Women's rights and abortion...

[Frangible]

Now, I'm probably going to get flamed, tombstoned, and/or kicked in the groin for posting this, but there's something I just fail to fundamentally understand regarding abortion.

First off, I do support abortion (up to a point, at least), and no, I'm not a Republican, and no, I'm not a freeper, and no, I'm not Christian.

But the thing that always gets me is how people talk about abortion as a "woman's right". My question is, what if her child is female? Doesn't she have rights?

If she doesn't have rights because she isn't born yet, can another person kill your fetus without your permission? Would that be murder, or something else?

What is the nature of fetal life, and what rights does it have, if any? How is individual freedom balanced vs. freedom of others here?

[slinkerwink]

1. hahahaha, that's a silly question....

a FETUS cannot THINK, a bunch of fetal cells cannot think or comprehend of itself as having rights. Fetal rights is just a trojan horse for the fundamentalists to get rid of abortion.

[Frangible]

4. but...

The next poster states the fetus's cortex starts functioning in the 26th week. Even so, perhaps mere sentience does not meet your criteria for "able to comprehend itself having rights". Then, how far do you take that?

A child who is 1 year old probably cannot comprehend "rights" either. Nor can a mentally handicapped man, nor can I when I sleep.

What should the line, the cutoff be? Some level of thought, of intelligence, of sentience?

[slinkerwink]

6. that's different-----a fetus cannot comprehend rights in the womb

but a one-year old child who has been WANTED and carried to full term, has rights bestowed upon it by the courts and its parents.

[Frangible]

9. hm, so rights are granted and not inherant?

Not an easy thought, but true in the legal sense I suppose.

[stoptheshrub]

40. I'll probably tick a lot of you off but...

I find myself asking a lot of the same questions the person starting this thread does. I find a distinct contradiction with disagreeing with the death penalty and being in favor of late term (late second and 3rd tri-mester) abortions. If the arguments against the DP are 1) it can be used incorrectly and the individual can still contribute to society and 2) we don't have the right to judge the value of another persons life, then whats the difference between that and late term abortion? First, it is proven that at a certain point a fetus can survive (all be it with help) outside the womb. Can't the same argument be applied to that as with the DP? The fetus can still have some intrinsic value to society, can't it? I understand a woman wants HER rights. But what about the rights of the convicted too and the rights of the fetus/baby? Don't the have the right to do what they please, then? Just an interesting question I throw out because I don't see a difference.

[kiahzero]

2. I've gotten flamed for suggesting this in the past

But as far as I'm concerned, a fetus isn't alive in the sense that a whole person is alive until the cortex starts functioning (26th week or so, IIRC). So there's no "balance" to strike.

My question is, what if her child is female? Doesn't she have rights?

Gender is inconsequential.

If she doesn't have rights because she isn't born yet, can another person kill your fetus without your permission? Would that be murder, or something else?

No, that'd be denying the woman the right to carry her pregnancy to term. If you ask me, I think there should be a separate law for forcibly ending a woman's pregnancy without her consent.

[Cleita]

3. So here we go again.

The argument really is about choice, a woman's choice to let her body be used as she chooses. She may not choose to be a mother and she shouldn't be forced to.

What if our society allowed eunuchs. Would those eunuchs have chosen to be deballed or are they being forced to like has happened in the past?

You see everyone has ownership rights over their body and no one else can tell them what to do with it.

[Frangible]

7. fair enough

And that's a solid argument and good perspective. I'm just not sure society as a whole agrees though; it seems on many issues the government and other people are very interested in controlling what you can do with your own body, and not just in terms of abortion. (all of these are usually justified on the "for your own good" grounds)

[Cleita]

13. And they have no business doing so.

If Michael Jackson can freely chose to have all the plastic surgery done on him that he has, then so should other have choices with what they choose to do with their bodies. I am not against suicide even if that is what someone wants to do. I would try to talk them out of it if I thought it was a depression thing, and get them into therapy, but sometimes people with incurable cancer and other diseases deserve to be able to decide just how much longer they wish to live.

[Book Lover]

18. Minor point (& I'm not disagreeing with you)

Our society does allow eunuchs. There are no laws forbidding anyone from castrating themselves in any of the 50 states that I am aware of, though I wouldn't put it past some legislators to try and do so so as to "prevent" MTF transsexuals form completing their treatment.

[Cleita]

20. Yes, and you see my point.

If you want to be a eunuch you should, after counseling to make sure you are doing this with all facts at hand. But no one should force you to be one like was done in the past. It is your body.

[rene moon]

5. The fetus has no rights

The women carrying the fetus has rights. I personally don't think abortion is a horrible thing and I don't believe it is killing a person either.

It is a hard decision for many though and I would never questions those feelings for any women.

[Book Lover]

8. I'll try to be civil :-)

The gender of the fetus makes no difference, and I don't see why it would. A fetus does not have human rights because it is not a person.

I am having trouble coming up with a scenario whereby a fetus is destroyed without harm coming to the pregnant woman (maybe someone else can do better than me)so if a pregnant woman is injured and as a result loses the pregnancy, well, we have laws to address that.

I am not an OB, so I can't address your "nature of fetal life" question, but I will give you my opinion: I am more important than my pregnancy. As a society, even fractured American society, we value some people more highly than others - this is the justification for stiffer sentences for cop-killers, for instance. The feminist position says that the life of a pregnant woman is of more value than the existence of a gestating fetus.

[rene moon]

10. great post

Women are more than their pregnancies! Thank you

[Frangible]

11. hey, common ground!

I do agree, the life of the pregnant woman is more important. I guess I wasn't entirely clear on the fetus being destroyed without harm to the mother issue... perhaps it's only theoretical.

[Cleita]

14. Considering too that the developing fetus can't live outside the

host's body and isn't aware of it's existence, it really can't be called a human being until it is able to do those things.

[Only Me]

33. Not to make light of your post but , my Nephew was born at 20 weeks...

less than two pounds, 1 lb and 7oz's. He was born at home then taken the hospital for care. He cried, kicked, flailed his arms and legs, and obviously reacted to touch. I know this for certain because I was there for the whole thing. He could always breath on his own and never dependant on machines. He was cared for in the hospital as a premature infant with all the typicals.
No human baby can survive outside of the womb at anytime in their developement with out being dependant on others. They all must be feed and their needs meet whether dependant prior to birth or after, they are still dependant on someone. It is not unheard of for babies to be very premature when born and survive with out serious health issues.

It is obviously more complicated than this. None of us can say for sure when life actually begins. If we could, and it could be proven, there would be no issue.

I am pro choice, however, I do believe in limitations on the time a fetus could be abortable. EXCEPT in certain circumstances.

With all the technology in this country and others we should be demanding better, safer/more reliable and convenient birth control options. I believe if there were less need for abortions, there would be little to argue.

Instead of both sides fighting one another, we should be demanding our politicians to make it a priority to spend more money in the area of medical research, family planning and education.

[SarahB]

34. Sounds more like 25 weeks minimum based on size

You may have some of the finer points mixed up there. I'm a nursing student who has people close to me who work in a level 3 neonatal intensive care unit. 20 weekers do not yet survive- period. The earliest survivors are, I believe, a very few at 23 weeks gestation.

I understand your point though. I agree that family planning and education needs to be made more important. Birth control should be free (along with all health care). It would prevent so many abortions, but the right wing folks are too short sided and "moral" (i.e. all sex outside of marriage is "evil"), so likely that won't happen either. Many even think BC pills are abortion because if an egg slips through and is fertilized, it can prevent implantation (same with IUDs).

[Only Me]

35. I am sure you are right...it

was several years ago. I just remeber she was around 6 months and the pregnancy was supposedly very healthy, so the early birth was a real shock, extremely tiny. He did develope health issues later in the hospital and was sent to a childrens hospital. But overall he did really well considering.

[efhmc]

12. Here is what I want and need to know in order to answer this question.

How many times have you been pregnant or had the potential to be pregnant? How many times, if you have been pg, have you been sick, worried, dependent on others, bloated, demeaned or madonnaed, as a pregnant person. I am betting never. Not to say as a male (and I am betting you are one) you do not have have a right to an opinion. However, it comes close to telling a person of color what they should do about racial issues to tell women what they should feel or know about their own bodies. I have had 2 daughters. One has 2 babies. What and how and when they do whatever or whenever with their bodies is their business. I do not tell you how or where you should arrange or place your penis, nor do I try to make laws concerning that matter. Therefore, I will never listen to or accept any males' rules on this matter.

[Frangible]

17. hypothetical question

If I wanted to smoke crack cocaine, would you feel that should be illegal? It is my body, is it not? I guess the point I'm trying to make is, there are numerous issues women in society feel they have a right to restrict a man's freedom to do with his body as he chooses, just as the opposite or same gender cases are true.

Perhaps it's less an issue of gender, and more of individual control?

[Cleita]

19. I wouldn't stop you.

You have a right to choose what you want to put in your body as well as suffer the consequences as long as you don't hurt anyone else. I'm for legalized drugs and rehab if it gets out of hand and a person wants to quit. But I really believe we are being nannied to death at times. I am against driving under the influence, but would agree with drunk taxis.

I personally hate my seat belt. It hurts my arthritis to wear it but wear it I must. I would, of course, insist that children wear seat belts because children really don't have any rights until they grow up. It is for their own protection that parents make the decisions, not them.

[kiahzero]

21. Umm...

I personally hate my seat belt. It hurts my arthritis to wear it but wear it I must. I would, of course, insist that children wear seat belts because children really don't have any rights until they grow up. It is for their own protection that parents make the decisions, not them.

Both the UN Charter and the US Constitution disagree with you on that assertion.

[Cleita]

22. Which about seat belts or children's rights?

Yes, children do have rights, but not decision making rights until they are old enough to understand what they are deciding on. I mean would you say that children have a right to eat candy and ice cream instead of nutritious food? I think you would agree that a parent has a right to decide what his child will eat and when because the child would make wrong choices most likely.

[kiahzero]

23. ...

Show me where either the UN Charter, UN Declaration on the Rights of Children, or US Constitution mentions the "right to eat candy and ice cream," and I'll cede your point.

Yes, parents do have rights in raising their children. However, by asserting that "children have no rights," you enable those who see children as chattel of their parents up until they turn 18.

[Cleita]

25. Err, aren't they?

I distinctly remember not having much say in how I lived my life until I was eighteen and the law was on my parents side. Chattel is a little harsh though, isn't it? I would rather call children a parental responsibility until the child reaches the age of eighteen.

Maybe saying they had no rights was a wrong choice of words. When some kid goes on about their "rights" to blast their boombox at 2 in the morning, or other such thing, I am inclined to tell them they have no rights under my roof until they own it.

[kiahzero]

26. Hmmm

I distinctly remember not having much say in how I lived my life until I was eighteen and the law was on my parents side. Chattel is a little harsh though, isn't it? I would rather call children a parental responsibility until the child reaches the age of eighteen.

That's a poor attitude. Children, for instance, have the right to choose their faith. Unfortunately, many members of non-Judeo-Christian faiths are hesitant to talk to interesting minors, because of fears that they will be legally harrased by parents who feel their children are their property.

While I am not a parent yet, nor do I hope to be until after I graduate, I would suggest that when a child "goes on about their 'rights' to blast their boombox," rather than teaching them an authoritarian lesson, teach them that their rights end where they infringe on the rights of others (in this case, the right to get a sound nights sleep).

[Cleita]

28. Well, as an atheist, if I had children I probably wouldn't raise them

in any religion, but I certainly would let them explore faiths if they wanted to. My parents let me go to church and temple with my friends when I wanted to even though I was raised Catholic. They also supported me in my atheism after I made that decision. But if I had children I certainly wouldn't allow any fundie or other type of questionable religious leader start dictating to my child how they should live. That's my job and no one elses.

[efhmc]

27. None of the choices that you talk about are gender related and until

and unless you can do the things I have done or not done with my uterus, you have no voice in my decisions and never will. The women I went to college with had abortions. They were illegal. They had money and could do what they wanted based on that fact. I did medical training in a Baptist institution and there were endless, countless D&Cs done daily. The law was still "no abortion" but those women with money found drs that would say this was a necessary procedure. The only difference today is that it is legal and women without money and resources can have the technique done without the fear of DYING!!!Abortions have always been done and will always be done whether it is legal or not.

[Cleita]

30. True, so this is why it is stupid to even forbid it.

A woman determined to end a pregnancy will do so and nothing will stop her even putting her life in danger. I know. My friends did the same before abortions were legal and nothing stopped them, nothing.

[NightTrain]

15. Look at it this way...

When you celebrate your birthday, do you do so on the day you were born or the day you were conceived? If it's the latter, I'll have to change my birthday from March 20, 1966 to June 20, 1965!

[loyalsister]

16. Viability

Until a fetus doesn't need to be attached to a woman's body, what she says goes.
The development of the fetus depletes bodily resources, and whether she wants to provide life support or not is the choice the woman makes. Pregnancy is an inherently unhealthy condition for women. On top of it, she has to skip cold medicine, etc and deal with whatever headache comes her way without aspirin.
Whether or not a woman wants to put her body through that is a decision she has an inherent right to make because every person equally deserves the opportunity to consider their personal health and well being when they make decisions about their future. An accidental pregnancy should not doom a woman to 9 months of poor health and discomfort simply because she is a woman. Her body her choice. It's a personal health decision. A PRIVATE choice to be made between a woman her, partner, and her doctor.

[Ruby Romaine]

24. It's a medical procedure, plain & simple-it should not be politicized!

Why not have Asscroft decide if someone needs an appendectomy.

No one uses abortion as birth control.

I saw at the march from the
women hating antis (mostly men I might add)
"keep it in your pants" type signs
which would be fine in a perfect world- I say we make a deal-
if there is no rape,no incest,we have full employment, everyone has a home & job & sufficient income & education,no war & no famine,we are all perfect & nobody makes mistakes, then let's ban abortion.

Why is birth control & abortion NOT an issue in Italy which is I think is 95% Catholic?

[bleedingheart]

29. Hemorrhoids, sleepless nights, vericose veins, stretch marks

high blood pressure, diabetes, eczema, hair loss, and even death are among many side effects of pregnancy....and yet there are countless women who willingly get pregnant....because they are willing to endure these risks and dicomforts...

However if your a woman who didn't intend to get pregnant and you have no support to aid you then pregnancy is about that woman and that woman alone.....

I endured two troublesome pregnancies and I wanted those babies...and I can tell you that if those children had not been wanted then I would not have had the stamina to endure what I did.

This is about choice...

Some people see the right of gun ownership to be important...well what about total ownership of your own body?

[Only Me]

31. I think...

that it is a personal choice. Whether it should be or not, is another story. That is why it is so controversial. The medical evidence of when life "begins" varies. The idea that reproduction is unhealthy, is also as questionable as saying "sex" is unhealthy.

Our bodies are made to have sexual intercourse. Our bodies are made to have children. Sex is not ALWAYS healthy, having children are not ALWAYS healthy. Both can be dangerous and painful. There are health disadvantages to having children, and there are health benefits to having children.

I am a mother, who has children and has had miscarriages. Because of health issues, I couldn't carry any more babies to term, and would ultimately loose them or hurt myself. I took that
responsibility extremely seriously. I had my tubes tied, clipped (ringed)and burnt. They are medically irreversible.
That was my personal choice considering all the facts that I had.

I believe it is our choice, upto a time limit. And in certain situations there should be no time limit at all. However, using only consentual sex as my example, I do believe in being responsible for our own choices, actions, etc.,. Realizing that the scientific and medical communities differ on when "life begins",and the possibility of life occurring sooner than thought, we certainly do not have all the answer to the mysteries of being human or are we likely to anytime soon.

I personally, do not believe abortion should be used as a casual form of contraception. Having abortions are not ALWAYS safe for the woman. There is a risk of permanent injury to our bodies when this
procedure is preformed. Also, there are higher risks of developing certain health issues, especially after having multiple abortions.

Again, I believe abortion should stay "Pro Choice", until proven otherwise. But I do believe that it should be mandatory in all states' clinics, barring certain circumstances and issues, that woman
are counseled\educated better about the issues as we currently understand them prior to preforming the abortion.

Even though we have many birth control options to choose from,I do believe that more money should be spent to come up with more safer, userfriendly, reliable forms of contraception that have fewer side effects and more effective. If everyones contraceptive was "fail safe", serious side-affect free, abortion wouldn't be the issue that it is.

Ultimately, since I am not a higher power and can not see and understand all. All I have is this "opinion".

[havocmom]

32. Here's an idea, women conceive and men gestate

that way, more babies could be created faster and that seems to be one of the goals of the anti-choice elements. But it would spread the burden of pregnancy and child rearing.

The woman ovulates, conceives, the viable embryo is removed from her and implanted on the spleen or liver of some deserving male who was all for overturning Roe. He gets to gestate and have what would be sorta like a C-section. He then could spend the rest of his life caring for the child.

Freed up from the time consuming burden of gestation, the women could be out there, whopping it up and conceiving again in real short order. Sorta of the reverse of how things were before Roe, I'll admit, but as Karen Hughes pointed out, since 9-11, everything has changed. :evilgrin:

[ljm2002]

36. Let's get real

The fact is, women have always found ways to abort. Read up on other societies -- American Indians knew about herbs to cause abortions. European women knew about such. And back in the more recent Bad Old Days, in the '50's, '60's and early '70's, there were abortion doctors. The good ones, the rich women could always afford. The not-so-good ones, well, women had to take their chances. And they did -- for so many reasons. Often, of course, it was the classic case of the 16-year-old who "just couldn't tell her parents". Or, it was the 36-year-old battered wife who just couldn't handle child #6. Or whatever. And in so many cases, the outcome was tragic -- the woman lost in a hellish fashion, due to internal bleeding that couldn't be stopped, or gangrene due to massive infection. Sometimes it worked out, of course. Other times, the 16-year-old was lucky, and "just" lost her ability to bear children in her adult years. But after all, she got what she deserved -- right?

Women should have the right to make these choices. It is absurd that we send 18-year-olds into hell-on-Earth over in Iraq and feel quite comfortable letting them make life and death decisions for themselves and others -- when we have videos of them shooting injured enemies and laughing about it -- but we never have the debate of whether 18-year-old men should be allowed to play soldier with real guns. But we won't entrust women to make life and death decisions under any circumstances, even when they are the most intimate decisions they can make. By what logic does the state get to poke its nose into that area of my or anyone else's life? This much I know: women will not give up the "right" to have abortions. They will continue to do so, for a myriad of reasons. We can all wish it were not so, but that will not change the facts on the ground (to use a war metaphor). So we can choose to deal with reality, and make the best of it, and try to minimize abortions by minimizing the causal factors; or, we can go back to the days of the red hangers.

To many on the religious right, those days can't come back too soon. They have -- I believe sincerely -- bought into the notion that it is murder, pure and simple. They like to look at their own little ones and think, how could I, or anyone, have *killed* that baby? They often have not had to make difficult choices. They may not have any conception of the life of a poor black woman on Chicago's South Side who lives in a rat-infested apartment with 5 kids and an abusive husband who rapes her -- just NO concept. And what about a woman who knows the child will be born severely retarded? Or where there is a high probability, like, a woman was exposed to German measles during the first 3 months of pregnancy? Who are we to dictate that she must carry that child to term?

I can't believe that in 2004, we are still having to argue this. Rights, they say, are not granted, they must be fought for. It was extremely heartening to see the massive crowd that turned out in Washington D.C. last weekend. It looks like there are plenty of us who are still willing to fight for our rights.

[Kool Kitty]

37. Great post.

Well said. :thumbsup:

[efhmc]

39. Wow! That is some awesome post. Thanks.

[Lindacooks]

38. It's a woman's right because it's HER BODY

Once again, it's a privacy issue. The government cannot force women to carry fetuses to term. The government cannot tell a person what he or she can do with her body. You have the right to refuse medical treatment, and you have the right to choose treatment. The gender of the fetus has no bearing on this issue.

You just saw how scary the rightwing can be, when they tried to subpoena MEDICAL RECORDS (remember doctor-patient confidentiality? - that could become a thing of the past) of women who had had abortions. What were they going to do with that information? Would they publish the doctor's names? The WOMEN'S NAMES??


Your body, your choice. My body, my choice. The government does not belong in the equation.