Who has the right to life?

[Sharon den Adel]

Hypothetically, that could mean abortion is permissible right up to the day before labour and the baby's delivery are due to occur. Assuming that you don't agree with infanticide, is there a difference between the 34 to 36 week old fetus and the newborn baby that justifies the distinction? The newborn may have moved outside of its mother's body but it is still totally dependent on the mother.

Yes, there is a difference. The difference between a 34 week fetus and a 36 week fetus is simply development. The 36 week old fetus is more developed, and more likely to survive outside the womb without assistance.

The difference between a fetus and a newborn baby is that the newborn is no longer relying on the bodily nutrients of the mother to sustain it's life. It is also breathing independantly, and is completely dependant from the mother.

Should it still qualify as a personal lifestyle choice in situations where it is causing detrimental effects on society as a whole, such as in India and China?

I don't agree with it, but if a woman wishes to have an abortion because her child is the 'wrong' sex, that is her choice, and none of my business.

[M.Dancer]

By educating on how to avoid pregnancy in the first place: abstinence or contraception.

Nope sorry. That only avoids if effective, the next abortion. Keep trying though....

[M.Dancer]

But whatever rights a fetus might have, a woman certainly has rights over her body --

Gee...I thought this was simple enough even for you.

The fetus has no rights, the anti-mother holds all the cards and if she wished death she gets it....your whole arguments just got flushed....

[M.Dancer]

How many people die on Earth every day because you wouldn't donate a month's wages to them, never mind nine months use of your body?

Typical...expect other people to be responsible for their actions....not a good argument for advocating death.

[M.Dancer]

Right. Nobody has ever had any degree of personal choice over whether and when they have children.

Don't tell me, you are either 4'2" or not too quick.....cause that flew right over your head

Here's a hint, you can find proof if you need it in a biology book....

It takes two to make a baby.....

[Drea]

The fetus has no rights,

That is correct.

the anti-mother holds all the cards and if she wished death she gets it....your whole arguments just got flushed....

The "anti-mother"?

You are too funny...

The WOMAN holds all the cards -- the life or death of the fetus is in her hands.

This really gets your goat doesn't it? That a woman can choose to abort a fetus and you have no say whatsoever.

Oh well. Some people (you?) go through life with such a desperate need to control others under the guise of "saving lives". Yet these same people would never lift a finger to assist in the raising of the child. Everyone who is anti-choice should have at least ONE adopted child... or their argument is a waste of bandwidth.

[WIP]

That is correct.

The "anti-mother"?

You are too funny...

The WOMAN holds all the cards -- the life or death of the fetus is in her hands.

But, in the U.S. there have been at least 200 prosecutions of pregnant women for using drugs and/or alcohol during pregnancy and giving birth to children who suffered defects as a result, according to this report: http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/pub_...ishingwomen.pdf

I don't think there have been prosecutions in Canada, although I recall the story of a native woman out West who was taken in to custody for trying to perform an abortion on herself by shooting herself in the abdomen with a pellet gun. Prosecutors had to prove that she was a danger to herself, since there was nothing legally to stop her from harming the fetus.

But should that right to privacy be absolute, Even in situations where she is harming the fetus growing inside her? A child growing up with the mental and physical effects of fetal alcohol syndrome or drug abuse may not regard it has their mother's free choice.

This really gets your goat doesn't it? That a woman can choose to abort a fetus and you have no say whatsoever.

Oh well. Some people (you?) go through life with such a desperate need to control others under the guise of "saving lives". Yet these same people would never lift a finger to assist in the raising of the child. Everyone who is anti-choice should have at least ONE adopted child... or their argument is a waste of bandwidth.

Good question! How many children has Rush Limbaugh adopted by the way? Then again, since he takes his viagra with him on jaunts to sex tourist resorts in the Dominican Republic, maybe it's a good thing to keep him away from children! There are many exceptions of course, but a lot of conservatives lose their respect for life once it has left the mother's womb!

[Drea]

But, in the U.S. there have been at least 200 prosecutions of pregnant women for using drugs and/or alcohol during pregnancy and giving birth to children who suffered defects as a result, according to this report: http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/pub_...ishingwomen.pdf

I think that educating drug/alcohol addicted women that abortion is a start -- if they are not willing (or able) to give up the addiction for the duration of the pregnancy they should be counselled on the option of abortion. They should be shown children that have the physical effects of drugs and alcohol so that they can make an informed choice. They can knowingly choose to abort and continue drugs or quit drugs and keep the pregnancy.

I don't know what enforcement could (or even if it should) be used if the woman decides to keep it and continues substance abuse.

[guyser]

That is correct.

The WOMAN holds all the cards -- the life or death of the fetus is in her hands.

I guess if you wait three or four weeks you can make the same dumb claim you did back then.How do you ever learn?

[Drea]

I guess if you wait three or four weeks you can make the same dumb claim you did back then.How do you ever learn?

Pardon me, guyser, but I really think you've replied to the wrong thread...something about "three or four weeks" and "claims"...""back then...back when?

[Melanie_]

But, in the U.S. there have been at least 200 prosecutions of pregnant women for using drugs and/or alcohol during pregnancy and giving birth to children who suffered defects as a result, according to this report: http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/pub_...ishingwomen.pdf

I don't think there have been prosecutions in Canada, although I recall the story of a native woman out West who was taken in to custody for trying to perform an abortion on herself by shooting herself in the abdomen with a pellet gun. Prosecutors had to prove that she was a danger to herself, since there was nothing legally to stop her from harming the fetus.

But should that right to privacy be absolute, Even in situations where she is harming the fetus growing inside her? A child growing up with the mental and physical effects of fetal alcohol syndrome or drug abuse may not regard it has their mother's free choice.

This is where it gets tough. There was a woman here in Winnipeg quite some time ago who was pregnant, and a crack addict. The courts tried to force her to go into rehab during her pregnancy, but they were unsuccessful, because she had the right to make choices for her own body - the fetus had no rights.

I see many children with disabilities through my job, and it is heartbreaking to watch kids with FAS/E struggle to understand their disability. They can't learn as easily as their classmates, they can't control their impulses, they are constantly distracted; this is just part of the damage alcohol does in utero to developing brain structures. This is physical damage that can't be undone, and it is totally preventable.

I believe a woman needs to make a choice whether to continue a pregnancy or not. But once she has made the choice, she is obligated to protect the developing fetus from harm in any way she can. Can this be legislated? I go back and forth on this.... I'm sure some of you have more definite opinions than me.

[WIP]

I think that educating drug/alcohol addicted women that abortion is a start -- if they are not willing (or able) to give up the addiction for the duration of the pregnancy they should be counselled on the option of abortion. They should be shown children that have the physical effects of drugs and alcohol so that they can make an informed choice. They can knowingly choose to abort and continue drugs or quit drugs and keep the pregnancy.

I don't know what enforcement could (or even if it should) be used if the woman decides to keep it and continues substance abuse.

Even if there is no option for state criminal prosecution, I can see how this sort of situation would be grounds for a child who was damaged by his/her mother's drug abuse or alcoholism, to take her to court for negligence.

[WIP]

Pardon me, guyser, but I really think you've replied to the wrong thread...something about "three or four weeks" and "claims"...""back then...back when?

Maybe he just feels the need to attack every post you write!

[WIP]

This is where it gets tough. There was a woman here in Winnipeg quite some time ago who was pregnant, and a crack addict. The courts tried to force her to go into rehab during her pregnancy, but they were unsuccessful, because she had the right to make choices for her own body - the fetus had no rights.

That must be the story I was trying to recall! I'm looking at this situation more from an ethical standpoint than a legal one, which are often unrelated! I just had a notion that if there was some legal sanction against causing deliberate harm to the fetus, the courts wouldn't have had to struggle to come up with creative legal means to force her to stay in rehab.

I see many children with disabilities through my job, and it is heartbreaking to watch kids with FAS/E struggle to understand their disability. They can't learn as easily as their classmates, they can't control their impulses, they are constantly distracted; this is just part of the damage alcohol does in utero to developing brain structures. This is physical damage that can't be undone, and it is totally preventable.

I believe a woman needs to make a choice whether to continue a pregnancy or not. But once she has made the choice, she is obligated to protect the developing fetus from harm in any way she can. Can this be legislated? I go back and forth on this.... I'm sure some of you have more definite opinions than me.

I know my opinions on the abortion debate are anything but definite! On a personal level, the only woman close to me who had had an abortion was a sister-in-law who died about 10 years ago( not because of the abortion of course). I never really got into the details of the abortion debate until I joined a couple of American conservative forums and discovered that abortion is just about the only social issue they care about! After they're born, they want the welfare payments cut, the school lunch programs cut, daycare programs cut...........but at least they care about the child while it's still in the womb!

This problem of aborting children over issues like sex-selection seems to indicate to me that there may be situations where the right to life should take precedence over the right to privacy. I wouldn't advocate a ban on third trimester abortions! Most women who want an abortion, want it done as early as possible, so third trimester abortions are usually sought for serious reasons like birth defects or when it's discovered that the woman's life may be at risk.

[guyser]

Maybe he just feels the need to attack every post you write!

First post in a month in reply to her....must be ""every post".....sigh.

She plays dumb quite well and knows exactly what I meant. Carry on.

[M.Dancer]

First post in a month in reply to her....must be ""every post".....sigh.

She plays dumb quite well and knows exactly what I meant. Carry on.

She ain't playing...

[Drea]

First post in a month in reply to her....must be ""every post".....sigh.

She plays dumb quite well and knows exactly what I meant. Carry on.

Would you at least have the decency to clarify what on earth you are blathering about?

PM me if you feel the need... instead of wandering around the board throwing out meaningless one-liners.

Are you arguing against abortion? For it? Against women making the decsion? Where, oh where dear forum-stalker, do you stand on this issue?

M.Dancer... you are so awesome. (I even laughed at your scoliosis joke a while back, remember?) Thank you for being so consistently an ass... unlike guyser who flip flops all over the place with his incoherent posts

[Drea]

Maybe he just feels the need to attack every post you write!

When this "type" of poster cannot refute the topic, they resort to insulting the poster. Typical of the rightwing. Very expected... welcomed actually... I like to toy with 'em, they get soooo angry... it's quite funny to watch.

[guyser]

When this "type" of poster cannot refute the topic, they resort to insulting the poster. Typical of the rightwing. Very expected... welcomed actually... I like to toy with 'em, they get soooo angry... it's quite funny to watch.

Forget it. There is wrong then there is "drea wrong"

Edited June 3, 2008 by guyser

[WIP]

First post in a month in reply to her....must be ""every post".....sigh.

She plays dumb quite well and knows exactly what I meant. Carry on.

I thought it was more recent, but it seemed you were more intent on attacking the person than attacking the argument. And in the latest round, your comments about this post:

QUOTE(Drea @ Jun 2 2008, 07:35 AM) *

That is correct.

The WOMAN holds all the cards -- the life or death of the fetus is in her hands.

don't inform any of us on the sidelines what your objections to the strong pro-choice position are! That is not as unique or bizarre a position as you are trying to frame it. Since a lot of men don't regard the woman's rights to make decisions at any stage of pregnancy, it's not surprising that a lot of women don't want outside interference under any circumstances. Any argument for situations where right to life might override right to privacy are DOA as long as they ignore or dismiss a woman's rights to control what to do with her own body at all stages of pregnancy.

Historically, the traditions of patriarchal rule branch out from man's desire to have complete control of their women's sexuality. Pro-life supporters aren't going to even start to broaden their base of support without at least acknowledging the real reasons why many are supporting right to life arguments.

[M.Dancer]

Historically, the traditions of patriarchal rule branch out from man's desire to have complete control of their women's sexuality. Pro-life supporters aren't going to even start to broaden their base of support without at least acknowledging the real reasons why many are supporting right to life arguments.

You mean, your imagined reasons.....

Imagined reason because the real reasons, such as the cavalier regard for life and the brutal death of the child must be minimized, trivialized and sanitized to make seem so much less traumatic.

Wanting to harp back to the days of patriarchal world might sound erudite in an essay, but for the average person who's culture and ethics are modern, these anachronisms aren't relevant to anyone except the sophomore hoping to impress the prof. And of course, for every man who wonders aboutr the morality of killing a child to suit the whim of the anti-mother, there are as many women who have exactly the same thoughts.

[Drea]

Forget it. There is wrong then there is "drea wrong"

Anything to say on the issue at hand, guyser?

Or are you so obsessed with me that you've forgotten the topic.

WIP, I believe in women having choice. I also believe that late term (5 months and more) abortions should occur only in rare circumstances. If a woman wants an abortion it should not take her six months of "waffling" to decide. If she waffles she should NOT have the abortion.

Drug/alcohol abuse by pregnant women is a totally different kettle of worms... I would be hardpressed to TELL a woman she had to abort, but for the sake of the child, it would be better than being born messed up for life.

I also have a problem "monitoring" or "detaining" pregnant drug/alcohol users during pregnancy as it is very intrusive.

However, once the defective child is born... take it away and prosecute the mother for endangerment/damages.

I'd say "Listen Bitch - you had the option to abort, but you chose not to; you chose to give birth to a child that you KNEW would not be able to function... so therefore we are prosecuting you to the full extent of the law."

That's what I'd say.

[WIP]

You mean, your imagined reasons.....

Imagined reason because the real reasons, such as the cavalier regard for life and the brutal death of the child must be minimized, trivialized and sanitized to make seem so much less traumatic.

Wanting to harp back to the days of patriarchal world might sound erudite in an essay, but for the average person who's culture and ethics are modern, these anachronisms aren't relevant to anyone except the sophomore hoping to impress the prof. And of course, for every man who wonders aboutr the morality of killing a child to suit the whim of the anti-mother, there are as many women who have exactly the same thoughts.

Take a look through your Old Testament sometime if you don't believe me! I don't know what the exact breakdown is today, but not everybody is what you would describe as "modern!" Especially a notable previous post comment that the world was a better place before women had rights! Sometimes you can focus so much attention on your enemies, you ignore what your allies are up to!

As long as there are Christians who claim our moral values are based on the Ten Commandments, there is a strong constituency to turn back the clock to the good old days.

[M.Dancer]

Take a look through your Old Testament sometime if you don't believe me!

And while I'm at it I will browse the code of hammurabi....either or ....neither are particulaly relevant in most people daily lives yey most people finding killing repugnant.

As long as there are Christians who claim our moral values are based on the Ten Commandments, there is a strong constituency to turn back the clock to the good old days.

I don't feel marginalized or threatened by the fringe 1% nor do i think there inclusion is an argument for killing.

[WIP]

And while I'm at it I will browse the code of hammurabi....either or ....neither are particulaly relevant in most people daily lives yey most people finding killing repugnant.

Yes the Code of Hammurabi is worth looking at if you want to know where the Ten Commandments cam from! The point is traditional Judeo-Christian ethics developed from a patriarchal system that viewed women as the property of men. Be fruitful and multiply is the guiding principle. The idea of having women, not only having access to abortion, but also birth control, and picking and choosing when to get pregnant and how many children to have, runs counter to the principle that all sex acts be open for procreation -- still the Catholic Church's official position today!

I don't know how much of the effort to control women's fertility is consciously planned, or how much is an unconscious desire, but attempting to claim that the only motive behind pro-life is to protect the unborn is totally dishonest and prochoice advocates are justified to be suspicious of the real motives behind the prolife movement.

I don't feel marginalized or threatened by the fringe 1% nor do i think there inclusion is an argument for killing.

1%. sure it's 1%! I'll believe that if you happen to have some numbers to back it up. The truth is that religious fundamentalism ebbs and flows with the zeitgeist of the times we're living in. In good times, even the religious forget their devotions. But in bad times, everybody finds religion and wants to appease an angry god who has brought war, pestilence and famine upon the land. Judging from what's happening with the World economy going down the crapper and the possibility of resource wars in the future, I'd say that the people who want to turn the clock back are going to be increasing their numbers significantly over the coming years!

And at what point does abortion constitute "killing?" It's totally bogus if you consider destroying a fertilized egg as the equivalent of killing a baby!