Hospital aborts wrong baby

[Evandril]

Well, based on the arguments given, since I do not believe it acceptable to abort a pregnancy the day before delivery because the woman is in a bad mood at the time, I guess I am not pro-choice as I'd thought I was.

If there are no exceptions to pro-choice, then the above scenario shows why a 'true' pro-choice legal system will never happen.

As to the OP, some parents are *not* cut out to deal with a child who will have such difficulties, if they survive at all. Figuring that out most likely wasn't a snap decision, and, in *MY* opinion, is a better choice than trying to be parents to a child they will (again, IMO) resent.

[BlaqueKatt]

No, that has been determined by law. In pretty much every legal system in existence, a fetus is not an actual live human with rights and freedoms and responsibilities until it is born. Pre-birth: Not a person. After-birth: Person.

interesting considering scott peterson was charged with two counts of murder, for his wife and unborn son...or does the US legal system not count in your sweeping generalization...

and there's the whole, unborn victims of violence act(federal law in the US) which states:

"Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law... and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section." The measure goes on to say that it need not be proven that the assailant had knowledge that the woman was pregnant or had any specific intent to harm her child. If however, "the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall... [be] punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

and here's the 31 state laws in the US that cover fetal homicide,

[Greenday]

No, that has been determined by law. In pretty much every legal system in existence, a fetus is not an actual live human with rights and freedoms and responsibilities until it is born. Pre-birth: Not a person. After-birth: Person.

Hm, every legal system in existence minus a lot of them. I know in PA, if you murder a pregnant woman, it's not just one homicide you are getting charged with. Case in point, a woman I went to college with was shot by her ex-boyfriend. She was pregnant. He was charged with the murder of her and with the murder of the unborn child.

[Andara Bledin]

For those who argue that pro-choice is an argument for absolute body autonomy, do you also argue for the deregulation of all drugs. Logically, that would be part of the pro-choice movement as you've claimed it to be.

^-.-^

[Wingates_Hellsing]

For those who argue that pro-choice is an argument for absolute body autonomy, do you also argue for the deregulation of all drugs. Logically, that would be part of the pro-choice movement as you've claimed it to be.

^-.-^

At the risk of drawing myself into another tiring roundabout...

Yes, I suppose it would if the pro-choice movement were indeed all about body autonomy or, more generally, overall personal freedoms.

As it stands pro-choice and pro-life are euphemisms, or misnomers come to think of it for a for or against answer to this specific question.

The 'guilty of murder of fetus' thing, I could best describe as a way of increasing the punishment for murder because the fact that a potential life was also lost is justifiably seen as especially heinous.

It's like this. Fetus is considered part of woman's body. As such, whether or not fetus shall eventually become person or not is up to said woman. This means that individual women control whether or not their fetus is or is not potential life based on their personal definition/opinion. Causing the fetus to die against the woman's will is therefore murder because she decided that it would otherwise live.

Said explanation covers the multiple murder angle, and allows those who hold different views to pursue their lives in accordance with those views as a matter of personal freedom. The case can be made either way, which is exactly why it should be up to the mother and not arbitrarily decided against her will.

[blas87]

I think it's fine to be pro choice but to have qualms about motives in having one or waiting too long to have one.

Personally, if I were too far along to have a "safe" abortion and found out I was carrying a baby with problems, I'd continue with the pregnancy and give it up for adoption to someone who is better off at raising a special needs or ill child.

But I'm not going to judge someone who makes a different decision. It's a hard one to make.

[Sleepwalker]

It is not the judging that is the issue, it is enshrining in law said judgement. I judge people who get breast implants, I don't try to make them illegal.

[Sleepwalker]

For those who argue that pro-choice is an argument for absolute body autonomy, do you also argue for the deregulation of all drugs. Logically, that would be part of the pro-choice movement as you've claimed it to be.

^-.-^

Deregulation?


Are you speaking of legalization of illegal narcotics, or the abolishment of the FDA?

If it is drug legalization, I certainly support that.

[HYHYBT]

What, exactly, is wrong with pairing "ultimately it is your decision to make" with "I think you ought to do x?"

[FArchivist]

interesting considering scott peterson was charged with two counts of murder, for his wife and unborn son...or does the US legal system not count in your sweeping generalization...

He was charged with homicide in the 1st degree for his wife and fetal homicide in the 2nd degree for the fetus.

and there's the whole, unborn victims of violence act(federal law in the US) which states:

All that law does is make fetal homicide possible for federal areas. It does not conflict with state laws on fetal homicide, nor does it grant personhood status to fetuses under the law. Those are two VERY different items. Also, abortion can never be fetal homicide, also by law. Fetal homicide has to occur outside of the strictures of bodily autonomy, ie, by an attacker killing the fetus inside the pregnant woman.

Otherwise, you would be able to charge abortion doctors or mothers at any time with fetal homicide, which was a concern when fetal homicide laws began to be implemented.

Case in point, a woman I went to college with was shot by her ex-boyfriend. She was pregnant. He was charged with the murder of her and with the murder of the unborn child.

As I just stated, that's an example of fetal homicide. If the pregnant woman had gotten an abortion, it would NOT have been fetal homicide. The homicide of a fetus by an external assailant in the commission of a crime is treated as an entirely SEPARATE matter than legal personhood of the fetus by American law. Check with an attorney if you don't believe me or look up relevant caselaw on the matter.

And I find it REMARKABLY hard to believe that so many people on this forum would be unaware of the difference between fetal homicide laws and legal personhood of the fetus. This is very common knowledge.

For those who argue that pro-choice is an argument for absolute body autonomy, do you also argue for the deregulation of all drugs. Logically, that would be part of the pro-choice movement as you've claimed it to be.

If the regulation of drugs contributes to the abuses of the kyriarchy, certainly.

What, exactly, is wrong with pairing "ultimately it is your decision to make" with "I think you ought to do x?"

If you think someone should do X, why would you not want to enforce it? Not wanting to enforce it makes you a hypocrite.

[Fire_on_High]

story of a woman trying to have her 19 week gestation fetus removed after fetal death, D&E is apparently the safest for the mother in cases of fetal death.

I suppose neither camp would want me since I'm not ideologically pure enough for either. I think it should stay legal, but I really wish ppl would choose otherwise more often. That, and I'm one of the few ppl who apparently WILL admit I'd like to see the ppl who do stupid things suffer a bit.

That said....ffs, in my book the quoted situation is so morally clear, I can't imagine how even the most fanatically religious could have an issue with it. The baby had ALREADY DIED.

There was no life being ended, no pain but the mother's, HOW does anyone manage to justify that being "wrong"? I hang out all day on what's most like the most extremist rightwing forum on the internet and even THEY saw it as, once the baby has died naturally, then it's morally the same as removing a tumor or cyst.

[HYHYBT]

If you think someone should do X, why would you not want to enforce it? Not wanting to enforce it makes you a hypocrite.

No, a hypocrite would be telling you to do x while in the same situation I do y.

Why should my opinions on whether x or y is a better course of action be enforced on anyone else? Or, why should I have no opinion (or should leave any I do have unstated) on matters I recognize not to be mine to decide?

[BlaqueKatt]

I suppose neither camp would want me since I'm not ideologically pure enough for either.

Neither camp wants me either, I'd like to see abortion end, but not by being outlawed, but as being "outdated" akin to bloodletting because we implement widespread comprehensive sexual education classes, better availability of birth control/plan b/RU-486, and more effective methods of non-permanent birth control, and less invasive means of terminating a pregnancy. I mean really the best we can do is an invasive, sometimes painful procedure, that can lead to injury, seriously poking around blindly in a persons internal organs, with sharp objects is probably not the best idea.

[Sleepwalker]

Then you'll want to be in the prochoice camp, 'cause it ain't the choicers who will look down on you for supporting sex education. Planned Parenthood is the source for affordable birth control for a great deal of impoverished america, not those 'crisis centres'.

[FArchivist]

[QUOTE=HYHYBT;101837]Why should my opinions on whether x or y is a better course of action be enforced on anyone else?

It's called having the courage of your convictions.

Or, why should I have no opinion (or should leave any I do have unstated) on matters I recognize not to be mine to decide?

Because that is true liberty and freedom.