For all of those whose religious beliefs condemn abortion, let's say, for the sake of a rousing argument, that Roe vs. Wade is overturned. Where would you draw the line about a woman's right to make decisions about her own body? Would you make it illegal for pregnant women to drink alcohol; which can cause birth defects? Ride a horse; which could lead to a miscarriage? Misuse prescription medication, refuse to take prenatal vitamins, refuse prenatal care, ingest caffeine, have intercourse, go swimming, etc.? The list could go on for days. Would you say that the infant's right to be born healthy supercedes the woman's right to make these decisions for herself? What about a woman who has AIDS or HIV and passes the disease on to her child? Where do you draw the line? I'd like to point out that these arguments have everything to do with a woman's right to choose. I remember when abortion was illegal and it was a nightmare. I knew girls who rode horses and pogo sticks, threw themselves down stairs and used broom handles and coathangers to try to induce a miscarriage. And how much care and nurturing do you think that fetus is going to get from a mother who resents its very existence? I like your question, it's very similar to one I asked last week.
I just wanted to respond to Lisa K (though I'm sure she'll fail to read it, I post this for everyone's benefit): The decision in Roe v. Wade was based on a woman's constitutional right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment concerning decisions about her own body. To overturn Roe v. Wade would mean that a woman does not have a constitutional right to privacy at the moment that she becomes pregnant, since the state would presumably have a compelling state interest in protecting any unborn fetus. Therefore, a woman would have no right to privacy to decide to drink alcohol, ride a horse, ingest caffeine, etc., and a state could arguably regulate such activities in the interest of protecting the fetus. Once the decision is made that the status of "pregnant" eliminates a woman's constitutional right to privacy with respect to abortion, then every right under the fourth amendment is subject to invasion. It is a "slippery slope" argument, but that argument is not inapplicable or flawed in every instance, especially when it comes to constitutional rights. 48 state legislatures out of 50 had voted to make aborion illegal before 1973.
Abortion had always been illegal in America.
Some of the things you mention are not unsafe for pregnant women to do, such as swimming. Swimming is good for pregnant women.
Having intercourse is not unhealthy for the baby.
If Roe vs Wade is over turned the regulation of it returns to the states just like was the case from 1776 til 1973. Unfortunately, some people do not realize that what you are talking about has already been done in some places, i.e., jailing pregnant addicts to keep them from taking drugs during their pregnancy, as well as other things. For some people, pregnancy in and of itself is a reason to completely control a woman.
My question is, if abortion is legal in one state, will a state where it is illegal register and track all pregnant women from their state to make sure they don't go to another state or country and have an abortion? And will they then charge them with murder if they are found out? To take the life of any human being is murder, so you are actually asking who do we think murdering is OK.
It is my hope that women who have the government's blessings to kill their unborn child will not. I pray that every woman would come to respect the life of that child regardless of the reasons they find to end that child's life.
I also pray that our communities would continue to accept and aid those women who could have had abortions for convenience. I don't believe the state has the right to make abortions illegal unless of course they wanted to outlaw all wars & end capital punishment. Then I say let's throw Roe v. Wade under the bus if we could end the state's involvement once & for all in the killing business. If Roe vs. Wade was overturned, it would return abortion decisions to the states. The states themselves would have to decide on restrictions.
Everything else in your question is really silly and has nothing to do with abortion. At the very least, it would open up doctor-patient privacy issues. It basically would make one medical decision no longer between a woman and doctor. I think they would draw the line right before the place where they would adopt the increase in foster kids. It's about control of women overall. Probably things that get women in power or pursuing education or pursuing their own health would be next (if abortion is illegal, no more medical abortions.) any thing that would purposely harm the child should be illegal.
If a parent does that behavior any way they should be held accountable. What ever happened to protecting the most innocent? And that baby inside the womb is the most innocent. If abortion were to become illegal, it doesn't mean that abortions would stop. They would be performed illegally. Sure it's the woman's body but she has no ownership over another human life. Religious people would treat women with contempt as always I think abortion is murder, and stem cell research is damnation afterlife or not. Go all the way, make "no" mean "yes" while you're at it. As long as the child is healthy and not disfigured at the mothers fault. Well, lets make it illegal, and go on from there. Total freedom is never a good thing. Those folks would draw the line at women: No rights = no wrongs! DAMN good question.... here____________________________________ The "slippery slope" argument is a fallacy.
Go back to Phil 101 First of all, we defend a human's right to LIFE, to be born in whatever condition, not to be born healthy.
Second, when we get to a point where human life in all forms is valued throughout society and society as a whole determines that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and abortion should be made illegal, pregnant women will naturally value their unborn children enough to refrain from alcohol or other true dangers.
Limited amounts of caffeine, intercourse and swimming do NOT endanger a fetus -- you're just being argumentative with those. As for prenatal vitamins, I had such bad morning sickness, I couldn't keep them down with two of my pregnancies, and both of those kids turned out fine. So I don't think you could say it would be criminal intent to skip prenatal vitamins.
I know women who miscarried without riding horses and I know children with birth defects not caused by alcohol consumption or anything else that a woman can control. You just don't get it.
Most women seek abortions because they think they DON'T have a choice, not because they do. Usually, it's their partners or parents who are pressuring them to abort "or else." Sometimes, it's their job or education -- real or imagined pressure. Sometimes, it's because they've been told their baby might have a birth defect, and people like you are so prejudiced against the disabled, it's society at large and the medical profession that pressure women to abort. Very, very, VERY few women are walking into clinics happy that they get to exercise a right to choose. Talk to post-abortive women, and they almost always say, "I would have had the baby if...."
My goal is to give women that "if..." whatever it is. Women need support and protection so that they don't think abortion is their only choice. Men need to take more responsibility, and ALL people need to respect the life-giving nature of sex so that they don't feel so shocked and surprised when they conceive a baby after having sex.
I think the answer lies in the way this question is posed:
"Where would you draw the line about a woman's right to make decisions about her own body?"
I think abortion is wrong because it is the murder of a child. The issue, as I see it, is not about what a woman is allowed to do with her body, but rather how we treat others.
That said, there is a difference between accidental killing and purposeful murder. Abortion is an example of the latter. It is a decision to kill a defenseless human being. Typically (always?) it stems from the desire to make life better for the mother in some way, while ignoring the child, who is somehow construed as less valuable or less human.
So I draw the line at purposeful murder. We do not tolerate a mother who throws her baby into the trash once he or she is born. Why should we ignore the murder of a child under any circumstances?
Having said all this, we are left with two options, legislatively speaking. Either we make a form of murder illegal or we do not. Currently there are other forms of murder that are illegal, and I don't think that most think these laws should be changed. So if one form of murder is outlawed, the others should be as well. Of course, legislation is more complicated than this in practice, but this is all theory anyhow.
May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you. I would say that an existing, established life takes priority over a potential life. In other words, the life of the mother takes priority over that of the child. This also fits with modern medical thinking in Obstetrics. The life of the mother comes first, then that of the child. You never sacrifice the mother in order to save the child.
Also, in my state life is considered desirable and good. If a doctor makes a mistake, for example does not diagnosis spina bifida and a child is born with that condition, the mother can sue him for missing the diagnosis. However she can not claim she would have had an abortion if she had known and sue him for "wrongful life" as all life is considered good.
I am a firm believer that laws and behavior need to be consistent.
So based upon these two views, I would say that only if the mother's life is in true and real danger would I agree that an abortion is necessary. I would not support aborting "defective" children. They have a right to life based upon my state law and I would want to keep the law consistent. Unless they change the law.
Why do you think its just religious beliefs 'condemning' abortion... are you telling me that atheists dont have any morals and think killing a baby is ok?
I mean, religious or not.. where is peoples integrity, values and morals?
*****
If girls are THAT stupid to throw them selves downstairs, hurt them selves and go thru all that to kill their own baby... MAYBE THEY SHOULDNT BE HAVING SEX OR GET ON SOME BIRTHCONTROL!!!!
If they cant handle the possible results of sex (i.e. BABY) why wuld they even do it...Im sure they know how it works.
Hey Heres an Idea.... maybe they should make it illeagle to have sex if you arent ready for a kid. there ya go, problem solved.
Women's right to choose... Have sex... Dont have sex.
**
Yes no one should tell a woman what to Do with her body.. but the baby is another being/another life, its not like an extra toe or something she can disgaurd of.
BirthControl and Abortion are two seperate and different things. BC prevents Conception.. abortion kills the baby after being conceived.. its already living.
Its just part of natural life.. females get pregnant, become mothers.. not an incubator. lol.
I agree that teaching kids just not to have sex isnt exactly productive.. but they shouldnt just be handing out condoms either. I mean, if they happen to get prego then they should have to deal with it until the baby is born and they can either give it up or adoption (if they dont want it) or keep it.
how many couples do you think try to get pregnant but are unable to? so many people are willing to adopt.
Boo hoo if a girl doesnt want to gain weight or get streatch marks.. that does Not make it ok to get an abortion.
Theres no argument against it. Its just wrong.
Ugh, it just makes me sick.. If people just had some morals, they wouldnt be having sex till marriage, then nobody would have this problem. The same place the line is drawn for born people. AFAIK, it is legal to ingest caffeine and alcohol while breastfeeding, even though that certainly isn't good for the baby. It is even legal to blow your cigarette smoke right in your child's face. Would you say that the born infant's right to grow up healthy supersedes the woman's right to make these decisions for herself?
>>I knew girls who rode horses and pogo sticks, threw themselves down stairs and used broom handles and coathangers to try to induce a miscarriage. And how much care and nurturing do you think that fetus is going to get from a mother who resents its very existence?<<
I know of women who hold their children underwater or cover their faces with pillows to try to induce a death. We should make it legal for people to kill their born children as well as their unborn, because, after all, how much care and nurturing do you think that child is going to get from a mother who resents its very existence? And you DO support a woman's "right to choose", correct? Acts 5:29.....In answer Peter and the [other] apostles said: 鈥淲e must obey God as ruler rather than men. | 