Abortion Rights Group Strives for Youthful Image

[Odysseus]

Okay, fine, women who have abortions never have children at all, if you prefer to believe that. As to what abortion reasons I would legally restrict, those covered by current law.

But the laws vary wildly from state to state. In N.Y. and CA, the only restriction on abortions is that the patient be pregnant and, possibly, female, although parts of California may not even require that. Your answer is a blatant cop out, because we all know that feminists refuse to entertain any restrictions on abortion. I really want to hear you identify one restriction that you would accept. For example, would you support parental notification in the case of minors? Bans on a non-custodial person transporting minors across state lines in order to circumvent state laws? Informed consent laws? Laws requiring that a baby that survives an abortion be treated? Pick one, or provide one of your own examples, but do us the courtesy of answering the question honestly.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[FlaGator]

I say make all abortions illegal except when medically necessary to save the life of the mother and only then if she consents.

[linda22003]

But the laws vary wildly from state to state. In N.Y. and CA, the only restriction on abortions is that the patient be pregnant and, possibly, female, although parts of California may not even require that. Your answer is a blatant cop out, because we all know that feminists refuse to entertain any restrictions on abortion. I really want to hear you identify one restriction that you would accept. For example, would you support parental notification in the case of minors? Bans on a non-custodial person transporting minors across state lines in order to circumvent state laws? Informed consent laws? Laws requiring that a baby that survives an abortion be treated? Pick one, or provide one of your own examples, but do us the courtesy of answering the question honestly.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

OK, then, real answer is that I agree with the original Supreme Court decision. As a pregnancy progresses, the state has an increasing interest in limitations, but the first trimester is nobody's business.

[FlaGator]

OK, then, real answer is that I agree with the original Supreme Court decision. As a pregnancy progresses, the state has an increasing interest in limitations, but the first trimester is nobody's business.

I would disagree and say that it is the fetus' business.

The choice needs to be made a little further upstream before the future life of a child is put up for grabs.

[Odysseus]

OK, then, real answer is that I agree with the original Supreme Court decision. As a pregnancy progresses, the state has an increasing interest in limitations, but the first trimester is nobody's business.

Still not responsive. The Supreme Court created new law in Roe v. Wade, and in doing so, struck down laws in all 50 states, from outright bans to restrictions on licensing. Again, a few questions:

• Would you object to a state requiring parental notification for a minor seeking an abortion during the first trimester?
• If a state does require parental notification, but a neighboring state does not, would you accept a law that banned a non-custodial person (not a parent or guardian) transporting a minor out of state in order to obtain an abortion without meeting the notification requirement?
• Would you accept an outright ban on second and third trimester abortions, with exemptions for rape, incest, maternal physical health or fetal health?
• Would you accept a requirement that in those states which permit late term abortions, a fetus that survives an attempted abortion and takes a breath outside of the womb be treated as a human being and be given medical care?
• Do you object to laws that define a fetus as a person in the event of an assault, so that an attacker can be prosecuted for homicide if a violent assault causes a miscarriage or loss of a viable fetus? At what point in a pregnancy would such a law be appropriate?

[LukeEDay]

Life begins at conception ...

[linda22003]

Still not responsive. The Supreme Court created new law in Roe v. Wade, and in doing so, struck down laws in all 50 states, from outright bans to restrictions on licensing. Again, a few questions:

• Would you object to a state requiring parental notification for a minor seeking an abortion during the first trimester?
• If a state does require parental notification, but a neighboring state does not, would you accept a law that banned a non-custodial person (not a parent or guardian) transporting a minor out of state in order to obtain an abortion without meeting the notification requirement?
• Would you accept an outright ban on second and third trimester abortions, with exemptions for rape, incest, maternal physical health or fetal health?
• Would you accept a requirement that in those states which permit late term abortions, a fetus that survives an attempted abortion and takes a breath outside of the womb be treated as a human being and be given medical care?
• Do you object to laws that define a fetus as a person in the event of an assault, so that an attacker can be prosecuted for homicide if a violent assault causes a miscarriage or loss of a viable fetus? At what point in a pregnancy would such a law be appropriate?

First two questions: I think a minor is correctly considered to be under parental jurisdiction for pretty much everything. There are cases where a family structure is sufficiently broken down or toxic that a judicial workaround needs to be in place, and I think that's usually the case. Bear in mind that "under parental jurisdiction" can work both ways - for every parent that would want to forbid an abortion, there's another that would take the corners on two wheels in order to get the kid to a clinic as fast as possible. ;)
#3: Sure. Leave the first trimester alone, and I'll definitely let you have the 2nd and 3rd with the exceptions you mention (you might want to look at statistics first, before you agree to that). I don't know anyone who is in favor of late term abortion over an early one.
#4 Yes.
#5 I'm leery of any "personhood" laws, because they make a zygote the equivalent of a born person under the law. This means - if we're consistent - that any miscarriage would have to be investigated for possible malfeasance, which is preposterous. I'm okay with viability as the demarcation point.

And that's pretty much all I have to say about this. :)

[Hawkgirl]

And that's pretty much all I have to say about this. :)

Which means "don't ask me any more questions because if I have to sit down and actually THINK about the fact that I am defending the brutal murder of millions of innocent CHILDREN, then I'd feel like a monster."

[Odysseus]

Which means "don't ask me any more questions because if I have to sit down and actually THINK about the fact that I am defending the brutal murder of millions of innocent CHILDREN, then I'd feel like a monster."

No, she answered the questions, and there's even some internal logic to her answers. The fun part is going to follow.

First two questions: I think a minor is correctly considered to be under parental jurisdiction for pretty much everything. There are cases where a family structure is sufficiently broken down or toxic that a judicial workaround needs to be in place, and I think that's usually the case. Bear in mind that "under parental jurisdiction" can work both ways - for every parent that would want to forbid an abortion, there's another that would take the corners on two wheels in order to get the kid to a clinic as fast as possible. ;)

First, let me congratulate you for actually answering questions. Most people who get involved in discussions are more concerned with playing "gotcha" than actually explaining where they stand. However, we aren't done. The questions below raise some issues which you may not have thought about.

#3: Sure. Leave the first trimester alone, and I'll definitely let you have the 2nd and 3rd with the exceptions you mention (you might want to look at statistics first, before you agree to that). I don't know anyone who is in favor of late term abortion over an early one.

The argument over whether or not a fetus is a person and the argument over whether a woman has the right to control her own body have one thing in common, and that is that both sides argue that the rights that they are fighting for are absolute. If a fetus is a person, it has a right to life, and if it isn't, then a woman has the right to control her body until delivery. So, what makes the restriction of the absolute right of a woman to control her body in the second and third trimesters less compelling than during the first? Is the fetus less of a fetus and more of a person? Is the woman carrying the baby less of a person as the baby grows inside her? This is where the debate becomes a problem for both sides. Rights are absolute, and if a fetus is a human being it has rights from the moment of conception. If it isn't, then it has no rights until it draws its first breath outside of the womb. It's an either/or situation, and the questions that I am asking cannot be dismissed.

#4 Yes.
#5 I'm leery of any "personhood" laws, because they make a zygote the equivalent of a born person under the law. This means - if we're consistent - that any miscarriage would have to be investigated for possible malfeasance, which is preposterous. I'm okay with viability as the demarcation point.

This leads to another issue, which is that as medical technology improves, premature babies will be viable earlier in the term. Eventually, even first trimester births will be viable. At that point, is an abortion in the first trimester still permissible?

And that's pretty much all I have to say about this. :)

Unfortunately, it isn't. The problems with abortion go beyond the rights of an individual to control their reproductive capabilities, and presumptions of fetal viability vs. maternal rights don't address them. For example, we live in a nation which has a debt. That debt must be paid by future taxpayers. Is it right for the state to pay for the elimination of future taxpayers with borrowed dollars? For that matter, is it right for someone to decide to abort a fetus for some of the frivolous reasons cited by the Guttmacher survey? Is it acceptable to use abortion to select the sex of a baby? Or because its presence is inconvenient to her education, career or relationship? The world is full of inconvenient people, as any trip on I-95 during rush hour will demonstrate. If inconvenience justifies aborting a child in the first trimester, why not the second, or third, or postpartum? And before you say that this is an absurd extension, remember that there are abortion advocates who believe in euthanasia of infants under the right circumstances. For example, Peter Singer has argued that we must take the quality of a child's life into account, and that it is acceptable to abort a child who will be born physically or mentally defective, or to euthanize a child born defective. If we can identify certain genetic markers, would it be acceptable to abort a child who might grow up gay? Or brown-eyed? Or unattractive? Does a woman have the right to destroy a fetus because it will not be perfect enough to suit her standards, even in the first trimester?

The pro-life position is morally simple, but demanding. It posits that all human life is equally valid and requires that people take responsibility for their actions and keep the faith with the previous generations that produced us by nurturing the next generation. It demands that we raise our children to adulthood, but we cannot do that without becoming adults ourselves.

The pro-choice position is morally abstract, but convenient. It treats obligation, responsibility and adulthood as inconveniences, to be avoided with a snip of a pair of scissors or a vacuum suction tube. It perpetuates our adolescence, and keeps us from confronting the facts of life. It is a philosophy of self-absorption, and narcissism, of pleasure without consequences, of perpetual adolescence.

[linda22003]

"All I have to say" means "all I have to say". I'm not sufficiently interested in picking it apart down to the last detail. I'm not your issue - I'm 57 and I haven't had a uterus for almost ten years. I can't get pregnant. Concentrate on changing the minds and hearts of younger women if you want to see a change in this country.