tazzygirl
Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
~FR
Ok... since my posts were included on some of this....
Abortion is an issue that strongly divided us as a country. Not along political lines, but more along religious ones. We can argue over a few weeks till we are all blue in the face, and it wont change a thing.
Im not sure many realize this, but most OBGYN's wont stop a spontaneous abortion occurring before 20 weeks. Sure, there may be times they will try, but more often than not they will simply send the woman home if IV fluids dont do the trick. They may even give her a shot to try and calm down contractions... beyond that.. zilch.
I think everyone can safely agree that before 20 weeks, the fetus is absolutely non-viable outside the womb. So, now we are arguing over the time difference between 20 weeks and 24 weeks.
Folks... thats 5 - 6 months gestation. If a woman doesnt know by 5 months that she is pregnant (yes, I have seen rare cases of that actually being the case, but its not the majority by any long shot) then I simply dont believe in an elective abortion at that time.
Yes, some states have abortions on demand at 24 weeks. Negating the 21.6 week olds who did survive. My beliefs follow science... not religion. If there was a way to keep an infant alive at 16 weeks outside the womb, I would say move the viability age to 16 weeks. We arent there. Biologically, I dont believe we can ever get there.
Now, I am not speaking about rape, maternal or fetal health, or age of the mother... I think, again, most people would agree to those exceptions. Who wants to force a 13 year old to have a baby who was too afraid... or even a victim of incest.. to continue with that pregnancy. So, lets, for the sake of my argument, say that everyone agrees to those exceptions.
There comes a point that we women have to take personal responsibility. We all know birth control isnt 100%. User error is the leading cause of ineffective birth control. If a woman, or a man, does not desire a pregnancy, there are ways to minimize the chances. Pop a pill, cover it up, slide in an IUD... there are many many forms and can all be used in combination. Oral sex is a great alternative... ask Ron. 
But its time for people to start listening to each other. To start understanding that just because something is legal at one point during history, it should remain so. Taking the stance of the SC, its legal up to the age of viability.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
The Court's ruling:
In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the Missouri law's provisions. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion. In a concurring opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggested the use of an "undue burden" standard. She wrote, "It is clear to me that requiring the performance of examinations and tests useful to determining whether a fetus is viable, when viability is possible, and when it would not be medically imprudent to do so, does not impose an undue burden on a woman's abortion decision."
I dont agree that should include having a probe shoved up inside a woman when ultrasound is just as effective in determining approximate dates.
Seems the court later revised their own stance.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)
The Court's ruling:
By a 5-4 vote, the Court upheld all the provisions of the Pennsylvania law except spousal notification.
More significantly, while reaffirming the central holding of Roe v. Wade, the court rejected "Roe's rigid trimester framework" and changed the standard of review for laws regulating abortion to the "undue burden" standard proposed by Justice O'Connor in Webster. The majority opinion, written jointly by Justice O'Connor, Justice David Souter, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, explained, "An undue burden exists, and therefore a law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/wars/cases.html
This is what the GOP seems to be pushing these days... substantial obstacles.
What is all this really doing? To me, it seems its the way to divert attention from the real issues of now. lets rouse up the masses, knowing the Courts will over turn these new laws. They win brownie points with their constituents and people who support them can smile and say "they tried, damn fucking liberals cock blocked them through the NWO courts."
I have never been a proponent of abortion on demand up until birth. Thats ridiculous even on face value. Nor am I of the belief that life begins at fertilization or conception. I, personally, dont care what the Bible has to say on the matter. Something written that long ago may be a guiding force for many in morality, but science and understanding have come a long, long way since then. And, if you want to make a case for it, some could say that "God" intended all this to come about through the evolution of science itself. Why have smart people who ask questions and find answers if we dont listen to the answers. These scientists are the same people those who are both religious and nonreligious look too when they are sick themselves. So to discount science in this one aspect is hypocritical.
On the reality end... 20 weeks can actually be 18, or 22. We dont know if those infants who were viable had those two extra weeks which allowed them to seemingly mature a bit faster than others who do not. But 2 weeks in fetal growth and development can make a world of difference.
I would even bend my own, personal beliefs and agree to a 22 week viability stage... but then we are negating those who survived at 21.6 weeks.... and some physicians and abortionists would push that time line hard.
The Courts based their rulings upon medical knowledge of the time. There are many advancements made everyday. Could be in 10 years they discover a way to mature fetal lungs at 18 weeks. Doubtful, but science rarely ceases to amaze me. I mean, whoever thought we would be seeing the advancements in AIDS when it first was made public? Magic Johnson came public about his HIV status 1991... a time when we all considered that diagnosis a death sentence... and some doctors refused to care for such patients. 22 years later, Magic is still alive and going well. Anything is possible in the future.
Too many have hard, set, fast rules for how lives should be led in almost every aspect. I refuse to get all caught up in the emotional arguments. I have sat at besides and held hands of countless women who lost their babies because nature deemed it necessary. Many of these women wanted thier pregnancies to continue. Nature decided it wasnt meant to be.
We now have DNA testing. Are these in dispute as well? If you knew your pregnancy was going to result in a life of suffering, would you continue it? Some say yes! More power to them. They are stronger women than I am. Some say no! And I back their decisions. Why? Not because I would choose to do the same... but because I dont live their lives, I dont know what they are capable of handling, and I dont have the right to decide for them, personally, what is right for their life.
If you wish to take the moral stance, who among us can cast the first stone? Who here is without sin? Who here wouldnt break a law if it meant your child would have a better future? Be careful with your answers if you do choose to answer those few questions, the answers will come back to bite you in the end.
I could see the arguments if someone was forcing a woman to have an abortion. But, these are by choice. if you dont want one, dont have one. Dont create a pregnancy that may result in one. Mistakes happen. No form of birth control is 100% except abstinence, and even then rape takes that from 100% to 95%, according to the experts.
I do see a need to try and understand the decisions people make, on both sides of the isle. However, screaming at people for wanting an abortion, demanding they take "personal responsibility" and then demanding they accept a pregnancy they never wanted, they never intended, or that may cause extreme damage not only to the mother's lives, but potentially to the lives of the other people in the family, is extremely hypocritical, in my view.
Over half the abortions obtained are gotten by women who already have a child. Do we discount that child in favor of the new potential life? Some say, yes.. some no. I cant decide for someone else what is best in their life. No more than I can decide what job they should have, how they should spend their money, where they should go on vacation, what car they should drive.
All I can do is support their decision based upon what they feel is best in their own life. As long as abortions are legal, this whole argument is based upon nothing but morality because too many discount the science. Thankfully, the courts arent listening too much to the moral bunch.
~edited for typos
< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 8/18/2013 10:23:19 AM >
_____________________________
Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
|
RE: Forced birthers reach for a new low - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread