Your personal information you provide will be transfered and stored as encrypted data.
You have the ability to update and remove your personal information.
You consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.
Allow cookies for
Necessary Cookies Necessary Cookies cannot be unchecked, because they are necessary for our website to function properly. They store your language, currency, shopping cart and login credentials.
Analytics Cookies We use google.com analytics and bing.com to monitor site usage and page statistics to help us improve our website. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.
Marketing Cookies Marketing Cookies do track personal data. Google and Bing monitor your page views and purchases for use in advertising and re-marketing on other websites. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.
Social Cookies These 3rd Party Cookies do track personal data. This allows Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest integration. eg. shows the Facebook 'LIKE' button. They will however be able to view what you do on our website. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.
MiSsFrOgmember 187 posts Location: Oceanside, CA USA
Posted: www.newsweek.com (the war on fetal rights) I know this is way off the subject but i was just reading this article and i thought i would share it with all of you. I know this is a very sensitive issue but i cant believe the way that the US government is handling these types of cases. are the laws the same everywhere else? what are your thoughts about this issue?
SpannerBRONZE Member remembers when it was all fields round here 2,790 posts Location: in the works... somewhere..., United Kingdom
From the moment I discovered I was pregnant, I knew my son had rights. I never once thought that they could be undermimed by anyone until I was nearly three months gone, when I was beaten up and lucky not to lose him. The police gave the attacker a caution and I have always wondered whether they would have done the same had I miscarried.
Hmmmmm...As a mod I have to say that I would love to see this discussed as peacefully, openly, honestly and respectfully as humanly possible. If this thread gets even the slightest hint of ickiness in it, given the subject matter, I will confront it and if appropriate, shut it down. I just want to make that clear from the start.
Now, so many thoughts, get comfy...it's a book.
First of all...for me, to me, the embryo/fetus have no seperate rights from the mother until the 6th month, the beginning of the 3rd trimester. That is, for me, when "it" truly makes the step from being a (don't get me wrong here) parasitic type being to an individual. This is the point when the baby CAN survive if something happens, with alot of help. Before then the development is so incomplete that while some miracles have happened and they do survive, it is unlikely. Therefore, 6th month is when they become baby. Until then, they are an extension of the mother, and therefore fall under her rights.
In the three cases presented in the article, two of them, Marciniak and Peterson both were attacked when their babies were in the 9th month, and both babies died. This to me is completely homicidal and should be tried as such. In the case of the Roman Catholics..well, I was very "put off" by the fact that they were so completely against abortion until it called to serve a useful purpose in saving their own daughter. That to me is purely selfish and wrong on a morallistic standpoint. My thoughts are if you have conviction, stand by it, and they don't.
I understand the point of this article is to define what rights a fetus has...but there are lines that I do not think should be crossed. My grandmother nearly died because the church said to save my father and let her die. They both made it but my grandparents were excommunicated for standing against this belief. This is what I feel the government is aiming at and I am not comfortable with this at all. And how far does this reach? I had a friend whose mother exercised, alot, under the guidence of her physician. In her 7th month of pregnancy, and no one knows why, she went into premature labor and the baby, who had been fine during prenatal checkups, was stillborn. Under new perspective laws would she then be held accountable for murder?
What if something occurs and the fetus endures permanent damage but lives? To tell you the truth, I want any child of mine to have the most incredible life it can, and not be a vegetable straight out of the gate. At that point I would request an abortion. Would these laws allow that?
When I was a special ed teacher, I had a student who was born to a woman who had been raped in a psychiatric ward. She was completely incapable of recognising him let alone raising him. Her parents tried to press for an abortion, and it was denied. Instead, they are in their late 60's and raising a, now, 10 year old. He is a very troubled child and will be in psychiatric care himself for a long while, which is why he was not a candidate for adoption. This to me, was something that should never have occurred on countless levels (and yes the rapist was brought to justice). There are too many black and whites to cover here. Roe vs. Wade was a drop in a perverbial bucket compared to how many situations can be covered here, and so therefore no bills or laws should be deemed except at what stage in development does this embryo/fetus actually become a functioning individual, and then the laws should apply to that as they would to any other person. Beyond that point I believe it should be on a case by case basis.
And to tell where my opinions are derrived from: I have had to cross a picket line having miniature bibles thrown at me for entering a female health clinic in NYC known for doing abortions. I had been raped, impregnated and subsequently beaten for it. The fetus died, but I did not miscarry and was suffering poisoning from the fetus decomposing in my body, therefore I had to go through the process of a 2nd trimester abortion.
My, now 8 year old son, was supposed to be a stillborn. On a sonogram they could not find his heartbeat. It seems he was hiding behind my liver, and due to a long series of events, I did not know I was pregnant until my 7th month (I can not do anything in the "traditional, normal" manner ). I felt well enough and was told my body would expell him naturally so I decided to not have a D&L. Had I gone through with an abortion, or even the adoption that I did debate afterwards, I would not know the wonder that he is today.
I have been on both sides of this fence, as have several women that I know, and can unequivicably say that there is no cut and dry answer that any form of law can ever provide. The fact that they are trying scares me. Much respect to all, no matter what your beliefs and opinions.
Pele Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir "Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall "And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
Astarmember 1,591 posts Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
My personal oppinion is pro choice up untill the third trimester. Basicly for the reasons pele stated. I understand a lot of people consider this a technicality, especially those who are religious.
Personally the idea of peoples religious convictions being forced onto an entire population seems disgusting to me. There are religions which find other practices besides abortion to be far more offensive to their beliefs. I think most people don't expect society to yield to them. Why should we yield to right wing christians just because of their convictions? I respect your convictions. I just don't expect you to force them on me.
I would suggest a referendum should be held every so years but im not so sure about that. If you have a nation of several million people and 50.1% of them vote agaisnt abortion then you are forcing the rest into accepting the decision. If you make it require a 70% majority or something then you will end up with 60% for and 40 agaisnt or something and no decision will be made.
But I do think it is something society needs to decide and personally I will yield to whatever society does decide on this issue.
MiSsFrOgmember 187 posts Location: Oceanside, CA USA
wow pele as always your wisdom and knowlege have me in a complete jaw dropping state.I know this topic should be treated with the utmost respect and in no way shape or form did i intend it to be hurtfull to anyone. The peterson case is actually why i started this thread. Laci and her unborn son conner, lived in modesto, california which is kind of near me. I believe that everyone has their own opinions on this matter, and there are certain sitpulations to every aspect of this subject. They’re building a legal case, defining the fetus—and even the embryo—as an individual entitled to basic human rights. With the recent murders of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, nearly 9 months old, abortion-rights supporters are finding it increasingly difficult to claim credibly that a fetus just a few weeks, or even days, from delivery is not entitled to at least some protections under the law—but they vigorously argue against such laws anyway, fearing that giving a fetus rights will lead to the collapse of abortion protections. On the other side of the debate, the anti-abortion camp strives to make laws protecting a woman’s right to choose seem absurd. “It’s not OK for the husband to kill his wife’s child, but it’s OK for the mother [to have an abortion]?” I think this is absolutly wrong... the fetus is in the mother, it doent have any way to defend itself so who will defend for it? why wouldnt she have the right to choose what she wants for the child, and her body for that matter. Spanner thank you also for sharing that with me. i am so sorry what happened to you but i am glad that both you and your son are ok thank you again for sharing your stories, wisdom and knowledge with me. i am truly thankful
I think what Pele has already aluded to, and that does matter much more than people think, is that there is a point when the foetus actually becomes a person.
Before that, it a part of the mother, such as it is when it is simply a zygote, (a cluster of cells dividing form the original fertilised egg).
If there wasn't this point (which I do NOY know when or how or what or where, simply that it does exist at some point in the pregnancy) then as soon the egg is feritlised, then both mother and zygote have rights as human beings.
If the mother didin't know she was pregnant, went on a drinking binge and miscarried, then the mother would be charged with manslaughter?
How about if the foetus gave her mother health complications and both were going to die unless the foetus was aborted? Legally, no action could be taken as the rights of the child are equal with the rights of the mother. So they both die, rather than a murder charge being laid against the doctor who might perform the abortion?
In a perfect world, it think the pro-lifers are right in their feelings, but in this world, there are all sorts of situations where the mothers rights needs to come first, especially at the start.
As it is, I think the best place is the middle ground between both sides, which can only be maintained by having both sides lobbying for their cause.
I am only regretful that people like Pele, have been caught in the crossfire, who did not deserve treatment like that, EVER.
Pro-lifers have a tendency to say every life is importnant but to forget about the life of the mother and only focuss on the unborn child, foetus, zygote...
HoP Posting Guidelines * Is it the Truth? * Is it Fair to all concerned? * Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships? * Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?