Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mechcozmo said:
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.
 
stubeeef said:
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
Thanks - 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.
 
wdlove said:
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.
 
wdlove said:
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.

wdlove said:
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



jsw said:
<big ol' post>

You just made a hell of a lot of sense.
 
Mechcozmo said:
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

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

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".
 
Mechcozmo said:
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.
 
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.
 
Mechcozmo said:
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.
 
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.
 
stubeeef said:
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.
 
miloblithe said:
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.
 
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.
 
LethalWolfe said:
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
 
firewizard said:
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?
 
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?
 
jsw said:
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?
 
absolut_mac said:
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

jsw said:
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!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.