Abortion Politics USA (Was "requiring...", was was "Ron Paul...")

If the catholic church doesn't want to deal with the issue then they should stop buying up hospitals.

 

Then I'm confused. If some Catholic institutions have been already providing birth control benefits via the health insurance they offer http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...tion-as-part-of-their-health-insurance-plans/ then is this truly about their opposition to birth control or not being forced to offer it by a secular government?

 

No, it's not easy. There's nothing easy about freedom. People who prefer to be free are not looking for easy.

A lot of people did leave the old South. The laws in those states were bad, but other states were better.

Women first gained suffrage in part because Wyoming wanted to increase its female population. How much longer would it have taken if the entire nation had to adopt women's suffrage simultaneously?

 

There's a high probability the Catholic Church will do exactly that, at least in the U.S.

 

Okay, for all of you against birth control and abortion -- I have a hypothetical and some questions for you.

Several states have tried (and failed, so far) to pass 'personhood' amendments to their state constitutions. The amendments would grant a a fertilized egg the same rights as an adult man or woman. These amendments would necessarily outlaw all abortions and some contraception.

Let's say at least one of these amendments passes, and let's say that the Supreme Court rules that they are constitutional. Abortion is now illegal in all of the US and a fertilized egg is a person. Killing a fertilized egg is now a crime - murder, to be exact.

Let's also say that technology continues to get better and better. In my hypothetical a blood test will show whether or not you're pregnant mere days after you have sex that results in a fertilized egg. I'm also avoiding all religious issues and only focusing on the legal ones.

Here are the questions.

1. When does the state's interest in protecting the fertilized egg kick in? The fertilized egg has all of the same protections that an adult has, so presumably its rights should be equal to the mom's rights from the get go. Should this be the case?

2. If the rights kick in from the beginning, when does mandatory pregnancy testing begin? What is the frequency of such testing? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? I'm assuming some sort of testing must occur otherwise how would we know when someone miscarries and what (if any) charges should be brought against the woman.

3. What happens if the woman miscarries? Is it a crime? If so, when does it become a crime? Is it a crime before she misses her first period? Right after she misses? (and remember miscarriages happen not infrequently). Does intent matter?

4. In the case of miscarriage and any criminal charges, should lifestyle matter during the penalty phase? What jobs do women cease doing because of the risk? Sports? Other exercise? Drinking coffee or tea?

 

Whew, I'm glad those questions are for people who are against birth control and abortion. They're tough. Do you have any questions for people who are in favor of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

By the way, is anyone here really in favor of abortion? Seriously, doesn't everyone want abortions to be strictly voluntary, early term, safe and rare? Wouldn't that be an ethical goal that almost everyone could agree upon?

 

There is a point where a fertilized human embryo should be protected. Is it the moment after birth? I would say no. Two cells, four, sixteen, a thousand? That is the real question in my mind. I am not against contraception nor do I consider abortion to be a contraceptive method. A woman is free to do as she wishes up till the point that another life becomes involved and when another life is involved I do believe that life should be protected.

Not getting pregnant is a personal choice. Killing a developing baby should not be a personal choice.

 

That's where we're headed.

I don't think abortion is a great thing -- I think it's a necessary thing for women to have the ability to decide for themselves whether or not they want (or can) carry a pregnancy to term.

So yes, I agree with you - abortion should be voluntary, early term, safe and rare. "Safe" implies that abortion should stay legal. "Rare" implies that contraception makes abortion less necessary. "Early term" implies that unnecessary road blocks aren't put up for women (72 hour waiting periods, etc.). All abortions should be voluntary.

What happens if a later term pregnancy has to be aborted? I don't mean that the woman just up and decides she doesn't want to be pregnant anymore, but where there is a genuine health risk to her. This does happen. I don't know how common or rare it is, but it seems that there should be an exception that includes health risks.

 

Not always. If I get raped and get pregnant as a result, it was not a personal choice.

 

Margaret Atwood already took us down this road in The Handmaid's Tale.

 

So she did, so she did. I'd forgotten about that one - it's been eons since I read it. I think I'm too afraid to read it again.

 

That would be one case were I would agree that abortion is a reasonable conclusion.

 

I prefer for laws concerning abortion to be written on the State level. (I agree with you on some of your points regarding abortion, but disagree with you on others. This agreement/disagreement is neither here nor there.) I am confident allowing the States to regulate abortion services will NOT endanger girl's and women's health and safety. Far from it. Over time, better policy would result.

I've had an interesting life. Abortion, childbirth, birth defects, dangerous pregnancies, unwanted children, miscarriages and painful personal choices are all intimately real for me. My point of view on abortion has changed several times in my lifetime. I expect it will change again.

One opinion has not changed. I know it to be true that the actions with the greatest power to harm us are those which we have ourselves committed. For this reason an ethical government will not force a person to participate in an act if the individual believes the act to be unethical. It is profoundly harmful for people to do things we believe to be wrong.

 

Why should they not be able to provide services in an environment that operates in accordance with their beliefs? I just love how the rights to freedom of religion and association suddenly shouldn't apply they when conflict with someone's agenda.

 

And there I think most of us would probably disagree with the Catholic church. However, you don't need to go to a Catholic facility for that abortion, and even in that circumstance you have no right to compel them to provide one.

 

Because in many cases the catholic hospital is the only hospital option for miles and miles. And they limit services they don't believe in. I'm not catholic and I don't adhere to their beliefs. If I need to have an abortion done in a hospital (maybe it's an ectopic pregnancy or something like that) then where do I go?

And I don't have an agenda, I just want medical care.

 

If you have an extopic pregnancy, they'll treat you.

If you want an elective abortion, you'll have to travel. Having an abortion is no treat. Having to travel a few hundred miles is the least of your troubles.

Freedom doesn't mean never being inconvenienced or even never facing significant hardship.

 

If the mother's life is at risk, that exception already exists and I believe is already recognized by the Catholic Church. You're posing a non-question here.

You can take another life in defense of your own.

And for those who pipe up that the Ten Commandments forbid killing, they don't. They forbid murder. Greek & Latin & I believe Hebrew as well distinguish between killing & murder and use distinctly different verbs for the two. English tends to use "kill" ambiguously.

 

Why would any person who disagrees with the Catholic ( or any other religious body) point of view select a hospital owned or supported by the Catholic church?

This in my mind is where free choice come into play.

 

Nun excommunicated for allowing abortion

From the article:

A Catholic nun, who was a member of a Phoenix Catholic hospital's ethics committee, was ecommunicated and reassigned last week for her role in allowing an abortion to take place at the hospital, according to the Phoenix diocese. The surgery was considered necessary to save the life of a critically ill patient.

The surgery took place at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. The decision, involving Sister of Mercy Margaret McBride, physicians and the patient, drew a sharp rebuke from Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix diocese. He said abortion is not permissible under any circumstances.