Getting closer to outlawing abortion?- Page 2

[bunchamuncha]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 11:08am

but what do you mean as the precedent for abortion?
I'd venture to say that there needs to be a definition of what legal abortion is (ie. you take drugs or go to a doctor)
Like I said, freedom of choice should be protected, but there needs to be a clear determination of murder and abortion (b/c I think they are separate) unfortunately I don't think the right does. But considering this case was TX I'm suprised they upheld the girls right

[robbiej]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 11:16am

Oh...my statement is certainly not rational. But, as Namo once pointed out, when the AIDS epidemic hit, gay men changed their behavior remarkably fast so they wouldn't die. But there are many (of course not all) straight folk who simply don't take responsibility for their sexual practices and end up in less than desireable (sp?) situations. And since the current administration is doing their best to make sure folks out there aren't given enough knowledge about responsible sexual activity and what can be used to prevent both sickness and unwanted pregnancies, people aren't really getting a whole lot of positive reinforcement regarding these issues.

That said, how hard is it really to slip on a condom or take a pill every day? Or hey, if you're a teenager, why not try flying solo, or keeping seuxal activity limited to those actions which won't cause pregnancy? Why do ya always got to stick it in?

I never want to see a woman's right to choose limited. But I would also like to see people start making smarter choices. I've seen a very large number of my female friends have to choose between carrying a pregnancy to term or ending it. And it's a very difficult, painful choice.

And in regards to those two in the original post, both should be in jail cause they're just too stupid to be allowed to roam free.

Posted: 6/9/05 at 11:31am

"but what do you mean as the precedent for abortion?"

I mean the designation of the killing of a fetus as murder. As you said, you make a distinction, but there are those who don't - and at the moment, it seems 'those people' are having a chance to dictate law.

[Jezebel]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 11:46am

But this falls under the 'fetal protection laws'. So that's why he was convicted - they tried him fairly, and found that, as the law currently stands, he committed a criminal act. So the issue of abortion doesn't strictly come into it, but I definitely see your point, DGrant.

And to back up WindyCityActor's point - where I live, abortion is still illegal, and that is definitely the situation. People who choose to abort their pregnancy travel abroad, or go to 'abortion ships', which sail just outside the national waters.

[bunchamuncha]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 11:47am

well let me ask this...in this individual case, do you feel it was an abortion or murder?

Posted: 6/9/05 at 11:51am

Bunch - I'm not getting into how I view this particular case. I simply observed that it seemed like a precedent is being established that will allow the legalization of abortion to be challenged.

Let me ask YOU something - however I may or may not view this particular situation, do you not feel that some could use this in the anti-abortion cause?

[bunchamuncha]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 11:52am

and robbiej, I understand what you are saying but you will never eradicate un-safe sex for people whether they are straight or gay anymore than telling people doing drugs isn't good for you. It's too idealistic (unfortunately).

"That said, how hard is it really to slip on a condom or take a pill every day? Or hey, if you're a teenager, why not try flying solo, or keeping seuxal activity limited to those actions which won't cause pregnancy? Why do ya always got to stick it in? "

Because you never think any of it will happen to you.

[bunchamuncha]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 11:55am

DGrant- no I don't think it could be used as an abortion precedent. Because it's a different law, it's fetal protection, not anti-abortion law. There is a definite distinction b/c of the mother's right to choose.
As much as people say abortion laws are changing, I think people's practices are, when roe v wade happened we lived in medically, very different times. The sociological and religious will always come in to play and it will always be challenged, but on this particular case, I think they've already tried to use these type of cases and been shut down on it.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 12:02pm

Buncha, I think we're riding perilously close to the day when "Fetal protection laws" are battering against right-to-choose laws.
Anti-abortion activists will very soon be using these laws as moral high ground to state that it should be made illegal to end the life of a fetus.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 12:16pm

Don't some places require minors to have written parental consent in order to have an abortion? Perhaps the girl believed that her parents would not have allowed her to have one. Not that that makes the situation alright, but it may have been a factor.

Posted: 6/9/05 at 12:16pm

"There is a definite distinction b/c of the mother's right to choose."

What happens when someone says, "Well, the mother may be choosing, but the abortionist is doing the killing."?

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 12:18pm

Dgrant - these fetal protection laws have exceptions for doctors performing abortions, otherwise they would be struck down as unconstitutional (for now).

Posted: 6/9/05 at 12:20pm

brdlwyr - you're one of the opinions I was waiting on (iflit, where are you?)

And you know, it's that 'for now' part that I'm wondering about.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 12:32pm

I was so taken back by Robbie's diatribe, that I could not respond.

What these kids did was so bizarre. I would have charged him with battary against the woman and argue that she cannot consent to such harm.

I recall discussing this issue in a legislation class in law school. The issue was whether a tortfeasor (I love that word) could be sued for damages for injury to a fetus. The woman would have a cause of action, but the question was whether the fetus if born would have a cause of action. That was a question of civil liability, not criminal.

Obviously, these fetal protection laws are designed to put a chink in the armor of Roe v. Wade.

Posted: 6/9/05 at 12:57pm

tortfeasor
n. a person who commits a tort (civil wrong), either intentionally or through negligence.

OK, so obviously I had to look that up!

So I guess my questions are:
1. Did you think the tortfeasor (you're right, that's a fun word) was liable?
2. What would it take to change the civil liability to a criminal one?

[bunchamuncha]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 1:04pm

thanks brdlwyr and DGrant, interesting discussion.

Posted: 6/9/05 at 1:07pm

Bunch - thankfully it's remained somewhat sane - you never know with topics like this!

And yes, I DID change the subject title, as a very kind soul pointed out the connection with the word 'step' - and that's not a connection I wish to make AT ALL!

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 1:18pm

Some days, it's just not worth getting out of bed.....

The whole thing makes me sick.

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 1:21pm

I must say, I agree with much of Robbie's post on this page. As a straight girl, I think that it's precisely *because* straight folks don't have any threats to their rights that we can be so stupid. I'm not excusing that behavior, but I think that's what causes it.
On the other hand, I don't think that having our rights limited or taken away would change things. People would just kick up a fuss about it because, "G*ddamn it, our rights can't be taken away! That's unconstitutional!"
Bunchamuncha brought up a point why people have unsafe sex: "Because you never think any of it will happen to you." True, that's the mindset behind it, but it's NO excuse to put your life and someone else's in danger. I have no patience for people who buy into that. It's beyond me how unbelievably stupid people can be.

[bunchamuncha]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 1:31pm

" I think that it's precisely *because* straight folks don't have any threats to their rights"


in this day and age though (again, for now) getting pregnant is the very least of your worries.
But it happens all the time. Whether your straight or gay. I just don't like any of the sexual orientation finger pointing.

[robbiej]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 1:31pm

Ya know...I understand what I said was shocking. But really...I don't think it's all that incomprehensible. What I find absolutely appalling are some folks on here who, when confronted with the possibility that their husbands or boyfriends might be getting a little on the side in a steam room at the gym, freak out about VD and how could people be so irresponsible. But when you even dare to suggest that people who get pregnant are JUST as irresponsible, but are lucky mutherf*ckers that abortion is legal here so that their little 'issue' can be resolved quickly, all of a sudden, you're 'moronic' and 'insulting'.

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 1:37pm

"in this day and age though (again, for now) getting pregnant is the very least of your worries."

I don't know about you, but if I were to get pregnant right now, I would be a complete wreck. And I still stand by everything I said.

[robbiej]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 1:38pm

But, again, it's the least of your worries because you can have an abortion. The mess can be cleaned up, so to speak.

[bunchamuncha]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 1:39pm

I'm sorry, "If people are too f*cking stupid to learn how to use birth control, how am I supposed to muster up any sort of feeling of compassion"

I guess I just don't view things so black and white.

if someone were to turn around and say that about gay man who doesn't use a condom and gets HIV. you'd show him no compassion?

[robbiej]

Posted: 6/9/05 at 1:55pm

They DID say that. Some people still do. And gay men, as a group, turned the disease around by changing our behavior, in the face of public and governmental apathy. Is it really so heartless to suggest to a straight couple that perhaps they wouldn't be in the situation of having to make a choice if they earlier had made an even better choice to protect themselves from both disease and unwanted pregnancy?