POLL: Abortion Laws (and some views)

Remove all ads!

I am pro-choice and feel that denying abortion to a woman is a violation of her human rights, but what really appals me is that all the people (as far as I'm aware) who are voting and pontificating in this are Male and really have no right to decide this issue.

 

So who has the right to decide? Men are bad, so maybe infertile women and those who have never been pregnant, too? Then those who have never been raped, never faced "difficult social conditions" etc etc. It's absurd.

 

What is absurd - that women can make rational decisions pertaining to what happens to their bodies ?? Or that the lawmakers, the religious zealots (vast majority of whom are male) who have no conception of the emotional or physical traumas associated with pregnancy and/or termination should decide how or when it should be done.

When men can carry a foetus to term they will have a right to say what is right or wrong about
abortion.

Further let's look at your statement

homicide
n. the killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent. Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, a misadventure like a hunting accident or automobile wreck without a violation of law like reckless driving, or legal (government) execution. Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful. Assisting or attempting suicide can be a crime.


Murder n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

human being

• noun a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens

child

• noun (pl. children) 1 a young human being below the age of full physical development. 2 a son or daughter of any age. 3 derogatory an immature or irresponsible person. 4 (children) archaic the descendants of a family or people.

fetus
/feetss/ (Brit. (in non-technical use) also foetus)

• noun (pl. fetuses) an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.

The definition of Homicide and Murder are taken from a legal dictionary. The other definitions are from the Oxford English Dictionary.

By these definitions a foetus which is terminated or aborted (whatever you want to call it) HAS NOT been murdered, that is an emotive response and in particular the catholic church a two thousand year old institute of misogyny who still haven't moved into the 20th century nevermind the 21st.

I've stated my viewpoint and I will not be drawn into it anymore.

 

Should the vast majority of the society or its elected representatives, the vast majority of whom has never killed or been killed, and who have no conception of the emotional or physical traumas associated with killing or being killed decide how or when it should be done?

Ah, and the foetus is not a human argument. I've already debunked it. It may be difficult to find, so here goes the quote:

 

1. Refutation is not debunked use a real dictionary for the language I pointed out that I used the Oxford English dictionary which is the authoritative source for the definition of english words used in the english language. I am english, I speak english and as a reference to my language I use the OED, if I was american I'd use Webster's.

2. I stated an opinion, a viewpoint, a personal observation that I had come to a conclusion on because I am an intelligent, open-minded,caring human being and travelled extensively in the world. Having obserced first hand some of the atrocities perpertrated by the male of the species in such places as Zimbabwe and Madagascar.

3. At the end of my opinion I stated that was it; I did not want or wished to be drawn into a debate there are forums for that and if I wish to do so I will go there and debate it. However in passing and as a final comment one of the purposes of debate is the introspection that should follow such a debate with such questions hopefully as
A.) Were my views expressed well and in a logical manner
B.) Are my views upheld and validated or if there is doubt where can I and how can I remove that doubt

Following the introspection is, how has your world viewpoint changed and how do I feel about that, this is (IMO) what open-mindedness is all-about.

From what I have read on the boards before you are a devout catholic and as a world-view I think that is somewhat limiting. I do not wish by this to demean your faith or your adherence to it but I ask your indulgence when asking not to be drawn into debate because of a viewpoint you disagree with when I was just expressing an opinion.

 

Easy, no one's going to force you into something you don't want. Still, if you make strong claims, especially suggesting the other posters have not much right to speak, it's bound to cause some repercussions.

Dictionaries are hardly decisive with all the differences between them, even subtle ones. For one, I no longer rely on anything Oxford after the kind of grammar I saw in one of their textbooks.

If you prefer, we can look into the Cambridge Dictionary:

However, murder is defined as killing a person, a person as a man, woman or child, a child as a boy or girl from the time of birth on, therefore, according to Cambridge, it seems that not all humans are persons, which is strange. Still, dictionaries are meant to give meanings of words rather than serve in solving civil rights disputes.

What sucks is when someone is given the right to kill someone else because of reasons of own convenience and when definitions are played with in order to justify such killing.

I appreciate the idea of a wide scope of personal freedom and treating citizens like responsible adults and autonomous persons as they are. However, the rights of one end where the rights of another begin. Lordship of life and death is a concept no longer supported in the modern society, except specifically in case of abortion. Dangerous violent criminals can't be killed but innocent children can.

Edit: Having taken a closer look on your Oxford definitions, I must admit I was wrong in presuming they were in favour of your claim and I was too quick to give credit.

Logically, the mere definition of a foetus as "an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception." suggests that at whatever stage it is, foetal or earlier or later, it's human and a particular stage is the foetus, from eight weeks on. Thus, the definition of a child as "a young human being below the age of full physical development." perfectly fits the foetus. As a human being is a man, a woman, or child, therefore a foetus is a human being. To kill a foetus is homicide.

Next, your legal dictionary specifies that abortion is homicide but not a crime, listing abortion in the number of non-criminal cases of homicide.

Considering how killing a foetus in the womb of a pregnant mother tends to be considered an independent act of murder in common law, making it a criminal homicide for an external person to kill the foetus but not for the mother, this only shows how abortion laws are inconsistent with the ethical and legal legacy of our civilisation and what kind of absurd they are.

[ October 13, 2005, 16:08: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I'm going to hate myself for pointing this out and ignore it if you wish but ....
According to the catholic church no child is innocent they are born with the original sin; that of Eve plucking the apple from the tree and they have this sin until they are baptised. Therefore abortion is actually the removal of a source of evil from the world...
Sad really it all went wrong when we left the villages to build towns and society grew beyond the male hunter/gatherer and the female nurturer/carer...

 

According to the Catholic Church, a human is not the source of the evil he commits. The original sin relies on disobedience towards God and is not a question of personal, let alone legal responsibility. A child has not committed any crime. Theologists agree that there is a possibility of committing a mortal sin and ending up in hell for it for even very young children (it's even -- we have saints aged 10 at the point of death), but it doesn't stretch so far as to include foeti.

There's a lot of evil in the world, but this doesn't mean it's all irrelevant now and we're free to do what evil we can get away with to improve our own situation. One example would be abortion after rape. It's obvious that rape is a despicable act and one of the most horrendous crimes one can imagine. I would refuse to defend in the court a person charged with rape if I believed him to be guilty unless it would effectively deprive him of fair trial and defence which even the most atrocious criminals deserve. I wouldn't object to castration, either. However, this crime still doesn't give us the right to eradicate the foetus. The fact someone has done something evil to us doesn't mean we can do evil to someone else to even it out. Eradicating another human being to help deal with a "natural" evil, i.e. a fact of harsh reality, is even more absurd.

 

By Chev's point A Foetus, carried by a human mother classes as human, therefore Aborting such is murder.

Further, while I do not believe that we will be accountable for the original sins of Adam and Eve, and that children are innocent to the age of 8 years (Mormon doctrine). Therefore, not only is abortion murder, it is the shedding of innocent blood...

 

This *is* a touchy subject... but here's my two cents, nontheless.

I beleive it is a matter of situation. Chev, you'll disagree with what I will say, but I'm expressing myself.

I used to be a many woman's man, and collected a hell of a one-night stands. Just for the record, I have since repented myself, and try the hardest I can to be one woman's man. Not always easy, but it's better this way.

Speculation time: Had one of these one-nights told me she was pregnant, for me it was abortion without questions. However, if my ex, a woman I really loved with all my soul told me she was pregnant, then I would have seriously considered having that child, since it's a child of love, and not of only of carnal pleasures.. Also, if financial matters allowed it too.

I beleive it's really a question of circumstances.

 

*sigh* Abortion is such a tough topic.

I was discussing it briefly with my friends today, and I found out that I was probably the most radical of all of them: Most of them believe in abortion to extents (not after a certain point, only in certain cases, etc). I, on the other hand, believe in it fully. No restrictions. Any time.
It truly is interesting to see so many peoples' veiws on such a matter...

In any case, I applaud those who said their piece once, and left it at that (such as those who said: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life and left). I would have, but it's just so hard to not argue with Chev...

 

Just to make a point: The legalistic arguement that abortion cannot be allowed on the grounds the pre-baby is technically a human being is invalid. It is perfectly legal to murder many human beings whom also have the noted distinction of -- you know -- being born.

 

This one is for Chev (or any othere who understands Polish. To all who don't, this is an article about finding abandoned newborn baby. Mother left it on the stairway in a block of flats). http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/wiadomosc.html?kat=35116&wid=8040132&rfbawp=1129308851.380
Would this happend if the woman had a right to terminate her pregnacy?

 

From your description, she ought to be prosecuted. Either way, she is guilty of a crime...

 

In short, the woman left her child there to die. Abortion being legal wouldn't have made it any better. The child is healthy boy now, while it could have been a dead foetus. Besides, any woman in Poland has the right anonymously to leave her newborn in the hospital without facing any penalty for abandoning it. This is the alternative to abortion that is being provided. Please note that the possibility of giving the child up for adoption invalidates all economical and social pro-choice arguments about being unable to support a child. The woman probably acted out of after-birth shock but she should still be prosecuted.

 

So why didn't she just left her child that way? I do believe that if she had such possibility she would terminate the pregnacy. And you don't know if the child would find a substitude family.

 

I find it interesting that 77% of those polled think abortion should be "mostly legal" or "alway legal", yet 67% would be outright opposed to abortion if they were the parent, extreme circumstances excepted. So most people think abortion should be at least "mostly legal" yet, at the same time, most people think they themselves would never take that route.

 

This is because of the modern 'tolerance' movement. Basically, belive what you want, but don't make any laws around it that would force your views on others. I respect that view point if it is not taken to extremes, but I disagree. If you believe something is right, and you give one wit about other people, you will try and convince (or even force in the extreme) them to go along with it. If your neighbor adopted animals just to torture them, and it were legal, wouldn't you try to stop them?
That may be an extreme case, but the general principle applies. That said, and jut a tad off topic. Let me try to convince you all, again, that abortion is wrong.
The vast majority of abortions are for comfort. Either the parents don't want it, or can't afford it, or they are under age and their parents don't want it, or can't afford it, or... you get the point. Less than 10% of all abortions are due to medical reasons or rape.
That said, most abortions end one human life (whether a person or not), just to make another one more convenient. That may not be legal murder, but it is wrong.
As for the less than 10% that are for medical reasons or rape:
Rape: No one said the mother couldn't put the child up for adoption. Punishing the child for the crimes of the father went out a long time ago. Also, of the few rape victims who do become pregnant from the act, many find it theraputic and comforting to love and raise the child. They will never forget the rape anyway, so the child is no more a reminder than life itself. Add on top of that the fact that, for 99.9% of women, the woman must be in a particular frame of mind to become pregnant, and I think we can say that abortion for rape victims does not justify itself.
Medical reasons: If pressed, doctors will tell you that the VERY few pregnancies that actually put the mother's life at risk all only do so in the last few days, usually at delivery itself, and the situation cannot be forseen. The doctors advise abortion when they see indicators that suggest that a pregnancy might possibly lead to some danger to the mother. It is completely up to the doctor in charge to determine what risks to allow. Of women who choose to go ahead with the delivery in this situation, only about 5% of them actually encounter a serious problem, and less than 2% of them actually die from it. This from a US national survey in 2002 that looked at over 2000 hospitals and medical clinics. Each of these had multiple cases. Again, we can see that this does not by any means mandate abortion availability for such situations.
In the end, it comes down to how far are we willing to go and what do we believe to be acceptable. I encourage everyone out there to voice your opinions, whether you agree with me or not.

 

@NOGs: Maternal mortality in Sierra Leone in 2004 was 1 per 50. (WHO figures) This is a fairly typical Third world figure and includes normal, uncomplicated pregnancies. Westernised nations fare considerably better - 4.6 per 10,000 in Australia for the same period IIRC.
Part of the reason for low maternal mortality (aside from issues such as nutrition, hygiene etc) in countries such as the States is the policy of inducing delivery of the baby when the mother's life is believed to be in danger. You state that problems occur in the last few days before delivery - in many cases they are why the baby is delivered.
My post in the other abortion thread mentions a few progressive conditions that are inevitably fatal, unless transplantation of heart and / or lungs occurs. Pregnancy by its very nature increases the strain on already failing organs and hastens the inevitable.

 

True, but these are the great exception. You cannot legislate to the masses based on such an unusual circumstance. If you want it legalized as an emergency procedure in these cases only, then please specify. If you already have and I missed it, sorry, but I don't think you have.