I will quote you in two parts:
"certainly not a bunch of people, judges in the title, being misled by politicians and self-interested clerics and opportunists." - This is exactly what they said. They should not be the arbitrators of that kind of a life decision.
Abortion is not in the Constitution so there for it is relegated to the individual states. Those kinds of decisions should be made closer to the individuals home.
"Only the mother!" - Not true at all because it takes two to make the third. The father has just as much rights and responsibility as the mother. It should be a decision made between the two of them. One individuals rights do not supersede another. Women are EQUAL to men.
If the mother decides to keep the child and the father doesnt want it he should have the right to give up all responibilty. Including child support. But that isnt at all what happens in this country. Men are usually forced to give up 50-75% of their salary for 18 years whether they waive their parental rights or not.
Not very equal now is it?
I honestly dont see where all these people are saying they took away women's rights. This was probably the single biggest equality decision the court has made in 100 years.
As for the "Throughout all stages of pregnancy there is a dialogue between the mother and the consciousness of the future baby" part. You do know that during an abortion the baby actively flees the doctor with a fight or flight response, correct? That seems to be a pretty basic "human" trait.
Abortion is a major surgery and typically causes massive mental trauma to the mother and the immediate family circle including the father. And is it really worth it for 10-15 minutes of sexual satisfaction?
The decision was correctly made that an abortion should be made at the local level and not federal.
It would appear that the author believes that humanity is only bestowed when the "personality" is "present" in the physical body. Thus it would seem the author advocates for abortion "rights" all the way up to natural death from old age. Mentally disabled people aren't "present" and are "disconnected" therefore they are subhuman and it is perfectly acceptable to put them down for the sake of society.
No, 'the author' does not think like that at all.
On the contrary - i claim that the soul and the personality are connected. All souls are connected. in that light you are advised to reared what I wrote.
good god that is some serious word-salad right there. That is not what she is saying at all. Although the author exudes spirituality that is not entirely relatable to me, it is the humanity behind her words that resonates with me. You seem concerned about the elderly and mentally disabled but what are you doing to advocate for their care? Or does your concern end after 9 months?
She is a he 😉
look at me being all presumptuous. Wow. That is even more incredible. Thank you so much for this post and for standing with all women. We need support desperately: From other women and from men. It's a humanity problem. Not a gender problem.
!luv
I am merely following the logic of the argument as I understand it (which is difficult to understand given the word salad-y-ness of it). If one can say that it is possible that a soul/consciousness never fully enters into a human body then one can say that some human bodies lack a soul/consciousness. Therefore one can conclude that it is acceptable to kill such a human body at anytime, given that one has concluded that the soul/consciousness is not present in that human body. Or if I'm understanding correctly, it is acceptable to kill another human if the soul of that person has communicated in some way that it wishes to exit this plane of existence, whatever that means. My concern for well-being applies to all humans, regardless of age or ability.
Do we not already make that kind of decision that when it is established that someone is brain dead after a traumatic head injury? Or perhaps the decision is made by the family of a cancer patient who has been placed in an induced coma to alleviate suffering? I mean, I'm not saying we should be going around having abortions like a bunch of psychopaths, but for those with no other option, there should, be reasonable understanding and options available for mothers who cannot, for whatever reason, carry a baby to term.
"Abortion is a major surgery and typically causes massive mental trauma to the mother and the immediate family circle including the father. And is it really worth it for 10-15 minutes of sexual satisfaction?"
wait. What?
Yes. Of course abortion is traumatic. which is why it should be performed in a hospital and counselling should be provided before and after, to the mother and father as well as the family circle. We do not live in an ideal world though. Presuming that there was any pleasure involved what so ever is also immensely shortsighted and offensive.
"Throughout all stages of pregnancy there is a dialogue between the mother and the consciousness of the future baby" part. You do know that during an abortion the baby actively flees the doctor with a fight or flight response, correct? That seems to be a pretty basic "human" trait.
This is my favourite part. Do you think the fetus will gravitate towards the crochet needle/ coat hanger of a self inflicted or backstreet abortion?
Why do you assume there would be "self inflicted or backstreet abortions"? The decision did not make abortion illegal. It just said it is not a federal issue and handed it back to the states for their own laws. If your state has made it illegal there are two options.
Something of this nature (not specified in the constitution) has always been handled by the individual states. Its why we have states to begin with.
"Presuming that there was any pleasure involved what so ever is also immensely shortsighted and offensive"
I can only assume you are implicating rape or some other criminal act. That is also a state or local issue. Not a federal issue. If you are not meaning a criminal act then I ask. Why would anyone have the sex if there is no pleasure in it? If one party isnt interested, states No and is forced into that then becomes rape and is a crime. I understand fear and not wanting to "cause trouble". But doing nothing will only reinforce the offender to harm others.
Seriously? No it wont gravitate towards the crochet needle/coat hanger. It will run just as fast if it was a doctor in a hospital doing it.
Why do people always jump to the most extreme situation thinking they are proving a point. Im not saying those things wont happen. But its highly unlikely they are going to be piling up bodies within weeks of this decision. Sorry to be blunt and sound callous but I dont believe the world or humanity is that far gone.
Unfortunately, my assumption is based on a painful history of women globally, which seems to be repeating itself. I am starting to understand the politics far better now that I am engaging in debates like this, so, from what I understand, the Federal government has washed its hands of the issue, and chosen to not intervene with states who have already made abortions illegal. Which is a terrible blow to human rights.
I am not American, so voting is not an option for me. I do, however, live in a third-world country. I'm not sure if you are aware, but pre-Trump administration, there were thousands of women's reproductive health care centers, across the world, in developing countries that were only able to operate thanks to funding from the US government (and other 1st world contires) and due to amended American policies on these issues, this funding has been cut, putting millions of women in a position where they have no access to contraception or abortion.
I am not saying that bodies will be piling up, but I am definitely standing by my statement that by taking away a woman's access to safe and legal abortion will definitely, without a doubt lead her to seek desperate measures: from backstreet abortions and even self-inflicted abortions to abandoning their babies out of desperation. The alternative is raising a baby they're not ready for and causing immense psychological and physical damage to themselves and the child they have been forced to birth (especially if conception was achieved through force: eg rape). These gruesome and tragic eventualities are far more common than you would like to think, regardless of what you might like to believe.
I found it personally, extremely painful that you went out of your way to express the behavior of an unborn fetus during the abortion process, especially when your knowledge on the matter is disturbingly lacking. There are many factors to consider and many different procedures and situations, depending on the term of the pregnancy. If, such as in my case, the termination occurs in the first three months, medication is administered to the pregnant mother 24 to 48 hours before the actual removal of the fetus, which renders it non-viable (or to put it bluntly, chemically aborts the fetus in vitro). This ensures the least amount of pain or trauma for either the mother or the developing fetus.
As for motivations for sexual activity, this is a massive debate. People have sex for many reasons, and this is especially true for women - that it is not always for the sake of pleasure. It is also not correct to say that the alternative to pleasurable sex is always rape. Sometimes it is to ensure job security or a roof over one's head, a tool to survive abusive relationships or the only option of income. The definition of rape is also blurry when it comes to coercion. However, that all being said, whether pleasurable or not, women should have every much of a right to have sex and walk away as men do. Biologically though, we are left to carry the consequences and therefore, should also be the ones to decide whether or not a pregnancy can be carried to term.
While not speaking to the abortion issue specifically here, even if Trump removed funding from health care centers in third world countries (and budget issues are really the job of Congress, not the President) I guess that Biden hasn't reinstated such funding. Also, I don't believe it is the job of government to steal money from its citizens to give to other countries. Given the level of debt the U.S. government currently has I don't think giving away money makes sense either. I do support voluntary giving by individuals though.
Agreed. As far as I can tell, The new administration has failed miserably in doing, well anything at all about anything. We have similar problems here in South Africa where our government pledges billions of rands to other corrupt but underdeveloped African countries, while our own infrastructure falls apart and citizens are neglected. It's not sustainable or ethical.
I do understand what you mean about your country. And it was wrong for our country to be funding all of that around the world. I can only speak about things in my country that I reside in. I do not and will not attempt to speak on another country's laws because I simply do not know them.
Here in the USA the people have two options. Vote in local elections to change the laws in that state or move to another one that more aligns with their beliefs. But the decision wasnt about whether an abortion is a human right. It was about it not being in the constitution. The states are free to do a Constitutional Convention and change the Constitution if they wish.
My whole point isnt that abortion is good or bad. My whole point is that one person's rights do not supersede anothers. The father has just as much right and responsibility as the mother does. If does not want it he can give it up and let the mother do as she wishes. Its a pretty simple and sane choice at that point.
But the government shouldnt be involved at any level is the problem. And they shouldnt be funding it the world over.
As far as expressing the behaviour of an unborn fetus and my lacking knowledge of how an abortion is done. I guess you know all about my 52 years of experience and my lifes history of dealing with this crap better than I do. I've seen and watched personal friends and family live through that shit. I've been in consultations with nieces and family friends because they were too afraid to go by themselves or their parents. What the doctor told me of just one of the procedures I will never forget.
Again, I do apologize if I seem harsh. But this was a case for our country and not the worlds other countries.
Thank you very much for shedding light on the litigation side.
I agree with you partially on the point you made regarding countries worrying about their own internal affairs and minding their own businesses, but unfortunately, as our world becomes more and more globalized and foreign relation policies blur borders and politicians pockets, it's important for us, from an ethical and humanitarian standpoint, to check on each other.
It was wrong of me to make assumptions about your own experiences and I apologise for that.
I do realise, that there are cases where fathers are left out of the decision entirely and I don't agree with that (depending on the circumstance). Abortion is a horrific and painful experience emotionally and physically and I can promise you that any sane woman will never completely emotionally heal or find closure.
12 years after my abortion, I fell pregnant with my son. The 1st scan I saw of him was real time video and projected for my ex husband and I to see with the heartbeat at full volume. Matthew was at the exact same gestation period as the fetus I aborted when I was 16. I spent my whole pregnancy convinced that God would punish me and either me or my son or both of us would die before he was able to take his 1st breath. He's 10 years old next month. In order for me to be the mother I am for him today, it was necessary to make that incredibly painful decision I made, 22 years ago. If I had to go back in time, I would make the same decision again. I agree with you fully that there is a miniscule proportion of women who abuse the system because of their poor contraception management and that should be managed better. I do believe that that miniscule percentage does not justify putting the rest of the female poplutation at risk and taking their right to safe abortion away.
My heart does bleed for every woman who is now stuck in a position where they cant have a baby, for whatever reason, and now there is no choice left for them. I'm sure you realise that proving you've been raped is a lengthy legal process and pregnancy only lasts 9 months. I'm not sure how the time discrepancy can be mitigated unless rape cases are treated as guilty until proven innocent.
I personally don't think the guilty till proven innocent is the answer. The answer would be to streamline the investigation and judicial process. The courts and law enforcement are overwhelmed with smaller useless cases the hold higher fines being collected. And as such those get pushed through as "revenue" to the local and state municipalities. It's a bunch bull shit that needs to change.
Of course if they just put the word punish back in punishment people might actually change behaviors. But since money is a get out consequences thing. They just don't care and continue to do as they wish. Just pay the fine and move on. It's all about the money.
Ooooooooh now you're touching on a very interesting topic! I was listening to an add here on local radio about the government offering "rewards" to the public for reporting illegal dumping. In the same add, they threaten would-be perpetrators with a fine OR jail time. Just like with traffic offences. So the bottom line is, if you can afford it, you can just pay your crimes away, and to me, that is just so wrong on so many levels.
Back to our topic, no of course, guilty till proven innocent would never work. This is not the middle ages (even if it feels like it). Besides. That would DEFINITELY be a human rights violation and if I was really behind that, I'd be a massive hypocrite. Thanks for that link by the way. I have never read that bill of rights properly before.
As far as human rights go.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
This list is pretty much most countries go by that I know of.
I've skimmed through it several times. Still dont see "abortion", "healthcare" or "reproductive rights" listed as human rights.
there are a number of articles listed that could be interpreted as such, but there is no specific article that relates to reproductive health, and that's incredibly frightening, considering that that's exactly how we all get here in the 1st place.
On a certain level your arguments are solid but look what reasons (excuses) you use to avoid the basic premise - A human being is sovereign to her own existence! How can any external force/authority tell a mother how to deal with her own body? In particular when she is well connected with the fetus's soul-level.
Alas, science has not proven yet the existence of a soul; hence, my arguments seem to you and many others to be bizarre or even whacky.
Yet, I stand firm in my opinion. Only the mother (who is healthy and in her capacity to make conscious choices) has the right to choose regarding an abortion. She may consult with the father or other people in her community but at the end the choice is hers.
You assume my premise was an external force or authority telling the mother how to deal with her body and is nothing of the sort.
Again. Regardless of whether there is a soul or not. And whether science can determine if a soul exists. It's still a part of a human that required two other humans to come together to create. Therefore it should be at the very least a decision of those same two humans to terminate it. One individual's choice does not over rule the other.
Abortion is a major surgery and can have many major consequences both physically and mentally for all parties involved. You are correct that it shouldn't be a decision made by a ruling authority and that is exactly what the court agreed with. It should be a decision made closer to home for the people involved. It is not a Federal issue.
For the sake of the argument, and following you line of thought - if the father agrees to leave the decision solely to the mother, would then abortion be accepted?
Yes. Absolutely 100% agree. If he is waiving his rights he waives his rights.
But its still not a federal issue.
Lol. Sorry about the other comment. I didnt realize you could edit a comment.
But its still not a federal issue.
Not federal, not state either.
It's inconceivable to me that someone else would tell a woman what to do with her body. To advise, yes, by all means.
We agree there 100%. Except that its inconceivable that someone else would tell anybody what to do with their body. Woman or man. Government should stay out of our lives period. Government should only provide border security & infrastructure.
And stay out our pockets, lol.
One unique aspect of pregnancy though is that there are two bodies involved. Not just one. I agree with a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her body. I also believe that there exists a right to life. But if the right of a woman to do whatever she wants with her body conflicts with the right to life then I see the right to life as being more important. That is why to me the important question is about when the right to life begins. If I understand correctly, you believe that the woman an child can determine that on their own, I'm not so sure. I say that because I think many abortions happen out of fear vs. a "conversation" (for lack of a better word) between mother and child.
The main difference between us is that I associate life with consciousness and you with a physical body.
I will not be able to convince you, ever, because consciousness must be felt separated of the body in order to be convinced. If you are interested, you may google "out of body experiences in dreams" as a starting point.