Critically Ill Woman Faces Jail Time If She Aborts

So what says your moral viewpoint is any better or preferable to someone else, morals are liquid they are not fixed, they change and are purely set in motion by the accident of your birth location and the society you grow up in, people morals can change. .. I personally I have no interest in people who claim their morals are superior to another, that is just pure arrogance.

Laws are not made on morality they are made to stop the destabilizing effect on society as a whole, abortion has no destabilizing effect on society as a whole .. which is why to debate abortion on a moralistic stand point is irrelevant.

 

So in these types of instances your pro-life dogma goes out the window, you state in these circumstances that the rights of the woman outweigh the rights of the fetus .. isn't that a conflict of rights, especially if the fetus would live despite the woman's death.

If you truly think that "This thread is a lot of hysteria and drama about nothing as it turns out." then why are you bothering to reply, or is it your insatiable lust for flamebait that drives you on

 

Laws are absolutely made on the basis of morality. Do you even know what teh definition or "morality" is?
"The Definition of Morality
First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Mar 14, 2011
The term “morality” can be used either

1.descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
a.some other group, such as a religion, or
b.accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons"

Obviously standards or a code of conduct put forth by a society would be laws.

- - - Updated - - -

Laws are absolutely made on the basis of morality. Do you even know what teh definition or "morality" is?
"The Definition of Morality
First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Mar 14, 2011
The term “morality” can be used either

1.descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
a.some other group, such as a religion, or
b.accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons"

Obviously standards or a code of conduct put forth by a society would be laws.

 

I do know what a red herring is...you used it every time you couldn't address an issue or question, claiming That's a red herring!
Sheesh!


"""""""Logically, it doesn't follow that because there are children waiting to be adopted, that adoption is a bad thing, which seems to be your point""""


If you had used logic you may have gotten my point.

I'll repeat but only once more since your prime goal seems to be to obsfucate and yell red herring! at every opportunity.


A. Anti-Choicers say women should be forced to give birth because they can always have the baby adopted out.

B. IF Anti-Choicers think that is so easy, then there shouldn't be any children waiting for adoption...and there ARE.

C. Anti-Choicers who think the woman's ONLY option is to have an unwanted baby BECAUSE she can put it up for adoption THEN, IF they care so much about that "precious life" , they would ADOPT all they unwanted, unaborted children .

D. They obviously don't because there ARE children waiting to be adopted.

 

First of all this is an easy answer.

If a country has a law in place for all to follow...then those citizens have two choices...you follow the law or you break the law.

I follow the laws in my country....especially when it comes to protesting abortion. I stand back and stay within the perimeters that the law has me stand in...and I do not tresspass. I don't kill abortionists...I do not break the law...even though I don't think its particularly fair. We have laws regulating abortion and it is LEGAL. As long as a doctor does not break the law he is ok, if he does...THEN HE SHOULD PAY. Gosnell is on trial now...and time will tell what he will get. He obviously broke the law and killed babies who were alive.
Should another country come in and tell us our abortion laws are to progressive that no woman should have the right to kill? Should we go into another country and tell them they are wrong? Should we demand that China stop what they are doing? The whole world knows that what they are doing is wrong...yet no one is doing anything. Sharia law and honor killings take place all over the world....should we go in those nations and demand they stop or else?

I believe abortion is wrong....i struggle with the "woman dying on the table...lets kill her child" issue. I believe there are two lives involved...both should be saved. But unfortunately for the woman she has a decision to make...and it might get her prison time.

You might think that her life is worth more...than the unborn that is living inside her....but some people do not...obviously this country has hard and strict rules on this.

It's obviously the womans decision, its her body...right or wrong..she has to pay..either possibly with her life or jail.

I find it odd that I am told to butt out of the decisions of women...that abortion is legal and our country stands by this, too bad. And then when another country stands on what they find is moral and legal....the pro-aborts think that is wrong....and intervention should happen. Surely this is not the first woman that this has ever happened to. I would like to know how many women are in jail because of choosing their own lives over that of their childs.

 

Nobody has said anything about intervening with that countries laws here. We just see this as a very serious situation to consider, should our own country make abortion totally illegal as this one has done then this is what some women may have to face. Save their own life and spend time in prison for it, or just give up and die.

When it's a life or death situation I don't know why you wouldn't give the woman a choice. If a woman wants to give up her medical treatment to carry to term thus sacrificing herself to bring her child into the world that is her choice (like that woman who died from lack of cancer treatment to carry to term), if a woman does not want to die from her pregnancy, or if her fetus is already dead and it is quite literally killing her (like the Indian woman in Ireland) then she should have the right to save her own life. How is it that lifers can't stand up and say, 'this time it should be her choice'?

You're asking a person to sacrifice themselves and you don't even know if the fetus will live or die in the end. If it dies then it would be a sacrifice in vain because then you'd have two dead instead of one. How is that pro-life in anyone's eyes?

 

LOL, obviously you don't.

Have a sound valid logical argument that is about the points being made and I will stop telling the truth.

There are two separate issues here that you seem to be missing. One is the woman putting the baby up for adoption. Two, the people adopting. Your argument doesn't follow logically. Being easy on the bio mother to allow a baby to be adopted has nothing to do with there being children waiting for adoption. Being easily adopted instead of aborted doesn't work either because I've shown that there are more people waiting to adopt than there are children up for adoption. Why there are children waiting has nothing to do with a bio mother giving up a baby for adoption. Make an actual point about the bio mother and adoption, not about foster care children and adoption.

Already answered this, which btw there was no logical rebuttal to.

Oh and btw, this one is called EQUIVOCATION Fallacy. You are confounding and changing the definition of adoption (adoption of older kids already in the system vs. adoption of newborns) and trying to make it "fit." It doesn't. The resulting language and meaning of adoption in the ending argument (D) is not the same thing as the premise (A).

 

Right backatcha! Yours says abortion is okay, mine says it isn't. What makes yours better?

And that's not what you are doing, right?

Do you actually have a logically rebuttal to the point I made in an earlier post?

 

Please post a link for your waiting to adopt number. All of my googling shows estimates of perhaps 1-2 million wanting to adopt. Reality shows that perhaps 1-2 million TALK about adopting, but don't do anything further to make it happen.

I know this is an old link, but an old link is better than NO link:
http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/cduncan/230/adoption.htm

As reported by the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth found that 500,000 women were currently seeking to adopt a child, though of these only 232,000 were taking concrete steps toward adoption, and only 100,000 had actually applied to adopt a child.

Even if your numbers are correct, and if abortion could be ended, and if only half of the resulting additional babies were allowed to adopted, every potential adopter could have his/her/their desire for an adoptee satisfied in maybe 3 years. Then what? Suppose all the adopters were willing to adopt again, 3 more years. Then what? In only a few years by any scenario, the pool of potential adopters will dry up to a dribble. And the dribble will be exacerbated by improving methods of fertility treatments leaving fewer and fewer willing adopters every year.

 

A very old link and I want you to notice in the link they used a survey to come by these answers. I point this out because my link does too.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_seek.cfm

"Of women who had considered adoption, about 2.6 million (14.3 percent) had actually taken concrete steps toward adoption."

You are forgetting one important point. There will be women that cannot have babies and/or want to adopt adding to those numbers yearly. You are only subtracting out the ones that adopt without adding in the ones that become willing to adopt.

 

Yes grannie,...so killing potential adopted kids is a much better solution, right?

Abortion great ...less kids born so says the pro-abortion movement.

 

Well, it's "pro-Punishment " in Anti-Choicers eyes....they firmly believe :

"""if that EVIL woman hadn't had sex she wouldn't have got pregnant and died so HAHA HA she got what she deserved!""""

 

IAC, the numbers indicate that IF abortion could be ended, there would not be nearly enough adoptive families to take up the slack. Now, I do not believe abortion can be ended. Even so, giving a child up for adoption is an enormously traumatic event for a woman, much more so than abortion, so I do not believe a woman should be placed in the position of being pressured to make that decision.

 

please quote where I say mine are?

The difference is I am not using my personal moral viewpoint to try and enforce something onto other people .. pro-lifers are

not at all as I am not trying to change any laws to suit my moral viewpoint, you are .. Personally I think that 24 weeks is to high for viability, but I am not using my moral viewpoint in order to try and change that .. I leave that to the people who are far better qualified to judge, unlike pro-lifers.

If your point had been logical it would help .. as it is can you actually provide a rebuttal to my points or are you just like so many other pro-lifers here.

 

I know what morality means and there is not one single law in place that was not done so to try and stop destabilization of society, the only laws you pro-lifers want are based purely upon a 2,000 year old story book, laws that are not supported by the majority of the people .. you want a religious state governed by your own version of what is moral.

 

Just like the Nazis!

 

Well that is where your lack of reading comprehension fails you AGAIN. My beleif , as I have told you repeatedly before, is based on rational thought and logic. How can a fetus be a human being when the woman's drunk boyfriend beats him/her to death, but be something less than a human being when the mother decides to snuff him/her out using a hit man abortion "doctor"?

See you will now revert to your same old pattern of posting something totally irrelevant and dodge this critical question. What does religion have to do with inconsistencies in our CURRENT BODY OF LAW?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah those guys were cross toting Christians weren't they? You guys are entertaining in your extreme ignorance.

"Hitler believed Christianity and Nazism were "incompatible" and intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

 

You are debating for abortion. I believe that's obvious.

Actually, we are advocating for another person, the baby, just as you are advocating for the mother.

That's you're right not to. Mine is to advocate for another person, the baby.

Oh I have, plenty.

 

That's all conjecture. You are just guessing it is more traumatic based on your assumption that abortion isn't traumatic. You are also guessing as to whether there would be enough adoptive parents to take up the slack and/or as to whether someone would then decide to keep a baby based on it being illegal.

 

She NEVER said abortion wasn't traumatic. PERIOD.

And there's no guess work for those who know the facts and the facts are not all children are adopted.

Can you show where the stats are that prove all children are adopted????

 

From richarddawkins.net? Oh brother. Forgive me if I don't see this as the most credible source.

 

It's not a guess. Studies have shown that women find it MORE emotionally traumatic to give up a child for adoption than abortion.

Pannor, R., Baran, A., & Sorosky, A. (197

Half of mothers surveyed said they have continued to feel loss, pain, and mourning over the child they lost to adoption (even many years later — this included mothers who had surrendered up to 33 years prior).
Only 30% expressed “comfort” about the adoption (thus 70% were not comfortable with the adoption and/or felt it was not the outcome they wanted)
Rynearson, E. K. (1982)

Eight of the 20 mothers were so traumatized by signing the papers that they were amnesiac of it.
All reported recurring dreams of the loss of the baby, with contrasting themes of traumatic separation and joyful reunion.
All had unresolved grief, continuing to experience symptoms of mourning at the anniversary of the relinquishment.
Winkler, Dr. R.; and Van Keppel, M. (1984)

45% of mothers surveyed stated that their sense of loss had intensified over the period since surrender and 6.4% stated it had remained the same. For the sample as a whole, this loss remains constant for up to 30 years.
Compared to a carefully-matched control group, mothers who had lost a child to adoption had significantly greater psychological impairment afterwards.
53% of the Western Australia respondents and 58.8% of the National Survey respondents stated the surrender of their babies was the most stressful thing they had ever experienced.

More:
http://www.originsamerica.org/adoption-trauma/trauma-to-surrendering-mothers/

As far as I am concerned, the question of enough adoptive parents is moot, since I believe laws will never even decrease the numbers of abortion. Young women will continue to abort if they feel it is best for them. I do feel it is foolish, however, to casually suggest adoption as a cure-all for unwanted pregnancy, and I feel that IF abortion could be ended, there would not be enough adoptive parents.

 

What I find ironic...you guys have no problem believing that adoption is painful, but dismiss that abortion is equally painful. You even cites studies, but dismiss studies that show that abortion is painful.

Oh and these studies don't answer the question as to whether it is more or less painful than abortion. That's pure conjecture on your part.

 

You're right. I should rephrase that. She is guessing it more traumatic than abortion.

Prove that all babies (that's the discussion) are not adopted or placed back with their parents. You've made that claim that they aren't. I never made the claim that they were. So you show me.