moral clarity and superiority. Make a blanket statement no one can disagree with, and somehow apply it to every situation in which your ideology and agenda can be advanced. Truly an effective campaign strategy; I only wish the Dems would figure out how to confuse people so well .
I really see this as a black-and-white issue. I don't need the GOP to tell me that. I would be pro-life if the GOP wasn't, and I'm not sure I would be a Republican if the GOP was pro-choice.
Geez, who is stupid enough not to know how babies are made? Yeah, have your right to privacy BEFORE you make a baby (although that's not really in the Constitution, I'll say it for the sake of argument), but once you create a human being who is genetically different from the get-go, that person has a right to life too. If women magically became pregnant, we might have an argument here about whose rights, whose body, but people know what they're doing when they make babies. I don't buy all the surprise! bs.
Furthermore, women suffer immeasurably from abortions. They are apt to suffer emotionally for years and even to adopt self-destructive tendencies. I have personally witnessed friends crying, grieving 10 and 15 years later because it still weighed heavily on them. But my friend who had her baby has had a hard life, but never regretted her decision.
Most studies show that women don't choose to have abortions as freely as you think. They feel pressured into it by some jerk guy who wanted to screw her but doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions after the fact. But, boy, he can feel positively noble about driving to the clinic or paying for the abortion.
And yes, it is a baby. My son when he was about 3 saw a picture of a baby in the womb, not all that far along, and labeled it "baby". It doesn't take any great intellect to look at a picture and know what it is. It takes "intellect" to look at a plain picture and NOT know what it is. http://www.michaelclancy.com/
viability is an interesting aurgument, medical technology makes it a moving target.
a one year old child can't survive without direct intervention by other humans.
Mckain says at 6 months, the in-utero child must be protected.
Question, at what point should the rights of the fetus be considered?
considered, as in weighed against the wishes of the mother.
should biological facts be considered in this discussion?
When does the fetal heart beat begin?
When does measurable brain activity begin?
What is the earliest premature birth to survive?
what was it in 72(?) when roe v wade was decided?
What is the earliest premature birth to survive?
what was it in 72(?) when roe v wade was decided?
Steamboat Willy | 06.13.06 - 7:19 pm | #
It doesn't really matter since Roe v Wade effectually made abortion a right from conception to live birth.
Part of the reason I refuse to convert wholly to the "pro-life" side (and I lean that way much more than many dems do, if you haven't noticed)is simply because I am not a woman. I'll never be pregnant; I'll never have to make that decision. If the conservative side of this argument is going to win out, in my mind it must be the WOMEN who advance the notion, and until they hold a realistic proportion of the places in government, the whole debate is quite convoluted.
Mike, I may never be a woman, but I used to be a fetus.
Ryan,
Just come out and admit it. You want to OWN every woman's body. Simple as that. Because, that's what it will boil down to if you social conservatives get your way. You want to OWN the bodies of all women. I'll understand you all much better if you just admit that.
Mike M---Bul6s#$t!
Abortion has been a boon to men who want to use women for their pleasure and not accept responsibility for the babies invariably created... An adolescent male's dream. Don't even go there with that ownership bs. Like I want to own women's bodies. That is about the stupiest tripe I've heard in a long time, and I'd like to believe comments like that are beneath you. If you want to say offensive things like that about social conservatives like me, you'll get offensive stuff back. But for now, I'll refrain.
Next time try presenting some reasoned arguments. I know you're better than that last statement. I just know it.
Mike McKain--
for you
http://www.feministsforlife.org/
There are a lot of women who realize we've been sold a bill of goods with this right to kill our babies. Go read the stories of women who've been molested and convinced to have abortions by their molesters (because it's their right, of course).
Go read the stories of women convinced by others that a baby would ruin their lives and the incredible emotional turmoil they found themselves in after the abortion.
And bottom line, we don't kill innocent people--certainly not on purpose. There is something seriously wrong with killing a living soul just because we don't want him/her and he's inconvenient to our lifestyle.
I agree with you from a moral/personal standpoint, but I just don't think the legal/political basis is there to reverse the current situation. I also think groups such as the one you presented are much more credible than a group of old men deciding what is best for women. However, our current government, courts included, is exactly that; a group of older men. It simply shouldn't be up to them to decide what is best for the women of this nation.
I understand your point. You don't think men are qualified to judge this.
Do you think a man would be qualified to judge if a single mother with a baby should be allowed to kill it? Is it really all that different just because the baby is inside?
Do you feel unqualified to say that 7 or 8 months along into the pregnancy a woman shouldn't have labor induced, the baby born breach except for the head, and scissors jammed into the back of its neck and its brains sucked out so it will be born dead? That's completely legal in the U.S.
Mike, male or not, I think you are plenty qualified to judge some of these things. Don't sell yourself short on judgment just because you're male.
Mike, this is what happens when you spend too much time with feminists...
My gut is that an abortion is morally OK on the first day of the term, but impermissable on the last day. In between, I don't know. That leaves me in the "rare and legal" camp.
I think the historical concept of "quickening" is onto something, and the Supreme Court echoed that with their trimester approach. I can't say the numbers are exactly right, but it's on the right track.
This is not about sexual selfishness and libertines. I personally know several families where the presence of a disabled child totally distorted normal family relationships and caused deep emotional problems for the normal siblings lasting into adulthood. The only way to justify that tragedy is to take the "Suffering is good for you, you don't know God's reasons" approach" which is cold comfort for grown people who can't maintain normal relationships. If the disability could have been diagnosed and the pregnancy terminated in the first month of term, I think everybody would have been better off.
I personally know several families where the presence of a disabled child totally distorted normal family relationships and caused deep emotional problems for the normal siblings lasting into adulthood. The only way to justify that tragedy is to take the "Suffering is good for you, you don't know God's reasons" approach" which is cold comfort for grown people who can't maintain normal relationships. If the disability could have been diagnosed and the pregnancy terminated in the first month of term, I think everybody would have been better off.
As someone who's brother has a "disability," I find that highly offensive. I know several people who have siblings with differing disabilities, and I know no one who would wish them never to be born. I for one think my brother has only enhanced my personal strength. By no means has it ever been easy, but I would carefully think about such matters before you say things like you just have.
Abortion for "disabilities" is akin to the Nazis euthanizing and sterilizing those same people during their reign of power in Germany. Would you also support this?
I truely cannot concieve life without my brother, and it would have been ashame never to have known him. He may be younger than me and "disabled", but he has certainly been a huge part of my life.
but I would carefully think about such matters before you say things like you just have.
I have thought about it for more than twice as many years as you have been alive. I don't care to tell you my personal details.
"Do you feel unqualified to say that 7 or 8 months along into the pregnancy a woman shouldn't have labor induced..."
Not at all - and I stated such in my previous posts. I have no problem with the late-term abortion ban, though I think there needs to be a little wiggle room for doctor disgression, etc. I refer to the earlier times in the pregnancy when the barbarism involved is less clear.
I have thought about it for more than twice as many years as you have been alive. I don't care to tell you my personal details.
What a sad and cowardly excuse. Congrats on making age an issue where I seriously doubt my youth hinders any judgement on this issue.
It doesn't really matter since Roe v Wade effectually made abortion a right from conception to live birth.
Anna Venger | Homepage | 06.14.06 - 9:56 pm | #
anna, you are mistaken. Roe is about pre-viability, leaving state considerable latitude in regulating late term abortions.
Damn...I wish I was a woman so I could have an abortion JUST to tick off all of you conservative folk!
Mike, I would definitely support a research effort to enable you to become pregnant (although frankly, that's as far as I would go to help you - don't get excited). Maybe you can become pregnant with a good shot of embryonic stem cells?
Willy,
You are mistaken. that's why states that have tried to outlaw partial birth abortion have had them stricken down.
Mike M
That would be really stupid. Infertility rates inc after first pregnancy. There are women who mourn having an abortion and wouldn't have done it if they had known that might have been their only chance.
Women suffer freq from self-destructive tendencies after abortion.
Breast cancer rates inc with abortion. The U.S. has squelched that debate, but it's known in Europe.
parental notification
informed concent
both have passed judicial review.
where PBA legislation falls afoul of the courts is in failing to make an exception for the "life and health of the mother"
Willy,
Life and health of mother for PBA? Now that's ridiculous. If a woman's life is in immediate jeopardy, they do an emergency C section, not put her through inducement of labor,labor and delivery, oops, I mean of all but the head.
Had a girlfriend whose life was in danger. C section it was and fast.
and "parental notification
informed concent" doesn't sound like considerable latitude to me. How could parental notification be argued with when a minor can't buy a pack of cigarettes or alcohol or even be given a motrin at school. No abortion is legal for the whole 9 months. That's sick.
I'm not arguing right and wrong, I am exlaining the historical fact of Roe V Wade.
on PBA, Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote that struck down the old PBA law. her opinion centered on failing to include an exception for the health of the mother.
I put roward the following concepts as questions:
When does the fetal heart beat begin?
When does measurable brain activity begin?
What is the earliest premature birth to survive?
because I didn't want to be the source, I wanted each involved in the debate to Google (or go the the dead trees library) and find the answers in a source they trusted.
apparently nobody wanted to ad any new facts to their opinions. every body seems comfortable in their role and as long as the Supremes keep the issue from the real of legislation, none need an informed opinion.
Commenting by HaloScan
