|
|
Post by A sad American on Nov 25, 2003 15:27:25 GMT -5
 Abortion a Legal Crime I have chosen a quagmire of an issue to write my paper on. So many different points of view, facts, statistics, definitions, beliefs and political stances. I will begin by defining abortion: the termination of a pregnancy before birth, resulting in the death of the fetus. There are two types of abortions, spontaneous and induced. Spontaneous abortion is a natural bodily function and occurs when the fetus does not develop normally, or because the mother has an injury or disorder that would prevent her from carrying the pregnancy to term. Induced abortion is intentionally brought on because the pregnancy is unwanted or presents a risk to the mother’s health, or because of severe physical or mental health problems. With that said, much more can be said on the subject but because of the parameters of this paper I am limited somewhat with the availability of space for the content. Any type of induced abortion is wrong, should be illegal, is immoral, and goes against nature. I am a generally adaptive type person and there are few issues that cause me to sit up and take notice of things going on around me. I usually “go with the flow” on most things because we as adults are making our own decisions, however stupid they may turn out to be, and we will have to deal with whatever outcome is produced by our choices. Unborn children do not have that privilege The fate of unborn babies lies completely with his/her parents and those few decision making adults who happen to give a damn. In today’s world, with people fighting to rid their neighborhoods of guns, drugs, and cigarettes, it is completely acceptable to murder tiny helpless human beings, stuff their corpses into trash bags and throw then away like last nights dinner plate scraps. Statistics show that a child is aborted every thirty seconds here in the land of the free, which means that in the time it takes me to write this essay roughly twenty federally sanctioned homicides will have taken place. The abortion issue has gotten out of control the religious fanatics on one side saying “you’re going to hell”, and rabid feminists who have determined that just because they are female that they are the most extraordinary creatures in the world and turn every argument into a battle about who has the right to make decisions about their bodies. In all this fighting we have forgotten that there are millions of children already murdered and many more doomed because man made laws have made it an acceptable occurrence. While it is not acceptable to walk across the street and shoot your neighbor in the head, it is however acceptable to go to the abortion clinic and have a “doctor” stick a pipe into the cranium of a helpless child to suck his/her brains out instead of blowing them out as in the aforementioned. How did we get to this point? In a 1973 supreme court decision Roe v Wade the justices ruled that anti abortion laws violated the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The fourth being right to privacy and the fourteenth being the persons right to freedom. I seriously don’t think the authors of the constitution would’ve even dreamed about a woman’s right to privately take her free self down to the abortion clinic to carry out a premeditated murder. In North Carolina you can get the death penalty for that. Also in North Carolina you can be fined heavily, serve time, or get probation for disturbing a sea turtle egg. I don’t see any difference between the sea turtle egg and the human fetus. We all know that the chicken lays the egg, a chicken comes out. Why do we not look at the human child in the same manner? I fail to see the parity between allowing an abortionist, (they are no longer doctors as they violated the Hippocratic oath by intentionally allowing harm), to kill a fetus and criminally charging someone for the death of an unborn child. The law defines when a “fetus” has rights, they use a word: viability, viability means at what point the “fetus” could survive outside the mother’s womb. They are then I guess legal U.S. citizens with equal protection under the law. There is a common sense issue here that has to be mentioned as well. We know that murder is wrong in any form, even abortion. Yes gentle reader, abortion is murder. I shall not endeavor to paint it as anything but what it is. And the participants in this ’exercise’ are nothing short of murderers. Women speak of the right to their bodies and their ability to do anything they want to with them. But in fact inside their coveted body is a separate and distinct human being with his/her own traits, DNA, chromosomes and the like differentiating them from their parents. Yes it takes two people to unite the egg and sperm, after that time the father has no say so with what she does with her body and their child. These pages are just a space for me to express my opinions and beliefs. This after all is America, a free country where we can all express ourselves without fear of judgment. We are all entitled to our own opinions as well as ways of thinking. An aborted child will never taste the simple joys of life like Christmas morning, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, rainbows, music, swimming, ect. These children will never take a first step, never have a first day of school, never blow out the candles on their birthday cake, and never light up someone’s life with their smiles. Luke 1:42...Blest are you among women, and blest is the fruit of your womb. Fire Away
|
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Nov 29, 2003 19:29:50 GMT -5
I agree whole heartedly that it is wrong to take a human life. But you have missed out the main sticking point that occurs between the two sides of the debate. When does life begin?
My simple answer is that life begins when a brain of a child is developed to the point where it is capable of cognitive thought processes and self awareness. Whilst it is difficult to pinpoint exactly when this happens, we can still safley come to the conclusion that this is at around 12 to 14 weeks. By putting in place limits as to how many weeks into the pregnancy an abortion is allowed to take place, we are able to determine if an act is murder or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by vito on Nov 30, 2003 0:00:33 GMT -5
I agree whole heartedly that it is wrong to take a human life. But you have missed out the main sticking point that occurs between the two sides of the debate. When does life begin? My simple answer is that life begins when a brain of a child is developed to the point where it is capable of cognitive thought processes and self awareness. Whilst it is difficult to pinpoint exactly when this happens, we can still safley come to the conclusion that this is at around 12 to 14 weeks. By putting in place limits as to how many weeks into the pregnancy an abortion is allowed to take place, we are able to determine if an act is murder or not. "cognitive thought" and "self awareness" are pretty nebulous concepts to begin with and difficult to gauge in utero, so while I'd agree with you in principle it still seems to me that we need to let each mother decide for herself when and if the fetus within her is to be considered a person, up until the moment that the fetus leaves her body. After that unambiguous point there's absolutely no question. Sad American: if this is a term paper that you're trying to get a good grade on, I'd encourage you to take more care to define your concepts, and to avoid assuming what your paper ostensibly sets out to prove. For instance: abortion by definition involves "killing" but not all killing is murder. Every time you drink a beer you "kill" hundreds of brain cells. Many states in the US "kill" convicted criminals. In World War two we (the US) intentionally "killed" tens of thousands of non-combatant civilians in places like Tokyo, Dresden and Hiroshima. None of these types of "killing" are generally considered murder. Is there a definition of "murder" in place in US law that encompasses abortion but excludes these other types of "killing"? A fertilized human ovum contains all the genetic material necesary to produce a human being, but does that mean it -is- a human being? Are human beings nothing but their genes? One last tip: tone down the inflammatory rhetoric. You may believe fervently in your point of view, but if someone with the opposite view thinks you are insulting them or disrespecting them then you have lost whatever chance you ever had of convincing them that you have a point. That's a particularly bad thing if the other person is your teacher/professor. Yes, stand up for your beliefs, but do it with humility and respect! |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck on Nov 30, 2003 11:00:38 GMT -5
The answer is simple. The embryo is a scavanger feeding off the host and stays that way until the afterbirth is cut.
Simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Nov 30, 2003 12:24:25 GMT -5
Vito,
I understand your point but it's bigger than just defining a human being in legal terms.
An embryo cannot survive without it's mother. In our current culture, failure to ensure the survival of that embryo has multiple consequences.
1. Celebration. NOW (National Organization for Women) celebrates the ability of a mother to have unilateral "choice." Not even the biologically required donor of sperm has any rights. Just the mother. If she wants to destroy the embryo by surgical procedures, she can do so with impugnity and NOW will celebrate the event.
2. Murder indictment. If the mother is addicted to drugs and, as a result of that addiction, the embryo dies, the mother can be charged with just about anything from child abuse to murder. The only distinction between consequence 1 and consequence 2 is the technique.
The argument is unwinnable as long as some basic associated issues like these remain highly charged politicized issues.
The issue will remain open unless and until mutually agreeable definitions of "life" and "human being" are established.
Until then it will "kill" a bunch of bytes on message boards such as this.
|
|
|
|
Post by vito on Nov 30, 2003 16:10:29 GMT -5
1. Celebration. NOW (National Organization for Women) celebrates the ability of a mother to have unilateral "choice." Not even the biologically required donor of sperm has any rights. Just the mother. If she wants to destroy the embryo by surgical procedures, she can do so with impugnity and NOW will celebrate the event. That's a serious distortion, Walter. NOW does not celebrate when an abortion is performed. They may, in some sense, "celebrate" a woman's right to choose abortion. I doubt that there's a single member of NOW who wouldn't be delighted if women never had to make that choice. The way you put it here would be equivalent to me saying that the NRA "celebrates" every time someone is shot by a gun. As for sperm donors: the day that science makes it possible for us to carry the burden of pregnancy is the day I will militate for equal say in that choice. Are there cases where a woman has been convicted of murder for a fetus who dies in utero? If a child is born alive and subsequently dies or suffers defects as a result of the mother's drug abuse, then she ought to be prosecuted, since at that point the child is undeniably a separate individual I don't think we need to go that far; we just need to come to a compromise *legal* definition we all can all muddle by with, leaving the grey areas to each person's conscience: I propose outlawing abortion (and prosecuting for reckless endangerment, etc.) during the third trimester, with exceptions allowed when a physician deems it necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Dec 1, 2003 14:04:44 GMT -5
Third trimester abortionWhat, in your opinion, is magic about the 182nd day of a pregnancy and day 183? An abortion performed on Day 182 would be legal by your rule, but one performed on Day 183 would be illegal. Does something happen to the fetus on day 183 that makes it more human than it was the day before? On your other points: NOWAs for NOW celebrating abortion, simply read their website. Virtually any limit on abortion, even one requiring partental notification (not permission, just simple notification) for abortion procedures performed on minors, even minors aged 12, are decried as limiting a woman's right to choose. Partial birth abortion is promoted by NOW. NOW's website congratulates the six states (Calif., Conn., N.Y., Ore., Vt., Wash) for their unrestricted access (by any legislation) to abortion. Any and every effort to protect the fetus is fought bitterly by NOW, and every success by anyone who litigates to get legal access to abortion is celebrated by NOW. Even when the Laci Peterson case is being brought against Scott Peterson, NOW intervenes on behalf of Scott Peterson (not on behalf of the murdered woman who apparently wanted to bring the child to full term) to insist that the murder count against Scott Peterson for his unborn infant be dropped because the child was not "living," by NOW's definition. NOW is not concerned about Laci's death, nor her child's death; they are just concerned about their abortion agenda. NRAIn case you aren't aware of the facts, the NRA opposes shooting people. They support all laws and the enforcement of those laws that address misuse of firearms. NOW opposes anything that prevents killing fetuses. Any abortion, to NOW, is a good abortion. There are no abortions that NOW opposes. Refer to the Scott Peterson case as a recent example where NOW litigates to prevent a murder charge for killing an unborn child solely to protect unlimited abortion "rights.") Your analogy is totally false. Sperm donorsI agree with what you say. Therefore I assume you are also opposed to any requirement for child support payments when the sperm donor wants the pregnancy terminated but the mother does not? After all, the woman has the right to choose but the man has no rights; just obligations. In utero death caused by drugsTo the best of my limited knowledge there are no cases where a mother who caused a stillborn by drug abuse has been found guilty of anything more than involuntary manslaughter.
|
|
|
|
Post by vito on Dec 1, 2003 15:59:13 GMT -5
Third trimester abortionWhat, in your opinion, is magic about the 182nd day of a pregnancy and day 183? Nothing. As I said, it is a compromise. Like most compromises the dividing line is arbitrary. Yes, NOW and NARAL are both very fervent in their support of abortion rights; I never said otherwise. What I said (or meant, anyhow) was 1) that to call that support "celebration" is an intentional and invidious distortion, in that it (intentionally) calls forth the distorted image of people with party hats and noisemakers dancing around singing "ding dong the baby is dead" every time an abortion takes place and 2) that even if you do use the term "celebration" to describe the position of these organizations, what they are "celebrating" is the defense/recognition/protection of the right of a woman to choose abortion, not abortion itself. None of the examples you cite, and nothing on NOW's website, proves otherwise. I said nothing about illegal shooting, or shooting as a result of misuse. Perhaps I should have said "that's like me saying that the NRA celebrates every time someone is shot legally." Stated thus I beleive my analogy is spot on. NOW does not support, condone, or "celebrate" illegal abortion. Not true. Unlike many right-wing and anti-abortion organizations, NOW very actively promotes education and access to effective contraception and family planning. In other words, they support the most effective way to avoid the need for any fetuses to be killed. As I said in my post, I don't believe there's a single member of now who wouldn't be delighted if no woman ever had to choose whether or not to have an abortion. If you think otherwise, I challenge you to prove it. They are obviously doing so not (as you suggest) becasue they think it is good for fetuses to die, but because they recognize the tactics of the anti-abortion crowd in relation to the Peterson case. If Scott Peterson is (as seems likely) guilty of what he is accused of, then there's no punishment that's too good for him, and anti-choicers are trying to use people's hatred of his crime to get them to recognize the legal personhood of the fetus at any stage of development. Once again, you are distorting the position of NOW and all pro-choice people. It's hard not to distort when you're describing a point of view you don't agree with, but I really make an effort not to do so when discussing right-wing views here. I wish I saw a similar effort from the other side. As long as we get no physical consequences besides ecstasy from the sex act, that's as it should be, imho. A woman should be required to undergo neither an unwanted pregnancy nor an abortion. Both have their physical and emotional risks. |
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Dec 1, 2003 19:51:57 GMT -5
When, exactly, is a person shot legally? I can only think of two situations, law enforcement when lethal force is called for and in a war situation. The analogy fails because there is no situation where the NRA actively partcipates in litigation involving the use of firearms against human beings.
When, exactly, is there an illegal abortion? NOW does not recognize any abortion as being illegal.
There's no need to distort the NOW position. Your explanation is about as damning a position as anyone could dream up.
A woman and her unborn child are killed. A CALIFORNIA DA prefers two charges of MURDER. NOW objects, not because there is any question that the unborn child was killed, but solely, as you put it, because it is more important to deal with the politics than with the tragedy.
Let me ask you this. If Laci Peterson had survived but her unborn child had been killed by someone who stabbed her in the uterus, would you support NOW's position that this was not a crime for which the perpetrator should be charged with murder because the unborn child was not human?
Try explaining to Laci Peterson the desirability of supporting NOW's political posture on abortion as being more important than obtaining justice for her unborn son.
By the way, I am PRO-LIFE and PRO-CHOICE. It's each individuals free and unrestricted choice to have unprotected sex. If having sex results in the creation of a new human being, the free choice of the two partners caused that to occur.
Their choice is theirs, and no one else's. Once they chose, they must live with the consequences.
The only other choice left is the murder of a defenseless unborn child. I am ANTI-MURDER.
Calling the pro-lifers "anti-choice" is equivalent to calling a pro-abortion person as anti-life, or pro-infanticide.
And you complain about distortion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Dec 1, 2003 20:42:59 GMT -5
Regarding the basis for the establishment of day 182 of a pregnancy as the last day an abortion could be legally undertaken, vito says:
Then how would you deal with the following issues your "compromise" creates:
1. The date of conception is never certain. The woman says it occurred on, say, February 1 when she had sex with the man. The man says no, it occurred on January 28. On July 30, the woman goes in for an abortion. The man, wanting his child to survive, files for a TRO to stop the abortion procedure. Who wins?
2. A woman "chooses" to kill an unborn child on day 185 and is indicted for causing an illegal third trimester abortion. There is no medical necessity for the abortion to occur for the health of the woman. The woman claims that the abortionist could not fit her in before day 185 so it's not her fault the abortion occurred in the illegal period. Is the abortionist guilty of infanticide?
3. Case 2 facts. Added - the woman and man both agree in writing on day 160 that the woman would terminate the pregnancy. Because of the delay past day 182 caused by the abortionist the woman chooses to let the unborn child live because she's convinced she'll be indicted for infanticide if she goes through with the procedure. The sperm donor is aware of the facts and files a civil action to be relieved of any financial responsibility because of the agreement to terminate the pregnancy. He prevails. Does the woman have a cause of action against the abortionist?
4. The woman has a history of long (285 day) pregnancies with her three kids. She "chooses" to terminate the pregnancy on day 189. The abortionist says no, because the law says the killing of the unborn child is legal only in the first and second trimesters, and that the "normal" second trimester ended on day 182. The woman goes to full term and, indeed, gives birth on day 285. Therefore her request for an abortion on day 182 was, indeed, still in the second trimester. Is the abortionist liable for child support and associated other damages?
The use of an arbitrary date becomes very hard to defend. The notion that the intentional infliction of death to an unborn child should be legal until day 182 (or any other date) and afterward be illegal there will never achieve general acceptance unless there is some objective basis. The unborn child is just as dead.
Oh, one other minor detail. The detail overlooked by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade. Where does the Constitution provide any "right" to anyone to terminate a life?
|
|
|
|
Post by vito on Dec 2, 2003 0:35:36 GMT -5
When, exactly, is a person shot legally? I can only think of two situations, law enforcement when lethal force is called for and in a war situation. There are also cases of self-defense. Doesn't the NRA magazine have a regular feature reporting proudly on cases of gun-use in self defense? That's closer to "celebration" than anything you'll find on the NOW website. There isn't? Assuming you're right about that, it wouldn't invalidate the analogy unless what you mean by "celebrate" is "actively participates in litigation". Your use of this word seems stranger with every post. You've yet to provide an ounce of evidence for your statement that now "celebrates" abortion in any normal sense of that word. As I've stated repeatedly, to the extent now "celebrates" anything it is a woman's right to choose and not abortion per se. Untrue. An abortion performed by a used car salesman in a hot air balloon would be illegal, and I don't think that now would argue otherwise. It is the law, not now, that recognizes any abortion as legal or not legal. Currently most abortions performed by qualified medical practitioners are completely legal. First time around I gave you the benefit of the doubt on this, but this time I went back and checked the facts. NOW has not gotten involved in the prosecution of Scott Peterson and has done nothing to hinder that prosecution. One NOW county-chapter president in NEW JERSEY for Pete's sake, said she thought it shouldn't be charged as a double murder. Even that individual expressed second thoughts about what she said soon afterwards. Predictably, the right jumped all over it and _continue_ several months later to pretend that one NOW-member's off-the-cuff statement is the official policy of the national organization. I personally think someone who terminates a pregnancy without the mother's permission should be prosecuted either for murder or for a charge with penalties equivalent for those for murder. I believe NOW supports maternal protection laws that make that possible. NOW has expressed concerns about "fetal homicide" laws not because they love murderers or because dead babies make them happy but because anti-abortion activists have made no bones about their hope that such laws will provide a foothold for overturning Roe v. Wade. Whether you agree with NOW's position on this or not, it's a far cry from "celebrating abortion". That's a valid criticism. I will no longer use the term "anti-choice". Perhaps in the same spirit you will refrain from using terms such as "pro-life" (which implies that those who disagree with you on the abortion issue are "anti-life") and "pro-abortion" (most people to whom this term is applied are not pro-abortion but pro-abortion-rights). But I'll leave that up to you and your conscience. |
|
|
|
Post by vito on Dec 2, 2003 0:58:03 GMT -5
Regarding the basis for the establishment of day 182 of a pregnancy as the last day an abortion could be legally undertaken, vito says ... Then how would you deal with the following issues your "compromise" creates: These are possible situations that would have to be considered in the course of drafting the actual legislation. Obviously no woman should be prosecuted under this hypothetical legislation in the absence of positive evidence that the pregnancy was past the second trimester, and as with every item in the criminal code it will be impossible to foresee every possible complication. That's why we have a judicial branch. At least I'm trying to find common ground here. Wish I could say the same for you, Walter. Must be the same part that defines legal personhood as beginning at conception. Which article was that, Walter? Yes, conservatives love the bill of rights, all except for Amendment IX ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"). The decision in Rowe vs. Wade is well founded on the principles embodied in Amendments IV, V, IX and XIV. |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Dec 2, 2003 1:43:10 GMT -5
Your "compromise" includes the murder of the viable baby! How vile! True that it would be illegal for a mechanic to perform an abortion, but in many states it would be perfectly legal for a dentist to perform an abortion on a twelve year old girl in the back seat of a car, without the knowledge or consent of her parents. This insane logic is brought to you by the same morally bankrupt liberals who want to regulate the hell out of every other industry and would expel her for having Tylenol at school the next day.
Unless you want to defend things like Jim Crow laws, I suggest you not bring up the fallible courts in interpreting law.
|
|
|
|
Post by vito on Dec 2, 2003 10:24:52 GMT -5
Your "compromise" includes the murder of the viable baby! Like I said, at least I'm trying to find a compromise. edited for personal attack.  edited to eliminate the distortion of my opinion caused by previous edit  |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck on Dec 2, 2003 10:53:12 GMT -5
vito, there will never be a "compromise."
Abortion is like pregnancy. You are either pregnant or you are not pregnant.
You are either alive or dead.
Only King Solomon could conceive of "splitting the baby."
|
|
