Abortion: Physician/Mother/Father rights and responsibilties

[Gij]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'd like to learn more about rights and responsibilities when it comes to abortion. Feel free to discuss it from legal (federal or state) or ethical standpoint.

 

[dr.kicia]

i am totaly against and any doctor who does it should be ashamed... no one should kill an unborn child just for own egoistic reasons...it's wrong...but on the other side it's your choice. I would never take any part in killing another human being.
there are things like birth control...we do not live in middle ages.

 

[chef_NU]

Should be states rights, as with all social issues.

 

[Gij]

Just a friendly suggestion that I forgot to mention earlier. This is something that many people feel strongly about. If you are going to state your ethical view try to just do and not reason why the other person is wrong. It is hard to reason when it comes to beliefs. I have a feeling that will lead to a never ending argument. I like legal issues better because they are set and their existance can't be argued. Still any ethical issues are welcomed.

 

[CatsandCradles]

Should be states rights, as with all social issues.

It doesn't matter if your pro-life or pro abortion, but perhaps we need to be a little bit careful before saying that such issues should be "states rights"

That's what half the American Civil war was about. Some states felt that slavery was a social issue that was under the mandate of the state, rather than the federal government.


Also it's Martin Luther King Jr Day and some states had rather "interesting laws" so to speak on some social issues.


So to make this all the more interesting...where do you guys stand on state rights vs federal rights in regulating abortion?

The Supreme Court may soon hear a case from NH I think. I believe it has something to do with parental notification.

 

[chef_NU]

It doesn't matter if your pro-life or pro abortion, but perhaps we need to be a little bit careful before saying that such issues should be "states rights"

That's what half the American Civil war was about. Some states felt that slavery was a social issue that was under the mandate of the state, rather than the federal government.


Also it's Martin Luther King Jr Day and some states had rather "interesting laws" so to speak on some social issues.


So to make this all the more interesting...where do you guys stand on state rights vs federal rights in regulating abortion?

The Supreme Court may soon hear a case from Conneticut or Vermont I think. I believe it has something to do with parental notification.

In case you wanted to know my stance on abortion... here it is.

 

[CaveatLector]

States rights on social issues if fine. Slavery isn't a social issue. It is a freedom issue. THAT is a federal issue. NO state can pass a law that abridges freedom in that manner. We won't get into the legal arguments behind it because it isn't the topic here.

Abortion could be thought of as a life issue by those who believe "life" begins at conception. There is really no changing someone's mind who has that opinion. Yes, there is a cluster of living cells with the potenial to become a human being. I don't dispute that. It also contains the building blocks or genetic make-up to make that human. Whether it is okay to abort that is a matter of personal belief and there is no budging people on their positions for the most part.

An earlier poster remarked how we have birth control... Give me a break. BIrth control is NOT 100% effective. Even getting a tubal ligation has an error rate. Also, and more importantly, what about the case of a victim of rape or incest? Thise who are staunchly opposed to abortion will say tough ****. Have the baby and put it up for adoption. That's a matter of opinion that, in my view, is short-sighted. It's one of those "gotta walk a mile in my shoes" issues. Kind of easy to say that but what if you were the one pumped full of semen from some scumball?

My opinion is rather middle-of-the-road. I think abortion is fine in the 1st trimester or maybe only in the first 2 months. After that I think there needs to be a compelling reason for it.

 

[50dent]

"It doesn't matter if your pro-life or pro abortion, but perhaps we need to be a little bit careful before saying that such issues should be "states rights"

That's what half the American Civil war was about. Some states felt that slavery was a social issue that was under the mandate of the state, rather than the federal government."

A bit off subject, but from highschool history I coulda swore that they taught us that ending slavery was just a tactic used by the north to gain the cotton dependent foreign allies of the south to their side, gain run-a-way slaves to the north to fight for the union, and take away slaves from the confederate farms so the confederate soldiers would have to tend to their farms. Union controlled southern states still maintained slavery after the (Emmancipation Proclamation <sp?) was signed. The civil war was ALL about states rights..hence there was a war, because of neglect for states rights. Ending slavery was the tactic used to win the war. Is that correct?

 

[CaveatLector]

I don't think it's that simple. Ending slavery wasn't the primary goal of the war but I don't think it was a tactic either. What sense does it make for the north to declare the end of slavery and for them to think the south WOULD follow the edict and set slaves free thereby having to keep confederate soldiers home to farm? If the north wanted the soldiers home the north could have said STAY HOME. Alas, that wouldn't have worked right? So what makes one think that the south would listen regarding slavery if they won't listen regarding soldiers? But WE digress. What is your opinion/stance on abortion. Let's not hijack the thread.

 

[Napoleon4000]

Abortion is a legal right under the constitution. People, not the state, have rights to their own person. As a man I know I can only comment from a law point of view. Women, not men, have the right to do with their bodies as they will. To continue, abortion has more to do with the Due Process Clause of the 4th Amendment of the US constitution.

1.States cannot over-ride protecting the interests and health of pregnant women. Thus, women, within a certain time frame (within the 1st trimester), have the qualified right to terminate their pregnancy if it possess a legitimate health risk.

2. Judgement for an abortion beyond the first trimester should be in consutation with the medical judgement of a physician to ascertain the risk to the woman's health. Otherwise, beyond the first trimester the state has a legal right to regulate women seeking abortion.

The matter is simple and should be left alone. As much as it pains me to know that a human fetus may be aborted, equally painful is the potential harm that may come to a woman if (a) her health is at risk or (b) if her pregnancy was a result of rape. Men should have no say in this matter. Nor should the state or the federal government. All they do is provide the sperm. From an evolution perspective, men have little use other then to inseminate as many females as possible to pass on their robust genes to enhance survival of the offspring. The same is true of the homo sapiens sapiens species. Men don't have to bear the burden of carrying a potential human being inside them. Any other argument is flawed on the grounds that God will be offended, because frankly, God probably doesn't give a crap. Not that he doesn't care, but he gave humans free will for a reason: so that humans can decide for themselves. Anyone who disagrees with this point of view should take a logics course. Unless, they are "strict construtionists," which then leaves room for semantic differences in the interpretation of a vague document called the US constitution.

 

[bananaface]

i am totaly against and any doctor who does it should be ashamed... no one should kill an unborn child just for own egoistic reasons...it's wrong...but on the other side it's your choice. I would never take any part in killing another human being.
there are things like birth control...we do not live in middle ages.

Physicians who provide abortion services are doing women a great service. Abortion is a tool which empowers them to have children when and only when they choose to. Like it or not, half of pregnancies are unplanned. Birth control does not appear to be adequate. An unplanned pregnancy can be a wonderful thing for many. But, for others, it can rob them of the chance to do what they want to do with their life. I would rather a woman wait until she is ready to start a family.

There is a book entitled "Why I Am an Abortion Doctor" by Suzanne Poppema that gives an overview of her job and motivations. It can be very insightful if you are open to learning about what makes some people advocate that women who want to be able to access abortion services.

 

[OzDDS]

Women, not men, have the right to do with their bodies as they will.

Very true.. So its not really freedom of choice is it.. but freedom of "women's choice". It takes both parties to create a child, but only one has the right to choose everyones future.

I don't think that a man should have the right to either force a woman to abort or to force her to have a child she doesn't want.

But.. I do think it is a bit wrong for a woman to (who could have lied to their partner about being on birthcontrol or that they would abort if accidentally impregnated).. and then choose to keep the child.. and then also choose to financially enslave a man for the rest of his life to support her decision.

any thoughts?

 

[BlahtoThis]

I'm re-posting this as a response to Napoleon because I care more about people realizing all aspects ...

I'm pro-choice, but ummmmm are you talking about this 4th amendment ...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If you're discussing due process, then you're primarily referring to the fifth amendment:

"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

This is similarly stated in the 14th amendment, but more specifically applying to states (this was the amendment used in Roe v. Wade).

So first off you're wrong about the actual amendment.

Now you have to realize that abortion is NOT expressly stated in the constitution. It is open to interpretation, and it depends on how you apply the interpretation.

One of the essential differences comes from when you want to believe a fetus becomes a "person". Right now it is arbitrarily split into trimesters, with due consideration to viability. The problem is where some people think life begins at conception and others don't consider that fetus a real living thing until it is capable of either surviving on its own or being able to do things like experience pain, etc., though we have no way of assessing the latter. If you do think life begins at conception, then you have to debate when they are observed as "people" with certain rights, if at all. You HAVE to answer this question. Basically we do (and I agree with it) value the mother's established life over the "possible" life of the fetus, partly because the viability of the fetus is intertwined with the viability of the mother.

The basis on which the Roe decision was accepted in the Supreme Court was stare decisis (which has interestingly been overturned in legal matters in the past when the Supreme Court or even lower courts have observed that prior legal decisions may have been misinterpreted in the context of established law or precedents). On an issue of federal law, a state court is not bound by an interpretation of federal law at the district or circuit level, but is bound by an interpretation by the United States Supreme Court. On an interpretation of state law, whether common law or statutory law, the federal courts are bound by the interpretation of a state court of last resort, and are normally required to defer to the precedents of intermediate state courts as well. The stare decisis used here is associated with the latter.

You have to consider all aspects of the debate. What you said is right based on precedents given through Roe v. Wade.

However, one of the theories of law is the ability to constantly revisit and reinterpret laws in modern times. The same people who want to try and utilize past LEGAL precedent (which is subject to revisitation, otherwise the Dred Scott decision never would have happened) want to change past CONSTITUTIONAL precedent (the right to bear arms, which I don't agree with).

People have to constantly reinterpret past legal precedent in the context of modern advances and changes because law and constitutional changes are made in the context of the age you live in. As modern advancements are made and, say, it becomes possible to incubate fetuses outside the womb of the mother at even late first trimester, there may be a new question of whether the woman should have an abortion or be required to similarly support the incubation of the fetus.

Again, I am pro-choice, but you can't fully take things the way you are. And just to tell you, BOTH sides were making interpretations of the 14th amendment in Roe v. Wade.

Also, it often seems like the major issue here isn't the question of health being at risk or rape. A significant number of abortions occur because of a decision to not bring a child into the world for whatever reason. This is where the sticky point lies. I have no doubt that the majority of people will agree that the fetus should be taken out if the mother will inevitably be harmed by carrying the fetus. A few more may contend the rape issue, but not too many.

 

[50dent]

I don't think it's that simple. Ending slavery wasn't the primary goal of the war but I don't think it was a tactic either. What sense does it make for the north to declare the end of slavery and for them to think the south WOULD follow the edict and set slaves free thereby having to keep confederate soldiers home to farm? If the north wanted the soldiers home the north could have said STAY HOME. Alas, that wouldn't have worked right? So what makes one think that the south would listen regarding slavery if they won't listen regarding soldiers? But WE digress. What is your opinion/stance on abortion. Let's not hijack the thread.

I learned that it made sense because the confederacy's allies (not sure who i think it was like france and england) needed our cotton and were going to support us during the war but the north made slavery an issue which caused those countries (who's people rightfully were against slavery) to join in their cause. I meant that by allowing the slaves from the south to run away (i believe it was 500,000 who managed to get to the north) and become free, this would cause the south to suffer because of lack of farmhands. It seems to be a tactic since it wasn't freeing the slaves entirely since the union controlled southern states still had slavery until some ammendment in the constitiution. And ur right this has nothing to do with abortion I was replying off someone elses thing about state's rights. I'm against abortion for the same reason that i'm against the death penalty, I believe that when faced with a moral dillema then you should always choose life if possible. To it's favor, statistically it causes crime rates to go down. Taking a hundred 20 year old innocent men and executing them daily would also cause crime rate to go down.

It's beginnings were far from noble. That has little to do with it's pro's/con's now but it's an interesting fact. "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

"Our failure to segregate *****s who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."
Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.


I believe Margaret Sanger is known as the founder of planned parenthood.