What About Abortion in Cases of Rape, Incest? Women and Sexual Assault

[lynx]

Where does it say this in the law, and what does it matter? It’s her choice up until the child is born, isn’t it?

I’m sure the doctor has some say in it, but i’m not sure to what degree. After all, they need to determine if a procedure they perform is legal or illegal. When is abortion technically illegal? When the child can survive on its own outside of mother’s womb. I would assume, potentially making as an *** of myself, that if a child is ready to be born then it can survive outside its mother’s womb.

In many states, abortion is legal long past the stage of viability even when a C-section could deliver the child live. This reality happens all the time – ask the patients of the late Dr. George Tiller, who specialized in abortions when the baby was past the age of viability.

If a child is past the legal age then that abortion was illegal and constitutes at the least manslaughter.

Maybe because I’m not a ghetto tough guy?

Coulda fool’d me, yo

img153.imageshack.us/img153/3595/owlorly.th.jpg

Owls are great weebls-stuff.com/songs/Owls/

wanner47;6530770No, you could say that chimp DNA is not human DNA, despite similarities.

I could, or I could say human DNA and chimp DNA or so genetically similar that they deserve equal rights, or at least 95% of human rights.

Is society infallible when it comes to matters of justice and morality?

Nope. Example, slavery.

So why do you let society tell you who you may or may not kill if you have the authorization to decide for yourself?

While I may not agree 100% of the time, I am still at the mercy of the law and society because they have more power than myself, currently.

So you believe that society’s wrong on marijuana usage or the legality thereof (for the record, I agree with you there). Is it really so much of a stretch to believe it is wrong about abortion as well?

It can be. I don’t think it is, but it’s not an impossibility.

Human euthanasia isn’t victimless; the deceased as well as his/her family members are all victims. But that’s off-topic.

Making one’s family feel bad does not a crime make. I feel to be a victim you must be the target of a crime. In suicide, the target of the crime is yourself. While this is a selfish action, it should not be illegal.

 

[wanner47]

I’m sure the doctor has some say in it, but i’m not sure to what degree. After all, they need to determine if a procedure they perform is legal or illegal. When is abortion technically illegal? When the child can survive on its own outside of mother’s womb. I would assume, potentially making as an *** of myself, that if a child is ready to be born then it can survive outside its mother’s womb.

Sad to say, this isn’t true. Viability now is considered to be around 24 weeks (five months – still in the second trimester). Children born as early as 21 weeks have survived. It is legal, in most states, to abort in the second and third trimesters. You can find a breakdown of laws according to state here, but suffice it to say that a baby can be killed post-viability in almost every state.

You see, the loophole is that an abortion can be performed post-viability if the health or life of the mother is at stake. “Health,” however, is not specifically defined. All a woman has to do is find an unscrupulous doctor to claim that the pregnancy is causing vague psychological harm, and she can abort.

If a child is past the legal age then that abortion was illegal and constitutes at the least manslaughter.

Ah, but there is no “legal age.” A fetus that is 39w6d gestational age (one day before a woman’s “due date”) can still be legally aborted in most states.

I could, or I could say human DNA and chimp DNA or so genetically similar that they deserve equal rights, or at least 95% of human rights.

95% of similar (not identical) DNA doesn’t not a human being make.

Nope. Example, slavery.

Then why should you, me, or anyone rely on it when it comes to matters of justice and morals?

While I may not agree 100% of the time, I am still at the mercy of the law and society because they have more power than myself, currently.

Might makes right, in other words. However, there are ways to work toward change in our society, so I take it you agree that one can utilize all avenues to that end if one disagrees with those in power?

It can be. I don’t think it is, but it’s not an impossibility.

Well, that’s something.

Making one’s family feel bad does not a crime make. I feel to be a victim you must be the target of a crime. In suicide, the target of the crime is yourself. While this is a selfish action, it should not be illegal.

Do you think that survivors of domestic abuse are only victims if the abuse was physical?

 

[lynx]

Sad to say, this isn’t true. Viability now is considered to be around 24 weeks (five months – still in the second trimester). Children born as early as 21 weeks have survived. It is legal, in most states, to abort in the second and third trimesters. You can find a breakdown of laws according to state here, but suffice it to say that a baby can be killed post-viability in almost every state.

You see, the loophole is that an abortion can be performed post-viability if the health or life of the mother is at stake. “Health,” however, is not specifically defined. All a woman has to do is find an unscrupulous doctor to claim that the pregnancy is causing vague psychological harm, and she can abort.

If a woman is about to die, and the unborn child must die for the woman to survive, then i’ll support post viability abortion in that instance. Otherwise the practice is illegal IMO.

Ah, but there is no “legal age.” A fetus that is 39w6d gestational age (one day before a woman’s “due date”) can still be legally aborted in most states.

Maybe you mean to say there is a legal age, but a loop hole if practiced by unscrupulous doctors and patients.

95% of similar (not identical) DNA doesn’t not a human being make.

How close does it need to be? Would a person with down syndrome qualify as human? They do have that extra chromosome in there. What about other chromosomal disorders wrongdiagnosis.com/genetics/chromosome.htm ?

Then why should you, me, or anyone rely on it when it comes to matters of justice and morals?

Because often the law represents the morality of society who you must kowtow to. Whether you agree with the majority, or not, the likelihood is you have to do what they say. External forces have impacts on morality IMO, but not your personal morality.

Might makes right, in other words.

Almost right. Those with power dictate societal morality.

However, there are ways to work toward change in our society, so I take it you agree that one can utilize all avenues to that end if one disagrees with those in power?

Yup.

Well, that’s something.

Better than nothing right?

Do you think that survivors of domestic abuse are only victims if the abuse was physical?

No. If you verbally abuse someone, which may qualify as a crime, the person being verbally abused is the target of the crime, and therefore the victim.

 

[wanner47]

If a woman is about to die, and the unborn child must die for the woman to survive, then i’ll support post viability abortion in that instance. Otherwise the practice is illegal IMO.

There isn’t, to my knowledge, a documented medical condition that would warrant such an action post-viability. Normally a C-section could be performed to save both mother and child.

But no, the practice is NOT illegal, despite your opinion to the contrary.

Maybe you mean to say there is a legal age, but a loop hole if practiced by unscrupulous doctors and patients.

Some states (see document referenced in previous post) do have laws in which abortion is illegal after, say, 24 weeks unless the health or life of the mother is endangered. However, as I said, there’s a loophole that’s quite easy to take advantage of, and often is.

How close does it need to be? Would a person with down syndrome qualify as human? They do have that extra chromosome in there. What about other chromosomal disorders wrongdiagnosis.com/genetics/chromosome.htm ?

They’re human chromosomes, so of course people with extra/missing chromosomes are human beings.

Because often the law represents the morality of society who you must kowtow to. Whether you agree with the majority, or not, the likelihood is you have to do what they say. External forces have impacts on morality IMO, but not your personal morality.

Which brings me to my problem with a large part of the justice system – most judges seek to impose their personal morality upon the country’s laws, society’s morality (or anyone’s morality) be damned.

Better than nothing right?

Yup.

No. If you verbally abuse someone, which may qualify as a crime, the person being verbally abused is the target of the crime, and therefore the victim.

In the case of suicide, the victim is also the perpetrator; however, culpability is almost always mitigated by reason of mental illness.

 

[adv1sor]

Why are you killing the girl if her father is the rapist? Maybe you should go to the police instead of letting a rapist hang loose

exactly lynx, exactly.

 

[adv1sor]

CORRECTIONS NEEDED!

lynx, your post of 5PM yesterday lists several quotes attributed to me, but I never made any of those posts. Please correct this now.

 

[Flame4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Why are you killing the girl if her father is the rapist? Maybe you should go to the police instead of letting a rapist hang loose

exactly lynx, exactly.

:coffeeread:

 

[Albert_Nygren]

Well I guess therein lies the rub. Do your political leaders really believe that life begins at conception? If so, then where is the legislation for extending all child right to a zygote? I suspect, that much like many things in politics, career politicians will say one thing then appease the moderates. However, is a 7yo a good representation for a zygote? Physiologically they’re almost completely different. So I guess that means you’re comparing their souls. However, since my government (USA), should be, secular, the weight of a soul should have no bearing in our law. Just my opinion.

Yes, a 7 y/o is a good representation of a zygote. It is not debatable about when human life begins; it begins at conception. The fertilized ovum is not dead, and dead cells do not multiply until the baby comes out of the womb 9 months later and then is suddenly alive. A fertilized ovum is not a fully formed human being but neither is a 7 y/o child. To end the life of an innocent human being at any stage in our life cycle is murder.

Even in a completely secular government, murder is always against the law. As an aside, our government has become more and more secular but that is only a recent development.
I am 67 y/o. when I was a boy this was a Christian country but was tolerant of people who were atheists or of some other religion. When our Constitution was written, it was based on Judeo/ Christian principles.

 

[lynx]

Yes, a 7 y/o is a good representation of a zygote. It is not debatable about when human life begins; it begins at conception.

If it was that easy then there would be no discussion, yet here we are. Here, let me put a little spin on it, life begins when the sperm and and egg are created. Here’s another go at it, life begins, for an organism, when an organism is biologically self sufficient from its creator; otherwise its life is not recognized apart from that of the creator. My point is that the question is difficult, and easily answered.

The fertilized ovum is not dead, and dead cells do not multiply until the baby comes out of the womb 9 months later and then is suddenly alive.

Really? No foolin’?

A fertilized ovum is not a fully formed human being but neither is a 7 y/o child. To end the life of an innocent human being at any stage in our life cycle is murder.

I disagree for the multitude of reasons I have been stating.

Even in a completely secular government, murder is always against the law. As an aside, our government has become more and more secular but that is only a recent development. I am 67 y/o. when I was a boy this was a Christian country but was tolerant of people who were atheists or of some other religion.

Just not racial minorities, gays, lesbians, or transgenders Oh how I to pine for the simpler times in life.

When our Constitution was written, it was based on Judeo/ Christian principles.

Not true.

sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/fathers_quote2.htm
positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm

Here’s one that is particularly nasty,

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?
– John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821, from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

I just can’t understand how desperate everyone is to want the founding fathers to believe that Christianity was the backbone of the Constitution when it is repeatedly shown not to be true, by most of them.

 

[lynx]

Just not racial minorities, gays, lesbians, or transgenders Oh how I to pine for the simpler times in life.

Looking back on it, this is just me being a jerk. Sorry Albert

 

[greenhope]

It is all well and good to debate when life begins, however, as scientifically it has not been proven when the baby is “ensouled”, we have a responsibility to defend that life from it’s conception, in the absence of anything that says otherwise.