Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[Bells]

Absolutely, really. If someone can claim their General Rights are suspended under a pregnancy, I can say my general rights are suspended if I'm sick with Influenza just as validly.
In other words, the claim isn't very valid when you examine the very premise of the complaint: That our bodies already function the way that they do.
In a fit of sexism, you have no issues at all with not only suspending the fathers rights, but stripping them away entirely.

I do agree that a few clusters of cells is not a person. I refer to late term abortions.


Let's just ignore that there are two bodies involved, right? We always ignore that bit. Always.

And I did mention this double standard sharply in post number 5.

Refer to my post and links above to Bowser. That is what happens when you grant personhood to the unborn..

Suffice to say that it is a nauseating concept that women are actually being tried in the US for having a miscarriage. Yes, that is what happens when you ignore there are two bodies involved or when you grant personhood to the unborn at any stage of the pregnancy.

Having had to fight to actually give birth to my two children and nearly dying in the process of having the second child and having to be rushed to hospital a few times a week in the early stages of the pregnancy of my first child with miscarriage scares, I cannot even begin to imagine the horror of having women be investigated for murder for miscarriage or imagining the questions these women are facing after having miscarried in a later term of their pregnancy. A very dear friend of mine was once spat on when she and her husband decided to terminate her much wanted and desired pregnancy in the later stages of her pregnancy because they had discovered that the foetus was actually suffering and would die by the time it reached full term. So at 33 weeks, she went in for a termination and she was spat on by the pro-life crowd outside. She was called a murderer and all sorts of other choice terms. It was not an easy decision for her, at all and I watched her nearly kill herself afterwards from the stress and grief she suffered.

Had she been in some parts of the US, she would have been investigated to make sure she had not ever consumed anything or done anything which could have rendered the foetus in the state that it was that led her having to make that decision.

I find the thought of that appalling.

But this is happening and this is what happens when people decide to give personhood to the unborn, at any stage of the pregnancy.

Few women decide to abort in the late term and those that do usually have a very valid reason for doing so and it is never an easy decision.

Perhaps allowing women the right to choose and make decisions for their own bodies and respecting their decisions is more necessary than the macho chest thumping of men and women chanting 'we can't let women murder their babies'..

 

[Bowser]

Now, I find myself struggling with other peoples definitions that draw the line between "a cluster of cells" and a person. To me, that cluster of cells is full of potential. When you kill those cells, you are effectively murdering the person that could have been. Protecting the fetus at conception is, in my mind, a valid argument. I could easily project personage on the fetus, because that is exactly what it will be if given the opportunity.

 

[Neverfly]

Now, I find myself struggling with other peoples definitions that draw the line between "a cluster of cells" and a person. To me, that cluster of cells is full of potential. When you kill those cells, you are effectively murdering the person that could have been. Protecting the fetus at conception is, in my mind, a valid argument. I could easily project personage on the fetus, because that is exactly what it will be if given the opportunity.

I have that problem only more confusing...

See, I understand exactly where you are coming from. I also understand exactly where Bells is coming from.

This is why I oppose late term abortions (When it's clearly a child with a brain and nervous system) but am pro-chice about early term abortions (When it's a cluster of cells and has as much potential as the sperm or egg does, but I have no desire to rescue every sperm cell...)

The politics of it be damned, I say err on the side of saving a life. Fact is, this isn't cut and dry. We have an issue here where we've evolved a certain way and now- we find that inconvenient. Yet, many other inconveniences of our evolution are ignored- such as farting or playing host to microbes. It's just shrugged off as unpleasant, but the way it is. In the meantime, we're heavily polluting the planet with our numbers, our desires and... the results of us having evolved into whatever managed to survive and not a pinnacle creation.

Refer to my post and links above to Bowser. That is what happens when you grant personhood to the unborn...

I draw the line at whether it has a brain/nervous system. Even if unborn, it's still a living, functioning human being with a brain at that stage of development.
Placing that political status at birth only- which is a huge gray area, is unethical. It must ignore reality in order to justify its position. It's arbitrary and frankly- cruel on all parties, father, mother and child.

The only logical place to consider is the point where the brain is there. Your method of when to "grant person-hood" is as appalling as those that felt they needed to justify the emancipation proclamation. It's granted already by their existence, not by your arbitrary and 'reality ignoring' designs.

Suffice to say that it is a nauseating concept that women are actually being tried in the US for having a miscarriage. Yes, that is what happens when you ignore there are two bodies involved or when you grant personhood to the unborn at any stage of the pregnancy.

They are being tried for abusing the child within them. Don't neglect the facts.

Having had to fight to actually give birth to my two children and nearly dying in the process of having the second child and having to be rushed to hospital a few times a week in the early stages of the pregnancy of my first child with miscarriage scares, I cannot even begin to imagine the horror of having women be investigated for murder for miscarriage or imagining the questions these women are facing after having miscarried in a later term of their pregnancy.

Yes, but you were not in their position of using Rat Poison and Cocaine, were you?

A very dear friend of mine was once spat on when she and her husband decided to terminate her much wanted and desired pregnancy in the later stages of her pregnancy because they had discovered that the foetus was actually suffering and would die by the time it reached full term. So at 33 weeks, she went in for a termination and she was spat on by the pro-life crowd outside.

She should have spat back. I agree it's just as cruel to make the child suffer. That must have been an agonizing choice for them.
I hope they had a lot of support from friends and family.

I find the thought of that appalling.

Ok, now this is a valid point. I agree- women cannot be investigated for every miscarriage to 'prove themselves innocent."
But is that what is going on? Or are they only investigating cases where it's established that abuse occurred?

Few women decide to abort in the late term and those that do usually have a very valid reason for doing so and it is never an easy decision.

You may be right, but once it's late term, it's probably too late. See, what if they decide to abort for these valid reasons the day after birth? Then it's NOT ok and they are obligated to stick it out? See how arbitrary and unrealistic this is?

Perhaps allowing women the right to choose and make decisions for their own bodies and respecting their decisions is more necessary than the macho chest thumping of men and women chanting 'we can't let women murder their babies'..

Perhaps allowing people to murder eachother and make decisions for our own wants is best, as you say.

 

[Bells]

How Dare this little "refrigerator" suspend peoples rights:
http://www.theabortionsurvivors.com/abortion-survivors-their-stories/heidi-huffman/

Bells, you posted links but you forgot to mention that the reason those women were charged was due to heavy drug use while carrying the child. Another woman ingested Rat Poison.
So a woman that leaves her child in a bathtub can be charged with murder- and that's ok with you, right? But if she dopes herself up a week before delivery and kills the child- that's not grounds for murder? How, exactly, do you justify this very selfish and arbitrary line you've drawn?

You talk about finding some peoples position on topics appalling while you condone killing children. Really? You call us appalling? Absolutely amazing...

The woman who ingested rat poison was suffering from severe depression (ie mentally ill) when she tried to kill herself.

The woman who had consumed cocaine - there is no proof that her use of cocaine had caused the miscarriage. In short, they are looking for anything they can to actually charge women with murder for a miscarriage.

I like how you haven't commented on the woman who was charged with murder because her children died 19 minutes after a pre-mature birth (a child her doctors had recommended she abort due to it possibly suffering from down syndrome and she refused since she did not believe in abortion) because they accused her of having used drugs during her pregnancy with no proof and which she denies.

Are you okay with pregnancy being criminalised Neverfly?

Can you tell the difference between a person murdering her live child and charging a person for murder because she was mentally ill and tried to commit suicide while pregnant?

You have absolutely no proof that the drugs she ingested caused the miscarriage. The article was clear, there is no proof that it did and yet, you are already hyping it up and saying "if she dopes herself up a week before delivery and kills the child"...

One thing about pregnancy, things can go wrong regardless of what a woman does or does not do and the "child" can die right up to and after childbirth. So investigating women who have just gone through a stillbirth and then charging them with murder because you find out that she may have ingested a drug which may or may not have killed the foetus is obscene.

And just so you know, a woman is just as likely to "kill her child" if she burns the wrong scented candle than if she smokes a cigarette in the later stages of pregnancy. So are women going to be investigated and charged with murder if it's found that she ingested too much garlic or drank too much chamomile tea?

There is a reason why an unborn should not be granted personhood Neverfly and it is because if they are, then every single time a woman menstruates, she could be deemed a potential murderer.

 

[Neverfly]

The woman who ingested rat poison was suffering from severe depression (ie mentally ill) when she tried to kill herself.

Agreed- more victim than homicidal maniac... but a lot of people that commit crimes are. Bank robbers are desperate and so on. Yet, the law still prosecutes them for the robbery, even if the guy was trying to come up with $60,000 to pay for his childs surgery.
Personally, I'd be calling for his release and donations to his cause- but the law is frankly, often cold and cruel.

The woman who had consumed cocaine - there is no proof that her use of cocaine had caused the miscarriage. In short, they are looking for anything they can to actually charge women with murder for a miscarriage.

Let's get scientific- what evidence is there that cocaine has zero effect on children in the womb? Hell cigarettes come with warnings that it can cause brain damage to children being carried.
What does the science say, here? Is cocaine totally safe to use while pregnant?

I like how you haven't commented on the woman who was charged with murder because her children died 19 minutes after a pre-mature birth (a child her doctors had recommended she abort due to it possibly suffering from down syndrome and she refused since she did not believe in abortion) because they accused her of having used drugs during her pregnancy with no proof and which she denies.

I didn't comment because I'd read only the first to examples and rolled my eyes at how you neglected that detail. So you have got me here- I didn't read the whole article.
And you're absolutely right in this case and if you're saying that charging with in this manner is wrong, you'll find a strong ally in agreement with me. That is appalling, I agree with you 100% and that is not charging crimes, that is a witch hunt.
But there is another side: Most any law can be corrupted in that manner. Clearly, laws must be set in place to protect pregnant mothers and miscarriage cases because charging these people during trauma in their lives would do far more harm than good.

This may be a case of an overzealous prosecutor or Rabid Republicans foaming at the mouth.

Are you okay with pregnancy being criminalised Neverfly?

No, but I do ask that you stay on topic.

Can you tell the difference between a person murdering her live child and charging a person for murder because she was mentally ill and tried to commit suicide while pregnant?

The child was alive and as I pointed out above, she did not consider other lives when she chose to take her own. In cases like that, attempted suicides are usually taken in for mental health treatment but occasionally, they are charged with 'negligence' or 'manslaughter' as well.

Considering my commentary on that topic in other threads, it's plain to see I'd be strongly in support of the suicidal person than the law. I ask you take all my commentary in account- such as my thread where I find it discouraging a man is charged with higher crimes for trying to shoot what he thought was an invading skunk- but accidentally killed his young girl cousin. I am sympathetic.

You have absolutely no proof that the drugs she ingested caused the miscarriage.

Hmmm..
http://www.babble.com/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/causes-miscarriage-chances/
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyhealth/illegaldrugs.html
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...dangers-of-cocaine-use-during-early-pregnancy
http://www.ihacares.com/index.cfm/H....alcohol.and.tobacco.use.during.pregnancy_sv/

The article was clear, there is no proof that it did and yet, you are already hyping it up and saying "if she dopes herself up a week before delivery and kills the child"...

You appear to be taking that one article as total scientific fact. The article was, apparently, quite wrong.
Don't believe everything that you read- always double check the facts.

One thing about pregnancy, things can go wrong regardless of what a woman does or does not do and the "child" can die right up to and after childbirth.

100% true and the mother could have done everything that she could to handle her pregnancy well and properly.

And just so you know, a woman is just as likely to "kill her child" if she burns the wrong scented candle than if she smokes a cigarette in the later stages of pregnancy. So are women going to be investigated and charged with murder if it's found that she ingested too much garlic or drank too much chamomile tea?

I would hope not. But, the law says "Ignorance is no excuse." So, tell us all- how can this be reasonably resoved?
I do not disagree with you, here. I think that charging people recklessly will do far more harm than good. I will point out the facts, such as whether using drugs is negligence. Because pretending that drug use is totally safe while pregnant is not any better than pretending the wrong candle or chamomile teas are safe.

There is a reason why an unborn should not be granted personhood Neverfly and it is because if they are, then every single time a woman menstruates, she could be deemed a potential murderer.

You're taking the issue too far and running on assumptions. You forget that if you charge anyone with a crime, you're asking for everyone to be investigated as a criminal. Laws must be balanced against Citizen Protection from Laws as well, such as the Bill of Rights.

We cannot ignore lives (with brains) just because that's more "convenient" than having to script reasonable laws, Bells. Mothers must be protected from insane or invasive investigative techniques, yes. That doesn't mean ignore the problem so you won't have to set those measures in place, though.

 

[Bowser]

Refer to my post and links above to Bowser. That is what happens when you grant personhood to the unborn..

Again, you are subjugating the unborn to a role of insignificance. They haven't been born, so they have no right to life.

Suffice to say that it is a nauseating concept that women are actually being tried in the US for having a miscarriage. Yes, that is what happens when you ignore there are two bodies involved or when you grant personhood to the unborn at any stage of the pregnancy.
But this is happening and this is what happens when people decide to give personhood to the unborn, at any stage of the pregnancy.

And I would expect that outcome where the unborn are protected by the law. There are no surprises here. It's the same as if your two-year-old child had suddenly died without explanation.

Few women decide to abort in the late term and those that do usually have a very valid reason for doing so and it is never an easy decision.

We would hope that is true for most.

Perhaps allowing women the right to choose and make decisions for their own bodies and respecting their decisions is more necessary than the macho chest thumping of men and women chanting 'we can't let women murder their babies'..

Nobody is thumping their chest. Some of us view life as being something special. I have two kids myself, they weren't planned, but I'm glad to be a parent. They are happy to be alive.

 

[darksidZz]

Everyone is responsible for their own lives, yet we live together. In case of abortion I feel and see woman have all the power, so let them do what they will with their own bodies and men stop trying to force them to keep babies they don't want, but........... it will never be this way

 

[Bowser]

Everyone is responsible for their own lives, yet we live together. In case of abortion I feel and see woman have all the power, so let them do what they will with their own bodies and men stop trying to force them to keep babies they don't want, but........... it will never be this way

What are your feelings when one life contains and controls the future of another? I think that is the crux of discussion. If we leave it up to the woman, do we wash our hands of all responsibility for the other life? Remember, it's not just the life of the woman that is involved.

 

[Tiassa]

Notes Around

Notes Around

How, exactly, do you justify this very selfish and arbitrary line you've drawn?

Do you really believe that the physical reality of a woman's body is arbitrary?

If someone can claim their General Rights are suspended under a pregnancy, I can say my general rights are suspended if I'm sick with Influenza just as validly.

Could you please point me to a law, or even a proposed law, that would oblige you to remain sick with influenza?

Bells, you posted links but you forgot to mention that the reason those women were charged was due to heavy drug use while carrying the child. Another woman ingested Rat Poison.
So a woman that leaves her child in a bathtub can be charged with murder- and that's ok with you, right? But if she dopes herself up a week before delivery and kills the child- that's not grounds for murder?

An interesting tidbit about fetal homicide laws:

At least 38 of the 50 states across America have introduced foetal homicide laws that were intended to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from violent attacks by third parties – usually abusive male partners – but are increasingly being turned by renegade prosecutors against the women themselves.

South Carolina was one of the first states to introduce such a foetal homicide law. National Advocates for Pregnant Women has found only one case of a South Carolina man who assaulted a pregnant woman having been charged under its terms, and his conviction was eventually overturned. Yet the group estimates there have been up to 300 women arrested for their actions during pregnancy.

(Pilkington)​

There is a reason so many people are skeptical about fetal homicide laws. Ostensibly passed to protect pregnant women and their fetuses, it really does turn out that they're all about putting women back in their place.

• • •​

Who wants some apple pie?

I mean, I'll just pack a thousand or so of those germinated seeds into a pie tin with some cinnamon and sugar, comfortably tucked into the family pie crust recipe, and serve it up with some ice cream. I mean, just look at those lovely Gala apples!

• • •​

I am without any parallel that might compare or provide example of a similar circumstance. This is truly unique to the abortion question.

That is the challenge, it seems. Indeed, it's why I have a dry-foot policy; my resolution is to simply assert that what takes place inside a woman's body is her own business. Thus—

We wouldn't stand by and watch a mother kill her child under any other situation.

—unless I'm reading you wrongly, I would disagree with the comparison. The child existing outside the woman's body has its own physical reality.

The anti-abortion advocates do not address the woman's status while pregnant. As we seem to agree, the conundrum is unique. In order to enforce the rights of a blastocyst or fetus as a person, we must necessarily suspend a woman's right to self-governance. In that sense, I might as well cast my vote in the poll; I cannot endorse any suspension of a woman's humanity for the fact of pregnancy. Nor would one want me in charge if personhood was the rule; Equal Protection is a vital foundation of our society, and I would sacrifice as many lambs, send as many people to prison, wreck as many lives, as I must in order to make the point. Meanwhile, I would be remiss in my duty, as such, if I did not. Did a woman experience menstrual irregularity? We must investigate, in order to make sure a "person" has not died, and if we have evidence suggesting such a death, we must ensure that the defenseless "person" did not die by homicide. (It is also worth pointing out that women would have an insanity defense; culpable men, not so much.)

I suppose the upshot for the moralists is that all these complications will have a tremendous chilling effect on heterosexual relations; women will be far less willing to consent to heterosexual intercourse if they are staking their very status as human. Men will be far less willing to say her mouth said no but her eyes said yes if they're facing life in prison.

Of course, I can't imagine the impact the implications I've suggested would have on an individual born by force of law after being conceived by rape. We will be mandating a whole new array of human neuroses.
____________________

Notes:

Pilkington, Ed. "Outcry in America as pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges". The Guardian. June 24, 2011. Guardian.co.uk. November 3, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

 

[Neverfly]

Do you really believe that the physical reality of a woman's body is arbitrary?

Do you really believe the physical reality of a childs life is arbitrary?

Could you please point me to a law, or even a proposed law, that would oblige you to remain sick with influenza?

I can't because there is no such law. No one feels compelled to claim the rights of our own bodies are violated by virus's.
Apparently, some people refer to children as parasites and on par with virus's, however, and declare that only the rights of one body out of two matters.

An interesting tidbit about fetal homicide laws:

At least 38 of the 50 states across America have introduced foetal homicide laws that were intended to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from violent attacks by third parties – usually abusive male partners – but are increasingly being turned by renegade prosecutors against the women themselves.

South Carolina was one of the first states to introduce such a foetal homicide law. National Advocates for Pregnant Women has found only one case of a South Carolina man who assaulted a pregnant woman having been charged under its terms, and his conviction was eventually overturned. Yet the group estimates there have been up to 300 women arrested for their actions during pregnancy.

(Pilkington)​

There is a reason so many people are skeptical about fetal homicide laws. Ostensibly passed to protect pregnant women and their fetuses, it really does turn out that they're all about putting women back in their place.
Who wants some apple pie?

I already spelled out part of the problem: I agree that taking a law out of context is corrupt. However, I pointed out in my last post that rather than ignoring the difficulty, laws must be designed to protect the rights of the accused just as they have been written for other crimes. If a woman is charged with murder on insubstantial evidence and no evidence, etc- why is that happening? According to Probable Cause, they have rights just as other people charged with murder are. If you kill a child, you're going to face that charge, right? So- what- we label Child Murder as "OK" in order to prevent having to charge people for murder?! Really? Why not just lift ALL Laws and never have to worry about prosecuting anyone ever again? Why not just kill all unwanted orphans? After-all, if it's ok to kill unwanted children...

Do you not see the glaring double standard, here?

That is the challenge, it seems. Indeed, it's why I have a dry-foot policy; my resolution is to simply assert that what takes place inside a woman's body is her own business. Thus—
—unless I'm reading you wrongly, I would disagree with the comparison. The child existing outside the woman's body has its own physical reality.

Tiassa, are you seriously claiming that the child within has no physical reality? Because I can present a great deal of evidence that it has that reality.

I swear, the Far Fetched hardcore Pro-Choicers are religious in their absurd denials. What does it mean when we grant some people 'rights' but deny other people 'rights' entirely? As a society, what would that make us?

The anti-abortion advocates do not address the woman's status while pregnant. As we seem to agree, the conundrum is unique. In order to enforce the rights of a blastocyst or fetus as a person, we must necessarily suspend a woman's right to self-governance. In that sense, I might as well cast my vote in the poll; I cannot endorse any suspension of a woman's humanity for the fact of pregnancy.

Even if it means suspending the rights of an innocent human brain and human life to be convenient? Why is one life automatically valued and one life deemed zero value at all- simply because you up and declare it has no physical reality? Because it does have a physical reality and a brain and a nervous system- it is human and that fact must be ignored in order to justify killing those human beings. I'm not talking about a zygote here. I'm talking about living human beings. You cannot, with a straight face, deem it human or alive or not human or not alive based solely on where it is sitting. Yet, that is exactly what you are trying to do, here.

I suppose the upshot for the moralists

Moralists? Do you believe that by presenting such delusional denials, you are fighting against the religious, here?

is that all these complications will have a tremendous chilling effect on heterosexual relations; women will be far less willing to consent to heterosexual intercourse if they are staking their very status as human.

Well, they are not doing that. To label it as such is blatant dishonesty. They are merely being what they naturally are. If any person's status is being staked as whether they are human it is those children that you seem to claim do not physically exist.

Of course, I can't imagine the impact the implications I've suggested would have on an individual born by force of law after being conceived by rape. We will be mandating a whole new array of human neuroses.

If the woman should refuse to abort until it's past the legal window, she has little recourse anymore than if she had delivered the baby and then changed her mind.
Frankly, a woman who has been raped and impregnated by it may not be emotionally sound to govern whether the child is carried to term or not- I do not know.
This complexity is horrifying and one good reason to make a mandatory death penalty on all rape crimes. I realize I'm in the wrong to advocate such a thing but Damn, REALLY?! Frankly, the whole thing is fucked up because it leaves a victim of trauma to try to choose between a living human child's life or her sanity. That's the epitome of twisted. I have my opinions about the child involved... and I state them here.
But given the variables, I must stand by the current laws in place- I cannot see how late term abortions could alleviate the suffering of a rape victim at all. I can see how a woman can be so traumatized as to be unsure of what to do. Indecisive and tormented and moreso because it's not the childs fault yet, they may fear holding it against the child.
Perhaps if it was required that the family of the victim take control of the child or that all rape victims must abort early on-- But I don't know either. It's just a pain in the ass with how we've developed as beings.

 

[Bells]

Agreed- more victim than homicidal maniac... but a lot of people that commit crimes are. Bank robbers are desperate and so on. Yet, the law still prosecutes them for the robbery, even if the guy was trying to come up with $60,000 to pay for his childs surgery.
Personally, I'd be calling for his release and donations to his cause- but the law is frankly, often cold and cruel.

And that somehow makes it right?

Here is the thing about the law Mr Neverfly, it depends a lot on its wording and interpretation. In the US, abortion should be available to women because your Supreme Court deemed it so. Federal provisions allow for women to be allowed to get an abortion. What we are seeing is States with more conservative State levels of Government trying to over-right federal law by implementing laws and regulations based on the personal and religious beliefs of those in power.

Which is why we get to witness terms such as "forcible rape" and "personhood" being bandied about by politicians. In short, what we have are conservatives trying to dictate to women what their place is in society. That is the crux of this debate and this issue.

Let's get scientific- what evidence is there that cocaine has zero effect on children in the womb? Hell cigarettes come with warnings that it can cause brain damage to children being carried.
What does the science say, here? Is cocaine totally safe to use while pregnant?

Yes, let us get scientific.

The article was clear. There was absolutely no evidence which pointed to the mother's use of cocaine being the cause of her delivering a stillborn child. For all we know, she could have eaten too much Garlic or Dill.

You seem to be under the assumption that it has and have decided to delve into the realms of hypotheticals, as you seem to have a habit of doing.

But yes, lets get scientific, shall we?

To bring it back to the actual point and if you wish to be scientific about it, show me the evidence that cocaine was the actual and direct cause of her giving birth to a stillborn child. You do not know how much she had ingested or when. I await your links with great anticipation. Good luck.

But there is another side: Most any law can be corrupted in that manner. Clearly, laws must be set in place to protect pregnant mothers and miscarriage cases because charging these people during trauma in their lives would do far more harm than good.

Or States can simply uphold Roe v Wade and allow women rights to their bodies and not Govern based on the religious beliefs of the Government of the day.

No, but I do ask that you stay on topic.

Oh, this is the topic.

The election campaign in the US is bringing all the worms out of the woodwork and how you vote can have some bearing as to whether your spouse gets investigated if she is ever unfortunate enough to miscarry.

The child was alive and as I pointed out above, she did not consider other lives when she chose to take her own. In cases like that, attempted suicides are usually taken in for mental health treatment but occasionally, they are charged with 'negligence' or 'manslaughter' as well.

Considering my commentary on that topic in other threads, it's plain to see I'd be strongly in support of the suicidal person than the law. I ask you take all my commentary in account- such as my thread where I find it discouraging a man is charged with higher crimes for trying to shoot what he thought was an invading skunk- but accidentally killed his young girl cousin. I am sympathetic.

The issue here is that as with the proposed law in Georgia, the wording is so vague and open that any woman could find herself being investigated for murder if she miscarries, for whatever reason.

Here we have a case of a mentally ill woman who, in a state of extreme distress, attempted to kill herself. It is appalling that that she has been charged with murder and she is not alone. As Tiassa pointed out, from that article, a law that was supposedly designed to protect pregnant women is now being used to indict them instead of those who set out to harm pregnant women.

Hmmm..
http://www.babble.com/pregnancy/preg...riage-chances/
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pre...egaldrugs.html
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...arly-pregnancy
http://www.ihacares.com/index.cfm/He....pregnancy_sv/

The first link - the only mention of cocaine being a direct cause of miscarriage is from a comment by readers below.

The second link speaks nothing about this particular case and instead states that it "may" cause placental abruption and may increase the risk of miscarriage.

The third link, goes to a site which then led me to a link which asked me to download a file, and when I started to, my anti-virus software blocked it due to issues with said site. Please copy and paste where it says in that site that cocaine was the direct cause of her giving birth to a stillborn baby, since I am assuming you have read what you have linked and such information is there in that link pertaining to this particular case? Thank you.

Fourth link, again, has nothing at all that her use of cocaine was the cause of her giving birth to a stillborn child. Remember, I asked you to be specific. What it says is that it "can" cause a miscarriage or stillbirth. Not that it definitely does. Ingesting too much of particular herbs or foods can also cause stillbirth and miscarriage. Things like ham, soft cheeses, garlic, particular essential oils and spices and even vitamins sold over the counter contain herbs that can cause miscarriage and death to a foetus.. I linked this earlier. In short, the prosecutors in this case have no evidence that her use of cocaine actually caused her to give birth to a stillborn child.

So "hmmm" indeed.

You appear to be taking that one article as total scientific fact. The article was, apparently, quite wrong.
Don't believe everything that you read- always double check the facts.

Ermm no. You are assuming that cocaine was the direct cause of her having a stillborn child. So in this instance, it is you who is quite wrong. All you have provided is that cocaine "may" cause miscarriage and as I pointed out to you, so do commonly used herbs, oils and scents and vitamins women consume on a daily basis. In short, Mr Neverfly, you took the word "cocaine" and ran with it without actually reading the article or the links provided, or your own links for that matter. What the article and those defending her do state, clearly, is that there is no proof that cocaine was the direct cause of her child being stillborn. At all. Your own links state that it "may"..

I would suggest you actually read what is provided and your own links as well.

100% true and the mother could have done everything that she could to handle her pregnancy well and properly.

Is this a standard that you now wish to apply to women? So what? If women don't handle their "pregnancy well and properly", they should be open to criminal prosecution for murder? Does that mean a restaurant serving something like dill pickles or garlic in their food could be held liable if a woman who eats in their establishment suffers a miscarriage? Since you know, they are also abortificants... The point is, Mr Neverfly, is that you are demanding that women apply an impossible standard to maintain on women and it could lead to millions of women being prosecuted for murder.

I would hope not. But, the law says "Ignorance is no excuse." So, tell us all- how can this be reasonably resoved?
I do not disagree with you, here. I think that charging people recklessly will do far more harm than good. I will point out the facts, such as whether using drugs is negligence. Because pretending that drug use is totally safe while pregnant is not any better than pretending the wrong candle or chamomile teas are safe.

It can be easily resolved.

Stop applying stupid and idiotic standards to women based on the religious whims of political leaders.

You're taking the issue too far and running on assumptions. You forget that if you charge anyone with a crime, you're asking for everyone to be investigated as a criminal. Laws must be balanced against Citizen Protection from Laws as well, such as the Bill of Rights.

Not at all. I am not the one claiming that a woman murdered her child because she may have consumed cocaine while she was pregnant even when the article clearly states that there is no such proof that it did cause her to give birth to a stillborn child. You are. So I would suggest you tone down the accusations of assumptions and taking things and running with it while not reading articles and links provided (including your own it seems).

Laws must be balanced, but laws being enacted supposedly to protect pregnant women are being used to prosecute and persecute women instead of protecting them. What this will do is ensure that women most at risk and in need of help will not seek medical help during their pregnancy for fear of being arrested and charged with murder if their foetus or child dies.

And that is inexcusable.

We cannot ignore lives (with brains) just because that's more "convenient" than having to script reasonable laws, Bells. Mothers must be protected from insane or invasive investigative techniques, yes. That doesn't mean ignore the problem so you won't have to set those measures in place, though.

Problem?

Do you view women having full rights over their bodies as being a problem Mr Neverfly?

 

[seagypsy]

We cannot ignore lives (with brains) just because that's more "convenient" than having to script reasonable laws, Bells. Mothers must be protected from insane or invasive investigative techniques, yes. That doesn't mean ignore the problem so you won't have to set those measures in place, though.

Problem?

Do you view women having full rights over their bodies as being a problem Mr Neverfly?

bolding mine


Are you implying that he does see a woman having full rights over her body as a problem? And what's the purpose of constantly calling him Mr? Does his maleness somehow affect the meaning of his posts?

 

[Neverfly]

And that somehow makes it right?

No, but it does refute your claims.

Here is the thing about the law Mr Neverfly, it depends a lot on its wording and interpretation. In the US, abortion should be available to women because your Supreme Court deemed it so. Federal provisions allow for women to be allowed to get an abortion.

Early term, yes. But your arguments and Tiassas arguments have nothing to do with term, do they? They disregard life for convenience.

What we are seeing is States with more conservative State levels of Government trying to over-right federal law by implementing laws and regulations based on the personal and religious beliefs of those in power. Which is why we get to witness terms such as "forcible rape" and "personhood" being bandied about by politicians. In short, what we have are conservatives trying to dictate to women what their place is in society. That is the crux of this debate and this issue.

Agreed and they are out of line. I may be somewhat off topic for this thread. But when I see arguments based in the manner you and Tiassa are basing them, they still deserve examination. You seem so intent on some anti-conservative or anti-religion crusade that you're willing to utterly disregard the lives of young children.

Yes, let us get scientific.

From your link:
"There are also data showing that spontaneous abortion and low birth weight are associated with cocaine use.[10] "
Thank you. Bells.

The article was clear. There was absolutely no evidence which pointed to the mother's use of cocaine being the cause of her delivering a stillborn child. For all we know, she could have eaten too much Garlic or Dill.

In other words, it may have played that part or it may not have. But it wasn't about that tangent- it was about you ignoring that basis in the prosecution and your reporting of it as if she was prosecuted solely because she miscarried. Problem is, there is evidence that cocaine use leads to miscarriages.

Or States can simply uphold Roe v Wade and allow women rights to their bodies and not Govern based on the religious beliefs of the Government of the day.

Actually... the law disallows late term abortions, does it not? Yet your argument makes those children into "not children" from an arbitrary line you've drawn out of convenience and no matter how much hiding from that you do, it's still dripping from your words.

The issue here is that as with the proposed law in Georgia, the wording is so vague and open that any woman could find herself being investigated for murder if she miscarries, for whatever reason.

The attention you're bringing to this is good and hopefully, others are showing what these deceptive people are doing, as well.

Here we have a case of a mentally ill woman who, in a state of extreme distress, attempted to kill herself. It is appalling that that she has been charged with murder and she is not alone.

Would it be appalling if a man in a state of distress when his girlfriend broke up with him, murdered her and then tried to kill himself? Would he be tried for her murder when he got out of the hospital? Would that be appalling to you? That woman attempted to kill herself, while a human was within, because her boyfriend left her. That article does not say the woman is mentally ill. It says she tried to kill herself when her man left her. This is akin to you demanding evidence that cocaine use directly caused that other womans miscarriage while ignoring that it's shown to cause it- now you're declaring that woman must be mentally ill.

As Tiassa pointed out, from that article, a law that was supposedly designed to protect pregnant women is now being used to indict them instead of those who set out to harm pregnant women.

That must be corrected instead of allowing murder.

The second link speaks nothing about this particular case and instead states that it "may" cause placental abruption and may increase the risk of miscarriage.

Yes, may.

The third link, goes to a site which then led me to a link which asked me to download a file, and when I started to, my anti-virus software blocked it due to issues with said site. Please copy and paste where it says in that site that cocaine was the direct cause of her giving birth to a stillborn baby, since I am assuming you have read what you have linked and such information is there in that link pertaining to this particular case? Thank you.

It's a PDF file. link here: http://www.otispregnancy.org/cocaine-r108094 If your virus scanner reacted to a pdf file, I suggest you check your scanner. Attached a screenshot for you. That blacked out bit is just blank space at bottom of page and the taskbar- you can download the .pdf and review it or demand proof I'm not lying and I'll post more screenshots.

Fourth link, again, has nothing at all that her use of cocaine was the cause of her giving birth to a stillborn child.

Intellectual dishonesty, Bells.
None of those links were posted to prove that that particular womans use of cocaine directly caused her to miscarry.
They were posted to show that your claims that cocaine had nothing to do with a miscarriage is false. Your claims that there is Zero Evidence that cocaine use could have caused her miscarriage have been shown to be absolutely 100% false. Deal with it. Maybe you think that because you worded it, "There is no proof..." that gets you off the hook?
What you're doing here is akin to a Conspiracy Theorist or a Fundie arguing against evidence of evolution. That is a clear and deliberate distortion of reality just to make a case and that's far more appalling than all your straw man claims about others position on the topic.
So drinking and driving can or may lead to manslaughter. So if a drunken driver causes a car accident resulting in a death, the case must be thrown out unless it can be proven that his drunkenness directly caused the death of the other person? May be difficult if the direct cause of death is established as severe impact from the deceased's cranium on the dashboard.
You have no regard for reasonable discussion to bring out opinions and issues, do you? To have played such a wild hand, you demonstrate only a desire to push your cause regardless of the facts.
I sure wish you had an easier time with honesty- these discussions would get a lot less heated.

Ermm no. You are assuming that cocaine was the direct cause of her having a stillborn child.

Actually, I wasn't nor can you quote me anywhere where I made that assumption or claim.

In short, Mr Neverfly,

Is this "Mr." business an attempt on your part to make this into a sexist argument? I read them- you did not understand basic communication- not my problem. They, again, provide the evidence that cocaine use can cause a miscarriage which you claim otherwise.

Is this a standard that you now wish to apply to women? So what? If women don't handle their "pregnancy well and properly", they should be open to criminal prosecution for murder?

Wow, you're really full of shit, today, aren't you? As usual, you're accusing me of things I've never endorsed nor said. It's your common tactic when you cannot intelligently refute an argument.

Do you view women having full rights over their bodies as being a problem Mr Neverfly?

When it kills another human brain, yes I absolutely do. Do you have a problem with that, Bells?

 

[Neverfly]

bolding mine


Are you implying that he does see a woman having full rights over her body as a problem? And what's the purpose of constantly calling him Mr? Does his maleness somehow affect the meaning of his posts?

I pointed out that "Mr." thing too, lol. And notice we posted at the exact same time, again...

Yes, her question seems to utterly disregard what I had actually said, doesn't it? Not surprising, considering how willing she is to make it appear as though I disagree on some points where I agreed all over the place and often attributes claims to me I never made.

 

[Neverfly]

Let's recap a bit:
We've got Fraggle Rocker comparing a fetus/baby to dog/refrigerator.
Tiassa suggesting that a baby in the womb is not a physical reality... I'm sorry but the wording really does suggest it. It boggled my mind when I read that. Almost as much as the dog/fridge thing.
And, lastly, Bells suggesting that it's unjust to accuse a cocaine snorting pregnant woman of abusing the life in her womb by snorting coke.

Is this the best that the crowd that believes fetus's are fodder has to offer?

Yet, Bells called the man that made the choice to protect his own body by running in a wild panic from a theater filled with gunfire a "pathetic excuse for a parent." And I agreed with her. I admit, he was in a panic and I have no idea if he even knew what he was doing or not- but he was pathetic for leaving them.

Double standard...?

I think it is an issue if any parent leaves their child like that and gets in their car and drives off, leaving not just the child, but their partner in a theater with a crazed gunman. I'm sorry, but who does that?
The children's father was, by that point, in his car driving to God knows where, having left his two children and his partner in that theater.

As I said above, I would say it is an issue for any parent who abandons their child and drives off (especially in a case where said children are in a theater with a crazy gunman)...

I'm sorry, but to me, this guy is just a pathetic excuse for a parent.

Well yes it would. Who leaves their loved one in that kind of situation and actually runs out of the theater and then gets in their car and drives off?
You don't leave your loved one's behind like that.

It's appalling.

And the reason he stated as to why he left his 4 month old son behind? The child was crying and he was scared that the child's cries would draw the gunman's attention to him, so he ran and left the child behind. While the children's father ran and left the theater and drove off, because he didn't want his child's cries to lead the gunman to him. That's just cold.

All of this is as logical as your apologetics for killing something with a brain.

It's appalling. Yes, Bells. Appalling.

Now... Bells, for the record, I'm sorry to do this. I don't feel very good about it, but I think putting your very own words directly in front of you may make you question the position you've so heavily enforced here, in this thread. I don't doubt you'll be angry about it- and I am sorry. I'm not heartless. But what is it that you say here?:

You mean like the time I nearly bled to death while in labour and I begged the doctors to let me die and to just save my son?

Your son... By the definitions given by Tiassa and fraggle and even yourself here- He was not your son, at that time. Yet, you as a parent still knew that value. You didn't disregard it- even at risk of yourself.
So why do you advocate in your wording in these posts above that it be disregarded?! I can make no sense of that.

I realize, I'm being a terror -using your emotional state at a traumatic time in your life against you in an argument. But it's not about the argument- it's about real lives out there and our votes count. If you are made to examine yourself, you might see you don't even agree with the arguments you've made here. Not fully. You may agree with what I have said, more than you think. That that person, like your son, was a person. Was physically real. Even if not yet born.

And I sincerely hope you can forgive my having used this example. I debated using it at all... It's cruel and I'm sorry.

 

[Tiassa]

Arbitrary Distinctions

Are you implying that he does see a woman having full rights over her body as a problem?

I would say the problem is more that he considers your physical reality as a woman an arbitrary distinction.

Some see no difference between an independently-existing human being and an organism growing inside another person's body.

Such as it is, a fertilized ovum does not have an independent physical reality. Its physical reality depends on the woman it grows inside.

But I'm curious: How does it feel to have your own humanity regarded as an arbitrary distinction?

I mean, why shouldn't he beat the hell out of you? Or use your body for whatever sexual or other physical gratification he wants? After all, your human rights center around the observable fact of your independent physical reality, which he apparently objects to as an arbitrary distinction.

The underlying question of this thread has to do with the conflict between your human rights as a woman, and the suspension or adjustment thereof because an organism growing inside your body becomes an equal and therefore supersedes you.

If this outcome should be the way of things under the law, what do we do about that conflict?

Well, it's easy enough to resolve if we pretend there is no conflict.

But in that pretense, we push dangerously close to a woman's place being barefoot and pregnant.

Presently, I can't tell if he's arguing for principle, or simply to have a fight.

But, hey, don't let that worry your pretty little head. After all, you're a woman, and your independent humanity is an arbitrary distinction. Being arbitrary, it doesn't have any real value.

How does that make you feel?

(And before you complain about the cruelty of these remarks, please consider that they are the inevitable outcome of your physical reality—the basis of your human rights—being arbitrary. Oh, and remember that as males, neither he nor I are subject to such an arbitrary distinction.)

 

[lightgigantic]

Could you please point me to a law, or even a proposed law, that would oblige you to remain sick with influenza?

designating pregnancy as a disease seems ... well ... arbitrary

Who wants some apple pie?

Just as astute as saying this guy has no need for the provision ofeducation, tertiary training and pensioner/old age welfare

 

[seagypsy]

IMO, the only thing that will settle this, to any degree is if the laws are rewritten and a constitutional amendment made declaring WHEN A HUMAN BEING IS IN FACT A HUMAN BEING. And then all other laws regarding whatever resides inside the womb of a woman must be worded and enforced based upon that definition. And IMO, that definition needs to be supported by scientific and statistical data. For instance, the point when survival rates outside the womb reach an agreed upon rate (for instance, 75% of preterm deliveries survive.) IOW, if 75% of babies delivered at 28 wks survive past the age of 12 months, then the 28 wk stage of development would be the cut off for abortions and the life in the womb is considered human and has a right to live. This is just a hypothetical suggestion, I don't know what the statistics are and my personal cut off point would be when 50% of preterm deliveries result in survival beyond 12 months. But my opinion doesn't carry much weight and I am ok with that.

It does seem to be that the debate is over WHEN exactly the physical reality that exists within the womb should be considered human and therefor entitled to the right to live.

I do find it odd that the people who are fighting so adamantly in this thread are all prochoice. Though,perhaps, poor wording on the part of some have them appearing pro-abortion rather than pro choice.

 

[Neverfly]

I would say the problem is more that he considers your physical reality as a woman an arbitrary distinction.

A bit like how you justified the racism accusation, I see you here, now, full of horse-hockey. You're blowing smoke up any willing anus hoping that your vague verifications will stick.

Frankly, Tiassa, in this case, you're full of it.

So you say you can't tell if I'm arguing out of principle or simply for a fight? How about this- if you can't tell; it is because you have not bothered to read what I actually say and are too busy re-interpreting what I've said to know anyway.

Your words stink of dishonesty. I made very valid arguments that you simply cannot reasonably refute. So, instead, you turn to attacking me by addressing someone else, instead. How quaint.

Well, I will let my own words speak for themselves and as before, your dishonest appraisal of my words has been demonstrated to mean jack shit.

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh please, don't be so dramatic and false. You're carrying on as if it was trying to crawl away in the confines of the womb. Having witnessed such images and footage myself, your words are, to put it bluntly, false and it is the exact language used by the type of pro-life camp who force their children to march holding placards holding photos of aborted foetus'.

You are speaking utter bullshit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKrW7vP8W00
(From Australia, Gianna Jessen tells of how she was born at an abortion clinic, and how she survived a saline abortion that was supposed to kill her)

I'm sorry, but a 12 week old foetus/embryo has no right to personhood because it is not a person.

Just like a cotton plantation owner of yesteryear saying blacks have no right to the rights offered to civilized people.

You are simply using political language to hate people at conception

But if a woman decides to dare exercise her rights over her own body and end a pregnancy, you think the community needs to speak up and that you are somehow culpable?

Gianna mentions how there wasn't a radical feminist yelling about her rights that were getting violated.

Its an appalling argument to suggest that abortion is purely a woman's rights issue.
What you are simply talking about is an argument of the strong overpowering the weak