The Chronicles of Narcissist

Status
Not open for further replies.
JRRNeiklot said:
Well, first of all the state has the perceived authority to execute criminals. If you don't believe the state has any authority over people - and thus no right to exist - then you might have a point. Second, are you seriously comparing an innocent child to a murderer?
Click to expand...

If this is going to be a question of authority, who has authority over a woman's body? The state or the woman? If the woman has the authority over what she does with her body, then she has the authority to terminate any pregnancy for any reason. If she doesn't have authority over her own body, who has it? And how did they get it?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dannyalcatraz said:
As you say, "unless the mother's life is in danger": that IS a circumstance, a form of self-defense. In fact, that was my Mom's circumstance.
Click to expand...

The pregnancy and giving birth did put her in danger. A 10 years old body isn't suited for it.

According to a 2013 report from the UN, 70,000 girls under 14 die each year in developping countries from complications related to pregnancy and childbrith. It doesn't mention the health problems that girls who survive will might endure afterwards. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=46373#.VdXqvPl_Okr

But it isn't just developping countries or just under age girls. A woman was left to die in 2012 in Ireland because doctors refused to give her an abortion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
 


goldomark said:
The pregnancy and giving birth did put her in danger. A 10 years old body isn't suited for it.

According to a 2013 report from the UN, 70,000 girls under 14 die each year in developping countries from complications related to pregnancy and childbrith. It doesn't mention the health problems that girls who survive will might endure afterwards. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=46373#.VdXqvPl_Okr
Click to expand...
I agree that under a certain age, pregnancy could be defined as an intrinsic health hazard to the mother. But any pregnancy is hazardous- and a juvenile pregnancy much moreso- it isn't necessarily a life or death hazard. All kinds of factors go into that.

The question becomes whether an abortion is the only/best treatment. For some juveniles, the answer is an unequivocal yes. But in others, carrying the child for some time (short of to full term) and having a c-section may be feasible.

IOW, there isn't a single medically sound answer that can be solved by a simplistic age limit law.
 

Dannyalcatraz said:
I agree that under a certain age, pregnancy could be defined as an intrinsic health hazard to the mother. But any pregnancy is hazardous- and a juvenile pregnancy much moreso- it isn't necessarily a life or death hazard. All kinds of factors go into that.

The question becomes whether an abortion is the only/best treatment. For some juveniles, the answer is an unequivocal yes. But in others, carrying the child for some time (short of to full term) and having a c-section may be feasible.

IOW, there isn't a single medically sound answer that can be solved by a simplistic age limit law.
Click to expand...

Why not let women decide if they want to take the risk to their life and health?
 

Because her life & rights aren't the only ones at stake.

At least 38 states have fetal homicide laws, and you can't have a homicide without a human victim. If a fetus is human, it has rights. It then becomes a balancing act of rights.
 
Last edited:

The questions get difficult very quickly:

Should a 10 yr old have the right to not have an abortion? What about a 14 yr old? (Or consider: A doctor determines that carrying to term will very probably cause great harm to a 10 yr old, but the parents are firmly against an abortion?)

What about women who are determined to be mentally incompetent? Or a known habitual alcohol or drug abuser?

I can propose answers to these, but, I am thinking, there will be cases which firmly fall across lines for many folks.

Thx!

TomB
 

tomBitonti said:
The questions get difficult very quickly:

Should a 10 yr old have the right to not have an abortion? What about a 14 yr old? (Or consider: A doctor determines that carring to term will very probably cause great harm to a 10 yr old, but the parents are firmly against an abortion?)

What about women who are determined to be mentally incompetent? Or a known habitual alcohol or drug abuser?
Click to expand...

I believe under current law, un-emancipated juveniles and the legally incompetent will generally have those decisions made for them because they lack the legal capacity to consent to medical procedures.

Those with substance abuse problems- assuming no other legal impediment- are fully capable legal actors.
 

Dannyalcatraz said:
At least 38 states have fetal homicide laws, and you can't have a homicide without a human victim. If a fetus is human, it has rights. It then becomes a balancing act of rights.
Click to expand...

As presented, there's a begging of the question there.

"It is called fetal homicide, and you can't have homicide without a human victim. Therefore, the fetus is human, and has rights," is circular. It has rights, so therefore it has rights. You cannot use a statute asserting that it has rights as support for whether it should have rights.

Doing this on the statutory level (using a homicide law to establish it is a human) leads to some ugliness, because there are legal structures *above* statutes. Like, 14th Amendment, that very clearly states - those *born* in the US are citizens. That fetus is not yet born, and so is not a citizen. Your fetus may now, technically, be deported as an illegal alien. Fun!

I think, in general, defining the fetus as a legal entity separate from the mother causes more problems in unintended consequences than it fixes. I don't want to live in the Republic of Gilead, thank you.
 

All enforceable laws of society are human constructs: who should or shouldn't have rights- and what they should be- is always going to involve some kind of circularity.

Now, as I'm sure you'd realize from my past postings, I agree with the statement that doing this at the state as opposed to federal level is problematic. But, AFAIK, the Feds have absolutely not waded into this discussion by passing any meaningful statutes; just SCOTUS decisions and failed bills.

That fetus is not yet born, and so is not a citizen. Your fetus may now, technically, be deported as an illegal alien. Fun!
Click to expand...
The ultimate "wet foot/dry foot" immigration doctrine.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top