Texas teens' case tests fetus protection statute [Archive]

wdlove

Mar 5, 2005, 05:41 PM

Things just don't seem to be getting any better on the parenting front. :mad:

For the twins. :( Another time when we need a cry emoticon.

The would-be teen mother arrived by ambulance last May, her belly bruised, the twin fetuses she had carried for five months gone, and her lips tightly sealed.

Authorities assumed 16-year-old Erica Basoria had been beaten and charged her boyfriend, 18-year-old Gerardo Flores, with murder under the state's new law protecting the unborn.

-But it was not that simple. Basoria told authorities that she had been trying to kill the fetuses for weeks and finally asked Flores to help by stepping on her stomach.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/05/texas_teens_case_tests_fetus_protection_statute/

Blue Velvet

Mar 5, 2005, 05:48 PM

wdlove

Mar 5, 2005, 05:54 PM

This will probably get shifted to the Political Forum.

Outlaw abortion and this is what you'll get -- women taking things messily into their own hands and making desperate decisions as they have been forced to do for centuries.

May I ask why you keep thinking my threads should be moved to the political forum. I don't see this as being an abortion issue, its legal. End of Story. :(

The issue here is what these two teenagers have done to innocent life. There are so many other options.

Blue Velvet

Mar 5, 2005, 06:02 PM

May I ask why you keep thinking my threads should be moved to the political forum. I don't see this as being an abortion issue, its legal. End of Story. :(

The issue here is what these two teenagers have done to innocent life. There are so many other options.

wdlove, I don't keep thinking all your threads should be moved to the political forum but you and I both know that the issues surrounding reproductive rights are so contentious, and so politically-charged in the U.S. that threads like this have the capacity to rapidly evolve into politically-framed arguments.

What is more to the point, is what climate of thinking and what circumstances lead to this couple making such a poor decision regarding her pregnancy.

stubeeef

Mar 5, 2005, 06:20 PM

Blue Velvet

Mar 5, 2005, 06:25 PM

this is the state of affairs in a country with a moral decline, where education is second to TV, this has zero to do with abortion, it is legal, didn't matter here. there are families ready to adopt, didn't happen here.

Violence on TV and in films, lack of personal responsiblity, and declining education are a lethal soup of tears.

How that is political I have no clue. You can not legislate morality,

People have been moaning about the supposed moral decline of their respective societies for millennia... if you cannot legislate morality then why do so many legislatures try to?

stubeeef

Mar 5, 2005, 06:34 PM

wdlove

Mar 5, 2005, 06:50 PM

wdlove, I don't keep thinking all your threads should be moved to the political forum but you and I both know that the issues surrounding reproductive rights are so contentious, and so politically-charged in the U.S. that threads like this have the capacity to rapidly evolve into politically-framed arguments.

What is more to the point, is what climate of thinking and what circumstances lead to this couple making such a poor decision regarding her pregnancy.

I'm sorry Blue Velvet, I probably overacted. It just hurt when I saw a chance of thread going to the political forum for a second time. :o

My first reaction to the story was about parenting and the moral values in our society. Morals can't really be legislated. They are a thing that has to come from within, first taught by a parent. I know that my moral compass works very well, that my parents gave me.

rainman::|:|

Mar 5, 2005, 08:03 PM

yes they have. And as a parent of 3 little girls, I have put parental controls on the disney channel of all channels. The violence and "teen" angst had my 8 yr old immitating it by the ending credits.

I use bumper car (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/72101/wo/aO43t277Imsq2Msul5C9zD8LsQI/1.0.11.1.0.6.25.7.11.0.3) to filter their internet, parental controls on the TV and monitor which friends they spend time with. Why? Because it is my duty and responsibility! It will not gaurentee great kids/adults just help prevent some future crap. But right now pubescent teens think that oral sex is not sex? Some are having anal sex at these ages so they can remain virgins. It is nearly out of control. They are unable to cope with the decsions they are making. Absentee parenting doesn't help.

And you honestly think your daughters won't go sleep around, party, do drugs, whatever if they want to? They're independent people, you may wind up having to face that at some point in your parenting. Just a tip. And if they do these things, maybe they'll become artists or politicians and rise above the status-quo mediocrity that haunts so many people at middle-age. Or will you parent your children to avoid that pitfall too? More to the point, how does nature vs. nurture have anything to do with this? Must we resort to blaming her parents? I just don't get how your post has any point, forgive me. If you're incinuating that her age is shocking here, keep in mind that for most of recorded history this kind of thing happened to 12-year olds. Today that's seen as a scandal, meaning our morals have actually become more stringent. And for most of recorded history, people have been using dozens of methods to induce miscarriage, there's no way to know but in America that might even happen less today than in the past... as our standard of living becomes better, people aren't forced into abortion because they can't afford food. What's sad here is that this girl either couldn't afford an abortion or was too scared (OK, maybe too stupid, I don't know and I'm not going to defend her), so she did something that endangered her own life and the freedom of her boyfriend.

stubeeef

Mar 5, 2005, 08:41 PM

And you honestly think your daughters won't go sleep around, party, do drugs, whatever if they want to? They're independent people, you may wind up having to face that at some point in your parenting. Just a tip. And if they do these things, maybe they'll become artists or politicians and rise above the status-quo mediocrity that haunts so many people at middle-age. Or will you parent your children to avoid that pitfall too? More to the point, how does nature vs. nurture have anything to do with this? Must we resort to blaming her parents? I just don't get how your post has any point, forgive me. If you're incinuating that her age is shocking here, keep in mind that for most of recorded history this kind of thing happened to 12-year olds. Today that's seen as a scandal, meaning our morals have actually become more stringent. And for most of recorded history, people have been using dozens of methods to induce miscarriage, there's no way to know but in America that might even happen less today than in the past... as our standard of living becomes better, people aren't forced into abortion because they can't afford food. What's sad here is that this girl either couldn't afford an abortion or was too scared (OK, maybe too stupid, I don't know and I'm not going to defend her), so she did something that endangered her own life and the freedom of her boyfriend.

let me start with..........
It will not gaurentee great kids/adults just help prevent some future crap.

If you're incinuating that her age is shocking here,
Yes I think in this day and time it is a bit sad, if not shocking. Other things were shocking in those old days, like treating your elders with disrespect, but alass this is the here and now.

Must we resort to blaming her parents?
While I can see where that insinuation may be there, I don't necessarily blame her parents. I wonder about her parents involvement, but have no clue. I mention the things that I do with my kids, in hopes that they will help my children. The only other option (not involved) is unacceptable to me.

May I ask how you are raising your children? I constantly find myself at odds with MYSELF about what I am doing and how I am doing it with my children. I constantly worry that they may not have a good role model. I grew up without a father for the most part, so am off in lala land here.

In what ways are you involved with impresionable kids? I tried to work with some at our youth group, but found that wasn't my best fit, mostly because I had no exerience with that type of relationship (adult-youth) at the time (before I had kids).

I don't have the answers, and will be surprised if anyone here does, but less involvement can't be among the serious options. Abortion is a legal option, as well as adoption, the issue here is the blatant disregard for life, the infants as well as her own. Having unresponsible sex is an awful thing for children. What kids are expected to assimilate from TV is unbelievable, my kids constantly ask if something is real. They just can't grasp it sometimes, and my oldest is in an accelerated program for gifted kids.

Sorry if I came off holyer than thou, but an hour of cruising the tube can just baffle the mess out of me, and what we are exposing our young generations minds with.

Les Kern

Mar 5, 2005, 09:20 PM

People have been moaning about the supposed moral decline of their respective societies for millennia... if you cannot legislate morality then why do so many legislatures try to?

Actually you can legislate morals. It's been tried before. Remember the Dark Ages?
Don't let the fundamentalist nut-cases guide you. I'm almost 50, and there are NO declines in morals over the course of my life. Folks just talk openly about it now. Do you think they JUST invented oral sex? It was my freakin' hobby in 1970.
Jeesh.

stubeeef

Mar 5, 2005, 09:46 PM

Actually you can legislate morals. It's been tried before. Remember the Dark Ages?
Don't let the fundamentalist nut-cases guide you. I'm almost 50, and there are NO declines in morals over the course of my life. Folks just talk openly about it now. Do you think they JUST invented oral sex? It was my freakin' hobby in 1970.
Jeesh.

Was it considered sex then?

CorvusCamenarum

Mar 5, 2005, 09:49 PM

This will probably get shifted to the Political Forum.

Outlaw abortion and this is what you'll get -- women taking things messily into their own hands and making desperate decisions as they have been forced to do for centuries.

Yes, but there is a very simple solution to this - if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. It doesn't cost anything and works 100% of the time. Granted, I know that this outdated and antiquated line of reasoning flies in the face of the more modern, "enlightened" mode of thought where there is no such thing as a potentially adverse consequence, but I'm pretty sure it works just the same.

This hasn't been touched on yet, but I find it very disturbing that the boyfriend can be prosecuted while the girl gets a free pass on the grounds of "it's her pregnancy to terminate."

miloblithe

Mar 5, 2005, 10:04 PM

It would be nice if rather than taking staunch sides on these issues if people could come together and openly discuss real life. A realize this is flowers and puppy dogs, but a more open, supportive society could have helped these kids make some far better decisions.

Les Kern

Mar 5, 2005, 10:04 PM

Was it considered sex then?

Indeed it was. A glorious variation to be sure.

rainman::|:|

Mar 5, 2005, 10:10 PM

let me start with..........

Yes I think in this day and time it is a bit sad, if not shocking. Other things were shocking in those old days, like treating your elders with disrespect, but alass this is the here and now.

While I can see where that insinuation may be there, I don't necessarily blame her parents. I wonder about her parents involvement, but have no clue. I mention the things that I do with my kids, in hopes that they will help my children. The only other option (not involved) is unacceptable to me.

May I ask how you are raising your children? I constantly find myself at odds with MYSELF about what I am doing and how I am doing it with my children. I constantly worry that they may not have a good role model. I grew up without a father for the most part, so am off in lala land here.

In what ways are you involved with impresionable kids? I tried to work with some at our youth group, but found that wasn't my best fit, mostly because I had no exerience with that type of relationship (adult-youth) at the time (before I had kids).

I don't have the answers, and will be surprised if anyone here does, but less involvement can't be among the serious options. Abortion is a legal option, as well as adoption, the issue here is the blatant disregard for life, the infants as well as her own. Having unresponsible sex is an awful thing for children. What kids are expected to assimilate from TV is unbelievable, my kids constantly ask if something is real. They just can't grasp it sometimes, and my oldest is in an accelerated program for gifted kids.

Sorry if I came off holyer than thou, but an hour of cruising the tube can just baffle the mess out of me, and what we are exposing our young generations minds with.

And I'm sorry if I impeached your parenting skills, I know it's a hard job and respect that. I had a lot of parenting responsibilities with my siblings and I've worked with children in several situations, and I have learned enough about them to never have any of my own ;) My point is simply that this kind of behavior (the self-abortion) is on the way out, not in... Hundreds or thousands of years ago people peddled syrums and drugs and procedures that would terminate pregnancy, not to mention countless ways to do it yourself. Today abortion is mostly seen as a you-go-to-the-doctor procedure, and we can see the public outrage when it's self-induced as in this case. While we can learn from this case and perhaps tweak the way abortion is made available to younger people, i hardly consider it an indictment against society. As for violence/sex on TV and internet, yes it's true that it's available to children in epic proportions, but it's never been hidden from children-- Again, hundreds or thousands of years ago children witnessed both on a daily basis from the time of infancy. Today we're continuing ways to shelter them from that. My concern is that parents have these powerful filtering tools but not the restraint to turn them off as the kids grow up... A 10-year old probably does know about sex just as a 10-year old did 100 years ago. Why not give them the chance to learn more about it than the sexist, caricaturized version that they get from their friends? These are often the same people campaigning against sex-ed classes being offered to younger students. If you don't want them to learn about sex, how can you blame them when they wield it like a clumsy sledgehammer? Again, I'm not criticizing you here, I'm just saying where I'm coming from...

jsw

Mar 5, 2005, 10:47 PM

Two comments:

(1) As the father of a four and a half year old daughter and, in June, the father of a second daughter, I certainly understand some of the dilemmas and issues involved in raising kids and, more to the point, understand that I don't understand it all and that it's only going to get vastly more complicated. However, coming from a background with extraordinarily overprotective parents, I tend to believe that it is far better too let your kids see what's going on around them with you there to guide them than it is to shield them from it all. Why? Two reasons: (a) they will grow up and leave the house someday - if you protect them too much when young, you are not preparing them for what's coming; and (b) you isolate them socially if you remove their ability to blend in with their peers by sharing what they've watched, heard, etc. My parents literally changed the channel whenever people did anything even vaguely sexual or violent on screen. As a result, I not only am incredibly uncomfortable discussing anything with them - they seemed to think it was wrong to show or discuss anything vaguely controversial - but I spent years unable to share in conversations at school because I wasn't up on anything. I didn't even get a stereo until sophomore year in high school, and use of that was somewhat restricted. I remember being asked freshman year what my favorite radio station was. I couldn't even name one. I felt isolated from my peers (also due to never being allowed out, really, so there wasn't anything like being grounded for me, as there wasn't anything to remove). If you overprotect kids, you hurt them. I think I understand why my parents did it. My older brother died during surgery at the age of two (I was one). A younger brother almost died during surgeries of his own. So they wanted to keep us safe. However, my point is that there is a fine line between shielding your kids and overprotecting them, and it's a tough line to determine as a parent. Still, I'd rather give my kids the chance to see what their peers are seeing than shield them from it. Just my opinion, and it doesn't mean my 4 year old watches porn or prison movies, just that I don't want her to be isolated from the culture her peers experience, which isn't much now but will be extensive in only a few years.

(2) I think the restrictions on abortion are yet another instance of this society thinking that it can mandate morality. Kids will have sex. They will have unprotected sex. You might be able to make it more or less likely that they will, but you cannot prevent it. I didn't have sex of any sort as a kid, and I suppose my parents did prevent that by making me a social outcast... but, generally, it's not preventable. To take these kids who have had sex and gotten pregnant and demonize them or force them to such extremes infuriates me to no end. Adoption is great if the kids want to go through with having a child. I don't ever want my daughters to have abortions. Ever. But... if they feel forced to go to some back alley or to try to kill the fetuses themselves, I'd rather they had professional help than that they bleed out in some back room or end up in jail. Laws to "protect the fetus" infuriate me. They legislate morality and, worse, decide that it is better to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. Crime rates went down when abortion rates rose. Why? More unwanted kids weren't born. Not rocket science there.

MacNut

Mar 6, 2005, 12:37 AM

Think of it this way, If our parents had an abortion than we wouldn't be having this conversation because we wouldn't exist. :rolleyes:

miloblithe

Mar 6, 2005, 01:16 AM

Think of it this way, If our parents had an abortion than we wouldn't be having this conversation because we wouldn't exist. :rolleyes:

Just think, if our fathers had "thought about baseball" and held out a few seconds longer, we wouldn't exist and someone else would exist in our place!

If Bruce Banner hadn't been exposed to radiation, there'd be no Incredible Hulk!

If George Bush had OD'ed on coke, he wouldn't be President!

My god! If the past had occureded differently, the present wouldn't be the same!

MacFan26

Mar 6, 2005, 01:29 AM

Gotta love this quote: ''We didn't consider a case as ridiculous as this," said Representative Ray Allen, a Republican. ''I feel sad for these immature, stupid people. But the law is what the law is."

I think the only immature, stupid people we're dealing are our own lawmakers. After all, they have a significant influence on why we're keeping the public "stupid."

madoka

Mar 6, 2005, 02:37 AM

Outlaw abortion and this is what you'll get -- women taking things messily into their own hands and making desperate decisions as they have been forced to do for centuries.

Funny, abortion isn't outlawed, yet this still happened. Way to push your pro-abortion agenda.

acedickson

Mar 6, 2005, 02:51 AM

yes they have. And as a parent of 3 little girls, I have put parental controls on the disney channel of all channels. The violence and "teen" angst had my 8 yr old immitating it by the ending credits.

I use bumper car (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/72101/wo/aO43t277Imsq2Msul5C9zD8LsQI/1.0.11.1.0.6.25.7.11.0.3) to filter their internet, parental controls on the TV and monitor which friends they spend time with. Why? Because it is my duty and responsibility! It will not gaurentee great kids/adults just help prevent some future crap. But right now pubescent teens think that oral sex is not sex? Some are having anal sex at these ages so they can remain virgins. It is nearly out of control. They are unable to cope with the decsions they are making. Absentee parenting doesn't help.

How old are your girls now? Doing all of that to "protect" or shield them doesn't mean they'll turn out great or not. If they go to school, pblic or private, they'll be exposed to much more than TV or the net. When they rebel it'll probably be against those exact things you shield them from. I'm 21 with 3 kids and I don't think any of the choices I made had anything to do with my upbringing.

I have several friends that are in the same situation. Some were "shielded", some were in between, and some hadno parental involment in what the watch, where they surf, or who they hangout with. We're all in the same boat and all from different upbringings.

That said I hope it works out and they grow up to be great people as adults. Hopefully, they'll only minimally rebel.

Blue Velvet

Mar 6, 2005, 03:46 AM

Funny, abortion isn't outlawed, yet this still happened. Way to push your pro-abortion agenda.

Anyone who has had anything to do with abortion can never be considered 'pro-abortion', let alone being accused of having an 'agenda'.

Don't twist my words into a parody.

It's the mother's right to choose how her life is defined by an unwanted pregnancy, not her parents and certainly not yours.

CorvusCamenarum

Mar 6, 2005, 04:21 AM

It's the mother's right to choose how her life is defined by an unwanted pregnancy, not her parents and certainly not yours.

Since the girl in the aforementioned article is underage, then yes her parents do have some say in the matter, as they're still responsible for her. Add to that the fact that in cases like this, the grandparents usually end up having a significant if not primary role in raising the child. Unless you're independently wealthy, no 16-year-old is anywhere near ready for dealing with everything that having a child entails.

Blue Velvet

Mar 6, 2005, 04:29 AM

Since the girl in the aforementioned article is underage, then yes her parents do have some say in the matter, as they're still responsible for her. Add to that the fact that in cases like this, the grandparents usually end up having a significant if not primary role in raising the child. Unless you're independently wealthy, no 16-year-old is anywhere near ready for dealing with everything that having a child entails.

Yes, you're right in this case -- however, if the couple involved had had good access to contraception this would never have happened. Some may argue that they shouldn't have been having sex but telling teenagers they shouldn't be having sex ignores the reality of what your body is telling you at that age.

However, I wasn't being specific -- just vague in a Sunday morning pre-coffee-ish way.

stubeeef

Mar 6, 2005, 07:42 AM

If Bruce Banner hadn't been exposed to radiation, there'd be no Incredible Hulk!

ROFLOL, that was funny.

If the coyote was smarter or faster the road runner would be dead!

If elmer could "kill the wabbit"!

If daffy duck had invented windows and was the billionair he always wanted to be!

Yes, if these things happened the world would be different! :p :p :p

How old are your girls now? Doing all of that to "protect" or shield them doesn't mean they'll turn out great or not.
answer...It will not gaurentee great kids/adults just help prevent some future crap.

jsw, I understand what you are saying about be overprotective, I know you are interested in some of the same kid safe internet software as previously discussed,
However, I've been looking for a way to enhance her web access, since there's a lot of cool (and free) stuff out there... along with all the scary things. Good to hear of a good product.

There is of course, as you and I too recognize, a fine line in exposing such unfiltered info to inquiring minds. When we first got digital cable my 8 yr old learned how to use it faster than me, we got up one morning with her hiding behind the couch scared and hardcore porn on the tube, she was almost shaking she could not understand or conceptualize why they sounded in such pain. Filters are in place and I yelled a good one to Time Warner.

My girls are 6,7,8 yrs old, and while we discuss death, good and bad people I am not ready to discuss intercourse or oral sex quite yet. In todays world my kids had "stranger" talks as 5 yr olds. I didn't have to have that growing up, it is a somewhat different world, some for the better. Child abductions happened when I was little too, they just weren't disscussed. So bringing this out is good, but hard for 5 yr olds to understand.

Abortion is a hot potato, murder isn't, pedophila isn't, rape isn't, and dare I say, contraception for 8yr olds isn't. Is there an age line? If so where is it.

As I stated earlier, parenting is difficult, more so if you actually try to do it well. I don't have the answer either, but more is not always better.

PS.JSW Congrats on your second daughter! That is awesome, you're defintately outnumbered now! Heck in my house even the dog is a girl. :p

MacNut

Mar 6, 2005, 12:41 PM

It's the mother's right to choose how her life is defined by an unwanted pregnancy, not her parents and certainly not yours.What about the fathers rights, does he get a say in what happens to his unborn child. The kid is partially his its not like one morning a woman ends up pregnant all by herself.

Blue Velvet

Mar 6, 2005, 01:01 PM

What about the fathers rights, does he get a say in what happens to his unborn child. The kid is partially his its not like one morning a woman ends up pregnant all by herself.

Of course, although 'rights' probably have a different meaning in the father's case -- I'm not a lawyer. With rights comes responsibility...

However, it is the mother who bears the child and gives birth to it.

What do you think should happen if a woman becomes pregnant and doesn't wish to have the baby but yet the father does?

There are no easy answers but if it was me, my primary concern would be with myself, my career and my future with or without a child, then the father's wishes and I'd pay scant lip-service to any relatives & parents... but of course, I'm not 16 and have a certain level of financial independence. If that makes me appear 'selfish', then so be it... once in a while, women should occasionally put themselves first, shocking as that might seem.

Despite appearances, I agree with many posters here... abortion is never an easy option but an unwanted pregnancy isn't either. Putting the children up for adoption in this case might have been better but the girl was in no fit mind and more importantly, didn't feel that she had the network and support to choose that option.

MacNut

Mar 6, 2005, 01:11 PM

There are no easy answers but if it was me, my primary concern would be with myself, my career and my future with or without a child, then the father's wishes and I'd pay scant lip-service to any relatives & parents... but of course, I'm not 16 and have a certain level of financial independence. If that makes me appear 'selfish', then so be it... once in a while, women should occasionally put themselves first, shocking as that might seem.
But shouldn't you think of that before you have unprotected sex.

Blue Velvet

Mar 6, 2005, 01:21 PM

But shouldn't you think of that before you have unprotected sex.

Yes but teenagers are always doing irresponsible things. I did and so did many of my friends... it's human nature.

The real question is what systems and support are in place to pick things up and put them on the right path when all goes horribly wrong and confusing... especially for vulnerable individuals.

Jailing either of these two is a travesty.

madoka

Mar 6, 2005, 01:43 PM

Anyone who has had anything to do with abortion can never be considered 'pro-abortion', let alone being accused of having an 'agenda'.

It's the mother's right to choose how her life is defined by an unwanted pregnancy, not her parents and certainly not yours.

1. Yes, there are plenty of PRO-abortion people out there. The abortion industry is run mostly by men for the convenience of men and they make hundreds of millions of dollars a year on killing babies.

2. To say that pro-abortionists don't have an agenda is either naive or a lie.

3. The vast majority of people want to live, yet abortion takes that "choice" away from the child under the false guise of women's rights. Millions of innocent lives are dissected and vacuumed out of wombs, rather than change laws to improve women's socio-economic status. The term abortion as pro-choice is a misnomer coined by the pro-abortion movement.

4. You say it's not my choice, yet you've interjected yourself into their lives without any qualms. They killed two babies illegally and somehow you're trying to make them seem like the victims?

Blue Velvet

Mar 6, 2005, 02:02 PM

1. Yes, there are plenty of PRO-abortion people out there. The abortion industry is run mostly by men for the convenience of men and they make hundreds of millions of dollars a year on killing babies.

2. To say that pro-abortionists don't have an agenda is either naive or a lie.

3. The vast majority of people want to live, yet abortion takes that "choice" away from the child under the false guise of women's rights. Millions of innocent lives are dissected and vacuumed out of wombs, rather than change laws to improve women's socio-economic status. The term abortion as pro-choice is a misnomer coined by the pro-abortion movement.

4. You say it's not my choice, yet you've interjected yourself into their lives without any qualms. They killed two babies illegally and somehow you're trying to make them seem like the victims?

• They are not babies or children -- they are foetuses.
• How is abortion convenient for men and not for women?
• Improving women's socio-economic status by changing laws, although an admirable objective, is not relevant to the issue of unwanted preganancies. Are you suggesting that the state pay women to carry to full-term and support these women & children fully?
• How have I interjected myself into their lives? Do you think they're sitting there, reading MR forums and thinking 'Oh yeah, Blue Velvet -- she's so right, we better do what she says'? Puhhleaze...

You sound like you don't want women to have control of their own bodies... you and I will never agree on this issue, so let's just leave it there.

mactastic

Mar 6, 2005, 02:19 PM

Ah yes... the old bull**** that anyone who supports a woman's right to reproductive choice actually ENJOYS abortions. The thought of piles of dead fetuses actually THRILLS them, right? Abortions for everyone! Clinics in the malls, with sandwich-board-clad advertisers outside yelling "Come on in and abort your fetus!"

Rubbish. I don't like abortions, and don't want to see anyone have to go through it. But IT'S GONNA HAPPEN WHETHER IT'S LEGAL OR NOT! And if it's not legal, the woman is far more likely to die during the procedure.

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, right? But if abortions are outlawed, they'll suddenly go away? Puhleeze.

rainman::|:|

Mar 6, 2005, 02:34 PM

Yeah, I used to be strongly pro-life for religious reasons (yes, you heard me right, i'm an ex-christian) and when I started opening my eyes to their perspective, all of the Planned Parenthood (largest abortion provider) staff that I've met have been caring, devoted people that are more like social workers than profit-mongers... In fact, most of these people are so badly underpaid that they have second jobs to support their families (and yes, they actually have kids! they didn't scrape them out, funny that!). While I agree that modern abortion was *started* by men as a very sexist institution, victimizing women, that in the past 30 years women have taken over and kicked men out... Only men I know that work near abortion clinics are gay men, at least around here. I don't want to sound all unicorns-and-puppies but it's more like a sisterhood of women trying to support other women in what may be the darkest point in their lives.

And I agree 100% with Mactastic... I don't like abortions either, but now that I've opened my eyes to the history of abortion, I realize it's legalization is an important safety measure no matter how non-ideal abortion may be.

Applespider

Mar 6, 2005, 02:35 PM

But shouldn't you think of that before you have unprotected sex.

I don't think any of us are saying that abortion should be treated as a regular form of birth control. There are other options (yes, including abstinence) which should be taught. But there are accidents, with condoms splitting, hormones carrying folks away, Pills failing due to food poisoning etc.

I do believe it is the woman's choice whether to proceed with the pregnancy. If the father wants to be involved, then I'd like to think that before they had sex, they were sufficiently known to another that they can have a discussion about it. But, any child will undoubtedly have more of an impact on the mother's life so the ultimate decision has to be hers.

I have seen the amazing pictures etc of how a foetus looks within weeks of conception but I honestly believe that it is better to terminate a pregnancy than bring a child into the world who might at best be tolerated and at worst unwanted.

I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice. I believe a woman should have the counselling she needs to be able to understand the magnitude of what she is doing and how she may be affected. I do know women who have had abortions and it has haunted them *but* looking back, they say that if they had the choice again, they'd have done the same thing since it wasn't the right time to bring a child into the world. Women who have abortions tend not to treat it cavalierly - it's a major life decision that will affect them for years regardless of what they decide is right for them. Personally, I'm not sure what I'd do but I'm glad I have options.

There is still a stigma for women who give birth outside a relationship, and I don't think you can inflict that on a woman for the rest of her life, for the sake of a cluster of cells which aren't yet sentient.

Blue Velvet

Mar 6, 2005, 02:39 PM

...I don't think you can inflict that on a woman for the rest of her life, for the sake of a cluster of cells which aren't yet sentient.

So incredibly well put.
I'm gobsmacked in admiration...

acedickson

Mar 6, 2005, 02:45 PM

What about the fathers rights, does he get a say in what happens to his unborn child. The kid is partially his its not like one morning a woman ends up pregnant all by herself.

No, fathers have no say once the baby is conceived. It's all up to the mother from there on. I learned that lesson the hard way, but I have to say it turned out for the best.

Leareth

Mar 6, 2005, 03:30 PM

In the United States , Roe v. Wade I believe was the landmark case that decided the issue of fathers rights when it comes down to abortion, they have none... And the rights of women to have an abortion on demand.

In this case of the teen and her boyfriend, i think it was his mother that said no to abortion but her parents supported her choice. I wished she lived in a more tolerant state and gotten the abortion done by a professional and earlier in the pregnancy...but sometimes teens dont know they are pregnant until the 4-5 month and by then it is too late to do anything under most countries laws unless it endangers her health.
I think most people would agree that it would be better for them both for the pregnancy to be terminated and the teens actually finishing school and maybe even going to college, then they can get a decent job, be able to take care of any future kids instead of being another teen mother on welfare...

As for those pro-life people , I always ask the same question, what do you do in a case of rape? make a woman carry a child she does not want, that when she looks at it will see the rapist and the rape not the child...

How many cases where there in the last couple of years of so called dumpster babies... some found alive others not , in sense denying the mother the chance to get an abortion you are aiding in murder of an infant.

stubeeef

Mar 6, 2005, 04:10 PM

I sure like the idea of adoption, 4 more months and 2 children could have been placed in a home where they were wanted. What a waste. :(

miloblithe

Mar 6, 2005, 04:30 PM

CorvusCamenarum

Mar 6, 2005, 04:42 PM

Yes, you're right in this case -- however, if the couple involved had had good access to contraception this would never have happened. Some may argue that they shouldn't have been having sex but telling teenagers they shouldn't be having sex ignores the reality of what your body is telling you at that age.

However, I wasn't being specific -- just vague in a Sunday morning pre-coffee-ish way.

I'm sorry, but that argument just doesn't hold water. No offense or anything, but how bloody hard is it to walk down to the corner shop and pick up a pack of condoms?

LethalWolfe

Mar 6, 2005, 04:46 PM

I sure like the idea of adoption, 4 more months and 2 children could have been placed in a home where they were wanted. What a waste. :(

Or 2 more children could have been bounced around state facilities and foster homes until they were 18 because no one wanted them (how's that for a healthy upbringing).

You might not agree w/the chosen path, but don't make the alternative sound like a sure lock for happiness and a wonderful life.

Lethal

stubeeef

Mar 6, 2005, 04:48 PM

A reality about adoption is that certain babies are preferenced over other babies by prospective adoptors. Every time I went to the airport in Krasnoyarsk (in Russian, near Mongolia--NOT convenient for Americans to get to), there were several Americans getting on planes to return to the US with their new Russian babies. That's a _long_ way to go to find a baby, but those Russians sure are white.

Not that that is the only reason. The legal obstacles and rights issues give other incentives to go abroad to adopt. But still.

True, some here are going to china this month, My wife and I almost started the process, after trying for years. I don't know if it is a function of race, or how easy and quick it is overseas vs in the US? But it seems babies in general are in demand vs toddlers. I live in an affluent area and many parents here have dark skinned adopted children, some asian. I would adopt a boy tomorrow if the wife would bite off on it. 3 girls so closely spaced is too hard already, not brave enough to throw a boy on top of it all.

Leareth

Mar 6, 2005, 04:50 PM

I'm sorry, but that argument just doesn't hold water. No offense or anything, but how bloody hard is it to walk down to the corner shop and pick up a pack of condoms?

In some places. pretty damn hard. Small towns are the worst, everyone knows if you went and bought a box of condoms.
Sometimes you cant afford them and dont have any youth clinics in your town, and sometimes what you get in the store is no good: expired or the store clerks intentionally prick holes with a pin.

And condoms do tear by accident or slip off... and some religions and countries forbid the use of any birth control methods so what do you do then? it was not until 1999 Japanese Gov't approved the pill, so the main method of birth control was abortion, most men did not want to use condoms even though they were and are available.

Blue Velvet

Mar 6, 2005, 04:52 PM

I'm sorry, but that argument just doesn't hold water. No offense or anything, but how bloody hard is it to walk down to the corner shop and pick up a pack of condoms?

No problem for me, but what's it like for an immature 16 year old in Texas?

I agree with you -- I'm not advocating unprotected sex or abortion as a means of contraception. Arguing about what they should have done in the first place is irrelevant now, anyway.

No offense taken...

stubeeef

Mar 6, 2005, 04:53 PM

Or 2 more children could have been bounced around state facilities and foster homes until they were 18 because no one wanted them (how's that for a healthy upbringing).

You might not agree w/the chosen path, but don't make the alternative sound like a sure lock for happiness and a wonderful life.

Lethal

It may be pie in the sky, but compared to abortion (http://www.silentscream.org/) (graphic ultrasound of abortion not for weak/timid or underage > silent scream.org) I think of it as a better option. I realize that it is my opinion, but nonetheless it is how I feel on the issue.

LethalWolfe

Mar 6, 2005, 05:01 PM

I'm sorry, but that argument just doesn't hold water. No offense or anything, but how bloody hard is it to walk down to the corner shop and pick up a pack of condoms?

Many teens feel so intimidated and embarrassed by the thought of going to a store and buying condoms that they chose to take the risk and not use them. If condoms where more freely available more teens would use them.

Reality, not subjective moral idealism, should drive the decision making process.

Lethal

wdlove

Mar 6, 2005, 06:21 PM

No problem for me, but what's it like for an immature 16 year old in Texas?

I agree with you -- I'm not advocating unprotected sex or abortion as a means of contraception. Arguing about what they should have done in the first place is irrelevant now, anyway.

No offense taken...

I hope that we are still OK Blue Velvet. :o

I'm not sure if this is correct, but from somewhere I heard that a growing number of teenagers are electing abstinence. They take a pledge to wait for marriage.

Our church has two clinics that it works with. I think that counseling is very important for a young mother. Many times they aren't aware of their options. At both places ultrasounds are offered. Many of them don't realize what's growing inside them. That difference alone can make a difference. A social network needs to be setup to help the young lady.

CorvusCamenarum

Mar 6, 2005, 06:34 PM

In some places. pretty damn hard. Small towns are the worst, everyone knows if you went and bought a box of condoms.
Big whoop. Either people know you're having sex, or you're worried someone might find out about something you probably shouldn't be doing anyway.

Sometimes you cant afford them
If you can't scrape up $5 for a box of condoms, then what business do you have in risking the creation a child you so obviously can't care for?

and dont have any youth clinics in your town, and sometimes what you get in the store is no good: expired or the store clerks intentionally prick holes with a pin.
It's called spermicide. And last time I checked, they have expiration dates on them. You don't need to be having sex if you can't read instructions and numbers.

And condoms do tear by accident or slip off
Yes they can slip or break, but they also come several to a box. See above comment regarding basic literacy.

and some religions and countries forbid the use of any birth control methods so what do you do then?
Those religions and countries probably also restrict sex for when you can deal with what might happen because of sex, namely children. It's rather a wash to say "Oh, I'm going to ignore the rule about not having sex, but I'm going to worry about birth control because it's also against the rules."
As for what you do, it's quite simple: You don't have sex. Shocking, eh? I don't remember reading anywhere about any unalienable right to get laid.

It's all about consequences. One thing causes another. Sadly, we live in a world where people just do whatever they please and then play the victim when something happens they don't like, nevermind the fact that they brought it on themselves.

Mechcozmo

Mar 6, 2005, 06:50 PM

This hasn't been touched on yet, but I find it very disturbing that the boyfriend can be prosecuted while the girl gets a free pass on the grounds of "it's her pregnancy to terminate."

Yeah... she wanted him to do it, and he gets tossed in jail. This could get ugly.

And what was a 16 year old doing pregnant? Obviously she had been pregnant for 5 months as the article said and she was still with her boyfriend... Seemed more like she had planned it more than just an "oh, s***" moment....

wdlove

Mar 6, 2005, 07:30 PM

Yeah... she wanted him to do it, and he gets tossed in jail. This could get ugly.

And what was a 16 year old doing pregnant? Obviously she had been pregnant for 5 months as the article said and she was still with her boyfriend... Seemed more like she had planned it more than just an "oh, s***" moment....

It would seem that she should be brought up on charges of conspiracy to murder. The shield law shouldn't protect her. her plan to kill those innocent babies.

Also condoms aren't always 100% safe, if not stored properly they can leak. In many case they also don't protect against HIV.

jsw

Mar 6, 2005, 07:51 PM

JSW Congrats on your second daughter! That is awesome, you're defintately outnumbered now! Heck in my house even the dog is a girl. :pThanks - and ditto. The only other male in the house is a fish, and I only know that because it's a Betta. Actually, I don't even know that. They told me so at the pet store.

As far as abortion: I don't find it to be a good thing. However, I find it often to be a lesser evil. Like I wrote earlier, my wife's an L&D nurse and sees a lot of newborns who are essentially screwed at birth. A good friend work in Family Services elsewhere and sees lots of kids whose parents didn't want them. While adoption is a great concept, it's often true that the process of giving up a child for adoption isn't as easy as one might think, and a lot of times, once the kid's born and taken home, it's a lot harder. There are a lot of abused, beaten, tormented children who arguably wish they'd never been born.

While I find abortion videos to be disturbing, and while I especially find later abortions troubling (I have no - zero - problem with the day after pill or anything that terminates a pregnancy in the first month), it's also true that such videos are made to create such emotions. Make a video showing a mouse and her young dying from rat poison, or one showing cattle being slaughtered, or one showing a child dying during a surgery that was only performed because death was certain otherwise. These are sad things. But it doesn't mean that mice should run rampant in homes or that all people should be vegetarians or carrion eaters or that risky surgery shouldn't be performed.

Abortions are bad. But they are often - as a whole - better than the alternative. And they aren't done for the sake of men, generally - they're done to give young women a chance at life without the act of being a mother while a young teen destroying her ability to get ahead in life (or greatly increasing the difficulty of doing so). When abortion rates went up, crime went down decades later. Unwanted children are not a good thing for society.

I certainly favor adoption over abortion, but I favor abortion over giving birth to an unwanted child. A fetus might feel pain for an instant. A child can experience years of torment before dying or surviving to a scarred adulthood.

And for those who say "they should have thought of that before they did it": I wish I was as perfect as you. If you insult those who have made serious mistakes in their teenage years, you insult a number of good friends of mine.

CorvusCamenarum

Mar 6, 2005, 08:10 PM

It would seem that she should be brought up on charges of conspiracy to murder. The shield law shouldn't protect her. her plan to kill those innocent babies.
Either that or just charge the boy in question with practicing medicine without a license. He was trying to give her an abortion at her request after all, albeit a convoluted and dodgy one.

CaptainCaveMann

Mar 6, 2005, 08:20 PM

Things just don't seem to be getting any better on the parenting front. :mad:

For the twins. :( Another time when we need a cry emoticon.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/05/texas_teens_case_tests_fetus_protection_statute/Oh thats murder, but abortion isnt? Thats absolutely rediculous.

Mechcozmo

Mar 6, 2005, 08:22 PM

The shield law shouldn't protect her. her plan to kill those innocent babies.
1. Babies? Not quite yet. Fetus? Yes.
2. Agreed on the fact that she shouldn't enjoy protection of the law.

Also condoms aren't always 100% safe, if not stored properly they can leak. In many case they also don't protect against HIV.
Nothing is 100% safe. They also protect better than most other forms of contraception. But again, nothing is 100% certain. Ever tried sticking your hand through a piece of wood? Do it enough times and statistically the chance of your hand going through the wood will come up after a billion or so. So, as Apple says (this IS a Macintosh site) "Give Chance a Chance" :p

<big ol' post>

You just made a hell of a lot of sense.

stubeeef

Mar 6, 2005, 09:34 PM

1. Babies? Not quite yet. Fetus? Yes.

Babies are living now as early as 22 weeks. That is 5.07 months or the approx age of these babies. While this is not normal, and all primies aren't capable of this, nonetheless it is happening, I feel they are people.

Link (http://www.muhc.ca/media/ensemble/2002june/premature/)

At 28 weeks more than 96 percent of babies survive; at 24 weeks the rate is 50 percent; and at 22 weeks, two percent.

jsw

Mar 6, 2005, 09:51 PM

Babies are living now as early as 22 weeks. That is 5.07 months or the approx age of these babies. While this is not normal, and all primies aren't capable of this, nonetheless it is happening, I feel they are people.

Link (http://www.muhc.ca/media/ensemble/2002june/premature/)
Those twins were the same age as my daughter-to-be. I do not support or condone or in any way agree with what those two teenagers did. I think it is despicable. I think it is disgusting and deplorable.

When I talk about abortion, I first of all don't think it's a good thing - ever (only at times a better thing) - and secondly support it as an option far, far earlier in the pregnancy, long before the fetus becomes a viable child. Those parents-to-have-been had options before she became pregnant, immediately after she became pregnant, and during the first stages of her pregnancy. I would have supported the use of any of those options, esp. contraception (or, of course, abstinence, but let's live in the real world where many teens do have sex). After the beginning months, adoption or raising the children are the only options I'd accept as allowable. At that point in the pregnancy, given that they clearly didn't want the children, adoption was the way to go. Period.

I support a woman's right to choose. I believe strongly in that right. But there are definite limits. And these two went way, way, way past what I'd consider to be even vaguely tolerable.

miloblithe

Mar 6, 2005, 10:30 PM

What I would like to hear is someone who is against abortion go through the arguments for keeping it legal and think them through. It seems that those on the other side have shown at least some attention to the idea that there are a lot of issues involved here.

Stu: from the article that you linked to:

"Extremely premature babies that do survive most commonly experience neurological and pulmonary side effects. While neurological problems may persist, pulmonary problems are commonly resolved within a few months after discharge. And while some babies go home with oxygen tanks to assist their breathing, almost all of these babies are off them by their first year. Barrington estimates, how-ever, that 20 percent of premature babies born before 28 weeks will develop a significant medical condition. An even greater proportion will develop more minor conditions, such as behavioural and learning disorders. Barrington notes that these disorders are also found in full-term babies but are less prevalent."

Given that paragraph and the 2% survival rate you noted, 22 weeks doesn't sound viable. The 2% that survive are probably must invariably severely neurologically damaged. 24 or 25 weeks and you start dealing with vastly better odds, it seems. Given that the cut-off in most cases for getting an abortion is 12 weeks (or 13?), I don't really think you've made much of a point.

MacNut

Mar 6, 2005, 11:08 PM

Let me stir the pot more by adding this to the fire. If a fetus is not a baby or human than why was Scot Peterson charged with murdering his unborn son if killing a fetus isn't murder?

jsw

Mar 6, 2005, 11:14 PM

Let me stir the pot more by adding this to the fire. If a fetus is not a baby or human than why was Scot Peterson charged with murdering his unborn son if killing a fetus isn't murder?
I don't think anyone here is arguing that a fetus isn't "human" until it's born. The Peterson baby was nearly full-term, certainly viable.

I also don't think many (or any) of the posters here are arguing for abortion past the first trimester. And I don't think anyone here likes the idea of abortion at all.

KingSleaze

Mar 6, 2005, 11:33 PM

I hear the comments 'Can't Legislate Morality', if that were so abortion rights and/or murder of fetuses wouldn't be such a hotbutton political issue. For some, abortions = murder and is immoral as murder. For others, abortion = (another method of) birth control and is as acceptable as a condom or pill.

Both sides have valid points. If Roe v. Wade should be overturned, I have no doubt more women will turn to 'solutions' as this young girl did. I suspect rape victims might even turn to such immoral solutions, having all other methods be legislated out of existence.

In this specific case, she 'coerced' the fetuses father to assist her in doing what she was already trying to do. He was wrong to assist in an obvious flawed plan to end her pregnancy, and be taken to court for his actions. She should also be taken to trial for her actions regarding coersion/conspiracy. They were too immature to take other more appropriate actions, whether to abort sooner or carry to term and put up for adoption.

I'm not female. I can't get pregnant. I won't decide for ANY woman how she wants to (mal/)treat her fetus. I respect whatever decision they make for themselves. That should be the only legislation.

Mechcozmo

Mar 7, 2005, 12:32 AM

Babies are living now as early as 22 weeks. That is 5.07 months or the approx age of these babies. While this is not normal, and all primies aren't capable of this, nonetheless it is happening, I feel they are people.

Link (http://www.muhc.ca/media/ensemble/2002june/premature/)

Did you read the entire article, or just selectively pick out what you wanted to say? Because most of those babies at 22 weeks will die, and the few who live will have serious conditions. Especially if they were forcefully born by being stepped on.

Judaism says that abortion, as a general rule, shouldn't be allowed as a "Just because" kind of a thing. The exceptions are if it endangers the mother to carry the child, if the mother will be unable to care for the child as the child should be cared for, and a couple more that I'm forgetting. (Google... where are you? :p) But no abortion would take place without the rabbis (leaders of the community) hearing why the abortion should take place and then deciding if it should really happen or not.
Now, there is a lot more involved than just that, but I hope to give you a general feel for what Judaism says about this rather touchy topic. Straight down the middle of "yes" and "no" lies "reasonable".

stubeeef

Mar 7, 2005, 01:06 AM

Did you read the entire article, or just selectively pick out what you wanted to say? Because most of those babies at 22 weeks will die, and the few who live will have serious conditions. Especially if they were forcefully born by being stepped on.

I wanted to show facts, yes I read the thing. Of course it is unlikely NOW for a 22 wk old to live. Of course if you were diagnoised with cancer and given only one treatment with a 2% success rate, would you try it?

I found it remarkable that a 22 week old could live, but they can, and after just a few weeks more the numbers go to 50%+, those aren't "growths" in the tummy, but humans incubating.

Applespider

Mar 7, 2005, 04:49 AM

Yes, but most of us arguing for a woman's right to choose aren't saying that you should be able to abort at 22 weeks when the foetus is close to viable.
We're saying that at a much earlier stage of pregnancy (up to 12 weeks or so) that a woman should be able to choose her options after appropriate independent, non-judgemental, unbiased counselling and advice.

For the record, I think the woman in this case was wrong but I also think she must have been terribly scared and confused, and lacking a proper support system for her to do what she did. Bear in mind, guys, there are a heck of a lot of hormones flying around a woman's body during pregnancy and we really can't know what she was thinking/feeling.

absolut_mac

Mar 7, 2005, 04:53 AM

Judaism says that abortion, as a general rule, shouldn't be allowed as a "Just because" kind of a thing. The exceptions are if it endangers the mother to carry the child, if the mother will be unable to care for the child as the child should be cared for, and a couple more that I'm forgetting.

Exceptions are what the Rabbis determine as good reasons for the mothers health, both her physical and mental well being i.e. if there is the slightest chance that having the child might be physically or mentally overwhelming for the mother, then more than likely, an abortion would be sanctioned.

Secondly, Judaism's take on when the fetus becomes a viable living person is very different to what most other people believe – and please note, this is obviously something that is virtually impossible to prove, one way or another.

The Rabbis believe that a child becomes a viable living baby only after it is born, and not before then. In fact, they also believe that the connection between the baby's body and it's soul (which only enters its body after birth) is so tenuous for the first 30 days after birth, that babies who die before they are 30 days old do not have the same type of funeral as babies/people 30 days or older.

As a Jew, of course I'm biased (sue me) but I like their take on the subject as it is compassionate and biased heavily in favor of the pregnant woman.

Moof1904

Mar 7, 2005, 10:50 AM

In my mind, this particular issue crystalizes down pretty simply (perhaps it's my simple mind):

These two people had a life form that they didn't want any more. Instead of giving this living thing to someone who wanted it and would care for it, they choose to beat it to death.

In examining their behavior in this case, it doesn't matter to me if it was an unborn child, a hampster, or a tree frog. The fact that they choose to beat this living thing to death rather than simply give it away tells me that these two people are vile, contemptable human beings.

miloblithe

Mar 7, 2005, 11:14 AM

I wanted to show facts, yes I read the thing. Of course it is unlikely NOW for a 22 wk old to live. Of course if you were diagnoised with cancer and given only one treatment with a 2% success rate, would you try it?

The problem with reasoning by analogy is that it allows you to make a point that "sounds good" by referencing situations that are to varying degrees similar, but never the same. While it's a necessary mental process, it's always a weak argument. Do you honestly think that these situations are the same thing? Or even particularly similar? Here are some differences:

One cannot choose to not have cancer. One can choose to terminate a pregnancy (the condition in question).
A fetus is not a cancer.
Agency (decision) here is taken by (presumably) the cancer patient and the pregnant woman, while the 2% survival rate is given to the decision-maker in one case and the decision recipient in the other.
The cancer patient ("you") is a fully-formed person, a 22-week old fetus is, as the article showed and as we all know, only part of the way there.
And so on.

You still haven't responded to the point that this weakens arguments against abortions performed before 22 weeks.

stubeeef

Mar 7, 2005, 11:26 AM

The problem with reasoning by analogy is that it allows you to make a point that "sounds good" by referencing situations that are to varying degrees similar, but never the same. While it's a necessary mental process, it's always a weak argument. Do you honestly think that these situations are the same thing? Or even particularly similar? Here are some differences:

One cannot choose to not have cancer. One can choose to terminate a pregnancy (the condition in question).
A fetus is not a cancer.
Agency (decision) here is taken by (presumably) the cancer patient and the pregnant woman, while the 2% survival rate is given to the decision-maker in one case and the decision recipient in the other.
The cancer patient ("you") is a fully-formed person, a 22-week old fetus is, as the article showed and as we all know, only part of the way there.
And so on.

You still haven't responded to the point that this weakens arguments against abortions performed before 22 weeks.

No I don't have to respond, hey I supplied the link, the fact is there is a possible viable human there. Improbable yes, Impossible no.
the cancer is not the same, unless you are a baby in the womb you might consider your mother a cancer. The fact I am portraying, is that while odds are slim, most will grab them, 2% is better than 0% or.1%. Enough that others would cling to them to try and stay alive.
Death is the analogy, hanging on to life or its viability is the same. There is no perfect analogy here. The problem with your reasoning is it discounts everyone except the mother. Now one stupid kid is up for murder because of wacked out female. You may want it to be one-way, but it is not. The argument that men only have legal rights when it comes to child support, not birth, adoption, abortion, or custody is pathetic and outdated. It is a two way street, like it or not.

miloblithe

Mar 7, 2005, 11:38 AM

I understand the desire to cling to the potential for life, and to sacrifice yourself for others. They are indeed noble aspirations. One of my relatives nearly died trying to bring a baby to term. The doctors tried to convince her to abort the fetus, which they thought had little to no chance of survival and great potential to kill her. She survived (barely), the baby did not. It's probably knocked a few years off her lifespan. I admire her for her courage in trying. But I would not legislate that everyone should have to make the same decision.

firewizard

Mar 7, 2005, 01:12 PM

Many teens feel so intimidated and embarrassed by the thought of going to a store and buying condoms that they chose to take the risk and not use them. If condoms where more freely available more teens would use them.
Lethal

i would have to disagree, i live in LA, in the high school i went to, just about every health class has a bowl of condoms, and also to free clinics that had the same thing just walk in take some whatever no one ever asked any questions, yet there were still teen pregnancies with out the use of contraceptives. in my opinion that only made it ok to have sex.....my personal opinion

mactastic

Mar 7, 2005, 01:15 PM

i would have to disagree, i live in LA, in the high school i went to, just about every health class has a bowl of condoms, and also to free clinics that had the same thing just walk in take some whatever no one ever asked any questions, yet there were still teen pregnancies with out the use of contraceptives. in my opinion that only made it ok to have sex.....my personal opinion

How do you know that their weren't dozens prevented by the bowl?

jsw

Mar 7, 2005, 01:23 PM

Perhaps we can agree that what those teens did was a horrible act, and create an abortion thread in the Political forums?

Anyone think punching a pregnant woman in the stomach with the intent to kill two <insert your term of choice here> is a good thing? That soliciting a boyfriend to do that is a good thing?

No. No one thinks that what happened should be allowed to go unpunished.

Perhaps we can continue the discussion elsewhere?

miloblithe

Mar 7, 2005, 01:25 PM

I'll agree and second that.

Leareth

Mar 7, 2005, 05:26 PM

Anyone think punching a pregnant woman in the stomach with the intent to kill two <insert your term of choice here> is a good thing? That soliciting a boyfriend to do that is a good thing?

No. No one thinks that what happened should be allowed to go unpunished.

The question is who to punish? the girl? the boy? her parents? the system?

The girl made the choice to terminate the pregnancy, that is her right to make, the way she went about it could have been done differently. And correct me if I am wrong , in some states isn't parental permission to perform an abortion a legal requirement?

I don't think the girl nor the boy should be punished, counselled yes. Working in a youth clinic for a number of years has shown me what happens to most teen mothers and their babies. Here in Canada where there are special laws and regulations for adopting native kids, and over 80% of the teen moms I dealt with were at least part native, so even if the parents are willing to carry to term and give the child for adoption, there might not be anyone who can or wants to adopt them. I believe some of the states have similar laws. And is keeping the kid in a foster home for 18 years a better solution?

Mechcozmo

Mar 7, 2005, 07:50 PM

Exceptions are what the Rabbis determine as good reasons for the mothers health, both her physical and mental well being i.e. if there is the slightest chance that having the child might be physically or mentally overwhelming for the mother, then more than likely, an abortion would be sanctioned.

Secondly, Judaism's take on when the fetus becomes a viable living person is very different to what most other people believe – and please note, this is obviously something that is virtually impossible to prove, one way or another.

The Rabbis believe that a child becomes a viable living baby only after it is born, and not before then. In fact, they also believe that the connection between the baby's body and it's soul (which only enters its body after birth) is so tenuous for the first 30 days after birth, that babies who die before they are 30 days old do not have the same type of funeral as babies/people 30 days or older.

As a Jew, of course I'm biased (sue me) but I like their take on the subject as it is compassionate and biased heavily in favor of the pregnant woman.

Apparently, you were listening in your class while I was hacking the school's network, erm, I mean, taking notes in the Terminal and storing them on their server security settings... yeah... :D :p

Perhaps we can agree that what those teens did was a horrible act, and create an abortion thread in the Political forums?

Anyone think punching a pregnant woman in the stomach with the intent to kill two <insert your term of choice here> is a good thing? That soliciting a boyfriend to do that is a good thing?

No. No one thinks that what happened should be allowed to go unpunished.

Perhaps we can continue the discussion elsewhere?

Yup, it was a horrible act.
I don't usually frequent the Political forums for a few reasons so I could care less.
Horrible act... already agreed on.
Shouldn't solicit ANY friend to do it!

stubeeef

Mar 9, 2005, 05:01 PM

I got this email the other day, just noticed it, thought it would shed some light on the laws in one state, california. I haven't checked it to see if the facts were correct, but was an interesting tidbit on the subject. I am neither endorsing nor refuting the facts or the argument, just supply it for digestion.

Parents Right to Know
www.ParentsRight2Know.org
Call toll-free: (866) 828-8355 or email: Janet@ParentsRight2Know.org

Dear Friend,

Do you know that in California, an older boyfriend or school employee can take your 13-year-old daughter or granddaughter to an abortionist who can perform a SECRET, taxpayer-funded SURGICAL or CHEMICAL ABORTION upon her without a parent or guardian having any legal right to know about it? (However, if your daughter is under 18, she can't get a flu shot, go on a school trip, or have a tooth pulled, without you knowing about it.)

Polls show that 75 to 80 percent of California voters support a parent's right to know a minor daughter is pregnant and seeking an abortion, before an abortion can be performed on her.

HELP PARENTS PROTECT THEIR DAUGHTERS, by promoting the Parents' Right to Know and Child Protection ballot initiative, which will require doctors to notify a parent (or guardian) at least 48 hours before aborting the minor daughter's baby.

We have already, by February 18, 2005, gathered the signatures of more than 600,000 California voters, to place the Parents Right to Know and Child Protection initiative next California general election ballot. To make sure that this important initiative makes it to the ballot, we need to get about 300,000 more signatures of registered voters in the next several weeks before April 7, 2005.

Applespider

Mar 9, 2005, 05:24 PM

Interesting. We had a case in the UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/3709681.stm) last year where a 14 year old went for counselling (but poorly administered) at school and had an abortion which her mother found out about after the fact where a lot of this was raised.

Looking at this, I think I'd agree that the parent/legal guardian should know beforehand but I'd leave the decision in the hands of the girl. The mother in the UK case is pushing for the parent to have to consent.

The saddest thought for me, certainly in the UK case, was that the girl didn't feel able to talk to her mother about it. In any 'minor' case, the main focus of counselling should be to get the girl to talk to her parents. While I can imagine shock and anger being an immediate reaction, the majority of parents would have the girl's interests at heart and may be best placed to help her figure out whether the support to have the child is there.

The girl in the UK case is now pregnant again (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/4017981.stm)