Roe vs Wade Anniversary - general discussion

Discussion in 'Cleveland, OH' started by Krash, Jan 22, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheRandomMenace Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2002
    star 4
    I can totally respect that Geoff. I don't want the discussion to de-rail with what-ifs anymore than you do, so maybe it's better that no one comments to my post. I just wanted to give people food for thought and get them to think about the influence one life can have on our society so they can be aware of it when assessing the abortion issue. I thought I put a disclaimer with all three scenarios that was obvious enough to be seen... sorry if it wasn't.

    And as for the abortion technology comment I made, I had a feeling it was possible at the time GL was born too, but I wasn't sure. (I knew it wasn't legal at the time, hence the "permissible" inclusion in my post) Maybe I should have just outright asked if it was possible to clarify for myself, but sorry for any confusion there.

    EDIT: No one but Geoff and myself might know what we're talking about because I have since edited one of my posts to make it easier to understand, but it had to do with whether it was possible to have abortions back in the day when GL was conceived. So his last post and this one might not make sense to you. But hopefully things are clearer now. Just thought I would give you all the 411 in case you're lost.
  2. JediCandii Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 23, 2002
    star 4
    I have no idea whether or not someone brought this point up or not, since I didn't read all of the posts. First of all, I can understand why a woman who hasd been raped or someone who has been the victim of incest might want to get an abortion, but the fact remains that less than 1% of the women who get abortions list that as the reason. Most of them say that they are too young. Well, here's an idea: If you're too young to have a baby, then you are definately too young to have sex. And I also know many people who would happily take those little babies that the woman had aborted. One of my old teachers and her husband have tried for at least 10 years to have children. I know that the fact that she couldn't have children weighed heavily on her. Then, 4 years ago, she was able to adopt a child from Japan, That child, Kevin, is the absolute joy of Mr. and Mrs. Giulivo's life. Mr. Giulivo even stepped down as pricipal of Padua last year, saying that he wanted to have more time to spend with his children (they also just adopted another boy last summer). And I'm sure that there are thousands of desperate couples out there who would gladly take a child from a mother who doesn't want that baby. And don't even try to go with the "what if the child is disabled?" arguement. I know plently of disabled children, and adults, who have been able to go on to live perfectly normal, or at least mostly normal lives, despite of their disabilities. You only have to look at my brother or Chris Burke to know that.
  3. Anrev_the_Jedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2002
    star 4
    Well that took me forever to read. Just to let you know I agree with the majority of the Pro-Life movement. I am a follower Jesus Christ. I dont use the label "Christian" because it has been soiled and dirtied by ppl claiming to be followers of Christ and were just using it for their own gain. The same reasons some Muslems dont like that label either.


    With that stated. If you go back and examine the ppl who wrote the Constitution and the times they lived in, you would find that the concept of abortion ,in their time, was absured. If a woman got pregnant out of wedlock she was chastized and punished. (lets not forget though that it takes two to tango) The ONLY times an abortion was done was to save the mother. THATS IT! Now granted the times have changed but the supreme court of today had to "interpret" what the "meaning" of the Constitution was and how to apply it to today. If the Founding Fathers could see today what was going on they would most likely be appaled! Not just with the abortion issue but with our society as a whole.
  4. TheRandomMenace Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2002
    star 4
    Very good points, Candace and Bret. Candii, I think I touched on some of your points earlier, but nice to hear a fresh take on it... and Bret, I most definitely agree with what you are saying about updating the Constitution through modern interpretation... I too feel that our Founding Fathers would be appalled!
  5. Bobafemme FF Jedi Council Member, Chicago IL RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 25, 2000
    star 5
    An point is rarely taken by someone with a different view when statistics are thrown out without citation.

    If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
  6. Krash RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2000
    star 5
    After rereading this, I don't want Geoff to feel like I'm singling him out, seeing as Bobafemme seems to express similar views on the topic, but for simplicity's sake I will just use Geoff's quote to address both of them

    Before this gets out of hand, you didn't have to edit anything from your previous posts (for my benefit). Just because Bobafemme and myself seem to have generally similar views on this matter...that doesn't mean we're going to "single out" anyone who looks at things differently (I leave that to the Bush Administration)

    As for how would "our founding fathers" look at the changes/adaptations we've made to the law of the land over the years. It's not really fair to base our society on the values of that time. As it pertains to this debate, if that were the case: Candii (as well as the other girls) wouldn't be allowed to speak their mind at meeting...and would be viewed by many of the men of that time as "property." And I don't think that would go over well today!

    To judge something like a woman's right to choose (abortion, vote, own property) based on the mind-set of men hundreds of years ago is short-sighted.
  7. Jedi_BMack Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 25, 2002
    star 4
    The point about what the founding fathers intended is almost a moot point. The government has constantly updated their laws as history has moved forward. Their are communications regulations as new technology comes out. There are transportation regulations as new forms of transportation become available.

    The fact remains that our government is designed to be flexible for just those reasons. The only thing that should stay the same is the basic "equal opportunity" idea behind the Constitution.

    Regarding the actual court case, the Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that this was an issue of personal privacy. Be it protected by the Ninth or Fourteenth Amendment, it is protected.

    The only discussion I really see is whether or not a "moral" issue supercedes a person's right to privacy.

    Example: An adult in their own home has the right to view pornography which, although regulated by the government, is not forbidden. Some people disagree with the morality of that choice. I think we can all agree that it is not their decision.

    And before anyone says that it is a life and death decision vs. people having sex on tape for money, remember the 17 year old Cleveland girl who was abducted for use in a "sex ring" in Detroit. This could have been linked to the porn industry. Also, think about how many women and girls are bought for pornography, how much drugs are involved, how much disease is involved and how much money is at stake. This is also a life and death issue.

    The overall point is not whether abortion is right or wrong. That opinion will change from person to person. The issue is whether that moral decision is larger than an individual's right to privacy.

    Also ask yourself this: Who am I to take that decision out of the hands of any individual that god gave free will to?

    -b-
  8. jangoboy71 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 14, 2002
    star 4
    So following those guidlines, then the baby should also have a right correct? The baby is not a toy or an imaginary object. It is an actual living and breathing human being. Does it not have rights as well? Just because the woman has rights does it justify taking the lives of thousands of children? What if you were one of those children that were killed? Would you say to yourself, "Oh well, they had their own rights and they can make their own personal decision so now i'm dead."

    Those children, the hundreds that are cut off from life each day, they will never have been able to have a chance to live in this great world. Even if after birth you can put the child up for adoption and there are many people all over the country that are desperatly trying to adopt a child that they can call their own. Men who want to teach their sons to play baseball, Husbands and Wives who all they want to do is to have a family that they can call their own with which they can cuddle around the fire on cold winter nights, to have the joy of giving gifts on Christmas Day, to spend summer days swimming at the beach, and many more things....but by taking the child's life not only are you taking its oppurtunity to have a great family and life, but you are also keeping husbands and wives from having the joy and excitement of being with and training these kids.

    Rights as you say, if they are available to the people who want to have an abortion, then they should be available to the child being aborted. What if it was turned around? What if instead of having the child aborted, if a child didn't want to have a mother could the child have her killed off? Is it right? Is it a right of the child?
  9. Krash RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2000
    star 5
    I'm sorry if my earlier comment about "the founding fathers" seemed "a moot point"...I just wanted to address the need for our laws to remain flexible to the current needs of the people.

    if they are available to the people who want to have an abortion, then they should be available to the child being aborted

    The problem then becomes, who has the authority to make decisions for a child (since he/she will not be able to speak for themselves for quite some time)...especially before it is born? That choice has always been given to the biological parents (especially the mother). In which case, it's the mother's choice whether to go through with the pregnancy.

    I'd add one thing to Brian's question: Who am I (including the federal government) to take that decision out of the hands of any individual that god gave free will to?

    We can all sit here and debate OUR personal opinions on the subject, but the larger question is does any one political/religous viewpoint have the right to dictate what an individual person can do with her (in this case) body?

    I wasn't very surprised to hear "W" mention that he wants Congress to "protect infants at the very hour of their birth and end the practice of partial-birth abortion." It's no secret he's in a hurry to take away this right to choose (part of a growing trend that has alot of people worried). What about protecting the right of women to choose what happens to their body, and that of any child? It bothers me that a large group of Republicans (who have very rigt-wing Christian views) feel they must impose their beliefs on a country with a wide range of opinions on how to live.

    Bush and "compassion" sounds about as right as Darth Vader and the Imperial 401K plan (if Enron doesn't already have it)
  10. _-Reborn_Jedi-_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 9, 2002
    star 3
    I figured everyone else has had their say on this subject, and therefore I feel obligated to share my views on this awful subject. Why is it that we have laws against murderers and serial killers, but not against abortion? It's the same thing! The same exact thing...except your victim is a unborn, living child that is unable to speak or understand the situation at all. Sure, they could have their say if they were old enough to comprehend abortion...but they can't! And what gives us the right to do such a thing? What gives us the right to kill such an innocent human that God so wonderfully blessed a woman with? What did that child ever do to anyone? I know there are certain "circumstances" that women use to try to justify a "right" way of abortion, such as having been raped, or a case of incest, or perhaps a unborn child with birth defects. I don't care what these "circumstances" are...there are still civilized options out there.

    Ok, perhaps some woman gets raped and has a child she wants no part of. It's not the child's fault he/she was concieved; it was the rapist's doing, you can't blame the baby. I'm sure if she gave him/her the chance to live, they'd say the same thing. At least consider the option of giving it up to an adoption agengy or something, not killing it!
    Imagine the stats...thousands of babies killed each year. Thousands of babies that are our future generation. Thousands of potential human beings that could make some impact on this world. Who knows how many future presidents were killed, doctors, teachers, actors, military personnel, writers, singers, future mothers and fathers, firefighters, police, someone who might save your life someday, or just the average person. It doesn't matter. Everyone has a place in this world. A future. And people are killing it off, because the govermnent says "Oh, it's ok. They're not born yet, so they won't care, they won't feel a thing too."
    What the heck do they know? They obviously have no hearts, are oblivious to how God says it should be done, and care more about making money off of these abortions than they do about a human life. They probably see it like this: They make millions every year off of abortions, and in the process...less overpopulation. And with illegal immigrants and all, it would equal itself out. I'm sorry, but that's just a sick way of looking at things. There's more than enough damn room in this country for people. And if it runs out, there's always Canada. Things seem to come down to the almighty dollar, not the soul of a living person that people have no right to rip away from this world.

    I've never mentioned this before to pretty much anyone, but there comes a time when you use an example to intensify the subject. That example is myself. Just before I was born, my mother and birthfather were living together, and my birthfather was not really a good person, putting it lightly. As irresponsible and stupid as he was, he didn't want to take care of me and thus wanted an abortion. Granted, this wasn't a "circumstance" I mentioned earlier, but still, the word "abortion" came into play. Yet my mother loved me so much, even before I was born, and couldn't do such a thing. A while later, my birthfather left my mother and I never saw him in my life, not that I can remember...and that left the burden of my mother and grandmother to take care of me without a father. But the fact remains that had it not been for my mother allowing me to live, which I thank her for infinitely, I would not be here today, would not have met any of you, would not have been a Star Wars fan, would not have acted in Rite of Passage, or doing my DJ work, or playing in my rock band and writing music, or anything else. I simply would not exist, and would have never had any say on the matter before I would have been "legally killed". And that's just me. I don't consider myself that important. And there's so many thousands, if not millions more that might have been important. It's too late to really put a stop to such a twisted way of government...but we as people
  11. skyedancer Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2002
    star 2
    Reborn, I have a different opinion from yours as I wrote earlier but I have to say I admire you for being open and honest enough to share your personal experiences with us so that we better understand how you came to have your viewpoint. I respect you for that.
  12. Bobafemme FF Jedi Council Member, Chicago IL RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 25, 2000
    star 5
    I'm glad your mother made the choice she did.

  13. Krash RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2000
    star 5
    Again, thank you Will for sharing such a very personal perspective on this matter.

    And as I've stated before, while I tend to support more the idea of an individual's right to choose, then the idea of abortion...I've recently become very conflicted with the fact that I am very grateful my cousin's birth-mother decided to go through and put him up for adoption. If that sounds very hypocritical, I'm sorry...but I believe we all have the right to make these kinds of decisions, without government influence.

    While I don't believe the pro-choice argument is as sinister in it's intentions (as in Will's post)...there are so serious social and (unfortunatly) political influences on abortion. I have problems with "faith-based agendas" for 2 reasons:

    1) Not everyone in this country holds the same religous beliefs. (truth be told, I'm not sure "W" and I share the same views on what being a "Christian" is about)

    2) And to have political parties base laws on their PERSONAL religious beliefs goes against much of what this country was founded on...Freedom of Choice

    I think skyedancer raised a very good point:
    If you are against abortion, are you also doing what you can to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

    Forgive me if this sounds like generalization...but much of the right-wing/pro-life arguement is centered around abstainence; and nothing is really done about preventing unwanted pregnacies. Whether you view an unborn child as a "fetus" or "person" from the get-go, the pro-life side seems to ingore the preventative measures that can be taken to ensure that if someone is pregnant...it's by their own choosing (aside from rape and alien abduction, of course...sorry had to lighten things up ;) )

    Why are so many right-wing conservatives opposed to an informed population on the matter of birth control? If they truly want to end/lessen the need for abortions...why not educate young people (high school...maybe even slightly younger) about how to better protect themselves...and that child that can result from having sex. Because saying "wait until you're married" not only doesn't work, but what about those who don't want to have kids? (yet/at all)

    Again, everyone has different opinions on abortion, but the debate over legalizing it or not is centered around: does the government have the right to impose it's own "faith-based" morality on people.

    And for the record, I'm glad Will's mother made the choice she did!
  14. Jedi_BMack Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 25, 2002
    star 4
    There are two very important points that most of us seem to be missing. One I have recently stated explicitly, the other only once in a previous post.

    This comes down to how the Supreme Court has defined issues. The only way that the issue can be re-evaluated is that the Court has to redefine two very fundamental interpretations of the Constitution.

    First off, the Court's definition of citizen/person. There are differences through the semantics yes, but the Supreme Court has defined citizen through other means. Can the United States as a country deport a non-citizen? Yes. They do not have to do it through due process. A regulatory agency can say "your gone" and off you go. While they are still a person, they have denied a right guaranteed them in the Fourteenth Amendment. Right to due process. Still a person, not as protected as a citizen. "Person" in the Fourteenth Amendment should then be interpreted as citizen.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privleges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any [citizen] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; or deny to any [citizen] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Then an unborn child in the Court's eyes does not have the same rights as a citizen.

    Second, you must determine whether or not one person's/couple's pregnancy is an issue of personal privacy. The Court has said it is.

    Dissuade me from both of these points on a legal basis, and you may change my mind. Until then, the laws stands. Just remember, it is the law that matters instead of a moral issue because of the separation of church and state. Religious or moral beliefs do not run this country. Can they affect it positively? Yes. Can they affect it negatively? Yes. The fact remains it should not be governed by them.

    -b-
  15. Bobafemme FF Jedi Council Member, Chicago IL RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 25, 2000
    star 5
    I thought one of the principles of being a Christian was letting God judge, not man. Let people make their decisions and their creator will take care of things.

    I also think the issue is something that no one's mind can be changed on an internet chatboard. I'll just exit the conversation on that note.
  16. Krash RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2000
    star 5
    I think Bobafemme has a point, nothing we say here is going to change the opinion of someone (via the boards). And while this all started from Eric's participation in that demonstration...I think this discussion has run it's course.

    Thanks everyone for keeping things civil...and for the most part "on target". I think we set a record for the longest abortion discussion (without turning into a shouting match)
  17. JediCandii Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 23, 2002
    star 4
    I just learned this at a peer ministry meeting I went to last week, and it completely diguisted me. It showd me how incredibly shallow the human race is becoming, especially my generation. The number one reason that teenagers today get an abortion is that they don't want to get strech marks. Not because they think that their parents will be upset, or that they won't be able to care properly for their child, but because they don't want a few marks. Never mind that if they get married and want to have children, they are ten times as likely to have a miscarriage. I don't know how anyone else feels about this, but I personally think that it is very disturbing and makes me wonder about the future of the world. If people don't care about killing an innocent baby, what's to stop them from going to the Middle East and dropping a bunch of nukes?
  18. Krash RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2000
    star 5
    If people don't care about killing an innocent baby, what's to stop them from going to the Middle East and dropping a bunch of nukes?

    While these are serious concerns, they really are 2 seperate issues. From what I understand, most pro-choice advocates do not look forward to prospect of abortion...however, they believe in the right of the individual to make the choice. EDIT: One of my good friends is a mid-wife in the Columbus area, and on her car she has a bumper sticker that reads: Pro-Family - Pro-Choice And before anyone tries to say something...she and I don't think that's a contradiction.

    While her profession is centered around the birth of children, she believes that a woman should have the choice on what happens to her (and her pregnancy). I trust her judgment on matters like this, because I've heard enough about her "bad days" at work to know I'm in no position to question her authority in this matter.

    Meanwhile, our involvment in the Middle East is really a small chapter in the history of a very violent region. And should be viewed as a strictly political matter. No one (including our "commander-in-chief") should ever WANT to go to war.

    Just out of curiousity, where did your ministry group get this survey? It's not that I'm doubting their findings, just that I would like to look at the source myself.

    Fact is, most kids (I'm assuming the ones surveyed) live in a very small world; they only can see...how this will effect me! It's not until a crisis is shoved in their face, that they realize (with hope) that there are many people involved in this decision...in our case abortion. So while the survey results should disgust you, it does not justify taking away the right for ALL women to make this decision.

    Truth be told, if girls cannot look at the "bigger picture" in their lives...they really shouldn't be having sex in the first place.
  19. PadawanPadme Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 29, 2002
    I just took the time to read all of the posts. I have to say I don't think anyone can change anyones mind unless the other person has an open mind. We all think, what we post is right.

    To all the posts: About how hard life could be, one parent home or foster home etc. and that a child might not have a good life, because of hard times. Please consider this, every person on this earth fights for life be it an illness, prisoner of war, a homeless person, etc. no one wants to die,(some people comit suiside but the majority of those people are depressed) we all fight for our very existence, once we are born. Yet our goverment gives the right to a mother, to decide for the person she is carrying, if they will be able to fight for their very existence or not.

    If a woman is pregnant and wants the baby, everyone in the family (father, grandparents, etc.)is looking forward to the big event, then the unthinkable happens she is murdered, they catch the murderer, should he (or she) be charged for, murder of one person or two? She chose to have this baby, Should the murderer have the choice to take the life of the baby and not be charged for it. and because the murderer chose to do this should we call it pro-choice? (I an not talking about a doctor I am talking about a person that would have,say, shot her)

    I know you might be thinking about this statement as a what-if. But all we have to do is look at the headlines in the paper and we know this has happen more than once.

    Now I ask you should this person be charged for one or two murders? Our goverment had said one, in most cases, but now I understand that "W" has made it possible they could be charge for two murders. Is there a difference who takes the life? If you say yes, please just contemplate your answer. And if the only reason is we will let a woman chose what she does to her body, how can that be different. Because her body is a host for the baby does it give her the right to stop that life?

  20. Krash RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2000
    star 5
    There are alot of things to think about in that post, never underestimate the power of a "mom" to put it in perspective.

    Is there a difference who takes the life? While my intent here is not to argue with anyone (including you "mom") about this, I just wanted to explain my thoughts on the matter.

    While I'll commend "W" if this change in the law takes effect (promises sometimes have a hard time finding reality) allowing the murder of a preganat woman count as a double homocide; there is a fundimental difference between murder and abortion. A murder is someone making the choice to take another life(lives) without consideration for the consequences...someone who decideds to go through an abortion (hopefully) has weighed the consequences of this action very carefully, and found that in the best interests of all must be done as "a last resort".

    Again, I know there are options like adoption (and I'm very happy the mother of my cousin choose to go that route); but what the Roe vs Wade decision (and it's possible overturning) amount to is WHO has the right to make that choice. And religious/political beliefs aside, it's not mine...yours...a doctor (although sometimes in emergencies?)..."W's"...or even a murderer (as in PadawanPadme's anaolgy)...but the individual woman going through the pregnancy has that right to make her own choice.
  21. JediCandii Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 23, 2002
    star 4
    I think that the two issues are completely related. In my eyes, they are both murder, plain and simple. I think that anyone who says that they are pro-life and against capital punishment, but are pro-war, that person is a hypocrite. Yes, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government might be anti-American and want to blow us up, but that doesn't meant that every single person who lives in a Middle Eastern country wants to do that as well. I'm sure that there are quite a few innocents over there.

    -Yes, I do know that I'm getting completely off topic, but this has bothered me for a while.
  22. PadawanPadme Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 29, 2002
    One more thing to think about.

    Yes, some abortions are thought out and the woman, I am sure has thought there is no other way out. But also a murderer has the same thoughts, they think there is no other way out of the situation. I am sorry to say but a lot of the wemen who have unwanted pregnancys think there is nothing eles they can do, this is not case.


    I know you do not think we should tell a woman what she can or can not do to her body, is right.

    But think about this, should we let a person who just does not want to live, go ahead and kill themselves? Maybe they think there is no other way out. Should we tell the person who wants to drink a 5th of alcohol and drive, it's fine, go ahead. I think not because as a whole, people know if that person drives he will most likley have an accident and kill himself or kill someone else or both.

    These are the reasons there are laws, to protect ourselves, from ourselves. When laws are written it is not so the goverment (we the people) can control the people, it is to protect the people. And who else, more that an innocent unborn baby needs the protection of the people.
  23. TheRandomMenace Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2002
    star 4
    Both Candii and "Mom" raise some interesting points. But Candii... I am pro-life and against capital punishment... and while I do not wish to go to war by any means (I see it as a last resort) I feel that it is very different from the abortion issue. In my opinion, abortion is murder. That child did nothing to the mother to deserve its life being taken. With this approaching war, our safety is being questioned... if we fight it will

    a. to defend this nation
    b. be a preventative measure so we are not at risk later on

    Both of these are defense issues of some sort. Countries do need to be defended from enemies. Mothers don't need defense against their children while they are still in the womb. Case closed.
  24. Krash RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2000
    star 5
    two issues are completely related. In my eyes, they are both murder, plain and simple
    It's perfectly alright for you to have questions about all these topics: war, abortion, capital punishment. And while it may be slightly off the main topic of this discussion...they're all important questions, that we all have to consider at some time. The one thing I'll offer advice on is...not everything in this world is as plain and simple as we would like it to be (in regards to so many topics).

    I've said a number of tmes, in this discussion, that my opinions on this matter are very "conflicted"...because of my personal beliefs...what I'm "supposed to" believe (according to Catholic hsitory)...and the fact that my cousin was adopted (when he could easily have never existed). All the while, my personal values are that, and I have no buisness imposing them on anyone else...which gets back to the very heart of the matter.

    When our governmemt is making laws, it has to find a balance between protection of the public...as well as protection of the individual (not an easy thing to do). It seems that much of the Pro-Life agruments are imposing a set of personal beliefs onthe general public; who may have different beliefs.

    I feel that it is very different from the abortion issue.
    That's just the thing, the major point about the Roe vs Wade decision is that it is up to the individual to make the determination over whether they want to go through with an abortion, as "last resort." While I make no commitment to either side, the pro-life camp seems to make the assumption that pro-choice advocates WANT this to happen, and from those I spoke with...that's not true. They simply want to be able to make a decision about their bodies, with influence from the more conservative elements of our society.

    Mothers don't need defense against their children while they are still in the womb
    While we're getting all hypothetical here, let me pose a question: While speaking of the idea of a murder of a pregnant woman (with child) as a double homocide...what IF (and this almost happened to a friend of mine) that pregnancy becomes complicated...and could result in the death of both mother and child? Could that be viewed as a homocide? Does the mother have the right to preserve HER life (and possibly any other future children) by having an abortion?
  25. TheRandomMenace Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2002
    star 4
    I've said before that that is the real gray area for me Geoff. I don't want to see 2 people die unnecessarily, but at the same time, I don't want one to die unnecessarily either. I would most likely need a probability percentage of the chances of the mother dying or not. I'd be more willing to permit an abortion if the mother was at definite risk than I would be for any other reason... although I still don't know that it is right for a woman to kill this child.

    In other news, one of my friends told me (I don't know how credible it is, it's just what I heard) that legislature just made it a REQUIRED LAW that ANYONE who wishes to become a medical doctor in the state of California MUST perform an abortion in order to get licensed. I find this very disturbing if it is true.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.