Abortion Views

[Insanity]

Actually, some women do not give a toss about unwanted preganancy. My mate thought, so what? I get this abortion free, and it does not fu*k up my life!

Me and her are no longer mates. I would be but it was the way she went about it.

[Rat Faced]

Ok Guys.

Emotive issue.

We went with it as much as we could.

People are now getting upset, and we now think its time to close the topic of "Abortion".

I know that there are "spinoffs", that came out of the thread...eg Aid to 3rd world countries etc.

Please feel free to start another thread on these topics.

Rat Faced

[Insanity]

I really don't understand why the other topic was locked, you chaps were stating your views not arguing over it

So lets continue....

As far as i'm concerned, it all depends on the circumstances......

[Rat Faced]

Very simple.

We allowed it, on condition...

People are getting upset now.

Ladies that have gone through it for example, and men too.

This decision was not taken by myself alone.

The topic is ****Closed****

[j2k4]

Consider this a report from myself; the result of a bit of research on a topic of interest:

Norma McCorvey, who was "Jane Roe", of Roe vs. Wade, has recently begun an effort to have the landmark Supreme Court decision overturned.

She claims to have been a rootless, ungrounded "street person" when, at the age of 21, she found herself pregnant.

She concocted a tale of rape so as to avail herself of legal aid in dealing with her problem.

Her lawyers, she now says, favored abortion; they commenced to "deceive" and "use" her to forward their own agenda, telling her the life growing inside her was nothing but "tissue".

After the successful argument of her case before the Supreme Court, McCorvey became a feminist icon, and was offered work in various abortion clinics.

What she says she witnessed while toiling in these clinics gradually wore on her; the de-personalization of the client, the abortion act, and the resultant "waste" eventually caused her to turn away in horror, disgust and sadness.

I will not recount here any of the graphic aspects of her experiences as she relates them in her court proceeding.

McCorvey's lawyer, Allan Parker, is the founder of the Justice Foundation, a human rights interest.

He figures he has an excellent chance of success, using as a blueprint the argument outlined by Thurgood Marshall in his case "Brown vs. Board of Education", which resulted in the overturning of "Plessy vs. Ferguson", legally ending segregation in public schools.

Marshall claimed, and proved, segregation did demonstrable harm to black children and their chances at education.

In this vein, Parker calls for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned on the grounds Roe "deprived women of all protection from the dangers of abortion."

He provides affidavits from 1000 women in testament to physical, psychological and emotional damage they suffered as a result of their abortions; and for which risk was never addressed beforehand.

These risks were not largely known in 1973, when Roe vs. Wade was decided.

Such is not the case these days.

The advances in scientific medicine in the intervening years yield a better opportunity for the current court to re-examine and decide with a greater degree of certitude the issue of "when life actually begins".

An important development in Texas, of all places, bears upon this case:

In 1999, the Texas legislature passed law under which the state of Texas will commit to, and provide for, the upbringing of every child, up too the age of 18, while guaranteeing the privacy of the mother, and, in effect, establishing the "right" not to have to care for an unwanted child-no questions asked.

It is hoped this law will lower the number of abortions in Texas by the twin provisions of care for the child and privacy for the mother.

McCorvey's plea was recently thrown out by a federal judge in Texas; her lawyer, Mr. Parker, is determined to eventually argue his case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In round terms, I support McCorvey's effort and applaud the Texas law.

Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you wish with regard to my expression of support; I'll gladly try to correct any mis-perceptions.

[MagicNakor]

It seems I read through the same court transcript you did. However, this isn't the first time Roe vs Wade's been challenged in court, and it likely won't be the last, although I am glad that the judge threw the matter out this time.

There's really two stumbling blocks here: "protection from the dangers of abortion," and determining "when life actually begins."

For the former, there is an inherent risk of physical harm due to the nature of the operation. However, there's also an inherent risk in carrying a pregnancy to term, in giving birth, and in the healing process afterwards. There is the risk that, when I step outside, I'll be smacked with a car when I'm crossing the road. There's always a risk when a person undergoes surgery of even the most minute sort. I've previously stated about the hormonal influences on mood, so, unless it's required, I won't rewrite it.

For the latter, there is an unfortunate number of ways to discern the beginning of life. People in the "Right To Life" movement will tell you that life begins at fertilization. Various Christians will tell you that God creates life prior to conception. Rev. Charles Henderson (Presbyterian minister and Christian scholar) clarifies this:

...Indeed, the very notion of "conception" in the Bible does not refer to the fertilization of an egg by a sperm, rather conception is what happens when God creates someone or something...the basic biblical teaching about the beginning of life is that it happens at God’s initiative, by God’s command, in God’s mind. The Biblical writers did not even have the notion of conception that we have arrived at only recently through scientific investigation. They believed that the male sperm was the "seed" of life and that this seed is "planted" in the womb where it grows like any other seed. Clearly, in this, the biblical view, our notion of "conception" has no place. Human life no more begins at conception than the apple begins when an apple seed finds its way into the ground.

The relatively modern idea that life begins at conception is entirely unbiblical. Not only that, it is more in accord with a purely humanistic perspective for it places the initiative for life in the hands of the human parents. Life begins, not in the mind of God, but in the womb of a woman following intercourse. That this notion of how life begins postdates the Bible entirely does not seem to matter to those who rely upon it. So familiar are we moderns with the basic "facts of life," that we sometimes confuse "fact" with "theology," and raise scientific knowledge to the level of revealed truth. In fact, the notion that life begins at conception, substitutes a humanistic notion for a clear biblical teaching, and makes scientific understanding do the work of biblical faith. This may be a good and valid substitution to make, given what we know about how life begins, but it’s important that those who make such moves understand what it is they are doing. When someone argues that life begins at conception, and should be morally and legally protected from that point forward, they have no stronger legs to stand on than those who argue that life begins at birth. Both points of view are arbitrary, and one can claim no greater religious or theological authority for one than the other...

Yet more will say that life begins at consciousness (although how do you measure consciousness?), and others will say life begins at birth, or when the fetus is viable (capable of life outside the womb). It becomes a chicken and egg argument, much like most other debates concerning abstract ideas.

Do you have more information on that Texas law? Although the state may provide for every child, what percentage of them are going to be below the poverty line? If it's anything similar to the basic welfare contributions of the USA, the "support" given by the state isn't going to be nearly enough to care for and raise a child. It is, however, unlikely that Dickens-style workhouses (a la Oliver Twist) will spring up overnight.

[clocker]

Just as " bad law may spring from good intentions"*, the reverse can be equally true.

*I cannot for the life of me find the author of this quote, so until proven otherwise I shall attribute it to.....myself.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@6 July 2003 - 17:42
Just as " bad law may spring from good intentions"*, the reverse can be equally true.

*I cannot for the life of me find the author of this quote, so until proven otherwise I shall attribute it to.....myself.

I will try to expand on my thoughts tomorrow.

[j2k4]

Excellent quote; I haven't knowledge of it's author, either.

As time is a consideration, I'll ask:

As to the availability of abortion services, by way of any effort to reduce the sheer number of them, would you consider dissemination of extensive (secular) information to all females (not just those in crisis), information meant to educate as well as inform, too (for lack of a better word) fettering?

Planned Parenthood stands in opposition to any such efforts, preferring to act as the clearing house for any information on the subject, to the legalized exclusion of all others.

[Rat Faced]

Uh uh.....now j2k4, no trying to sneak in the back door.

Wait until i get a concensus from the Mods and Admins on this....