The problem with granting the fetus personhood - point in case in Utah

[Tam-I-Am]

Utah is not a state known for its legislative sanity. This, after all, is a state that recently made headlines for proposing to honor gun manufacturers on Martin Luther King Day and for considering the elimination of 12th grade to cut back on education spending.

Well, it just got a whole lot worse.

Utah just became the first state in the U.S. to criminalize miscarriage and punish women for having or seeking an illegal abortion. Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law:

* expands the definition of illegal abortion to include miscarriages
* removes immunity protections for women who have or seek illegal abortions
* treats women as presumptive criminals and leaves them open to criminal prosecution

But even among states that punish illegal abortions, this "Criminal Miscarriage" law is unique. It not only punishes individuals who perform illegal procedures; it punishes women.

I spoke with activists in Salt Lake City this morning to ask how to help out of state. They all made the exact same request: Tell everyone you know about this law.

National media attention and widespread public outcry are the only way to stop women and girls in Utah from being subjected to this unreasonable and dangerous "Criminal Miscarriage" law.

How Utah Defined Miscarriage as Criminal Homicide

Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law (H.B.12) makes simple changes to the state's definition of "abortion" and the section of the Utah Criminal Code governing "criminal homicide."

This law:

* defines legal abortion as a procedure "carried out by a physician or through a substance used under the direction of a physician." Anything else that terminates a pregnancy is now defined as illegal abortion - including miscarriages.

* states that "The killing or attempted killing of a live unborn child in a manner that is not abortion shall be punished as...criminal homicide." (emphasis mine)

* removes existing immunity from criminal prosecution for women "who seek to have or obtain an abortion" or "upon whom a partial birth abortion is performed."

* applies the legal standard of an "intentional, knowing or reckless act of the woman" as punishable as criminal homicide.

Translation: If a woman has a miscarriage but didn't know that she was pregnant, she cannot be charged with criminal homicide. So while this law does not criminalize all miscarriages, anything that could be defined as "knowing" or "reckless" would leave a woman at risk for criminal prosecution.

Think it couldn't possibly be that bad? The ACLU of Utah is pretty sure that it could. In their letter appealing to Utah Governor Gary Herbert to veto the bill (Spoiler: He won't!), the ACLU said:

Practically speaking however, this bill changes the presumption that abortions obtained in this state are legal. If this bill is signed into law, women in this state will essentially be in the uncomfortable and unfortunate position of having to prove that abortions they obtain (or miscarriages that they suffer) are not unlawful.

In fact, it's the "recklessness" standard that may pose the greatest threat. Again, from the ACLU:

A woman who fails to wear a seatbelt and is in a car accident could be charged with reckless homicide, should she miscarry. Likewise, a woman who has a substance abuse problem is likely to forego necessary prenatal care out of fear that she could be prosecuted for "knowing" or "reckless" homicide by continuing to use illegal substances while pregnant.

The problems don't stop there. Women in physically abusive relationships could be criminally liable for not leaving their partner, regardless of their ability to do so safely or securely. Women seeking lawful abortion may be guilty of criminal homicide if her physician failed to follow exact procedures set forth in the law.

For a law designed to discourage illegal abortion, Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law will only drive abortion further underground for those who cannot safely seek or afford legal medical abortion care.

I grew up in Salt Lake City, so it takes a lot for Utah to surprise me anymore. This time there aren't even words for my outrage.

Prosecuting women who seek or obtain abortions for criminal homicide won't make abortion go away - it will only make abortion dangerous and put women's lives at risk. This law was designed to punish women who would consider having an abortion. There is simply no other way to look at it.

Speak Out. Fight Back.

Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" Law passed the Utah House and Senate by overwhelming majorities. Seriously overwhelming. The votes were 59-12 and 24-4, respectively, meaning that even if Gov. Herbert were to veto the bill (he won't) the legislature could easily override his veto.

Just in case that wasn't enough, the bill's authors included a provision that with 2/3 members already voting for the bill, the "Criminal Miscarriage" Law would go into effect even if Gov. Herbert doesn't sign the bill into law.

The Utah Planned Parenthood Action Council, the ACLU of Utah, and their allies have been fighting this fight every step of the way. They succeeded in getting the legislature to drop the much lower legal standard of "negligence," and in light of such overwhelming opposition that success is simply heroic.

http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/AFY_Will/2010/2/24/In-Utah-Miscarriage--Criminal-Homicide

[BigRedV]

Anything else that terminates a pregnancy is now defined as illegal abortion - including miscarriages.



:eek:

So now a woman will have to suffer a miscarriage in silence :crying:

[BigRedV]

Women in physically abusive relationships could be criminally liable for not leaving their partner, regardless of their ability to do so safely or securely.


OMG - speechless :mad:

[crazymuma]

Just disgusting.

I think the bit that bothers me the most is the punishment a women suffering with domestic violence can face if her partner beats her and harms the baby :rolleyes: What a ****ing joke.

For a state thats trying to save money (killing education) they are actually just going to end up spending more as they will have to jail so many women for having abortions (and yes they still will - desperate women will take desperate measures). Then we look at healthcare - surely its going to be expensive treating all the infection that women get from dangerous backyard abortions.

Wonder if a women will be charged if she has a car accident (her fault) while driving and she miscarries?? I wonder if this is the case if its early in the pregnancy how they can prove that it was in fact the accident and not just nature as miscarriage is so common.

[IndigoJ]

Thats just horrible, i feel for those women who may get charged under this silly silly law.

[~Bec~]

I didn't read it in detail (bed time soon) but I would have assumed that their federal law would trump their state law. The constitution is federal law and the Rowe vs Wade amendment would surely trump over such a stupid law :confused:

(I believe Utah was also the last state to outlaw polygamy as well)

[BigRedV]

(I believe Utah was also the last state to outlaw polygamy as well)

Stupid Utah and their stupid laws. Don't know how true these are:

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/utah

[SalTheGal]

Wow.... just.... Wow.... :no: :no: No words.

[Tam-I-Am]

I didn't read it in detail (bed time soon) but I would have assumed that their federal law would trump their state law. The constitution is federal law and the Rowe vs Wade amendment would surely trump over such a stupid law :confused:

(I believe Utah was also the last state to outlaw polygamy as well)

It hasn't in other parts of the country. Ie http://www.theunnecesarean.com/blog/tag/laura-pemberton-cesarean

[bellarosey]

:thumbsdown: absolutely shocking. I am so thankful I don't live there

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

Beyond revolting. I am stunned.

[Bron]

You know what? I'm feeling so bull headed right now that if I lived in Utah, I'd probably turn myself in and ask to be charged over my 4 miscarriages, just so these laws could be tested in a higher court, dragged into the public eye and discredited as the great big steaming pile of poo that they are.

[Ana Gram]

:eek::no::barf:

[Tam-I-Am]

:thumbsdown: absolutely shocking. I am so thankful I don't live there

At the moment, the Australian Federal Government is in the process of introducing policy that dictates that a woman cannot access the reproductive rights she desires (ie homebirth, for example).

Where exactly do you see this kind of legislation ending up? Can people really not see the connection between limiting women's reproductive rights, and the next logical step - granting the fetus personhood? And that in turn means that mothers then become legally liable for anything that may go wrong in a pregnancy, including them being criminally prosecuted for things such as eating salami (listeria risk), smoking (low-birth weight, increased still-birth, and increased SIDS risk), recreational drug use, not wearing a seatbelt, breathing in secondary smoke etc.

What about the case that I linked to above, Laura Pemberton, a woman who couldn't find a hospital or obstetrician to support her in a VBAC attempt, so hired an independent midwife (a healthcare professional in her own right) to birth at home - but was arrested by a sheriff in the throws of labour, had her LEGS STRAPPED TOGETHER, carted off to a hospital where she was subject to a hearing in which the BABY was legally represented (but Laura herself was not, except BY herself), and then subject to an unnecessary and unwanted c-sect (for any who doubt the 'unnecessary' part - she went on to have 4 more children [including a set of twins!] vaginally).

How can we be so blind to the outcome for WOMEN - alive, breathing, thinking, feeling women - when we grant fetus' personhood?!

[SassyMummy]

You could probably find any woman who ever had a miscarriage "guilty" of some sort of "negligence."

I mean, "Oh, you ate some deli meat... murderer!" or "Oh, you crossed the road and got hit by a car... murderer!" or even "Oh, your boss had a go at you and you got a bit stressed over it... murderer!" :rolleyes:

I'd imagine a lot of the time they couldn't even determine what exactly caused the miscarriage, so they could basically charge the woman simply for doing "normal" things.

Utah is a very religious state... so I don't find it surprising if they have religion-based laws... but god, that's pretty bloody awful.

[Bron]

You could probably find any woman who ever had a miscarriage "guilty" of some sort of "negligence."

I mean, "Oh, you ate some deli meat... murderer!" or "Oh, you crossed the road and got hit by a car... murderer!" or even "Oh, your boss had a go at you and you got a bit stressed over it... murderer!" :rolleyes:

I'd imagine a lot of the time they couldn't even determine what exactly caused the miscarriage, so they could basically charge the woman simply for doing "normal" things.

Or in my case "your cells didn't divide properly". Alright officer, I'll come quietly.

[Tam-I-Am]

Or in my case "your cells didn't divide properly". Alright officer, I'll come quietly.

:hugs:

[crazymuma]

I'm curious to hear the pro lifers thoughts.

[Mummaholic]

I am shocked and appalled at these amendments. OMG. Just not right.

[BigRedV]

I'm curious to hear the pro lifers thoughts.


:detective:

[Phyllis Stein]

Yet more shades of The Handmaid's Tale. Horrendous, insensitive, archaic, I'm just gobsmacked that this law has made it as far as it has.


I'm curious to hear the pro lifers thoughts.

I don't believe there is such thing as 'pro-life'. Those who would restrict abortion for other women - they could hardly be called pro-life when the policies they advocate treat actual women's lives with such contempt.

[RedPanda]

Yet more shades of The Handmaid's Tale. Horrendous, insensitive, archaic, I'm just gobsmacked that this law has made it as far as it has.


What a sobering book that is. I read it years ago and recently re-read it. It is indeed possible to really enjoy a book and be shaken and provoked by it at the same time.

[Bron]

I've just had a thought. Utah is super dooper religious, right? There is a passage in Exodus that says something like "If you serve god none shall miscarry" (I'm paraphrasing here, but for reference it is Exodus 23 verses 25 and 26.)

So perhaps the prevailing view in the minds of these legislators is that those of us who have been unfortunate enough to lose babies didn't serve God well enough? Are they trying to make it illegal not to serve God?

Man, the conspiracy theories are endless.... :detective:

[Bron]

Very tru but 'pro life' is my nice name for them - I think if I used the other names that popped into me head I would be banned from the hub :D:D

"Anti-choice" is a nice compromise.

[CrankyAndTired]

Way past offensive Phyllis.

I identify as pro-life, I recognize the rights of the unborn - that does not mean for one second that I treat women's life with contempt for that I equal unintentional miscarriage with deliberate abortion.

Lets focus on this specific legislation and whats it signifies for women in Utah - not throw mud at each other for holding different views.

[Mummaholic]

Lets focus on this specific legislation and whats it signifies for women in Utah - not throw mud at each other for holding different views.

What are your views on this subject?

[Pulp Fiction]

"Anti-choice" is a nice compromise.
:D Anti-choice. Thats waaay better than pro-life. I've never heard that before.:thumbsup:

[misskittyfantastico]

Or in my case "your cells didn't divide properly". Alright officer, I'll come quietly.

:hugs:

This is beyond reason. It is sickening and frightening.

The Wifey, I'd argue that it's what it signifies for every human. There is a reason that I call those who identify as pro-life, anti-woman.

The "rights of the fetus" argument ends with the senario in the OP:no:

[sunflowermummy]

Absolutely speechless.....and angered....

[Phyllis Stein]

Way past offensive Phyllis.

I identify as pro-life, I recognize the rights of the unborn - that does not mean for one second that I treat women's life with contempt for that I equal unintentional miscarriage with deliberate abortion.

Lets focus on this specific legislation and whats it signifies for women in Utah - not throw mud at each other for holding different views.

I'm genuinely sorry that you found it offensive. I'm calling it as I see it, and unfortunately, I don't see any way to reconcile the desire of some to protect the unborn with the preservation of women's autonomy and freedom. I think it's fine to dislike abortion, hate it even, without eroding other women's rights. But when you start supporting policies that restrict abortion, homebirth etc on the basis that a fetus has rights comparable to the mother, then you're fair game.

Tam's OP is *all* about the way fetal rights make women invisible, irrelevant and extremely vulnerable to human rights abuse. So I believe the issue of what 'pro-life' actually stands for is pertinent.

[MimiGrace]

I'm genuinely sorry that you found it offensive. I'm calling it as I see it, and unfortunately, I don't see any way to reconcile the desire of some to protect the unborn with the preservation of women's autonomy and freedom. I think it's fine to dislike abortion, hate it even, without eroding other women's rights. But when you start supporting policies that restrict abortion, homebirth etc on the basis that a fetus has rights comparable to the mother, then you're fair game.

Tam's OP is *all* about the way fetal rights make women invisible, irrelevent and extremely vulnerable to humen rights abuse. So I believe the issue of what 'pro-life' actually stands for is pertinent.
You word things so nicely phyllis :goodvibes:

(so i agree with above)

[misskittyfantastico]

I'm genuinely sorry that you found it offensive. I'm calling it as I see it, and unfortunately, I don't see any way to reconcile the desire of some to protect the unborn with the preservation of women's autonomy and freedom. I think it's fine to dislike abortion, hate it even, without eroding other women's rights. But when you start supporting policies that restrict abortion, homebirth etc on the basis that a fetus has rights comparable to the mother, then you're fair game.

Tam's OP is *all* about the way fetal rights make women invisible, irrelevent and extremely vulnerable to humen rights abuse. So I believe the issue of what 'pro-life' actually stands for is pertinent.

Yessirooni.

[Maisymouse]

:eek: Did I read that right?

If a women has a miscarriage she can be charged?

Ok I have read some stupid things over time but this, holly cow what the???

[Miss_Vicki]

i read it as that IF the miscarriage was from a illegal abortion or from something they took (abortion pill ?) then be in beep ?

[spoon]

Or in my case "your cells didn't divide properly". Alright officer, I'll come quietly.


:hugs::hugs:


That is quite shocking and frightening.

[Pippi Longstocking]

:( How frightening for women everywhere.

[RoarsomeMum]

:no: That legislation is bloody horrifying.. and yes.. can see the similarities and connection and potential of what is happening right here.. and where it could lead.. Makes me sick, and freaking scared..

[~Bec~]

I've just had a thought. Utah is super dooper religious, right? There is a passage in Exodus that says something like "If you serve god none shall miscarry" (I'm paraphrasing here, but for reference it is Exodus 23 verses 25 and 26.)

So perhaps the prevailing view in the minds of these legislators is that those of us who have been unfortunate enough to lose babies didn't serve God well enough? Are they trying to make it illegal not to serve God?

Man, the conspiracy theories are endless.... :detective:

All the US is very religious, Utah has a lot of mormons (I believe this is because they were the last state to outlaw polygamy so mormons moved to Utah). There is probably a lot of Catholics too. (I lived in Arizona for a year which is the next state directly south of Utah and probably about 90% of people were Catholic but I'm guessing the further you move away from Mexico the less Catholic and more Protestants there would be).

It's a deeply disturbing law indeed. Apart from it's abhorrent regard for women the fall out is just so tragic and sickening :( Think if a woman is starting to miscarry, to protect herself she must avoid medical assistance and suffer in silence.

Even if that quote from the bible is their justification, then this would contravene Amendment 1 of the constitution that guarantees a person freedom of worship.

If I wasn't on slow speed internet connection (2 more days...) then I'd be interested in doing some more reading about this matter.

[Fuchsia!]

is this what they are talking about also?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3X4_p3yAC8

[Tam-I-Am]

Yes, that's what I'm talking about, Fuchsia.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

is this what they are talking about also?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3X4_p3yAC8

Thanks for posting this one, fuchsia. I have seen that one before, how anyone could say that these laws are in any way just is beyond me.:(

[Fuchsia!]

How awful :(

[Tam-I-Am]

i read it as that IF the miscarriage was from a illegal abortion or from something they took (abortion pill ?) then be in beep ?

Did you read the full article? It states:


A woman who fails to wear a seatbelt and is in a car accident could be charged with reckless homicide, should she miscarry. Likewise, a woman who has a substance abuse problem is likely to forego necessary prenatal care out of fear that she could be prosecuted for "knowing" or "reckless" homicide by continuing to use illegal substances while pregnant.

The problems don't stop there. Women in physically abusive relationships could be criminally liable for not leaving their partner, regardless of their ability to do so safely or securely. Women seeking lawful abortion may be guilty of criminal homicide if her physician failed to follow exact procedures set forth in the law.

I can think of 100 other examples in which women might be punished for having a miscarriage. Drinking, smoking, taking drugs, eating high listeria risk foods, having sex after bleeding, declining standard pre-natal testing (such as blood tests, ultrasounds, GD testing etc) even where there was no indication that she should have them - or proof that her baby died because of the lack of them, declining obstetrician-mandated intervention such as early c-sect or induction, stretch and sweep, etc, the list goes on and on and on.

The scary thing is that obstetricians already have a near-monopoly on birth in westernised countries ANYWAY. Laws such as this only serve to strengthen their already very powerful position. We all know there are some very ethical, kind, wonderful obstetricians out there who truly have nothing but a woman's best interests at heart. We also all know that there are obstetricians who are the complete opposite of that description, arrogant, rude, self-serving obstetricians who care more about lining their pockets - and getting out of the hospital by 5pm on a Friday night to commence their weekends - than they have ever cared about women and their care and wellbeing.

My fear with the current homebirth legislation is that it's going to end up in a very different place to where it started. It seems innocuous enough at the moment, yeah? I mean, less than 1% of all of Australia's population chooses homebirth, so while taking away their rights is a bit sad for them, it's not really all that big of a problem, right? Except that the legislation doesn't JUST affect those wanting to homebirth. It affects every single person in possession of a vagina in this country - and all those who care about them too (the people, not the vaginas :laughing:).

This is what homebirthers have been trying to point out since the introduction of this legislation. If any woman wants to have the right to bodily autonomy in the future, the right to decline a doctor's recommended course of treatment, the right to choose her own care provider, the right to change hospitals, the right to choose the mode of birth of her child, the right to make medical and bodily decisions for herself and her child - the she'd better sit up and pay attention NOW. Because those rights are very carefully being stolen from us as we speak.

And we're going to end up in much the same position as Utah (and other states of the US) if we're not careful here.

[Mathermy]

I feel like I might actually be sick :(:crying:

[Tam-I-Am]

I entirely agree, Fluffy Laydee.

[Freya]

I was talking to my mother about this and she was saying how Utah has a high population of Mormons.. Which explains a LOT!

It's sickening.:(

(Just realised the mormon thing had been said, maybe I should read the whole thread before posting!)

[delirium]

I'm curious to hear the pro lifers thoughts.

I think a vast majority of it is ridiculous and offensive. Where do I start? that miscarriage is lumped in with abortion. Miscarriage is the body's own abortion of sorts and how anyone could say m/c is a choice is crazy.

That women are to blame if their husband kills the baby thru violence - so ridiculous that I don't even need to explain why.

That women can't leave abusive relationships, again totally crazy.

Utah is the home of fundamental Christianity in the US. Lets not place the majority of moderate, 'normal' pro life people in the same basket as these religious extremists.

[text deleted by moderator]


"Anti-choice" is a nice compromise.

Again with the name calling and labelling, as with 90% of every abortion thread we have on here. I could come up with a lot of alternative terms to pro choice too, but what good does that do, except create an adversarial and nasty vibe? I choose to discuss the topic not brand you all manner of nasty names. I'm actually surprised the well used 'anti woman' one hasn't reared it's head yet. Come to think of it fanatic, lunatic and nutter hasn't come up yet either. I should feel grateful :rolleyes:

[Pippi Longstocking]

Again with the name calling and labelling, as with 90% of every abortion thread we have on here. I could come up with a lot of alternative terms to pro choice too, but what good does that do, except create an adversarial and nasty vibe? I choose to discuss the topic not brand you all manner of nasty names. I'm actually surprised the well used 'anti woman' one hasn't reared it's head yet. Come to think of it fanatic, lunatic and nutter hasn't come up yet either. I should feel grateful :rolleyes:

It's not about being nasty and name-calling. I too take offence to the term "pro-life" because of what it insinuates. I think it is a misnomer and that anti-choice is actually far more accurate.

[delirium]

But you are trying to dicate what another group identify as, based on your on beliefs. You are placing your own bias on what I identify as my feelings on this. Anti choice is actually not accurate, bc I've said time and again I don't want illgalisation of abortion. So I'm not taking choice from anyone. Case closed ;)


I wouldn't think it would be fair to make excuses (for what I have seen to be pretty contant name calling and insults) for any other group of people who do that. You appear to be saying we deserve it bc we don't share your beliefs. Lets not make excuses for why it's ok to call us names, any more than it's ok to use the emotive M word in this discussion :)

[Pippi Longstocking]

[LEFT]But you are trying to dicate what another group identify as, based on your on beliefs. Not at all. I am trying to point out that 'pro life' implies that anyone that does not identify in this way must be anti life. I am trying to say that "pro life" implies all manner of incorrect assumptions about those that don't identify in this way. It has nothing to do with you personally.


Anti choice is actually not accurate, bc I've said time and again I don't want illgalisation of abortion. So I'm not taking choice from anyone. Case closed ;)
Being pro life is being anti choice. Case closed. :p


I wouldn't think it would be fair to make excuses (for what I have seen to be pretty contant name calling and insults) for any other group of people who do that.
You know as well as I do that name calling and insults is frowned upon on bubhub and people simply cannot get away with it, no matter what the topic.



You appear to be saying we deserve it bc we don't share your beliefs. Lets not make excuses for why it's ok to call us names, any more than it's ok to use the emotive M word in this discussion :)Please don't put words in my mouth, that is not what I am saying at all.

[nothanksbye]

That makes me feel ill.

Illegal abortion...ohh my.

I can see what you mean Tam. We are taking more and more choices off women.

The idea that women can be forced to birth in a hospital makes my skin crawl.

We are taking such backwards steps.

as for pro life , its funny that name. It implies I am anti life and thats so far from the truth.
I am all for life and all for choice.

[hailsntwang]

To those of us who have been unfortunate enough to suffer from miscarriages this will hit very close to home.:no:

I'm sitting here thinking about what they could have used against me when I miscarried:confused: and can't believe that in some States in America real women go through this trauma of attempting to defend themselves over something they probably really had no chance of stopping.

It breaks my heart:crying:

Women in these circumstances will never "win" in court, my theory is the "State" will always win hands down:(

[Pippi Longstocking]

I wonder what they'd make of my miscarriage? I miscarried because my little embryo had implanted right on the little wing of my contraceptive device...the miscarriage could have been avoided if I wasn't on contraception at the time of conception...:confused:

[BigRedV]

I wonder what they'd make of my miscarriage? I miscarried because my little embryo had implanted right on the little wing of my contraceptive device...the miscarriage could have been avoided if I wasn't on contraception at the time of conception...:confused:

They would have said it's because you don't believe in god :rolleyes: :shame:

[roohif]

Firstly, the copy-n-paste in the OP is clearly from some lunatic who is trying to read more into the bill than is actually there ... I haven't read it myself, but I'd be willing to bet my left testicle that this is the case.

I think everyone should go to the root source and make their mind up from that.

Abortion is a tricky issue, and these ridiculously contrived scenarios in the OP don't help the situation - and neither does name-calling ("anti-choice").

I would apply the "pro-life" label to myself, for the record - I attribute unborn babies with many of the rights of a normal person. There seems to be a great deal of disagreement on this forum as to what that actually means these days ...

[Tam-I-Am]

Guess you'd best pay up then, roohif.

When I shall I collect your left testicle?

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0012.htm (http://le.utah.gov/%7E2010/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0012.htm)

http://www.acluutah.org/HB12VetoLetter.pdf

[roohif]

Guess you'd best pay up then, roohif.

When I shall I collect your left testicle?

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0012.htm (http://le.utah.gov/%7E2010/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0012.htm)

http://www.acluutah.org/HB12VetoLetter.pdf

Thanks for the link. The only place miscarriage is mentioned is in lines 190 through 201.

The bill is incredibly clear in its wording - "intentional termination", "intentional killing", "intentional causing of miscarriage". So none of this crap about not wearing a seatbelt, not leaving an abusive spouse, eating salami, and most certainly none of your garden variety miscarriages.

It looks to me like the bill is trying to prevent backyard abortions by making it a criminal offense. I think the idea is that the only legal abortion is one done by a doctor.

Glad I get to keep my testicle.

[Looshkin]

Where does this leave those needing IVF?

Looks like a very very grey area to me.


So very sad and sickened that this anti woman legislation is anything but scoffed at.

[BigRedV]

It is anti-choice though.

Someone who is pro-life is taking the CHOICE away from a living, breathing, independent being - a fetus is not an independent being.

A pro-choice person is not forcing a woman into an abortion, but a pro-life person is taking any CHOICE away from her. Anti-choice.

[Tam-I-Am]

Thanks for the link. The only place miscarriage is mentioned is in lines 190 through 201.

The bill is incredibly clear in its wording - "intentional termination", "intentional killing", "intentional causing of miscarriage". So none of this crap about not wearing a seatbelt, not leaving an abusive spouse, eating salami, and most certainly none of your garden variety miscarriages.

It looks to me like the bill is trying to prevent backyard abortions by making it a criminal offense. I think the idea is that the only legal abortion is one done by a doctor.

Glad I get to keep my testicle.

Uh-huh. And how do we determine intent, post-fact? There are obviously situations in which it would be obvious, with pre-planning. But what about a woman who eats something that turns out to have caused a miscarriage, how do you PROVE that she had no intention to do so?

Also, WHY THE HELL should a woman not have the right to bodily autonomy?! I know how to access information regarding the what herbs to use as abortifacients that I believe have been proven to be about 85% effective. Whilst I don't believe that I will ever be in a position where I would feel the need to employ such information, WHY THE HELL should MY rights to decide what I do with MY body be upheld by the government and the law?!

Either human rights are rights, or they're privileges for only some. There is no grey area here. If human rights can be taken away from women because of some religious right wing agenda, then they can be taken away from ANYBODY.

And yes, the laws may state 'intentional' FOR NOW. But what about next year, when a further right-wing religious nut comes into power and decides to amend that particular clause?

Erosion of human rights is a slippery slope. It always has been.

So, if I really wanted to, I think *I* won the 'bet'. But to be honest, you can keep your teste. I don't want it. :p

[BigRedV]

you can keep your teste. I don't want it.


:laughing:

[roohif]

Someone who is pro-life is taking the CHOICE away from a living, breathing, independent being - a fetus is not an independent being.


I'm sure this argument has played out a hundred times on BubHub before ...

Is a newborn baby an "independent" being? What about a severely mentally handicapped person? Geriatrics? Do these beings have rights?

And what does a functional society do in the case of a dependent being? It makes decisions in the best interests of that being.

The whole argument boils down to when a foetus has rights, not if. I can't imagine too many pro-choicers thinking it was okay to terminate her pregnancy a cuppa days before her due date.

[Tam-I-Am]

I'm sure this argument has played out a hundred times on BubHub before ...

Is a newborn baby an "independent" being? What about a severely mentally handicapped person? Geriatrics? Do these beings have rights?

And what does a functional society do in the case of a dependent being? It makes decisions in the best interests of that being.

The whole argument boils down to when a foetus has rights, not if. I can't imagine too many pro-choicers thinking it was okay to terminate her pregnancy a cuppa days before her due date.

Ridiculous arguments, Roohif. Yes of course a newborn, a geriatric, a disabled person are independent beings. They live and breath on their own without relying on another person's body for life support, without which they could not survive.

No person should be held to being a living, walking, thinking, feeling incubator and respirator etc against their will.

[BigRedV]

The whole argument boils down to when a foetus has rights, not if.

Do you believe the rights begin at conception???

[BigRedV]

No person should be held to being a living, walking, thinking, feeling incubator and respirator etc against their will.

:iagree: :yelclap:

[Looshkin]

Actually no technically it boils down to when a fetus can be born, and subsequently upon being born be awarded full and equal rights to that of the woman, as a living person and not a potential person.

A fetus can never have full rights that will not by proxy silence and remove those of the mother.
This is essentially what the entire argument that has gone on since roe vs wade has been centered upon.

The concept that awarding full rights is a slippery slope that in order to exist must removes those same human rights from the woman.

I hope that there is never a day that it is when and not if - forced hospital confinement for all women, pregnant womens camps aka concentration style to ensure the fetus is not in a car crash caused by the mother kept safe from the world lest the mother be charged with murder, forced csects for all women.. Not allowing women access to life saving drugs because of the risk to the fetus aka equallying "attempted murder", what about non life saving drugs but drugs that the woman feels for whatever her reasons are something SHE required like anti d's or herbs for health that she feels is safe but because they haven't been proven as unequivocally safe the woman is charged, what about falling down a set of bloody stairs and being charged with attempted murder/ grievous bodily harm or something? How does she prove she didn't throw herself down the stairs, how does the woman prove she NEEDED those drugs and why the hell should she have to justify her choices to a bunch of men and religious zealots refusing to give others free will like that which was bestowed upon them by their god, making decisions and legislating over her body?


The slippery slope when we start removing human rights from a woman and awarding them so something dependent upon her inside her body is very real and grave issue.

We surely wouldn't force someone on the street to be strapped down and connected to me so I may use their body as life support for months, and if we would not award someone living with this right to do so with another living persons body how can we award someone who is only a potential person this right?

[BigRedV]

Actually no technically it boils down to when a fetus can be born, and subsequently upon being born be awarded full and equal rights to that of the woman, as a living person and not a potential person.


:yes::yes::yes:

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

I'm sure this argument has played out a hundred times on BubHub before ...

Is a newborn baby an "independent" being? What about a severely mentally handicapped person? Geriatrics? Do these beings have rights?

And what does a functional society do in the case of a dependent being? It makes decisions in the best interests of that being.

The whole argument boils down to when a foetus has rights, not if. I can't imagine too many pro-choicers thinking it was okay to terminate her pregnancy a cuppa days before her due date.
A womans rights should allways come before a foetus. A Foetus is not a person.

[roohif]

Uh-huh. And how do we determine intent, post-fact?

The same way we do in any other court proceedings ... ?


how do you PROVE that she had no intention to do so?

I don't recall reading anything in the bill that pushed the burden of proof onto the mother to prove her lack of intention. The presumption of innocence is a pretty fundamental precept in the justice system, so I think I'd be pretty safe putting my right testicle on the line this time.



Also, WHY THE HELL should a woman not have the right to bodily autonomy?! ... WHY THE HELL should MY rights to decide what I do with MY body be upheld by the government and the law?!

Because there are competing interests here - the rights of an unborn child. Do you think the foetus has NO rights at all, or do you think it acquires rights at some point?


I know how to access information regarding the what herbs to use ...

And I know where I can buy a gun. Doesn't make it okay to go shoot someone.

Can't be f'd quoting the rest, so point form it is.

* I'd be the first person to say that religion should play no role whatsoever in law making.

* Suggesting that they might remove the "intention" from the law is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard anyone say. I suggest you edit your post to save your own credibility.

* Miscarriages are not criminalised by this bill; I keep the testicle.

* Newborns, geriatrics and disabled people are not independent. They will die very quickly without human intervention. Narrowing the definition of "dependent" to purely refer to relying on another person's body is special pleading.


Do you believe the rights begin at conception???

The point at which the foetus acquires rights is what I think we should be talking about. I personally would do everything in my power to give an embryo a chance at life (and if you've read Wifey's TTC diary you would see how we handled our IVF cycle). That said, I would NOT support a law that gave a single cell embryo the same status as a human being. I'm still in the process of formulating a final opinion on the subject, suffice to say I think that once a foetus can feel pain it definitely has legal rights, but probably before.

[Tam-I-Am]

The same way we do in any other court proceedings ... ?

I don't recall reading anything in the bill that pushed the burden of proof onto the mother to prove her lack of intention. The presumption of innocence is a pretty fundamental precept in the justice system, so I think I'd be pretty safe putting my right testicle on the line this time.

No you're right, the burden of proof is not on the woman - in the same way that it's never on the woman in other legal proceedings concerning her bodily autonomy. Nominally at least (rape cases, anyone? :rolleyes:).


Because there are competing interests here - the rights of an unborn child. Do you think the foetus has NO rights at all, or do you think it acquires rights at some point?

Yes, I believe that they acquire rights at some state. When they're born. Or at least when they're viable - by the definition in both medical AND practical terms. Don't get me wrong, I'm not without a heart - I absolutely feel the conflict of knowing that a HEALTHY fetus of 24 weeks can be viable medically speaking, and yet a mother can still procure an abortion post this. I'm also well aware that 99%+ abortions that occur after 12 weeks are for medical reasons - usually recommended by medical practitioners in fact. It's not that I don't feel the unease - FFS, I've SEEN and FELT what a pregnancy produces! - but that I absolutely 100% agree with SockStealingPoltergeist. A FETUS has no rights, and the rights of the living, breathing, feeling, HERE WOMAN override the fetus in ALL situations, so far as I'm concerned.


And I know where I can buy a gun. Doesn't make it okay to go shoot someone.

Irrelevant straw man. We're talking about MY body in the first example, and another PERSON'S (NOT potential person's) in the 2nd.


Can't be f'd quoting the rest, so point form it is.

* I'd be the first person to say that religion should play no role whatsoever in law making.

Good. However this law in Utah is ENTIRELY based in religion.


* Suggesting that they might remove the "intention" from the law is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard anyone say. I suggest you edit your post to save your own credibility.

Nor did I say that. I addressed this point above.


* Miscarriages are not criminalised by this bill; I keep the testicle.

In fact, miscarriage IS criminalised by this bill. However yes, you keep the testicle - as above, I do not want it.



* Newborns, geriatrics and disabled people are not independent. They will die very quickly without human intervention. Narrowing the definition of "dependent" to purely refer to relying on another person's body is special pleading.

That is the ENTIRE POINT. A fetus is reliant on another person's body. I would expect that, should I be able to become a mobile life-sustaining machine for my husband in the future, I would also have the legal RIGHT to terminate my status as such at any time. Why? BECAUSE IT'S MY BODY.


The point at which the foetus acquires rights is what I think we should be talking about. I personally would do everything in my power to give an embryo a chance at life (and if you've read Wifey's TTC diary you would see how we handled our IVF cycle). That said, I would NOT support a law that gave a single cell embryo the same status as a human being. I'm still in the process of formulating a final opinion on the subject, suffice to say I think that once a foetus can feel pain it definitely has legal rights, but probably before.

I do not agree. And it needs to be the woman who HOUSES said fetus to determine whether the fetus (that is, by definition, only a POTENTIAL PERSON) becomes a person, or is removed before that occurs. Anything else is totally abhorrent and only culminates in forced pregnancy, birth, and parent - not a good outcome for ANYBODY.

[roohif]

A womans rights should allways come before a foetus. A Foetus is not a person.

Does your right to "not be bothered having a baby" come before the rights of, say a 38 week foetus?

At what point does a duty of care come into the situation?

[MimiGrace]

Does your right to "not be bothered having a baby" come before the rights of, say a 38 week foetus?

At what point does a duty of care come into the situation?
to 'abort' a 38 week foetus, the woman would have to go through labour.

So no, of course we aren't suggesting she abort the baby at that stage.

If the baby is compatible with life, then she should be allowed to have an induction/cesarean and give the baby up for adoption (if that is what she chooses to do).

I'm pretty sure tam-i-am (and the other ladies who agree with her) are referring specifically to abortions which are considered "late term" (between the ages of 12-24 weeks MAX - although at 24 a doc would induce you and put the baby in the NICU), and not yet compatible with life apart from that of the mother.

Now, i really really dislike abortion.
But by making laws which allow the state to determine whether or not a woman should be allowed to put her own body FIRST, we severely restrict the rights of women. - and it is just another way to keep women in a lower position than men.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

Does your right to "not be bothered having a baby" come before the rights of, say a 38 week foetus?

At what point does a duty of care come into the situation?

It's not about not being bothered.

Women are not yet equal to men and thus are often discriminated against.

Many women lose jobs and promotions due to pregnancy, some are thrown out of home, some have their boyfriends and husbands leave them.

Some are so sick they cannot function.

Others have life threatening pregnancy complications.

Some die in child birth.

Some become incontinent.

Some are so scarred by child birth they PTSD.

Some suffer severe depression due pregnancy.

Some women end up the only supporting parent caring the child.

Many women end up living in poverty due to single parenthood.

Women do the majority of childcare even if they work full time outside the home.

Single and young mothers are still discriminated against.

I could go on, but I don't want to.

So yes it's all about not being bothered:rolleyes:.

BTW, I have been a teenage mother and a single mother, I have gone through with a pregnancy and had to give up studies, and had my baby despite severe trauma from my first birth in which I was lucky to survive.

I have had two pregnancies and two births, I however can empathise and fully understand why somone may need to have an abortion at any stage during pregnancy.

My body does not belong to the state and it never should.

[roohif]

A FETUS has no rights, and the rights of the living, breathing, feeling, HERE WOMAN override the fetus in ALL situations, so far as I'm concerned.

And that's where we disagree - I think you have a duty of care. Taking those "herbs" to intentionally cause the death of a sentient being is something I would have a big problem with.


Good. However this law in Utah is ENTIRELY based in religion.

Really?! How so?


Nor did I say that. I addressed this point above.

""And yes, the laws may state 'intentional' FOR NOW. But what about next year, when a further right-wing religious nut comes into power and decides to amend that particular clause?""

You were saying ... ???


In fact, miscarriage IS criminalised by this bill.

You might need to spell this out to me in pretty simple terms, because that's not what I understood when I read the bill. In my mind, the very definition of abortion implies intent, while the definition of miscarriage implies lack of intent.

[Boobycino]

I think I'm a pro-lifer, but I'm also a big fat fence sitter! Because I have a tiny bit of pro-choicer in me.

But deep DEEP down, it does make me feel slightly unwell to say I'm pro-choice, because when I REALLY think about it, when I really ask myself what I really think when I'm not trying to be nice and protect the feelings of others or be politically correct or not start a fight, if I'm honest, I'm pro-life.

I think granting a fetus person hood... hmmmm.... yeah, fundamentally I agree with it. But a certain amount of sanity and compassion must be applied.

The bit that worries me is:

* applies the legal standard of an "intentional, knowing or reckless act of the woman" as punishable as criminal homicide.

:no: So many scary thoughts come to mind, as mentioned by the other ladies here.

And not allowing woman the right to choose their own method of birthing is wrong wrong wrong WRONG! because I know for a FACT - from my experience delivering Jasper, being induced into labor over a 45 hour period before they realised he was breech - that doctors and midwifes don't ALWAYS know best. If fact, it appeared to me they knew jack-all and I felt very much like I was being ignored as a person and treated like my input was completely irrelevant - to the point where I wasn't even informed when the Syntocinon drip was turned on, despite being told it wouldn't be if my labour progressed - which is was doing nicely by that time.

So... yeah.... both sides here.

Ultimately, the woman MUST come first. The baby a close second. The doctors and their personal opinions separate to their medical ones can be left at home where they belong because when they are delivering a baby, they were working for and assisting the mother in delivering her baby.

Anyhoo...

it sounds like a scary scary thought that woman could potentially be trialed as to the reason for their miscarriage.

:no:

Scary stuff.

[crazymuma]

Does your right to "not be bothered having a baby" come before the rights of, say a 38 week foetus?

At what point does a duty of care come into the situation?


My god - seriously how many women even attempt to have a late term abortion just so not to be bothered :rolleyes:

Perahps try talking to some people who have actually gone through it and you might see its not quite as simple as that for everyone.

[roohif]

It's not about not being bothered.

Good to hear. And this is where the "pro-life" position is often (purposely?) misconstrued. I fully agree that there might be legitimate reasons to NEED an abortion (although some of those in your list are pretty weak) so why are people equating pro-life with anti-choice?

If you are likely to die during childbirth, then the case for an abortion here is hardly representative of the "pro-choice" position, is it?


I however can empathise and fully understand why somone may need to have an abortion at any stage during pregnancy.

Keyword being "need" - and this is crux of the argument. If the unborn child has no rights, then your "need" is, in practical terms, equivalent to your "want".

I think the two camps actually share a lot of common ground - obviously the two issues are:

1. If and when a woman can abort without good reason

2. What reasons are valid to permit an abortion after that point.

I think both sides want to limit the number of abortions ...

[nothanksbye]

Which reasons do you find weak?

Its interesting to have a male tell us the reasons that he thinks are weak reasons for not wanting to go ahead with a pregnancy?

Pray tell?

[Ana Gram]

"good reason"? And what pray tell is good reason?

[roohif]

Perahps try talking to some people who have actually gone through it and you might see its not quite as simple as that for everyone.

I've personally attended two abortions - holding their hands because the "man" in the picture wasn't around.

But thanks for the condescending attitude anyway :yelclap:

[Phyllis Stein]

And that's where we disagree - I think you have a duty of care. Taking those "herbs" to intentionally cause the death of a sentient being is something I would have a big problem with.

Firstly, a fetus is sentient only in a very limited respect. They may sense, but they do not know they sense.

Secondly, how far does this hypothetical duty of care extend? To the everyday foods we consume that may also act like an abortifacient? To the alcohol we consume? The cigarettes we smoke? The seatbelts we wear? The sports we play? The occupations we work in? The genetic abnormalities we risk passing on? The company we keep?

Or, if it's all about "intent", then there's a *very* thin line between a woman who deliberately uses herbs to cause a miscarriage and a woman who lives recklessly, knowing her actions are able or likely to cause a termination of pregnancy. It's naive to think that line can *ever* be clear.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

Good to hear. And this is where the "pro-life" position is often (purposely?) misconstrued. I fully agree that there might be legitimate reasons to NEED an abortion (although some of those in your list are pretty weak) so why are people equating pro-life with anti-choice?
It is up to the woman if the reason is legitimate, it is her body.


If you are likely to die during childbirth, then the case for an abortion here is hardly representative of the "pro-choice" position, is it?

I didn't say it was likely. I did say it can happen, pregnancy and birth are not risk free.
I fail to understand your point. Clarify?





Keyword being "need" - and this is crux of the argument. If the unborn child has no rights, then your "need" is, in practical terms, equivalent to your "want".

No it isn't.


I think the two camps actually share a lot of common ground - obviously the two issues are:

1. If and when a woman can abort without good reason

I don't believe in "good reason" I believe in absolute bodily autonomy .


2. What reasons are valid to permit an abortion after that point.

I think both sides want to limit the number of abortions ...

Yes the only thing that reduces abortions is full freedom of choice and access to information.

[roohif]

Which reasons do you find weak?

For starters, anything post-birth I think is pretty weak (assuming there is enough demand for adoption?)

But apparently my penis is preventing me from forming an opinion on the other items in the list, so I think I'll call it a night.

[Phyllis Stein]

For anyone who thinks women won't *really* be held accountable for unintentional harm to their fetus, it's already happened. :no: Link (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/15/its-illegal-37-states-for-a-pregnant-woman-fall-down-stairs) and another (http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/pregnant_iowa_woman_arrested_for_falling_down).

[nothanksbye]

For starters, anything post-birth I think is pretty weak (assuming there is enough demand for adoption?)

But apparently my penis is preventing me from forming an opinion on the other items in the list, so I think I'll call it a night.

LOL..

No Roohif i just dont find that you are qualified for judging womens choices as weak.
I think it is up to the individual who has to carry and birth.

walk a mile...IYKWIM.

or get huffy and claim discrimination due to your penis...Meh.

[Pippi Longstocking]

For starters, anything post-birth I think is pretty weak (assuming there is enough demand for adoption?)

But apparently my penis is preventing me from forming an opinion on the other items in the list, so I think I'll call it a night.

You have to admit it is pretty bloody offensive to have a dude here declaring what is and what isn't a good enough reason for a woman to decide what she does with her body. It's not that your penis and one testicle (I believe you owe one of them to another poster, hence 'testicle' singular) prevents you from forming an opinion, but it really ought to prevent you from attempting to inflict said opinion on others that have a far greater depth of understanding about the issue, including the variety of ways in which an unwanted pregnancy can impact on women.

[Mrs Nietzsche]

This is bollocks. The word 'reckless' in the legislation leaves application of the law open to the broadest of interpretations, with the potential for consequences unforseen to the writers (like all badly written legislation).

Roohif has been silent on the point of the erosion of a woman's rights as you grant rights to a foetus.

Roohif - do you acknowledge that agree that foetal rights should take priority over a woman's right to bodily autonomy?

If so, can you explain where you feel that a halt should be called to this erosion? Should a woman be forced to have a c-section if the baby is breech? Should a woman be forced to quit her job if the environment she works in leaves her potentially exposed to toxins? Should a woman be forced to exercise 30 minutes a day because lack of exercise may be being 'reckless' to the baby's heatlh?

If it is criminal to allow a woman to terminate a apregnancy, or even to be *reckless* to the possibility of termination occuring (however inadvertently??) - where is the line then drawn.

The fact is, that without legal abortion, some women *will* be desperate enough to drive recklessly without a seatbelt, or provoke a violent partner into bashing her, or similar. Should these women be charged? And if so, how long til the finger *is* pointed at women who 'allowed' themselves to be bashed, or in a car accident, and questions are asked as to whether they intended an abortion.

Unfortunately, when you are talking about a woman's bodily autonomy, cluelessness is not just annoying, it is dangerous.

[Mischief]

Oh... WOW!

That is..... SHOCKING!

No other words... cant even think... just SHOCKING!

[Boobycino]

I've personally attended two abortions - holding their hands because the "man" in the picture wasn't around.

But thanks for the condescending attitude anyway :yelclap:


I'm pro-life, but pro-choice, because my bestfriend in highschool had an abortion, and the reason I held her hand in the hospital, and bit down my beliefs, was because the 'man' was too afraid to wag a class at school in case his parents found out.

My heart still breaks to think of it, I can't not think about the fact that that baby would be starting school next year, its how my mind works and thinks about these things, I still wish she'd considered having the baby, because no matter what I tell myself, I cant not think of it as a baby - but I'm not so pro-life that I lose my humanity and compassion.

[Phyllis Stein]

Roohif has been silent on the point of the erosion of a woman's rights as you grant rights to a foetus.

Roohif - do you acknowledge that agree that foetal rights should take priority over a woman's right to bodily autonomy?


Good question. I think if you're going to spout off in support of the erosion of women's rights, you need to account for the effects that will have on real women. It's not good enough to simply dismiss the loss of bodily autonomy as if it is of little consequence.

[Mischief]

I didnt read all of the post earlier.

Personally I think Roofhi has every right to an opinion. Being a man doesn't (well SHOULDN'T) exclude him from being able to voice one. What ever happened to free speech?

Im against abortions. Friends of mine have had them, and although I cant support that decision I do understand that it was their choice to make, not mine.

I personally dont have issue with laws that make abortion illegal... as I said Im against abortion. I do have a huge issue with a law that means a woman who accidentally does something silly that endangers her pregnancy is classed as a murderer.

I find that so hard to fathom.... how they could bring a woman suffering emotionally from the loss of her unborn CHILD (my belief is that its a child from conception) to court to face charges. Very sad. :(

[onionskin]

I am seriously speechless.

As someone who has had numerous miscarraiges, both early (before 12wks) and late (between 12-24 wks) and my beautiful son was born still in the third trimester. This really makes me sick to my stomach.

What blame could they have attributed to my situation...? What would placing that blame really achieve?

When I lost my children my babies I was lost...but you know what, I still believe in a womans right to bodily autonomy. To her rights to abortion.

At her discretion, not someone who has no concept of her life or situation, or her ability or want to raise a child.

Without choice, true choice for women well the idea just makes me sick...:(

[Mathermy]

I think Roohifs right to an opinion is not in question, it's whether or not his perception of a woman's "needs" are as valid (or in his eyes more valid apparently as verified a few posts back..) than a woman's perception of her own needs.

[Pippi Longstocking]

I think Roohifs right to an opinion is not in question, it's whether or not his perception of a woman's "needs" are as valid (or in his eyes more valid apparently as verified a few posts back..) than a woman's perception of her own needs.

Indeed. :iagree:
Of course roohif has a right to an opinion - it's not as though anyone has the power to take that right away, after all. It's when that opinion is used to erode the rights of others that it becomes an issue.

[roohif]

No Roohif i just dont find that you are qualified for judging womens choices as weak.

...

or get huffy and claim discrimination due to your penis...Meh.

Well done. In one sentence you're discriminating against me because I'm a man, and in the very same post telling me that I'm only "claiming" discrimination.


I think it is up to the individual who has to carry and birth.

walk a mile...IYKWIM.

Yes I Know What You Mean. Ever walked a mile in an aborted foetus's shoes? I just don't find that you're qualified ... KWIM?

[nothanksbye]

Well done. In one sentence you're discriminating against me because I'm a man, and in the very same post telling me that I'm only "claiming" discrimination.



Yes I Know What You Mean. Ever walked a mile in an aborted foetus's shoes? I just don't find that you're qualified ... KWIM?

Thats clearly impossible...

You can get as icky as you like, i have no problem with you having an opinion. i do however have a problem with you coming in and deciding which reasons are good and which are weak. Just stick with I dont agree with abortion.

You cant possibly have any idea on how hard those decisions are.

[Pippi Longstocking]

Just stick with I dont agree with abortion.


Yep. And then, to add to that, if you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. That's where it should end.

[Ana Gram]

Everyone has a right to an opinion. However, they need to be able to stand by that opinion. I think we are all still waiting to know what roohif's thought on what he thinks is a "good enough" reason for a woman to have an abortion.

[CrankyAndTired]

I find it so sad that so many women like to pretend that unborn babies have no rights.

They are tiny human beings. There is never any mention of their rights from pro-"choicers".

Is pregnancy inconvientant at times? Absolutely. So is having a newborn. But we don't condone a mother ending the life of her newborn no matter what type of stress she is under.

But as a society we should provide as much support and education as possible

Selling abortion as an acceptible option to an unwelcome pregnancy is not fair to the women that believe you.

Telling lies like "its a bunch of cells" is not fair to the women who believe you. We are ALL bunches of cells.

The OP in this thread was claiming that unintentional miscarriage was going to be subject to criminal prosecution. That has proven to be blatently false.

So then they claim that the unborn baby's right to life is always trumped by the mother's desire at that point as to whether or not they want to carry the child. Which translates the abortion at any stage being ok, because its the mother's "right".

The obvious extension of that belief would be abortions at term. Pro-choicers might shy away from that assertion but thats what you're saying.

Having an abortion would be so distressing for so many women if it really was just a small removal of cells. It wouldnt be a big decision if you were not ending a human life. Its just very sad to me..

Now of course you can throw anti-woman accusations at me, and my beliefs. Thats ok. I know I am standing up for those that cannot defend themselves.

Its a shame so many people believe we have the right to destroy our own offspring. I hope in time peope start to realize the lies they are being fed by the pro-"choice" movement.

I am anti-choice when it comes to abusing children.
And I'm happy to live in a country where it is illegal.

I am anti-choice when it comes to it comes to deliberately ending another human's life.
I look forward to the day when it becomes illegal in my country, once again.

Lastly I just want to add, I hold NO animosity towards any woman who has had an abortion or who will in the future have an abortion. I feel sad for them, but not hatred or anything close to it.

We as a society are letting these women down and their unborn babies.

Peace.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

Indeed. :iagree:
Of course roohif has a right to an opinion - it's not as though anyone has the power to take that right away, after all. It's when that opinion is used to erode the rights of others that it becomes an issue.

I disagree, I don't give roohif permission to have an opinion on my uterus.

Only his own, wait... oh yeah!

[Mrs Nietzsche]

Unfortunately roohif has still failed to answer these two questions:

1. Does he acknowledge he believes that foetal rights are more important than a woman's bodily autonomy.

2. The Bill has written is open to very wide interpretation. What is being 'reckless' to the possibility of an illegal miscarriage?

Answer: anything a court decides it can be

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

I find it so sad that so many women like to pretend that unborn babies have no rights.

They are tiny human beings. There is never any mention of their rights from pro-"choicers".

They arn't tiny humans to me.

Is pregnancy inconvientant at times? Absolutely. So is having a newborn. But we don't condone a mother ending the life of her newborn no matter what type of stress she is under.
Inconveniant. I find that very funny, it's more then inconvenience it's about life altering changes.

The newborn can be cared for by others a feotus cannot.



But as a society we should provide as much support and education as possible

Selling abortion as an acceptible option to an unwelcome pregnancy is not fair to the women that believe you.

Abortion has never had to be sold, there has allways been a desperate need for it.

Telling lies like "its a bunch of cells" is not fair to the women who believe you. We are ALL bunches of cells.
Yes but I am a functioning human and I am not sapping the life out of and risking others livelihood to be here.


The OP in this thread was claiming that unintentional miscarriage was going to be subject to criminal prosecution. That has proven to be blatently false.
No it hasn't.


So then they claim that the unborn baby's right to life is always trumped by the mother's desire at that point as to whether or not they want to carry the child. Which translates the abortion at any stage being ok, because its the mother's "right".
Yes


The obvious extension of that belief would be abortions at term. Pro-choicers might shy away from that assertion but thats what you're saying.
I don't shy away from it, but if the baby can be born healthy at a late stage obviously it would just be a birth.


Having an abortion would be so distressing for so many women if it really was just a small removal of cells. It wouldnt be a big decision if you were not ending a human life. Its just very sad to me..
That's not up to any one but the individual.


Now of course you can throw anti-woman accusations at me, and my beliefs. Thats ok. I know I am standing up for those that cannot defend themselves.
If you restrict abortion, you have more of them, thus you are harming more women and feotuses.


Its a shame so many people believe we have the right to destroy our own offspring. I hope in time peope start to realize the lies they are being fed by the pro-"choice" movement.
They arn't offspring yet.



I am anti-choice when it comes to abusing children.
And I'm happy to live in a country where it is illegal.



Me to and I am anti choice when it comes to others thinking they have a right to tell me what to do with my uterus.


I am anti-choice when it comes to it comes to deliberately ending another human's life.
I look forward to the day when it becomes illegal in my country, once again.

Me to, I don't want any women killed, through back yard abortions.



Lastly I just want to add, I hold NO animosity towards any woman who has had an abortion or who will in the future have an abortion. I feel sad for them, but not hatred or anything close to it.

We as a society are letting these women down and their unborn babies.



Any time women have their choices eroded society lets women down, it makes me ill.

[roohif]

I do however have a problem with you coming in and deciding which reasons are good and which are weak.

Well someone has to, dont you think? I'm not at all saying that person should be me, but if the law was completely subjective, it would be useless.

"I want an abortion because I want to fit into my little black dress"

Who decides if that's a good reason to override the rights of the foetus? It's your body, right? Who are you to say that's a flippant reason? It's my body after all ...

And to whoever asked, yes I believe people are entitled to bodily autonomy TO A POINT. And the purpose of this discussion should be to determine where that point is.

[sweetseven]

The woman should not be forced to be a life support mechanism for another. If the baby can survive without the mother, then abortion should not be allowed, but early delivery yes. However, if the baby cannot survive without the mother, then abortion is the only option that isn't confining the mother to slavery.

I've previously given the example of a live liver transplant. Lets say that an unexpected pregnancy eventuated, and the woman decided to abort, but was denied due to legal reasons. Then, once the baby is born, he has a major problem with his liver. His father is a match and a simple solution would be to donate a portion of his liver to save the infant. However, the law will not force the father to submit the the procedure, even though it forced the mother to gestate the child against her will.

Both situations (gestation, liver donation) result in an extended period of compromised health after which the parent should fully recover, with the risk of complications that could result in permanent health problems (or even death).

The difference that I see is that the transplant recquires assertive action on the medical practicioners part, whereas the pregnancy requires passive inaction instead.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

And to whoever asked, yes I believe people are entitled to bodily autonomy TO A POINT. And the purpose of this discussion should be to determine where that point is.

So where does yours end roohif?

[Mrs Nietzsche]

You can't have bodily autonomy TO A POINT.

There is no sliding scale on freedom.

As soon as you start imposing your values upon another person's physical being, you are denying them bodily autonomy. Not *some* bodily autonomy. All of it.

It's all or nothing.

Either a person has a right to their own physical being or they don't.

Do you also believe that rape is okay TO A POINT or that slavery is okay TO A POINT?

[CrankyAndTired]

You can't have bodily autonomy TO A POINT.

There is no sliding scale on freedom.

As soon as you start imposing your values upon another person's physical being, you are denying them bodily autonomy. Not *some* bodily autonomy. All of it.

It's all or nothing.

Either a person has a right to their own physical being or they don't.

Do you also believe that rape is okay TO A POINT or that slavery is okay TO A POINT?

Everything has an end point.

We have bodily autonomy UNTIL we start to hurt soomeone else with our bodily choices. Which is why we have the mental health act. Do you argue the mental health act goes against bodily autonomy?

The part where we disagree with whether or not a tiny human being with a beating heart is subject to ANY of the basic human rights. I say it is.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

We have bodily autonomy UNTIL we start to hurt soomeone else with our bodily choices. Which is why we have the mental health act. Do you argue the mental health act goes against bodily autonomy?Not having abortions available does hurt women and causes more abortions.

Do you want to be right or have less abortions happen?:confused:.

[nothanksbye]

Well someone has to, dont you think? I'm not at all saying that person should be me, but if the law was completely subjective, it would be useless.

"I want an abortion because I want to fit into my little black dress"

Who decides if that's a good reason to override the rights of the foetus? It's your body, right? Who are you to say that's a flippant reason? It's my body after all ...
.


Yes that person would be the one making the decision.
Not you, not me.

No one can judge the reason as weak, good, acceptable or flippant.

I think you are forgetting that an abortion is not an easy thing to go through.

I am pro choice, that means I respect the womans right to choose.
I do not have the right to judge her reasons.

I cant say well I only agree with abortion IF I agree with her reasons.

I am not her. I dont live her life. I dont believe that any woman should have to convince people that her reason was acceptable. That makes me feel ill.

[Mrs Nietzsche]

I understand your point, but the fact is that if you deny a woman autonomy over her uterus, you *do* start to inexorably accelerate down a very dangerous path so far as woman's ability to function as equals in this society goes.

Without the power to make reproductive choices women are *inevitably* and irrevocably unable to achieve anything close to an equity of power in society.

Women simply must have this right or we personhood declines and we are easily reduced into the role of incubator.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

double post

[Nomsie]

Closed for review.