It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: jjsr420
a reply to: MOMof3
By what authority do you (and you alone) have the right to decide what to do with another's body? You're argument falls on it's ear when put through even the slightest scrutiny. In the case you put forth, it would still be a criminal act. You weren't the only one who's genetic material went INTO creating the life, and citing "I have a euterus" is little more than a cop-out; so why is it that only your input is relevant? It's not YOUR body most directly effected by the procedure.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
I'm done arguing about it, since neither of us are gonna budge on the topic and it's mildly off topic to begin with.
it's only relevant in that the law that the gov't vetoed in oklahoma would have similar restraints so, we'd probably have doctors being punished to ending pregnancies that have a 99% chance of killing the mother there also.
Some public schools are starting summer vacation several days early. Others are contemplating a four-day week to cut costs. And more than 200 teachers in Oklahoma City were handed pink slips in March.
But instead of addressing a burgeoning budget crisis that threatens public education and other critical state services, Oklahoma lawmakers have been busy debating proposals to criminalize abortion, police students’ access to public bathrooms and impeach President Obama.
Some readers may be shocked by the feature of the Oklahoma bill in which a doctor who performs an abortion to save the life of the mother may still be subject to felony liability and corresponding prison time. Does anyone really hold the view that an abortion to save the life of the mother is wrong?
The answer to that question is yes, and I will try here to explain why that position makes sense, if one truly believes that a zygote is a fully entitled moral being with a right to be and to remain where it is. Many of us think of a zygote or embryo or fetus as, at least in a sense, invading the internal physiological space of the pregnant woman. Some of us may still oppose most abortions, on the theory that such invasion of the woman’s internal space is both arguably consensual (assuming that intercourse was consensual) and less significant than the alternate harm of killing the zygote, embryo, or fetus. But when the fetus threatens the life of the mother, then the internal invasion narrative of pregnancy leads us to say “remove the fetus” (even at the cost of killing it) and thereby avoid allowing the fetus to kill the mother. Those who view the zygote, embryo, or fetus as an internal “occupier” of the woman therefore regard a threat to the mother’s life as akin to a self-defense situation, in which the woman has the right to defend her life from what is essentially an attack on it by her own fetus.
But consider a different way of thinking about the zygote living inside the woman. Although the woman was there first, one could regard this detail as irrelevant (much as we regard a person’s being older than another person as irrelevant to the right to life). The woman and the fetus, on this alternative account, are both occupying the same space and are both equally entitled to be doing so. The woman’s blood supply nourishes both her and her fetus, and they are both naturally dependent on the oxygen and nutrients that the woman takes into her body.
The woman and fetus are, in this scenario, like two inhabitants of a lifeboat, both of whom need to be there to survive. If suddenly, the lifeboat became able to sustain only one of its passengers, it would not follow legally (or, arguably, morally either) that either passenger would be entitled to throw the other passenger overboard to save himself or herself. As soon as we conceive of the fetus as simply a co-occupant of the same physical space as the woman, rather than as a parasite of the sort that inherently invades what is primarily the woman’s space, it becomes far less clear that the woman may kill (or do the equivalent by expelling) the fetus in order to preserve her own life.
The above narrative of a fetus’s place inside a woman’s body is not one that I find convincing. It is, however, one that I can understand, and it leads to the logical consequence that even in a case in which continuing her pregnancy threatens the woman’s very life, it may still be morally impermissible to abort. For someone who takes this position (such as the Catholic Church), a law that criminalizes the performance of all abortions, including those that would save a mother’s life, is not only comprehensible but in perfect alignment with their morality. For them, this law has the benefit of accurately and authentically reflecting what they view as the wrongfulness of abortion, a wrongfulness that has nothing to do with the timing of the procedure, the reason for the procedure, or the presence of absence of admitting privileges and/or surgical equipment at the facility where the procedure is performed.
What IS effected in an Abortion is the Fetus, which by having it's own unique dna, is no longer 'yours'.
a reply to: jjsr420
The only exception should be when there is a tangible threat to the mother's life, and that should be determined by a Doctor (obviously without political influence)
Not you, not me, not the mother, or father; a Doctor, if it's a medical necessity.