State by state chart on abortion limitations if anybody is interested. I had to give it a look out of curiosity. Continue...
You're correct, however:Fair enough, one point though, the US has safe haven laws, as far as I know in ever state. If someone doesn't want the child they have a right to drop them off at a hospital or fire station with no penalty.
Some states treat safe-haven surrenders as child dependency or abandonment, with a complaint being filed for such in juvenile court. The parent either defaults or answers the complaint.
You're not alone there.I do wonder what happens in these cases where the father wants a relationship and the mother doesn't but *shrug*
Detractors claim that, because safe-haven laws do not require parents to be under stress, parents will use the law largely to avoid notice to the non-surrendering parent.
I live here and I didn't even know that. Another valid point. This was part of why I had asked for clarity before from Bells, as it makes a very large difference whether all are affected or a portion and what that portion is. If an excuse is used, it must be valid by showing a large majority of cases.Fair enough, one point though, the US has safe haven laws, as far as I know in ever state. If someone doesn't want the child they have a right to drop them off at a hospital or fire station with no penalty. I do wonder what happens in these cases where the father wants a relationship and the mother doesn't but *shrug*
Fair enough, one point though, the US has safe haven laws, as far as I know in ever state. If someone doesn't want the child they have a right to drop them off at a hospital or fire station with no penalty. I do wonder what happens in these cases where the father wants a relationship and the mother doesn't but *shrug*
You're correct, however:
Some states treat safe-haven surrenders as child dependency or abandonment, with a complaint being filed for such in juvenile court. The parent either defaults or answers the complaint.
I'm not sure what you are saying, implying, or suggesting here. But I am guessing that you mean to show that there is a means for the father to claim the child, at least in some states, because the case will go to court to determine child dependency or abandonment, and that the father can answer the complaint and assert his claim to the child if he was unaware that the mother had surrendered at the time. Am I correct?
Good point. But I guess the alternative would be that something far worse than parental rights can get violated. Remember the girl who drove her boys into the lake and claimed a black guy carjacked her? I can see where a parent could stage a kidnapping by crossing state lines and not giving their identities, then claiming the child was kidnapped when they get home to the spouse. I guess it is a tragic possibility but at least the kid isn't dead and so long as the child is alive the missing person case may find the child.that assumes he knows. I dont know how many times these laws are used but from my understanding of them there is no names, no ID (of the parent OR the child), and no requirement for it to even be the same state. So if one parent comes home from work (or worse, happens to be out of the state or country) to find the child missing from what I understand there is nothing really the state or the parent can do because short of DNA testing all the babies who became wards of the state in that time frame across the whole country potentually how else could they be identified
No. I was replying to two separate points raised by Asguard.I'm not sure what you are saying, implying, or suggesting here. But I am guessing that you mean to show that there is a means for the father to claim the child, at least in some states, because the case will go to court to determine child dependency or abandonment, and that the father can answer the complaint and assert his claim to the child if he was unaware that the mother had surrendered at the time. Am I correct?
Sorry. I should have been more explicit with my response.
When it was clear by my next sentence that not all 3rd trimester abortions are because of abusive boyfriends. Here is what I said after you took the first sentence of that paragraph and somehow or other decided to believe that I was claiming that "ALL" third trimester abortions was because of abusive partners:Total failure, Bells.
You always miss question marks, don't you? You did this to S.G. as well.
I asked you if that was your claim. Observe:
I asked you that because you took the time to write out that bit about how you worked with battered women...
Bells said:I have known women who have gone through agonising and horrific conditions and problems where the foetus was diagnosed with a deadly disorder or problem and they made the decision to abort to prevent further suffering to their unborn baby. But I have never in my time ever heard of a woman reach the third trimester and then change her mind like one might change their mind about what type of meat they want on their sandwich. Maybe you do and all good for you. But the fact that third trimester abortions are the rarest in that they constitute the absolute minority of all abortions (I think the figure is less than 3%?) and the absolute majority of even that small figure is because there is a medical problem, I'd have to say that you are clutching at straws because you are angry at 'something something'...
I said that in the majority of cases where women kill their newborn's, mental illness is a major factor. I queried why you were using examples of these women and young teenage girls that even you advised were desperate as examples of women who apparently would choose to go through 30 or so weeks of pregnancy and then decided they don't want to have a child anymore.By the way, I notice how quick you are to fall back on the diagnosis that these girls are all "Mentally Ill..." Care to support that?
You don't even understand what that means or what I was being incredulous about, do you?And I said clearly that argument from incredulity is a fallacy.
Don't troll.I am absolutely saying they chose to- are you suggesting that they did NOT choose to do so? The claim that "I had no choice" often fails- people always have a choice. They chose the weak route, perhaps, but made a choice, nonetheless. This is similar to how you typed all that out about battered women before- are you saying they are all forced into the behavior, all mentally ill, etc?
No, Bells- you're making excuses. And my asking you to address those excuses is not dishonesty nor twisting your words. It's an effort on your part to simply dismiss the rebuttal with claims of force, mental illness, etc. of which you must provide evidence that they are mentally ill or had a gun held to their head instead of simply assuming what you want to assume in order to maintain your political position.
A girl lying and hiding her situation is not an excuse to Kill.
Weren't the safe haven laws set up to ensure that young girls or women would not feel pressured about having to reveal their identity as they dropped their newborns off for protection because they are these girls who have hidden the pregnancy and birth from their family in the majority of cases? Doesn't this change to these safe haven laws defeat the purpose of its original intent?Randwolf said:You're correct, however:
Ignoring the question mark, again.decided to believe that I was claiming that "ALL" third trimester abortions was because of abusive partners
Go ahead and say it- it doesn't make it true. Guess I need to grill my dead parents about this dishonesty they passed on to me.At this point, Neverfly, I have to say that you are trolling and being inherently dishonest
You said:I said that in the majority of cases where women kill their newborn's, mental illness is a major factor.
In other words- excusing the behavior. Now you claim that the majority are mentally ill. Fine. Can you support that claim? Do you have any way of supporting that claim? Do you have any idea or are you just running with an assumption?As in, you are taking examples of women who murder their newborn babies for whatever reason, and usually, mental illness is a prime cause, and desperate teenage girls who are terrified and alone and as even you claim, act out of desperation and then saying "Come with me, honey, we can help you kill it before birth" because mentally ill women and desperate teenage girls reason well apparently... When I say that I do not know of any woman who would choose to or elect to go through 30 or so weeks of pregnancy and then change their minds about wanting to have a baby... And that is what you come out with in response.
You said you don't know anyone that would. Ok, that's fine- I pointed out that not only do these people exist, they make the news and even go beyond what you expressed incredulity at.Because if you had, you would not have used examples of women commit neonaticide and "desperate teenage girls"
Not at all, rather, she may have been not wanting the baby all along. A series of lies and bad choices landed her in the delivery room, rather than the desire to be a mom then a sudden changing of her mind. Lies and bad choices go along with desperation or fearful- a Desperate or fearful person can commit murder and it is not excused simply because we can empathize with why she lied and made bad choices, we still know she was wrong.Although I should not be surprised. You actually attempted to argue the absurd proposition that a woman would actually go through her whole pregnancy and then change her mind about wanting to have a baby 30 seconds before delivery and attempted to argue that I was saying they would get an abortion or something just as absurd..
Pot, meet kettle. Your claims have no bearing on reality- I've been making points, refutations and rebuttals. Your dishonest tactic of now (as before) claiming it's suddenly magically trolling are absurd- unless you are confessing to trolling yourself considering that you're engaged in the same behavior you accuse me of.Don't troll.
However, it is quite clear right from the start of this thread that women are not people. They have been granted, by mistake it seems, some general human rights intended for men. Fortunately, when they become pregnant these general human rights are taken away from them.For this topic, that's very difficult to do. It's one reason I hate this topic. Each side of the argument cares for the well-being of some "person" and each side accuses the other of not caring about that "person" or even, two in this thread accused others of actually hating some "persons."
It would be a lot easier if we laid eggs or something.
Physbang, if you have been following the thread, you've seen how the emotions of the topic can lead to heavy disputes over something about which clear answers are not so easy. Starting out your position with such a statement as "Women are not people" when there are no matter how you slice it, complications due to defining the life/fetus/baby - whatever in the womb, you're setting a precedent for an emotional argument.However, it is quite clear right from the start of this thread that women are not people.
Such an extremist viewpoint is unrealistic and not accurate to the topic. No one is saying that women can not make any decisions of their own, there are people saying that making the decision to kill another human being requires more justification than "Because I want to; I declare that I have the right to choose to kill."They have been granted, by mistake it seems, some general human rights intended for men. Fortunately, when they become pregnant these general human rights are taken away from them.
It would certainly be better for the courts if these general human rights were taken away from the start. Then all those rape trials could be thrown out. Why not let men make all the decisions about women?
I answered your question and you disregarded 3/4 of my answer, which clearly answered your question and then took it out of context and asked me something which I had very clearly not even suggested.Ignoring the question mark, again.
That you keep ignoring that demonstrates that your claims of dishonesty on my part are actually dishonesty on yours- you are clearly and visibly ignoring what I had asked you. Everyone can see the question there and everyone can see that I did not make a claim as to what you said. I had asked you about it and explained the difference if you're excusing behaviors.
:bugeye:Go ahead and say it- it doesn't make it true. Guess I need to grill my dead parents about this dishonesty they passed on to me.
In other words- excusing the behavior. Now you claim that the majority are mentally ill. Fine. Can you support that claim? Do you have any way of supporting that claim? Do you have any idea or are you just running with an assumption?
The examples that you used were cases where the mothers were either young teenage girls who even you said were desperate and then came out with some bizarre line about how if someone had said to these young teenage girls if they wanted one, that these girls would probably jump at it - and then used the example of Whoopi Goldberg who, as a teenager, found herself trying to abort her foetus with a coathanger.. In other words, these girls did not choose to remain pregnant.You said you don't know anyone that would. Ok, that's fine- I pointed out that not only do these people exist, they make the news and even go beyond what you expressed incredulity at.
So now you are arguing that it isn't a change of mind..Not at all, rather, she may have been not wanting the baby all along. A series of lies and bad choices landed her in the delivery room, rather than the desire to be a mom then a sudden changing of her mind. Lies and bad choices go along with desperation or fearful- a Desperate or fearful person can commit murder and it is not excused simply because we can empathize with why she lied and made bad choices, we still know she was wrong.
Neverfly, you did not even understand what "personhood" meant in the context of this discussion and you thought it meant 'human', you took everything out of context, twisted what was said and tried to act as if I was saying something else when it was clear that I had not, you were intellectually dishonest, you went after my son in this debate which is frankly, deplorable, you ran with hypotheticals such as 'what if she changes her mind 30 seconds before it comes out', hell, you think inherent means inherit. At no time have you made points, refuted anything or rebutted anything because you have been too busy accusing me and others in this thread of apparently lacking humanity because we support the murder of young children because we are pro-choice because you thought personhood meant human in the context of this debate.Pot, meet kettle. Your claims have no bearing on reality- I've been making points, refutations and rebuttals. Your dishonest tactic of now (as before) claiming it's suddenly magically trolling are absurd- unless you are confessing to trolling yourself considering that you're engaged in the same behavior you accuse me of.
Cut the crap, Bells. Either debate the topic or don't but you can stop with the ad hom attacks, already.
No, people are saying that women don't get to have the same rights that men do, viz, to have the right to refuse to have others in their body. Clearly this right doesn't extend to women, or you would not say that women require "more justification".Such an extremist viewpoint is unrealistic and not accurate to the topic. No one is saying that women can not make any decisions of their own, there are people saying that making the decision to kill another human being requires more justification than "Because I want to; I declare that I have the right to choose to kill."
I was just reading the web site for the person-hood initiative site and I found it very disturbing. But for all their faith and claiming that "God will find a way" even in situations of ectopic pregnancy, they still give the implication that a woman MUST be required to give up her life for her unborn child. ok ok, I'll humor them for a moment. They insist that even in the case of imminent threat to the mother's life she still would be guilty of murder if she has an abortion, even in very early term.
See, none of that really applies.Ok fine. Let that be that a fetus is a person from conception. Are they implying that there are no situations where a human being is allowed to take another life? Have they forgotten about self defense, and stand your ground laws? In cases of protecting the life of the mother, where the mother perceives an imminent threat to her life, she like anyone else would have legal ground to take the life of the person who is threatening to kill her. Even if that person threatening her life, is her own child, born or otherwise. So even if they get their way, and legally define a person-hood to be at the moment of conception, being a person does not give one the right to threaten the life of another, and any person who reasonably feels their life is being threatened by another person has the right to take the life of the person posing the threat. Even if that person does not intend to be a threat. For instance a mentally challenged person waiving a loaded gun around thinking it is a toy, points it at someone, that someone has every right to kill that mentally handicapped person because he/she is perceived to be an immediate threat to the lives of others.
Bingo..They even somehow equated the ectopic pregnancy to the case of conjoined twins. Sure I get it that one conjoined twin would not and should not have the right to kill their parasitic twin, I can agree to that, and I have never seen any cases where an adult set of twins had one suddenly decide that they wanted to be separated so badly that the life of their twin lost importance to them. But at the same time, if the parasitic twin is not endangering the life of the other twin, there can be no claim of self defense. Not the case at all with an ectopic pregnancy.
Oh, they thought it through.The LACP initiative just didn't think this one all the way through, maybe they have big heads and little arms.
You're trying to actually create a sexist/political argument. Claiming, absurdly, that women have been stripped of all their rights and are not even people if you say they don't have the right to commit murder (Third trimester-mothers health not in danger) is frankly, a dishonest representation of the facts. And no one can dispute that it's dishonest unless they provide evidence showing that women have been stripped of all their political rights and are legally, not people.
Edited to remove what could be an inflammatory comment.