At what point do you believe a fetus becomes a baby? Why, at that point, do you believe that it becomes illegal to kill it?
Moreover, do you believe it is immoral to murder? If yes, at what age does it become illegal to murder someone, and why?
Basically, I'm interested in why you DON'T think a third-trimester fetus is a baby.
------
I'll admit to having another motive to asking this question, by the way. Christy's due in two months, and I actually held my daughter's foot through my wife's stomach last night. It was simultaneously weird/squicky and magical, especially since I could quite clearly feel her reacting to my touch and my voice. If she's not a baby by this point, I don't know what she is, exactly.
posted
Just to add my two cents... I'm all for abortion up to the third trimester. By that point, imo, the fetus is too much like a baby.
The ancients had no problem with abortion...up till the "quickening" that is. The quickening is when the fetus first starts to move and they figured that is when the soul first entered. So until the soul entered it was just fine to root it out.
My thinking is similar. When does the fetus become sentient? I say that the fetus is just a blob of cells and a potential Human up till about halfway through the pregnacy.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie I believe partial birth abortion did include abortions in the third trimester. The reason why they crushed the skull was so that the baby was dead before they pulled it to it couldn't take a breath and be "alive"
Personally, at the moment, I'm ok with first trimester abortions but second trimester starts to get a little iffy for me.
posted
Teleperion, the "quickening" was what the mother *felt*. The baby starts moving very early on, much earlier than the mother can feel.
Currently there are no restrictions on abortion. The federal law against "partial birth" abortion is currently in abeyance pending resolutions on legal challenge for its constitutionality. The argument is that it has no medical definition, and thus could be binding far beyond its intent, as I understand it.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
The women's rights issue is that men can choose to have sex with no consequences, whereas women cannot.
Abortion allows women the same choices as men. (Or at least, choices that are as equitable as we can make them.)
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
...interesting. I was always under the impression that abortion was restricted past second trimester.
I'll have to consider that.
As for the ban on partial-birth abortion, I *do* take issue with the fact that it (to my knowledge) has no provisions for the health and safety of the mother.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A man knows, just as a woman does, that if he has sex a pregnancy may result. He may decide to do it anyway, and he may decide to take steps to try to reduce the chances of pregnancy, but he know the chance exists. If a pregnancy does result, he cannot escape the fact that he is a potential father, and if the baby is born, he cannot escape the fact that he is a father. We have built up a whole system of laws to prevent him from shirking the responsibilites that come with that.
As much as some men might like to believe in consequence-free sex, it does not truly exist. Why would women aspire to be like the jerk men who think this way?
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not about to give up my rights by accident.
But you are willing to kill a baby over it. 2nd trimester goes up to 26 or 27 weeks. Believe me, it's a baby by that point.
My friend delivered very early at about 24 or 25 weeks and Olivia is doing just fine - no signs of physical or mental problems from being so premature.
Good thing the doctors thought she was more than a blob of cells and saved her.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie H:"We just want the option, same as men. We want the right to choose."
But men DON'T have the option. That's the point. Both men and women have the same right to choose: whether or not to participate in an activity that may result in a pregnancy. If a pregnancy does result, both sometimes try to escape the consequences, and almost invariably BREAK THE LAW in doing so.
quote:A man is always able to have sex and not have a baby.
Abortion allows a woman to be able to have sex and not have a baby.
Wow. Not sure what to say about this. This has never been my thought process in terms of being pro-choice. I think if a woman wants to be sexually active and not have a baby, she should be responsible and use birth control to prevent a pregnancy. An abortion is a last resort, not a birth control method that allows a woman to have sex indiscriminately.
And I should clarify that I feel that late abortions should be done only if the life of the mother is at stake.
[ April 26, 2004, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
Actually, Kasie, I hate to say this, but some of the rhetoric I'm hearing from you (and am forced to assume is far more common than I had thought, since you are intelligent and well-educated) is making me rethink my position on some abortion-restricting laws.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I am all for birth control and personal responsibility. I also believe abortion is the last resort.
The issue is that birth control is never 100% effective. And then of course you've got situations of rape and incest.
As for being extreme, please keep in mind that I'm using something of a philosophical women's rights justification for abortion, which I support in principle. It's a little bit more difficult in practice, where each decision is made on an individual basis.
Mostly I just believe those decisions should continue to be individual, and universal/made by the government.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, I was under the impression that having the man pay child support does at least attempt to provide equality. If the father pays child support, then the mother has custody, which implies she provides food, shelter, etc, etc...
posted
Kasie, for a long time, while I was still pro-choice, I thought there were restrictions on abortion also. That there were limits. But there aren't any. None. That's what Roe v. Wade did. By saying that illegalizing abortion is unconstitutional, they didn't just say that abortion is okay early in a pregnancy, they said that we have a consitutional right to abortion. Period. No restrictions.
As I understand it, the problem with the recently passed partial birth abortion law is that "partion birth abortion" is not a medical term. Since it's not a medical term, it could describe just about anything, which would put doctors who thought they were doing something legal at risk. The other issue with the law is that (as you pointed out) there are no provisions for exceptions to the rule.
I think it's unfortunate that the two sides of this are so polarized. The NARAL and Planned Parenthood crowd lobby to keep no restrictions, and honestly, I have to think it's more about money than out of concern for women. Rather than cleaning up their act, by making abortion as clearly laid out as possible (I believe they obfuscate the issue a great deal to distressed women in the hopes that they may perform more abortions), and by agreeing that partial birth abortion as we understand it is a reprehensible, barbaric procedure that should be illegal, they fearmonger women into believing that their reproductive rights are at threat. No such thing is true. It's unlikely that the much contested partial birth abortion ban will stand up to scrutiny in the courts, and it took *years* and a Pro-Life president to get it passed in the first place.
On the other side of it, there are pro-lifers who think there should be *no* legal access to abortion, under any circumstances. But I think, like Planned Parenthood, they are the fringe element. Personally, I am staunchly pro-life, but am willing to acknowledge that until a baby has measurable brainwaves, it's hard to prove beyond a doubt that the child is a child. I believe it's murder, but am willing to acknowledge that I can't *prove* it, and so allow that abortion prior to measurable brainwave activity should be legal. That's 40 days, post-conception. OTOH, I also believe that if women are pro-choice, they need to also allow men to be pro-choice too. It took two to make the baby, even if she gets to do the carrying. Men should have the right to choose if a woman aborts his baby.
Last of all...honestly, I don't understand the purpose of the rally. You have what you want. By the tone of your posts, it sounds like you have *more* than what you want, even.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie, what PSI is getting at is that men have *no* choice in the face of women's right to choose. They don't get to choose if she has an abortion..they don't get to choose if she has the baby. And if she does choose to have the baby, they have no right to choose to not pay child support.
The only choice they get is to have sex or not. Which you've made clear isn't much of a choice.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I was under the impression that having the man pay child support does at least attempt to provide equality."
So, under what circumstances would you let men have sex without any child-bearing consequences? Because that's what you're saying women need, in order to be "equal" -- but it sounds like men don't have that, anyway.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeniwren:"That's what Roe v. Wade did. By saying that illegalizing abortion is unconstitutional, they didn't just say that abortion is okay early in a pregnancy, they said that we have a consitutional right to abortion. Period. No restrictions."
No. That's not at all what Roe v Wade said. It's not the current state of the law, either.
Roe v Wade broke up a pregnancy into three periods. During the first, the State may not restrict access to abortion. During the second, the State may impose some restrictions, but may not ban abortion entirely. During the third, which begins roughly at the time the fetus is "viable," the State may regulate much more heavily. The reasons are complex, and the details have changed somewhat since Roe v Wade (for instance, the three periods originally lined up with the three trimesters, but no more).
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To expand on what UofUlawguy said, 40 states and D.C. outlaw elective abortions after viability.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The women's rights issue is that men can choose to have sex with no consequences, whereas women cannot.
I am truly shocked. The only difference between a man and a woman in an unplanned pregnancy is that the woman carries the child. That's a big deal, yes. The man is still required to pay child support and other such things. Yes, the woman sacrifices more during the pregnancy, but that's not the governments fault. That's not men's fault, and nobody is depriving you of a "right". That's simple biology, so you can do all your little marches you want, and it won't change that.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie, you have to know that I support equality for men and women in almost every sense. (I can't think of an exception, but I'm leaving myself open for one.) But it isn't the government's job to make up for the fact that people are BORN unequal sometimes.
We can't fix the fact the women have uteruses and men do not. The best way to even things up is NOT to let women have abortions, it's to make the fathers pony up their half of the dough and time, or whatever is most fair and possible.
posted
I don't know if those situations really exist, Stargate. I'm under the impression that if a man can prove he's the father, then he can get father's rights.
I say this because my cousin had to have her son's father sign a ton of papers saying he DIDN'T want father's rights. She bribed him because when men give up their father's rights, they no longer have to pay child support.
posted
PSI:"when men give up their father's rights, they no longer have to pay child support. Am I wrong, UofU?"
Well, a guy can't get out of child support just by saying he gives up his parental rights. That would be exactly what tons of men who find themselves paying child support would want.
But there are situations where such an arrangement can be negotiated. I say negotiated because I think (don't quote me) that the mother has to give her okay, as does the judge.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only difference between a man and a woman in an unplanned pregnancy is that the woman carries the child. That's a big deal, yes. The man is still required to pay child support and other such things. Yes, the woman sacrifices more during the pregnancy, but that's not the governments fault. That's not men's fault, and nobody is depriving you of a "right". That's simple biology, so you can do all your little marches you want, and it won't change that.
So when if biology dictates that women sacrifices more during pregnancy, why is it such a foreign concept that she has more say on the matter?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: But there are situations where such an arrangement can be negotiated. I say negotiated because I think (don't quote me) that the mother has to give her okay, as does the judge.
Okay, this was my cousin's situation.
-----
But can't a man claim rights over a child if he can prove he's the father?
posted
It takes two people to make a baby but sometimes only one is left to raise the child.
To follow your analogy, if the truck driver was saddled with the responsibility of caring for that cargo for the rest of her life, while the other co-owner of the cargo can walk away with little or no responsibility, you can see why she feels she is justified in dumping that cargo.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, I agree. Except financial responsibility is not enough. There is an "opportunity cost" associated with pregnancy and motherhood that also must be addressed.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that the consequences are unequal for men and women. Until they are equal, I don't think men have too much of a right to cry foul.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A woman's husband does not even have the right to be notified of his wife's abortion - ever. Even if they're still toegether and he's the one providing all financial support. And a husband in most states cannot deny the paternity of a child born to his wife unless he was "abroad" when the child was conceived. Yes, that means a husband with DNA proof he's not the father can be stuck with child support, even if they divorce before the baby is born.
So please don't pretend that financial aspects are at all related to the abortion right. The Supreme Court has refused to recognize them as part of the right.
Further, some courts have given men the right to demand the destruction of embryos created via in vitro procedures, based on the father's right to "not reproduce." Yet a father has no say over whether a more advanced child of his is aborted (in either direction). Which means a father having sex risks 18 years of financial support with less say over it than the mother.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
