Debate: Partial Birth Abortion...

[mep319]

Originally posted by cheyita
As I stated - I am a woman and I hold myself responsible for what happens to my body.

As you should, I was just exploring the other side of the issue. It does take two. But as I stated before....if men carried babies this debate wouldn't even exists...

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by mep319
I love how the responsibility always lies with women.

The responsiblity most definetly does not always lie with women. Men are financially responsible for any children which they create, yet have zero legal standing in the "choice" the mother makes. Women are afforded the role of God in determining the fate of their children, and role of warden in financially shackeling the father for the next 18-24 years. There are three people's lives in question, but only one of them has any say in the matter.

Originally posted by mep319
How about we legislate guys keep it in their pants. No one has suggest that now have they? If men carried babies I'm sure this wouldn't even be a debate. They of course would have the right to choose.

This comment is inflamatory and unfortunate. Why is the general assumption that I as a man am concerned with controlling you or your uterus? I am certainly not. But if science shows the fetus to be human life, I am certainly interested in protecting the weakest and most defenseless of us.

I wish more pro-coice folks were as thoughtful as Rachel has shown herself to be. And I wish someone from your camp would at least attempt to prove to me scientifically that a fetus is not an individual living human organism. Prove that and there is no debate.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by mep319
As you should, I was just exploring the other side of the issue. It does take two. But as I stated before....if men carried babies this debate wouldn't even exists...

You may be interested in a book (fiction) about this very topic, called "The Fourth Procedure" by Stanley Pottinger. It was an interesting read (not the best written novel, by far, but it does give one pause.)

 

[mep319]

Originally posted by cheyita
Well, they were addressing women who need to have the baby removed from their body because of risk to the mother's health. Wouldn't insurance cover that? There are many, many babies born prematurely every year. The financial aspect is the same, is it not?

Most insurances do cover abortions on some level. I worked in Medicaid for many years and one of the interesting things that happened was when we started contracting for medical insurance/carriers was that many provided and covered abortions. At that time the PA administration was fairly pro-life and wanted that coverage removed. It became a huge legal battle w/ many equal rights agencies, the insurance companies and the state due to the discrimination not only of women but of the poor. For the most part that coverage remained on some level. So to answer your question most do cover abortions but not all.

 

[MHopkins2]

Originally posted by cheyita
Well, they were addressing women who need to have the baby removed from their body because of risk to the mother's health. Wouldn't insurance cover that? There are many, many babies born prematurely every year. The financial aspect is the same, is it not?

Apologies - I thought you were talking about "elective" procedures...

FizBan -

To others,

The argument regarding the costs of unwanted children are spurious in my opinion. Financial costs should never be the determinant of someone's right to live. This rationale leads to pogroms of mass extermination of the poor, handicapped, etc. Haven't we progressed beyond this?

"Spurious" and "Progressed beyond," but a valid question nevertheless. Healthcare costs are already totally out of control.

Signed,

The Other

 

[mep319]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
You may be interested in a book (fiction) about this very topic, called "The Fourth Procedure" by Stanley Pottinger. It was an interesting read (not the best written novel, by far, but it does give one pause.)

I never heard of it! Thanks...I'll look into to it. Maybe for my flight on Sunday!

 

[MHopkins2]

Originally posted by Fizban257
This comment is inflamatory and unfortunate.

Then I'm sure you feel the same way about the poster(s) who have stated that if skanky women would just shut their legs, they wouldn't have this problem.

I wish more pro-coice folks were as thoughtful as Rachel has shown herself to be.

I appreciate her eloquence as much as you do, but it doesn't seem to be making any impact on your views.

And I wish someone from your camp would at least attempt to prove to me scientifically that a fetus is not an individual living human organism. Prove that and there is no debate.

As I'm sure you're aware, that's impossible given the current level of scientific knowledge. Not that I care about that distinction one way or the other though, FTR.

 

[mep319]

Originally posted by Fizban257

This comment is inflamatory and unfortunate. Why is the general assumption that I as a man am concerned with controlling you or your uterus? I am certainly not. But if science shows the fetus to be human life, I am certainly interested in protecting the weakest and most defenseless of us.

It was a flip comment at best and certainly not my best prose. But I stand by my comment that if this concerned men it would be a non issue. You may be responsible & your points may be well thought out but it appears to me that most of the pro lifers yelling from the roof tops are men. As far as your comment in regards to financial support...that is only a recent development. For years single mothers struggled with out finanical support & when a child appear many men ran for the hills with out a thought or any legal ties... I work with single mother and Domestic Relations and Child support agencies...I know. Also look at your medical research, womens health is only recently being looked at and taken seriously. Many insurance companies cover Viagara while denying women oral contraception...excuse me if I'm over zealous but women's health as long been ignored.

 

[MHopkins2]

Originally posted by mep319
But I stand by my comment that if this concerned men it would be a non issue.

 

[snoopy]

Originally posted by poohandwendy
Wow, Snoopy what a sad story, how did it end, is she ok now?

She is o.k. now, having survived the cancer and going on her 8th year in remission. Sadly, the baby she was carrying was their first -- and since they had to take out most of her "parts" due to the cancer, she never could have anymore children. The good news is that she and her husband adopted a lovely little boy from Korea last year and not surprisingly, he's the light of their life.

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by MHopkins2
As I'm sure you're aware, that's impossible given the current level of scientific knowledge. Not that I care about that distinction one way or the other though, FTR.

How so? If you're talking about conscousness, I concede your point. Self awareness? I also concede. Soul? Not relevant to a legal discussion. But individual self-contained living human organism? I think it's pretty clear that even a newly fertalized egg meets all of the scientific requirements for life (respiration, reproduction, etc--see ameoba), has the genetic structure of human tissue, that this genetic structure marks it as separate and individual of the mother, and that it is a self-contained organism (though short-term parasitic in nature). I'm no scientist, and I'm open to being corrected, so please do.

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by MHopkins2
Then I'm sure you feel the same way about the poster(s) who have stated that if skanky women would just shut their legs, they wouldn't have this problem.

I do. That is a horrible statement. And it undermines the very serious issue of personal responsibilty.

I think we all (men and women) should be much more careful about our actions, especially when it comes to sex. It's not like we don't know that preganancy is a major side effect of having sex.

 

[MHopkins2]

Originally posted by Fizban257
How so? If you're talking about conscousness, I concede your point. Self awareness? I also concede. Soul? Not relevant to a legal discussion. But individual self-contained living human organism? I think it's pretty clear that even a newly fertalized egg meets all of the scientific requirements for life (respiration, reproduction, etc--see ameoba), has the genetic structure of human tissue, that this genetic structure marks it as separate and individual of the mother, and that it is a self-contained organism (though short-term parasitic in nature). I'm no scientist, and I'm open to being corrected, so please do.

For me, "parasitic" is the key word (and I also have a minor quibble with "self-contained"). *shudder* But at any rate, I can't correct you - I don't think we have proof one way or the other.

 

[MHopkins2]

Originally posted by Fizban257
I do. That is a horrible statement.

Thank you!

I will say that I hear you on the financial responsibility aspect. I wish there were some way to prove that a man had been "oops'ed" - because those men, AFAIC, should have no responsibility toward the resulting child whatsoever. But logistically, I can't imagine how we'd do that?

 

[cardaway]

Originally posted by MHopkins2
I will say that I hear you on the financial responsibility aspect. I wish there were some way to prove that a man had been "oops'ed" - because those men, AFAIC, should have no responsibility toward the resulting child whatsoever. But logistically, I can't imagine how we'd do that?

It's always great to see that some women get it.

It's pretty simple really. If birth control was used, there was an obvious attempt to prevent a pregnancy. If a woman decides to forgo the original plan of preventing the pregnancy, it should be her burden alone.

 

[RachelEllen]

Originally posted by Fizban257
Rachel,

I don't think any of my arguments render irrelevant the determination of the fetus as human life or not. In fact, none of them is relevant if the fetus is not a human child. If the fetus is non-human tissue and property of the the mother, then she is free to do whatever she likes with it. Only if a fetus is human life is there an ethical dilemma.

I'll restate then. It's not irrelevent. But, the way I've explained my thinking, I don't think it's the key point. That is, I'd concede that the fetus is a human being (for the sake of argument), and I still think all my points stand.
Thanks for engaging in the conversation.

Rachel

 

[RachelEllen]

Originally posted by Fizban257
The responsiblity most definetly does not always lie with women. Men are financially responsible for any children which they create, yet have zero legal standing in the "choice" the mother makes. Women are afforded the role of God in determining the fate of their children, and role of warden in financially shackeling the father for the next 18-24 years. There are three people's lives in question, but only one of them has any say in the matter.

I agree. That's unfair and it stinks. I hink either party should be able to 'divorce' themselves from the kid. But it should be permenant and irreversable. No visitation, no legal parental rights, etc.

 

[RachelEllen]

Originally posted by MHopkins2
Rachel, I think you're my hero.

I'm blushing
I knew that degree in philosophy had to be good for something.

Rachel

 

[MHopkins2]

Originally posted by cardaway
It's pretty simple really. If birth control was used, there was an obvious attempt to prevent a pregnancy. If a woman decides to forgo the original plan of preventing the pregnancy, it should be her burden alone.

The "logistics" problem, though, is what if the man says he thought BC was being used (e.g., the pill), and the woman says she never said that? (Or some such.)

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by Fizban257
How so? If you're talking about conscousness, I concede your point. Self awareness? I also concede. Soul? Not relevant to a legal discussion. But individual self-contained living human organism? I think it's pretty clear that even a newly fertalized egg meets all of the scientific requirements for life (respiration, reproduction, etc--see ameoba), has the genetic structure of human tissue, that this genetic structure marks it as separate and individual of the mother, and that it is a self-contained organism (though short-term parasitic in nature). I'm no scientist, and I'm open to being corrected, so please do.

I'm no scientist either...I just compare it to the relationship between an acorn and an oak tree. The two are clearly the same, and are clearly not, depending on what you are looking for. I see the same kind of similarities and differences in a newly fertilized egg and a human being.

Originally posted by cardaway
It's pretty simple really. If birth control was used, there was an obvious attempt to prevent a pregnancy. If a woman decides to forgo the original plan of preventing the pregnancy, it should be her burden alone.

I don't see why sexually active men can't assume a general failure rate for pregnancy, since there's no 100% effective method of birth control out there anyway.