Stop having so many damn kids; population control, anyone?

[tonya66 13]

In the criminal justice system of most states, the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes the killing of TWO people - not one. I don't understand how that statute can co-exist with the notion that it's NOT illegal for a doctor to kill the same child via abortion. Is it because the mom wanted a live baby in the first instance, but not in the second? Maybe that's logical to some people, but not to me. If a woman is to be allowed total control over what happens to HER body, then why are other laws allowed to intervene, but not laws against abortion? It's not okay - legally speaking - for a woman to use her body to make a living (prostitution). It's not legal for a woman to abuse her own body with drugs.

To me, the it's-my-body argument doesn't hold Water. Unless, of course, you are a TRUE advocate of freedom of choice - in all matters of the body.

Carlene, I couldn't agree with you more! Well said!

[GeezerSue 7]

In the criminal justice system of most states, the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes the killing of TWO people - not one..

This is a recent development, a result of the pandering to the views of the far right and hysterical reaction to horrid crimes. Besides who cares and who benefits--other than the emotionally involved--from such a ruling?

First, what's the point? Killing Lacey Peterson wasn't enough? It's somehow worse if we call the fetus a person?

Then, if the personhood argument were valid throughout government, the IRS would have to change its definintion of what a person is...and, so far--and as usual--when its money vs. values with the far-right-owned congress, money usually wins...and we are not--according to the IRS, a federal agency whose rules would, in many cases, outrank local laws-- --people, until we are born.

[Alexandra 55]

You know, I used to be pro-choice, until I had my son. Since his birth, my views on abortion have totally changed. This is all it took. The birth of a child. I don't agree with abortion for myself, but will not bash anyone who does. I do wonder though, how many pro-choice, pro-abortion people have kids of their own? And how many of those who have had abortions, have had children before the abortion? I know the abortion issue is a very hot topic that will cause a lot of debate. I am just curious(sp?).

On a side note, I have a sister who has had several abortions. It seems to be a form of birth control for her. For those of you who are for abortion, do you believe that there should be a limit on the amount a person has? I love my sister, and I do not bash her for her choices, but she seems to think nothing of it. She has had FIVE...

I have two children now, who were planned. The experience of being pregnant only solidified my belief that women must have control over their own bodies. Whether I could have another abortion in the future depends solely on MY personal circumstances, and while I might make a different decision in the future it is still MY decision to make.

One problem is that if we grant the state the right to intervene in pregnancy to "protect" the fetus, we must also grant the right to intervene for other reasons. Forcible abortion sound good to anyone? That's the logical extension of pro-life laws, just with a change of direction. Adding into the equation the "value" of the fetus may be an obvious reaction to some, but it's by no means a universally held belief. Science--not religion--has to hold sway here, since we're talking about medical standards of care.

I do believe that there is a point during the development of a fetus when it becomes viable outside the woman's body, and if there is a way to deliver a live baby then reasonable efforts should be made to do so. (That does not include removing 20-week micro-, micropreemies to live out their short, painful lives in incubators at vast taxpayer expense.) However, those decisions MUST be made at the patient level, on a case-by-case basis, by the mother and her doctor. No. One. Else.

Adoption is a wonderful alternative, sure, but it's just not right for everyone. I know women who remain far more regretful of having given babies up for adoption than they are of having had abortions.

[lisah25 3]

I do think that it is ok for the government to step in and make a law to ban it when women are too ignorant and selfish to realize that they are murdering another person.

I don't think women who have abortions are by definition "ignorant" or "selfish". Just as you strongly believe an unborn baby has a soul, others do not.

[dotofoz 0]

Do you have any other solutions other than adoption? A lot of people aren't going to put up for baby for adoption. I have seen 1st hand that people get wrapped up in a cute baby that they don't want and end up keeping it to abuse later. My cousins mother told her that adoption & abortion were out of the ? (and of course she didn't offer to raise the baby). A lot of babies (especially non-white, non-healthy due to drug use etc.) go unadopted.

Does anyone have any other solutions? And are you saying that we should just outlaw abortion? And are there any cases when you think abortion is okay?

My thoughts exactly, just forgot to add to my other posts....Especially the part about the non-white, non-heathy babies. Like I said before, then don't have the procedure if it is not for you. You have NO idea what's going on in another person's life as to judge them for doing something you don't think is 'right'. I don't think people who make the difficult CHOICE to have the procedure go out & get pregnant on purpose just to have an abortion. PLease. My mother was 42 in 1970 when she found out she was pregnant with me, post breast cancer at age 36. She refused an abortion due to her religious beliefs eventhough the Dr. recommended it. The things I saw growing up until her death (from cancer) when I was 12 were things NO kid should have seen, yet alone see a parent go through. I myself am 36 and it still haunts me sometimes. There were many times I wish she would've taken the Dr.'s advice. I'm guessing it would've been legal at the time for medical reasons, but at least she had the CHOICE.

[sweethot143 2]

Do you have any other solutions other than adoption? A lot of people aren't going to put up for baby for adoption. I have seen 1st hand that people get wrapped up in a cute baby that they don't want and end up keeping it to abuse later. My cousins mother told her that adoption & abortion were out of the ? (and of course she didn't offer to raise the baby). A lot of babies (especially non-white, non-healthy due to drug use etc.) go unadopted.

Does anyone have any other solutions? And are you saying that we should just outlaw abortion? And are there any cases when you think abortion is okay?

Carlene already answered this beautifully with the adoption issue and I agree with her. What's wrong with adoption? Yes I am saying outlaw abortion.

One solution other than adoption, could be to raise the baby, own up to your mistake, be a woman and just raise the child. wouldn't be the first time someone had a baby that was a mistake and raised it.

Just because some adoptions turn abusive, most probablly don't and it's still a better option than murdering a baby.

The only reasons that I would be ok with abortion are

Incest

Rape or

The life of the mother is at stake and the baby has a slim to nill chance of survival.

Ofcourse each one of those situations may or may not constitute murder, if I was in the position of any one of those reasons I may not have one.

[GeezerSue 7]

...

I do think that it is ok for the government to step in and make a law to ban it when women are too ignorant and selfish to realize that they are murdering another person.

Well, I think it would be ok for the govenrment to step in and make a law to make people learn the difference between a person and a fetus.

[lisah25 3]

The only reasons that I would be ok with abortion are

Incest

Rape or

The life of the mother is at stake and the baby has a slim to nill chance of survival.

Earlier, you made a comment about there being no gray areas in murder if I remember correctly.

Your post above is an example of one. You are OK with abortion in those cases, yet it should still be murder of a human based on what you've posted you believe.

I don't mean this as harsh as it might sound. To me, it's just an example that black and white doesn't always work.

[GeezerSue 7]

...

The only reasons that I would be ok with abortion are

Incest

Rape or

The life of the mother is at stake and the baby has a slim to nill chance of survival.

Ofcourse each one of those situations may or may not constitute murder, if I was in the position of any one of those reasons I may not have one.

So, in answer to NARAL's ongoing question--"Who decides?"--the answer is that YOU decide...for everyone else?

Therein lies the problem. I'm all about your deciding for YOU...but I think the rest of us ought to get the same privilege.

[Carlene 12]

This is a recent development, a result of the pandering to the views of the far right and hysterical reaction to horrid crimes.

Not everyone who opposes abortion on demand is part of the "far right". Just a reminder...

Besides who cares and who benefits--other than the emotionally involved--from such a ruling?

The same people who benefit from the homicide statute in general - society.

First, what's the point? Killing Lacey Peterson wasn't enough? It's somehow worse if we call the fetus a person?

Oh, absolutely. It's always "worse", legally speaking, to kill more than one person in a single act of violence. And in many jurisdictions, the killing of a person under the age of six carries a heavier penalty.

[Carlene 12]

Well, I think it would be ok for the govenrment to step in and make a law to make people learn the difference between a person and a fetus.

Apparantly it's anywhere from 10 minutes to several days, depending on how long you're in labor.

[GeezerSue 7]

Apparantly it's anywhere from 10 minutes to several days, depending on how long you're in labor.

No, Carlene, the IRS doesn't give a rat's ass about labor or potentiality. You are either a person (born live, at that) or not.

[sweethot143 2]

Earlier, you made a comment about there being no gray areas in murder if I remember correctly.

Your post above is an example of one. You are OK with abortion in those cases, yet it should still be murder of a human based on what you've posted you believe.

I don't mean this as harsh as it might sound. To me, it's just an example that black and white doesn't always work.

good call,

I did say that and meant it. I did say that in anyone of those situations I may not be ok with an abortion. In my original post, I should have been more clear. That was a huge mistake on my part.

Those three reasons are not my own ideas, they are the guidlines of The Church. I think that if i was ever put in one of those situations then I would have to have personal prayer as well as counseling with my Bishop.

I see the argument that with those circumstances I am saying that I have the right to choose what to do, and why doesn't everyone have the right to choose regardless? Simply because if the baby is healthy enought to be born it should not be murdered.

I can say almost 100 % if I was raped I would not have an abortion, but I don't know if I would raise the child myself.

Incest is really a different story, need I say more.

If the baby isn't going to live and the mother is on her death bed then that is also a different story.

Under usual circumstances, unwanted pregnancy, baby is ok, mother is ok, not incest, just a stupid mistake then yes it is murder.

I know it seems like "Gray" areas, so I guess that's a bad choice of words on my part, that deserve a lashing, lol.

[Wheetsin 714]

Ok, wait a minute. Now I'm really confused. You've not answered my questions so far, but please do consider addressing this one because I'm really kind of lost.

I have "no value on human life" because I say there are gray areas, and you say it is black and white. You say:

I am saying outlaw abortion

And then you say:

The only reasons that I would be ok with abortion are

Incest

Rape or

The life of the mother is at stake and the baby has a slim to nill chance of survival.

So outlaw abortion, but you're ok with it sometimes. And apparently abortion is only wrong if the pregnancy is the result of consentual sex among people who are not related.

You believe that (so it would appear) human life begins at conception, and that life has a soul. But abortion is ok sometimes, even though it's always murder. So are some humans/souls less valuable than others? Is a child conceived through consentual incest an inherently lesser person or devalued soul because of it?

If it's wrong to "murder" a baby, period, no gray (per your words) -- then why is it ok to murder them sometimes? Seems you have a gray area here, and according to you, that means you have no value on human life.

[Carlene 12]

No, Carlene, the IRS doesn't give a rat's ass about labor or potentiality. You are either a person (born live, at that) or not.

Technically, if your abortion goes awry (which has been known to happen) and your baby (or fetus, if you prefer) is unintentionally born alive, you can claim it as an exemption on your federal tax return for the entire year. The "born alive" criteria means just that - a child who took only one breath before it died qualifies.