|
Supreme Court takes up a (the?) Abortion case
|
View this Thread in Original format
| HardTranceProd |
All the news sites right now are discussing this story. The Supreme Court has taken up the case of whether to ban "late-term" (2nd or 3rd trimester) abortions, where a skull supposedly is punctured.
This IMHO is the biggest return to an abortion debate which is paralyzing this country in an era when most of the world has moved on. All the previous abortion-related cases were minor compared to this one.
So I want to ask our European friends what equivalent "late-term" restrictions, if any, exist in their countries, and what kind of public debate there is about that. In other words how European laws compare to current American laws on this subject. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| We have free abortion with no restrictions to week 21 of the pregnancy or so. After that abortions are illegal. There is not a lot of debate about it though, but personally I would like to see the restrictions lifted. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
in an era when most of the world has moved on. |
it obviously hasn't moved on. our courts are just much more open to dissent than others. so your opinion shortsides the free debate in this country. |
|
|
| CranberryJuice |
in france like in sweden abortion is legal the first three months after that it's illegal but some girls are then going to the netherlands because u can abort for a longer time than here.
abortion is pretty well accepted by everyone here except some religious catholics but even if sometimes they go on the streets it doesn't matter ...abortion remains legal and i think it's a great thing we (us women) got the right to use it |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
Current US abortion law is more permissive than most European countries, but of course that's all just contingent on 9 old farts sitting on the Supreme Court.
And with respect, this one will be "the" case:
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbc...2/NEWS/60222020 |
|
|
| ProudRepublican |
| Abortion should be illegal - no exeptions. Think about it; if your mother had an abortion, you wouldn't be here. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ProudRepublican
Abortion should be illegal - no exeptions. Think about it; if your mother had an abortion, you wouldn't be here. |
This isn't one of my bigger issues really. I tend to see both sides, and I've often stated that more often than not I would tend to fall a little more on the pro-life side of the fence. However I tend to find it a bit strange that individuals such as yourself are so much in favor of the right to life that you give no exception to the life of the mother if her life is endangered in any way.
Furthermore, I find it also a bit frightening that "no exceptions" also entails a woman being raped and has no choice but to give birth to this baby should she become pregnant. Not only does she have to contend with the physical, emotional, and psychological trauma of being completely taken over forcibly and ruthlessly by a man for the rest of her life, but now has to succomb to having the monster's baby.
It is a strange place to have a "no exceptions" rule in such cases, esp. the former over the latter. I can't seem to find any real justification that a baby's life is somehow more important than the mother's life, so perhaps you can shed some ethical justification on the matter?
I'd also like to pose another dilemna, if I could. By your name you seem pretty bent on Republican issues. One of the Republican issues that more often than not crosses across the aisle is the right to privacy. Is there somehow a means of guaranteeing a right to privacy for a woman to decide what she can or cannot do with her body if we somehow shut off her right to have an abortion, especially in drastic cases if it endangers her own life?
And finally, I hate to make Occ blush, but I have to say this following post hit some cogent points that I tend to find unfortunately quite ironic and true for many pro-lifers in general:
| quote: | I used to argue abortion from the standpoint of it being a free choice, however since no evidence whatsoever solves the philosophical question of what constitutes sentient human life (a critical component of answering the free choice vs. right to life argument) I've more or less explored new approachs. I now adopt a more Mills Utilitarian approach whereby I seek to maximize societal utility and the utility of the individuals involved. Utilizing this approach I have arrived at the following conclusion: making abortion illegal is acceptable should it lead to the maximization of the welfare of society and all individuals, however, I have yet to see such a condition manifest itself.
There are good arguments for free choice made by both sides. On the one hand, one makes the choice to have unprotected or risky sex and therefore should accept responsibility for their actions. On the other hand, the state should not dictate what a woman does with her own body. But what bothers me about the religious right is that their concern for life dissipates once the baby leaves the mother's body. Is a drug abusing/child abusing mother not as adept at killing a child than a mother who aborts a fetus? Are children living in poverty not tenfold more succeptible to death, misery, crime, etc.? So if we save the life of every poverty stricken, unwanted, crack-baby do we not only infuse all individuals involved with additional hardships in addition to subjecting society with the liability of caring for these individuals through welfare or the penitentary? Sure we can say that there is child protective services, adoption services, etc., however, those institutions are so woefully underfunded that they are almost hollow and meaningless. Therefore in the end, making abortion illegal leads to the minimization of utility. Not only do the individuals involved suffer as a whole, but society suffers as a whole. However, this is not the main point to the argument.
The pro-life platform concerns itself with the fundamental right to life that the fetus/child has. However, does this fundamental right to life not manifest itself in all ages of the child? Of the adult? Why does society not protect this fundamental right to life by taking draconian measures in all instances? From a pro-life standpoint, the ideology of religious fundamentalists is untennable. If you are indeed concerned with "life", why does that concern only extend to the life of the unborn child? What about the born child? Why are there not mass protests for greater funding for social services? Child protection agencies? Does the protection of the fundamental right to life only extend to easy limitations of freedoms rather than pro-active efforts that requires sacrifice? If one's concern is for life, than open up your checkbooks to put your money where your mouth is. Bear in mind that I don't think society should be liable to do all that. But if I were to argue against abortion because of the unborn child's right to life, than I SHOULD argue for all those things.
Thus if you are arguing from an ideological standpoint of protecting a fundamental right to life, than follow through with the ideological committment to fruiton by all means possible. What's the point of saving the "unborn" life only for it to be sacrificed as a born life? For these reasons I reject the pro-life platform from a utilitarian standpoint. Very little to no lives are actually being "saved". And in the process of "saving" those lives you unwittingly create additional hard ships on society and the individuals involved.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...bortion+poverty |
And yes, I guess I'm still puckering. And it's something that has always concerned me about many (though not all) pro-lifers - why is the passion seemingly warranted for the life before birth, but in so many ways the passion runs dry after that life is born? If many pro-lifers were as passionate about life after birth as they are before birth, I tend to wonder how low our poverty rates, our suicide rates, our orphan and foster-care centers, etc. etc. would improve.
Just some quick thoughts on the matter. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by ProudRepublican
Abortion should be illegal - no exeptions. Think about it; if your mother had an abortion, you wouldn't be here. |
If my mother was (God forbid), raped or had to drop out of school to have me, I'd honestly pick her life over mine. As with many abortions it's accidental but NOT ALWAYS CARELESS. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
If my mother was (God forbid), raped or had to drop out of school to have me, I'd honestly pick her life over mine. |
i bet she'd say the same thing conversely about you.
you can have life without love. but not love without life. |
|
|
| DJFreaq |
I was just reading the CNN article about that.
It's just another backward's step for women's rights. It shouldn't even be questioned.
"A woman's body's her own n' business"
-Jay, From Dogma |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i bet she'd say the same thing conversely about you.
you can have life without love. but not love without life. |
I like that Hallmark Valentine's Day card too. It's so touching.
But I do wonder if you'd feel the same way if you were told by the doctor that the likelihood of you dying from birth is 100%. Or if a man brutally raped you to the point of near death, only to impregnate you with his lovely seed.
True love, I guess. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i bet she'd say the same thing conversely about you.
you can have life without love. but not love without life. |
not good enough. Taking away the right for an abortion is ludacris. You're literally forcing women to have babies they do NOT want. Where is the logic in this? Specially if it's during the first trimester where there's suposedly no brain function? And if the baby is so called alive then why is the DoB the second you come out of the womb? Shouldn't it be changed to 3 months after conception then? |
|
|
|
|
