I believe every woman has the right to decide whether she wants to carry a
pregnancy or not, but if she doesn't want to be pregnant, she should be able
to decide that in the first trimester. There are exceptions to that first trimester
regulation, but they would involve the health of the mother and/or child. That is
pretty strict, but I think any woman who doesn't know very early in the pregnancy
whether or not she wants it, is rather stooooooooooopid or just plain selfish.
A Reasoned, and Hopefully Principled, Position on Abortion
Ken
2012/08/22 13:51:54
|
|
|||||
|
1 vote
|
|
8% | ||
|
6 votes
|
|
50% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
17% | ||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | ||
|
3 votes
|
|
25% | ||
When Does a "Woman's Right to Choose" Descend into Barbarism?
Barack Obama's position on abortion is at one extreme while those who would totally ban the "procedure" is on the other - is there any middle ground that the majority of Americans would find acceptable?
First, let's consider what is legal under existing law, the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade does not, as many people (including our president) seem to believe, totally bar states from regulating abortion. Instead, the Court took the approach of balancing the "right to privacy" of the woman against the interest of the states to protect the life of the unborn fetus. Using this approach the justices decided that the rights of the woman outweighed the interest of the states until the third trimester, when the fetus becomes "viable", i.e. a living human being.
As of the third trimester, the Court decided that the states' interest in protecting the life of the baby outweighs the right of the woman to abort that child. State laws that give ample leeway to protect the health and life of the mother are therefore allowed under Roe v. Wade.
So the question becomes, where do we draw the line? Not many -- neither legal scholars nor even principled individuals who support a woman's right to choose -- would support the barbaric position of Barack Obama that the practice of allowing babies, born alive as the result of late-term abortions, to die unattended, is protected under Roe v. Wade.
The bottom line is that abortion should be legal but it should also be discouraged. It is a moral decision that each woman, and her "significant other" should be able to make, and it should be made as early as possible in the pregnancy, certainly (with certain exceptions) before the third trimester.
There should also be a flexibility in the law to protect the woman's health, and a provision for the aborting of a fetus produced through rape or incest, at any time. Again, victims of either rape or incest should be encouraged to come forward at the earliest possible time after the event - certainly as soon as they realize that they may have become pregnant.
First, let's consider what is legal under existing law, the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade does not, as many people (including our president) seem to believe, totally bar states from regulating abortion. Instead, the Court took the approach of balancing the "right to privacy" of the woman against the interest of the states to protect the life of the unborn fetus. Using this approach the justices decided that the rights of the woman outweighed the interest of the states until the third trimester, when the fetus becomes "viable", i.e. a living human being.
As of the third trimester, the Court decided that the states' interest in protecting the life of the baby outweighs the right of the woman to abort that child. State laws that give ample leeway to protect the health and life of the mother are therefore allowed under Roe v. Wade.
So the question becomes, where do we draw the line? Not many -- neither legal scholars nor even principled individuals who support a woman's right to choose -- would support the barbaric position of Barack Obama that the practice of allowing babies, born alive as the result of late-term abortions, to die unattended, is protected under Roe v. Wade.
The bottom line is that abortion should be legal but it should also be discouraged. It is a moral decision that each woman, and her "significant other" should be able to make, and it should be made as early as possible in the pregnancy, certainly (with certain exceptions) before the third trimester.
There should also be a flexibility in the law to protect the woman's health, and a provision for the aborting of a fetus produced through rape or incest, at any time. Again, victims of either rape or incest should be encouraged to come forward at the earliest possible time after the event - certainly as soon as they realize that they may have become pregnant.
Top Opinion
-
No nonsense NanC...don't BS... 2012/08/22 14:52:23
I think we should take a scientific approach to this issue and determine at which point the embryonic or fetal brain, which already starts to develop in the 3rd week after fertilization, is developed far enough that it can feel pain and emotions. But I also agree that there should be exceptions in cases like rape pregnancy.
pregnancy or not, but if she doesn't want to be pregnant, she should be able
to decide that in the first trimester. There are exceptions to that first trimester
regulation, but they would involve the health of the mother and/or child. That is
pretty strict, but I think any woman who doesn't know very early in the pregnancy
whether or not she wants it, is rather stooooooooooopid or just plain selfish.
depressed about the pregnancy, it would show up before the last trimester.
There is also treatment for hormone imbalance.
My point was that a mid-to-late term decision to abort is very likely to be a symptom of depression rather than an informed decision, which would have been made much earlier.
Right now, doctors rarely bother to look into this and instead assume that every woman's decision is an informed and final choice. That's why I agree with you that women should be able to make this decision in the first trimester. A late-term decision might be a sign of a temporary neurochemical imbalance.
I have not found that to be true very often..........and I have been in health
care for all my adult life. If it is depression, it is related to the fact the
pregnant woman had hoped her situation would change to make it easier
to have the baby. That is selfish, and that is why I say the decision should\
be in the first trimester. Just my opinion!
At one time, abortions through the 1st trimester were O.K. By the 4th month the heart is beating. Any abortion after that time was frowned upon if not outright illegal. But this mantra, "a woman can do with her body whatever she chooses" is a canard, and a sick one at best. Yes, she can - and if she didn't want a baby, she should have prevented the pregnancy. It was doable, yet she didn't do it. As to "the woman's body", the fetus is NOT the woman's body. The fetus is its own body under the care of the mother who conceived it.
I don't like it, but I believe any person who is a victim of an actual rape, of incest, or whose life is threatened by the pregnancy deserves a legal abortion. I agree with Temlakos : abortion on demand has coarsened our society to a degree that we may have to live with forever.
I'd vote for Todd Akin solely for his refusal to be dictated to by media and Party. Go, Todd, whoever you are!!
Are you sure? I've talked to many self-proclaimed pro-choicers who insisted that a developing human life remains a parasite until the moment of birth, and that pregnant women should be allowed to abort at any point. Feminists are especially unwilling to compromise, because according to their ideology, laws against late-term abortion would diminish a woman's right to self-determination.
It is also a position that has been legislated in many countries, which shows that there is great support for the legality of late-term abortions. Usually there are a few restrictions, but some countries (such as Canada) place no restrictions on abortions at all.
Here in Germany, about 460 viable late-term fetuses (which people would call babies if they saw them in an incubator) are killed every year. But of course that is just a drop in the ocean compared to the European total of 42 million abortions annually. Statistically, every third pregnancy in Europe is terminated.
http://www.nationalreview.com...
http://www.abortion.com/abort...
There are approximately 1.37 million abortions in America every year. 1% of 1.37 million is 13,700, 1/5 of that is 2,740. I would hardly say that 2,740 late term abortions is something that "doesn't happen." And the fetuses that BAIPA was intended to protect were not only "viable", they were babies who survived late term abortions and were living human beings when they were discarded like some piece of garbage..
I will thank you to keep the false accusations of "lying" to yourself.
The very same people who think that Todd Akin is nuts for what he said, are on record as saying that even a newborn isn't a person until the mother brings him or her home. And then you have Peter Singer, of Princeton University, who says that a newborn shouldn't be a legal person until he or she is a month old.
Give them a "trimester" and they'll take the full term, plus a month afterward. Literally.
Are you sure, or is this an exaggeration? Please provide quotations and links to support your claim. I am aware that many people do not believe a fetus becomes a "person" until birth, but this is the first I have heard of the "until the mother brings him or her home" statement.
Opening "her mouth today about Todd Aiken" does not indicate that she said Akins "is nuts." Further, even if she had NOT corrected it, an isolated incident would not constitute "people" holding this point of view.