It amazes me how many varying opinions there are on this subject. Especially by those who will never have to face the personal choice. While I realize Father's have rights, they aren't the ones that can STILL die in childbirth or even carrying a child. I will leave the moral debate to people much more enthused about it. I came close to dying having my one child and I am blessed to have her healthy. I was lucky and lived also. However, it was a close one. For someone to decide my fate, other than me, is reprehensible. People that are SO moral about this issue is usually the very people who will actually bear NONE of the responsibility or consequences. If a woman gets pregnant, SHE bears the consequences of either having that child or getting an abortion. Both decisions have life long consequences that SHE will have to bear. Until having a child is perfectly safe it is not a moral issue. It is a WOMENS' HEALTH ISSUE.


added edit: I mistakenly emphasized the males in this. You are right, the majority of pro-lifers ARE female. However, none of those females should be deciding the fate of MY body. No one but me should. I had toxemia later in my pregnancy and had to have an emergency C-section. Having and carrying my baby was MY choice. That is true. However, I still think that however anyone feels about the subject, having a bunch of other people deciding the fate of ME or my baby is wrong. Land of the free my ass. More like.......Land of the far right, at the moment.

Purrrrr...theees ees how eet SHOULD beee.


If I had my way, hkjabwa, there would not be an exception for rape and incest unless the mental health of the mother could be professionally assessed as being so threatened that her life or future mental health was truly at risk.
However,
as I wrote yesterday, I think these exceptions would have to be included in any legislation as a regrettable pragmatic strategy to get it passed. Otherwise, people like Kim Gandy and Kate Michelson will drive everyone mad carrying on about the "hard cases" (which is a logical fallacy btw; you don't make conclusions based on exceptions).

************************
I am coming in at a later date to edit this: I am just taking out the part where I briefly discussed some religious points of view about abortion, because the words I chose resulted in ambiguities concerning the Catholic position - corrected later in this thread - and because the religious views are not germane to the topic of this thread anyway.
- LW
************************

It would be a matter of self defence.
And YES it is not the baby's fault, you are correct.
Look at it this way:
If I have a neighbor who is insane, and he doesn't even know what he is doing, and he comes at me with a knife,
I have the right to kill him to defend my own life.
It is not the neighbor's fault at all, because he is insane.
Yet regrettably he still might have to be killed as a way of defending my life, and it would and should be legal.
Same principle would be involved in the case you mentioned.

Well quite clearly I disagree - one reason is that I don't accept "social health" (to quote a section of Roe) as a reason for killing a living human being. A mother might have many reasons but as far as many of us are concerned, ONE human being's preference does not trump another human being's life.
Also,
The parameters of health in Roe are ludicrous. If you haven't read them, I suggest that you do.
Hkjabwa,
It is a good discussion, but it could go on forever. I've probably said most of what I have to say about abortion.
This country is right now divided almost exactly evenly between those who want to see Roe left standing, and those who want to see abortion restricted.
We will see what happens.

Right on. "Person" is like that. You will hear abortion advocates tell us again and again that "a fetus is not a person".
Look up person in the dictionary.
The first definition is "a human being".
Also,
Notice that any time one group is trying to disenfranchise another group or oppress them, the first group declares that "an Indian (Negro, woman, Jew, etc.) is not a person".
It is essential to portray the group as subhuman in order to justify the activity.
Same with elective abortion.

To Jude -

At the present time, in first world countries, there are very few women who die from pregnancy or childbirth.
Some conditions that can be fatal are HELLPS, toxemia (with its attendant skyrocketing blood pressure), and gestational diabetes.
If none of those were the case with you, then it must have been just extremely poor health and I'm sorry to hear that.
However,
Your generalizations about the people who wish to restrict abortion are risible.
For your information, the majority of prolifers are women.
And in the United States at the current time, roughly half of all Americans agree that abortion should be restricted to life or grave health of the mother, rape, and incest.
Also, your comments bear only obliquely on the discussion,
why?
Because "elective abortion" means abortion which is NOT medically indicated.

Hope this helps.

Linden Wraith
"Catholics have traditionally believed that the mother's life should be sacrificed for that of the baby..."

Can you provide a source? That is outside my understanding of Catholic teaching; which respects the life of all people involved.

Perhaps you are confusing Church teachings on sacrificial love with Church doctrine regarding the sanctity of life?

Ccvasquez -
Welcome to the board
You know,
I probably didn't send the idea I meant to send there. I should have said something like,

"Catholic teaching is that we may not choose one life over another" (and as a corollary to that: if a pregnancy or birth threatens the mother's life, Catholics still are not permitted to kill the unborn baby)."
Not, that is, except in cases such as morbid uterine cancer, or ectopic pregnancy...where both mother and child would die if no intervention was taken.
I think that is still the Catholic teaching (?)
I'm sure that few people live up to it; otherwise Gina Beretta Molla would not have been canonized for following it.
Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect about this; it very well could be.

How about all the Iraqis murdered in the "gulf war"? 1991

OPERATION
IRAQI
LIBERATION

Quit the crap!

How about you read something other than the propaganda on MoveOn.org?

How about you do a little research into where the Iraqi oil was going BEFORE the war, and where it has been going SINCE the war started.

Give it a whirl. It might surprised you.


On the other hand, naaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh. It'll just confuse you.

They still are taking their personal freedom and sexual laxness to expunge a life from existence for their own stingy desires over that of someone they are responsible for.

perhaps yu should start a thread about that issue