|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 2, 2011 12:03:10 GMT -5
So where are the rabid Constitutionalists on this one? I'm sure they will defend this just as fervently as they defend their other ideals...
|
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 2, 2011 15:35:48 GMT -5
Oh that's the 14th amendment.
They don't defend that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 2, 2011 23:35:11 GMT -5
Oh that's the 14th amendment. They don't defend that one. Only the second and an imagined meaning of the tenth. |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 2, 2011 23:42:23 GMT -5
And the 1st. But only for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 3, 2011 6:03:46 GMT -5
And the 1st. But only for them. Don't forget the fourth, and the implied privacy of rulings since. But again, only for them. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 3, 2011 22:36:30 GMT -5
Depends who you ask, and I'm happy to err on the side of caution. Seriously, in all but an extremely small number of cases, by 5 months you should have had plenty of time to decide whether you want an abortion or not. Obviously cases where continuing a pregnancy poses a threat to the life of the mother, there is more to be considered, but in most cases... if you're going to have an abortion, why would you want to wait past 20 weeks anyway? Because something drastic changes. The number of abortions performed after 20 weeks is incredibly small and practically all of them are for very unusual circumstances. For example, medical risk or drastic changes in the woman's personal life. I can also give a sort of example of this from personal experience, even though it didn't end in an abortion. My cousin got pregnant with her fiancée and they were planning on getting married and raising the kid. But, late into the pregnancy she found out that he had a criminal record he never informed her of, as well as that she was not the first woman he had knocked up in such a manner. Basically, he was total scum. This is the kind of situation that could prompt a woman to consider a late term abortion. Especially if her professional life was different and instead of making decent money as a manager she had a menial job and would have great difficulty financially supporting a child. Not the kids fault the dad was an arse though, huh? |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 3, 2011 22:52:48 GMT -5
Because something drastic changes. The number of abortions performed after 20 weeks is incredibly small and practically all of them are for very unusual circumstances. For example, medical risk or drastic changes in the woman's personal life. I can also give a sort of example of this from personal experience, even though it didn't end in an abortion. My cousin got pregnant with her fiancée and they were planning on getting married and raising the kid. But, late into the pregnancy she found out that he had a criminal record he never informed her of, as well as that she was not the first woman he had knocked up in such a manner. Basically, he was total scum. This is the kind of situation that could prompt a woman to consider a late term abortion. Especially if her professional life was different and instead of making decent money as a manager she had a menial job and would have great difficulty financially supporting a child. Not the kids fault the dad was an arse though, huh? Then the kid can find another uterus. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 3, 2011 23:03:48 GMT -5
Not the kids fault the dad was an arse though, huh? Then the kid can find another uterus. I don't think that's a valid argument once we're talking about a being capable of registering pain. Frankly, while I am sympathetic to young, naiive women being taken advantage of and used as in your story, one can't help but feel if one feels one knows a potential co-parent well enough to voluntarily get pregnant with another person, you should probably do your homeowrk about that person BEFORE 20 weeks gestation pass. I mean, avoiding pregnancy isn't that difficult, and as I said in my initial, in cases where it's rape or accidental pregnancy, why the heck leave it so long anyway? I already agreed that in cases where the health of the mother is potentially compromised, that's fair enough. But other than unforseen medical issues, I can't in all honesty think of a reason why anyone would need an abortion later than 20 weeks. You know, personal accountability and all that. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 3, 2011 23:17:41 GMT -5
Then the kid can find another uterus. I don't think that's a valid argument once we're talking about a being capable of registering pain. How does pain give it the right to another being's body? Because it's totally the fault of people who get lied to when they believe it. Um, they don't. Unless the woman in question was 17 before that point. Here are the reasons why it's done.Abortion is a form of accountability, it is taking responsibility for an event that occurred and doing something about it. |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Sept 3, 2011 23:31:00 GMT -5
Then the kid can find another uterus. I don't think that's a valid argument once we're talking about a being capable of registering pain. Frankly, while I am sympathetic to young, naiive women being taken advantage of and used as in your story, one can't help but feel if one feels one knows a potential co-parent well enough to voluntarily get pregnant with another person, you should probably do your homeowrk about that person BEFORE 20 weeks gestation pass. I mean, avoiding pregnancy isn't that difficult, and as I said in my initial, in cases where it's rape or accidental pregnancy, why the heck leave it so long anyway? I already agreed that in cases where the health of the mother is potentially compromised, that's fair enough. But other than unforseen medical issues, I can't in all honesty think of a reason why anyone would need an abortion later than 20 weeks. You know, personal accountability and all that. Then I presume you would be all for a comprehensive sex education program so that young girls can have enough information to, you know, be held personally accountable. Unfortunately, this kind of presumption can't be made in the U.S. because the people who don't want young girls to have abortions are the same people who don't want young girls to access to information or the means to avoid needing abortions in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 3, 2011 23:42:12 GMT -5
I don't think that's a valid argument once we're talking about a being capable of registering pain. How does pain give it the right to another being's body? Society accepts certain rights trump others. This is an every day commonplace. For example, your right to personal safety and enjoyment of your posessions trumps the right to freedom of some guy deemed by the courts to pose a risk to yours, right? Well, once we accept that something is a living, pain receptive entity, surely it has rights that trump other, lesser rights? Right? Answer me a question, at what point do you draw your arbitrary line that says "to kill this infant now is murder, to kill it prior to this is abortion"? Its certainly more their fault than the fault of the foetus with which they find themselves pregnant. Caveat emptor, and all that Then why are we arguing? However, if you read that whole article, you'd see it considers anything past 16 weeks a "late" term abortion. Other than unforseen medical occurences, and the e-x-t-r-e-m-e-l-y rare cases where a woman legitimately doesn't know she's pregnant... I'm still not seeing anything that suggests to me you have a valid reason for waiting past the 20th week. Abortion is a form of accountability, it is taking responsibility for an event that occurred and doing something about it.[/quote]Fine, so if you're going to do something about it, why wait until after the 20th week? The earlier the better, surely? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 3, 2011 23:43:59 GMT -5
I don't think that's a valid argument once we're talking about a being capable of registering pain. Frankly, while I am sympathetic to young, naiive women being taken advantage of and used as in your story, one can't help but feel if one feels one knows a potential co-parent well enough to voluntarily get pregnant with another person, you should probably do your homeowrk about that person BEFORE 20 weeks gestation pass. I mean, avoiding pregnancy isn't that difficult, and as I said in my initial, in cases where it's rape or accidental pregnancy, why the heck leave it so long anyway? I already agreed that in cases where the health of the mother is potentially compromised, that's fair enough. But other than unforseen medical issues, I can't in all honesty think of a reason why anyone would need an abortion later than 20 weeks. You know, personal accountability and all that. Then I presume you would be all for a comprehensive sex education program so that young girls can have enough information to, you know, be held personally accountable. I certainly am. Yeah... well... your country does some weird stuff that the rest of us really don't understand. Anytime you want to slap the idiots in the head and say "enough! grow up!" the rest of the world would be very pleased. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 3, 2011 23:54:40 GMT -5
Answer me a question, at what point do you draw your arbitrary line that says "to kill this infant now is murder, to kill it prior to this is abortion"? When it's not longer violating somebody's body. Completely irrelevant, it is still using another's body without permission. Because you're an contrarian twit and wanted examples so I gave you examples. All these reasons are rare, but that doesn't mean they don't happen and they're not reasons. Stop moving the goal posts. You saw the list, that's why. |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 3, 2011 23:59:47 GMT -5
That's the exact problem, though. A lot of people prefer that we don't teach kids about sex, thinking its the job of the parents to do so. Ideally, sure, why not? If its comprehensive, accurate, and unbiased, then go for it.
However, that is not the case. Parents can't be trusted to actually teach their children about sex because they're either terrified of it, have some religious taboo regarding it, or find the inherent awkwardness and "squick" factor too great for them to handle. So, its left to the schools to teach them...except that public schools are limited to what they're allowed to teach, either by federal, state, local, or district guidelines.
A good deal of "sex education" in the US is abstinence-only education. This has been proven time and again to be inaccurate, biased, and completely idiotic in its aims and expectations. Yet, the heads in charge still vote for such things fearing the backlash from their constituents, namely the particularly zealous Christian populace. Until we're able to get past such moronic preconceptions about adolescent sexuality, namely the fact that it actually exists and is totally and completely natural, this will always be the case with few exceptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Sept 4, 2011 0:17:11 GMT -5
Yeah... well... your country does some weird stuff that the rest of us really don't understand. It's not my country, they're just my neighbors. Unless you mean all the weird stuff we Canadians do. And we do a lot but most of it can be explained as a result of gratuitous beer consumption and/or prolonged exposure to snow. The 1812 bicentennial is coming up and depending on how the election goes, we might be going down to Washington to re-enact the great White House Marshmallow roast.  |
|
