NationStates Jolt Archive

In the United States, it is legal to have an abortion only in the first trimester, so if a couple decides to have a baby and the husband cheats on his wife halfway through the second trimester, should she still be forced to have that scumbag's baby?

Your thoughts on this?

I think in the states, abortions are legal up to 20 weeks or something like that. It's a fair bit into the second trimester.

if she is past the time when abortion on demand is legal and there is no medical condition that requires abortion, yeah. its not "the scumbags baby" its HER baby.

if she is past the time when abortion on demand is legal and there is no medical condition that requires abortion, yeah. its not "the scumbags baby" its HER baby.

What if the husband loses his job and it's not possible for the couple to sustain another child financially?

if she is past the time when abortion on demand is legal and there is no medical condition that requires abortion, yeah. its not "the scumbags baby" its HER baby.
Well, to be fair it is equally the scumbag's baby.

Yes. At this point the baby is no longer considered a pile of cells. It is now "human" and subject to the right to be born.

What if the husband loses his job and it's not possible for the couple to sustain another child financially?
thats why we have welfare

Well, to be fair it is equally the scumbag's baby.
true

not that i care about HIS opinion, the cheating bastard!

thats why we have welfare
Plus they'll get more money from welfare with a kid.

Yes. At this point the baby is no longer considered a pile of cells. It is now "human" and subject to the right to be born.

That doesn't solve the problem of that child going hungry, or being beat up and neglected by its *unwilling* parents.

true

not that i care about HIS opinion, the cheating bastard!
Indeed.

thats why we have welfare

Welfare only provides a bare minimum, which isn't enough for a supporting, positive environment that every child needs.

Welfare only provides a bare minimum, which isn't enough for a supporting, positive environment that every child needs.
http://www.adoption.com/

Personally, I don't plan on ever having children. If I want them I'll adopt.

Welfare only provides a bare minimum, which isn't enough for a supporting, positive environment that every child needs.
that is why the mom would want to get back on her feet and then get a job and provide for the kid.;)

In the United States, it is legal to have an abortion only in the first trimester, so if a couple decides to have a baby and the husband cheats on his wife halfway through the second trimester, should she still be forced to have that scumbag's baby?

Your thoughts on this?

I don't see how it's the baby's fault that the husband cheated.

Welfare only provides a bare minimum, which isn't enough for a supporting, positive environment that every child needs.
the husband must be unemployed forever? he cant stay home with the baby while the wife goes to work?

all poor children live a life of unremitting horror??

In the United States, it is legal to have an abortion only in the first trimester, so if a couple decides to have a baby and the husband cheats on his wife halfway through the second trimester, should she still be forced to have that scumbag's baby?

Your thoughts on this?

It's perfectly legal to abort halfway through the second trimester, so she doesn't have to do anything she doesn't want to.

In the United States, it is legal to have an abortion only in the first trimester, so if a couple decides to have a baby and the husband cheats on his wife halfway through the second trimester, should she still be forced to have that scumbag's baby?

Your thoughts on this?

The way US abortion law is currently set up, having "that scumbag's baby" would be a sufficient threat to her emotional health to justify an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. (Heck, ANYTHING would a sufficient threat to her emotional health to justify an abortion--that's the problem.)

Heck, ANYTHING would a sufficient threat to her emotional health to justify an abortion--that's the problem.

I happen to see that as a good thing.

In the United States, it is legal to have an abortion only in the first trimester, so if a couple decides to have a baby and the husband cheats on his wife halfway through the second trimester, should she still be forced to have that scumbag's baby?

Your thoughts on this?

Perfectly legal up to 24 weeks in most areas in the states, then restrictions start to kick in. If there is a health issue you can get one all the way up until, well, anytime in theory. In reality, it becomes very difficult to find a doctor willing to perform an abortion after 24 weeks (and more difficult the more time passes after that point).

What if the husband loses his job and it's not possible for the couple to sustain another child financially?
At that point it has a functioning nervous system and brain ... adoption would be their choice

I hate to disrupt this party, but the bad news is that now, the Conservatives and very religious Christians have a 5-4 advantage in the Supreme Court, Bush's first nominee is already accepted, his second as good as.
Anyone with a brain can notice that it is now a REAL posiibility that all forms of abortion can or will be banned, unless the woman is actually going to die bringing the child to the world.
A funny thing is that while Europe is becoming (exception East Bloc) so secular and liberal, they are inneficient and downright = :headbang:

America is becoming more and more conservative and religious, Liberals cannot even live in some parts of the Midwest or Bible belt without fear or hate. Abortionists need bulletproof vests, and police protection in the South or this happens = :sniper: .

It is only in big citys that liberals can somewhat not look like the pink panther, but even now the City and metropolitan areas are becoming more conservative.

You have better luck getting a job being a Nazi then a lefty Communist. No one minds when a Commie gets fired ir picked on, too many painful memories of Vietnam, Korea, and the Cold War, to allow sympathy.

Bye, bye Child murderes go to France and get out of Jesus Land :gundge:

Bye, bye Child murderes go to France and get out of Jesus Land :gundge:

Who exactly is going to take care, love, feed, and clothe of all these unwanted children and make sure they don't get neglected or abused?
Odd how conservatives hate people who "freeload" off welfare, but oppose things that would limit them from multiplying.

Bye, bye Child murderes go to France and get out of Jesus Land

Because no one should take away this nation's God given right to destroying the First Amendment! God bless America! :rolleyes:

I hate to disrupt this party, but the bad news is that now, the Conservatives and very religious Christians have a 5-4 advantage in the Supreme Court, Bush's first nominee is already accepted, his second as good as.
Anyone with a brain can notice that it is now a REAL posiibility that all forms of abortion can or will be banned, unless the woman is actually going to die bringing the child to the world.
That doesn't mean that abortions will cease to be -- that just means that they'll be even less pleasant.

A funny thing is that while Europe is becoming (exception East Bloc) so secular and liberal, they are inneficient and downright = :headbang:
And this pertains how, exactly?
America is becoming more and more conservative and religious, Liberals cannot even live in some parts of the Midwest or Bible belt without fear or hate. Abortionists need bulletproof vests, and police protection in the South or this happens = :sniper:
(Emphasis mine) Liberals aren't hated or intimidated in MY area of the Midwest, and I daresay Kansas is about as Midwesty as they come. I'm right on the cusp of the Bible Belt, and honestly I can't think of any cities or towns within six or seven hours of me (read: two states to the east, the full state to the west, one state south, two states north) that would actually stoop to actions against liberals. Sure, a lib might feel like an outsider, especially in the smaller, non-University areas, but I've never yet met one who ever mentioned either fear or hate.

It is only in big citys that liberals can somewhat not look like the pink panther, but even now the City and metropolitan areas are becoming more conservative.
Once again, complete crap. Liberalism isn't a metro pandemic. It's a belief system. A person's beliefs aren't going to change because they aren't living with a bunch of others who believe the same, unless they're not worth their salt in defending those beliefs in the first place. Furthermore, if you'd rely on more than just the pro-American media, you'd realize that "Conservativism" isn't on the rise overall. In fact, most "Conservative" Christians in the United States feel that not only is Christianity (and the views they hold therein, especially those that bleed over into politics) under attack, but that the attitudes towards religion and the impact it has is decreasing entirely
Source (U.S. Newswire, not a KC author) (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/living/religion/13256887.htm)
(Secondary source pending, the link seems to be broken)

You have better luck getting a job being a Nazi then a lefty Communist. No one minds when a Commie gets fired ir picked on, too many painful memories of Vietnam, Korea, and the Cold War, to allow sympathy.
And it doesn't strike you as strange that many older political officials, in my region at least, are often voted out of office because of supposed Nazi ties? Oh, I'm sorry, that's right.....without watching the news, all you'd know is that Arnold had some links to the Nazi party, and look where it got him. Clearly that's what did it for him, rather than his insane popularity as a pop culture icon :rolleyes:

Bye, bye Child murderes go to France and get out of Jesus Land :gundge:
.....I'm not even gonna touch this one :rolleyes:

the husband must be unemployed forever? he cant stay home with the baby while the wife goes to work?

all poor children live a life of unremitting horror??

If the wife has no college education and the husband is incompetent, or the economy just plain sucks and he got laid off, how would having the wife look for a job solve anything? And no, he can find a new job but the question is how soon? Besides, those hospital bills are no laughing matter.

At that point it has a functioning nervous system and brain ... adoption would be their choice

As far as I"m concerned, it doesn't have human rights until it is born. And if your husband (or wife) cheated on you, would you want to have a child with that person?

My initial question was whether an unwilling woman should be forced to have a baby. I believe that goes against the most fundamental of human rights, the right to your own body.

As far as I"m concerned, it doesn't have human rights until it is born. And if your husband (or wife) cheated on you, would you want to have a child with that person?

My initial question was whether an unwilling woman should be forced to have a baby. I believe that goes against the most fundamental of human rights, the right to your own body.
At that point I feel that the fetus can be dubed a person ... as such the right of life comes with it
While I find right to body to be a very important right ... right to life trumps it in my opinion

Before that stage I do not feel the fetus has yet achived personhood, as such the womans right to controll her own body trumps any rights it may or may not have had

That doesn't solve the problem of that child going hungry, or being beat up and neglected by its *unwilling* parents.
Does this mean that abortion solves these problems? These problems are not exclusive to poor, unplanned families.

What if the father cheats on the mother a month after the child is born?

What if the father cheats on the mother a month after the child is born?

Then they either give up the kid for adoption, the wife forgives the husband and they don't, or the wife keeps the kid and the couple is divorced.

At that point I feel that the fetus can be dubed a person ... as such the right of life comes with it
While I find right to body to be a very important right ... right to life trumps it in my opinion

Before that stage I do not feel the fetus has yet achived personhood, as such the womans right to controll her own body trumps any rights it may or may not have had

I believe that people with your opinion are motivated by religious beliefs, and while I am not branding you a religious freak by any means, this is just one issue on which we won't be able to see eye to eye.

In the United States, it is legal to have an abortion only in the first trimester, so if a couple decides to have a baby and the husband cheats on his wife halfway through the second trimester, should she still be forced to have that scumbag's baby?
WTF does the baby have to do with his father being an asshole???? :headbang:

Carrying this to its illogical extreme, why not just execute any of his children already born. That would make just as much sense! :(

At that point it has a functioning nervous system and brain ... adoption would be their choice

1. Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not pregnancy.

2. At 18 weeks--halfway through the second trimester, the point the OP designated--sure, you could say that the fetus has a functioning nervous system, but it's misleading to imply that it's a fully formed, conscious entity at that point.

I believe that people with your opinion are motivated by religious beliefs, and while I am not branding you a religious freak by any means, this is just one issue on which we won't be able to see eye to eye.
Hardly ... atheist

1. Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not pregnancy.

2. At 18 weeks--halfway through the second trimester, the point the OP designated--sure, you could say that the fetus has a functioning nervous system, but it's misleading to imply that it's a fully formed, conscious entity at that point.
1) I understand but I was making the statement in refference to my quoted post which was wondering about financial issues if I remember right, adoption IS an alternitive to the financial burden of PARENTING

I was NOT trying to pose it as an alternitive to abortion rather an ileviation of financial strain which the quoted poster was concerned with

2) when did I say it was a fuly formed conscious entity?

See, this is where the big picture comes in handy. You have the baby anyway and get the bastard for child support which he'll have to pay until the child is 18 or 23 depending on the circumstances. That'll show him. If you get really lucky, he'll fall back on payments for a year or so, being ultimately pissed off that he got stuck with child support in the first place, and when he realizes that he has to work to live, the government can take 50% of his check until the interest is paid off, grab his tax returns and even suspend his driver's liscense! Well, in most of the USofA at any rate.

What if the husband loses his job and it's not possible for the couple to sustain another child financially?

Give the baby up for adoption, within hours of birth. Of course, it would be easier to have an abortion but the laws are just dumb. Until the lil critter pops out of the womb, IMO, the woman should be able to abort whenever she wants.

Anti-abortion/Pro-lifers are cordially invited to gag to death on their own feces.

What if it were kittens, or puppies? There is a huge over-population of kittens and puppies currently. Just go to your local SPCA. Would you be in favor of aborting the kittens and puppies (providing this were financially workable)? Would you be in favor of drowning the kittens/puppies to keep the pet population down?

Maybe we should just consider spaying the cheating dad! :D ;)

What if the husband loses his job and it's not possible for the couple to sustain another child financially?

Get rid of the kid.. you can get rid of it without killing it.. you knew that, yeah? That way, you don't have to look at the "scumbag's kid" for a single minute after it's born.

Yes. At this point the baby is no longer considered a pile of cells. It is now "human" and subject to the right to be born.
However, in many (if not all) states, it is NOT considered a human being, even after it is illegal to abort. In, say, New York, abortions are illegal after some line in the 2nd trimester, but killing the fetus even after that point is an "illegal abortion", not murder. As in if someone punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and kills the fetus, that's not murder, unless the fetus takes a breath of air outside the womb before it dies.

The way US abortion law is currently set up, having "that scumbag's baby" would be a sufficient threat to her emotional health to justify an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. (Heck, ANYTHING would a sufficient threat to her emotional health to justify an abortion--that's the problem.)
IIRC you need a court order for something like that, and a judge isn't going to hand abortions out like lollipops. It's only if there is a serious medical danger to the mother. Get it straight.

Plus they'll get more money from welfare with a kid.

This hasn't really been true since Clinton's presidency. A person already on welfare when they have a child will no longer get any more for it.

Now, if she has the kid and then gets on welfare, she'll probably get a bit more - but it'll all go into taking care of the kid anyways.

To me the whole abortion debates demonstrates how people in the West are not longer able to make logical judgment on moral issues. At the most fundamental level abortion is not about choice or social/economic status. It is about the nature of life. The basic question is whether abortion is murder or not. All other arguments are secondary and act only as red herrings in the abortion rhetoric.

In this thread people have expressed the opinion that until the moment a baby is born it has no rights. This is a ridiculous statement. How can we possibly say that an unborn child a mere hour away from birth is not considered a person? What physical difference is there to warrant such a sharp and fatal distinction? It would seem to me that there is none save that the unborn child cannot breathe on its own yet. But many people alive today cannot breathe on their own either. Do we end their lives? Then, if we gradually lengthened the time from birth would it be possible to determine the exact time at which a foetus became a person? Can we separate so sharply the persons from the non-persons? I know that I am unable to give an educated answer and I am pretty sure the vast majority of people are equally unqualified. So how can we be so lazy and careless about this when the consequence of being wrong are so serious.

The fact of the matter is that most people who say they support abortion have not reflected deeply on these questions. To be sure it is uncomfortable to do so. But our society has decided that is not worth the trouble to think critically about moral issues and accepts far too easily the dominant paradigm or the so-called 'progressive' moral opinion. Most would merely sputter off a few things about women's rights. But the murder card is necessarily trump. My question is: If you do not possess the technical knowledge to decide for yourself when life begins, how can you possibly decide it is justified to articficially terminate a pregnancy when you are potentially committing murder? We have lost moral accountablity.

Further comments: The idea that if an unwanted baby was not aborted it would not be loved or cared for properly is a red herring. Adoption is always an option. The concept of "choice" also masks the fact that almost all pregnant women have already made the choice to become pregrant. That is implicit in the decision to engage in sexual activity. Here choice appears to actually mean the ability to ignore consequences of actions. The exception is victims of rape.

Three cynical questions:
1. How can a country that has legalized abortion charge Scott Peterson with the murder of his unborn child?
2. How can a society that frowns upon drinking and smoking while pregrant because it harms the baby approve of abortion so easily? The first opition implicitly confers rights on the unborn baby but the second does just the opposite.
3. Why is it that the father has no choice in whether or not the mother has an abortion but is automatically responsible for supporting the child if it is carried to term against his wishes?

To me the whole abortion debates demonstrates how people in the West are not longer able to make logical judgment on moral issues. At the most fundamental level abortion is not about choice or social/economic status. It is about the nature of life. The basic question is whether abortion is murder or not. All other arguments are secondary and act only as red herrings in the abortion rhetoric.
The funny thing about morals is that people don't all have the same ones.

In this thread people have expressed the opinion that until the moment a baby is born it has no rights. This is a ridiculous statement. How can we possibly say that an unborn child a mere hour away from birth is not considered a person? What physical difference is there to warrant such a sharp and fatal distinction? It would seem to me that there is none save that the unborn child cannot breathe on its own yet. But many people alive today cannot breathe on their own either. Do we end their lives? Then, if we gradually lengthened the time from birth would it be possible to determine the exact time at which a foetus became a person? Can we separate so sharply the persons from the non-persons? I know that I am unable to give an educated answer and I am pretty sure the vast majority of people are equally unqualified. So how can we be so lazy and careless about this when the consequence of being wrong are so serious.
No one here is talking about aborting a baby an hour away from birth. People have been talking about mainly the embryo stage where it has not developed a central nervous system and is totatly dependent on the mother to survive. And thats the difference between your person who needs a machine to breath and an embryo. An embryo has not even developed the necessary organs to function on its own while a person who is hooked up to a machine has and can't use them due to age, disease, or an accident.

The fact of the matter is that most people who say they support abortion have not reflected deeply on these questions. To be sure it is uncomfortable to do so. But our society has decided that is not worth the trouble to think critically about moral issues and accepts far too easily the dominant paradigm or the so-called 'progressive' moral opinion. Most would merely sputter off a few things about women's rights. But the murder card is necessarily trump. My question is: If you do not possess the technical knowledge to decide for yourself when life begins, how can you possibly decide it is justified to articficially terminate a pregnancy when you are potentially committing murder? We have lost moral accountablity.
Its simple really. In a secular society when it comes down to a decision it can not be for one groups form of morals rather the decision must favor people's rights. Its why in Roe vs. Wade SCOTUS didn't touch the question of wheter a fetus is alive or not. Neither side presented a significant arguement to prove conclusively that they were right.. Because of this you have to side with the rights of the side we know is a person and is gaurnteed those rights rather then the side that may or may not have them and force someone to carry something against their will.

Further comments: The idea that if an unwanted baby was not aborted it would not be loved or cared for properly is a red herring. Adoption is always an option. The concept of "choice" also masks the fact that almost all pregnant women have already made the choice to become pregrant. That is implicit in the decision to engage in sexual activity. Here choice appears to actually mean the ability to ignore consequences of actions. The exception is victims of rape.
Just because there is the posibility of getting pregnant that does not mean that a person consents to carrying a child full term is they have sex. Her choice does not ignore the consequences of the action rather later down the line she makes another choice based on the consequence of the action.

Three cynical questions:
1. How can a country that has legalized abortion charge Scott Peterson with the murder of his unborn child?
2. How can a society that frowns upon drinking and smoking while pregrant because it harms the baby approve of abortion so easily? The first opition implicitly confers rights on the unborn baby but the second does just the opposite.
3. Why is it that the father has no choice in whether or not the mother has an abortion but is automatically responsible for supporting the child if it is carried to term against his wishes?
1.Because most politicans are in the game of getting reelected.
2.Umm I don't know if you've heard about this but apparantly there is this huge stigma still associated with having an abortion. You make it seem like if someone gets an abortion its just shruged off like if someone got a nose job. Its not and the fact that you think it is disturbs me.
3.Because its not the fathers body thats carrying the child.

The basic question is whether abortion is murder or not. All other arguments are secondary and act only as red herrings in the abortion rhetoric.

Murder is a legal term, meaning a killing without lawful excuse. Hence, the answer to "Is abortion murder?" has a different answer depending on what country you happen to be in.

In this thread people have expressed the opinion that until the moment a baby is born it has no rights. This is a ridiculous statement. How can we possibly say that an unborn child a mere hour away from birth is not considered a person? What physical difference is there to warrant such a sharp and fatal distinction?

You cannot ethically have two rights-bearing entities inhabiting the same body. The glaring distinction between a fetus and a neonate is that one of them is occupying a woman's body, physically dependent on her resources to sustain it's own life.

Then, if we gradually lengthened the time from birth would it be possible to determine the exact time at which a foetus became a person? Can we separate so sharply the persons from the non-persons? I know that I am unable to give an educated answer and I am pretty sure the vast majority of people are equally unqualified. So how can we be so lazy and careless about this when the consequence of being wrong are so serious.

Since personhood is a sociological concept rather than a scientific one, there is no "right" answer as to where such a distinction might be made.

The fact of the matter is that most people who say they support abortion have not reflected deeply on these questions.

This is a fact, eh? You've done the hours of exhaustive research, had in-depth conversations with the millions of pro-choicers out there? What's that? You just assumed that if someone disagrees with you, they haven't really thought about it? This is a baseless, not to mention insulting, assertion? Jinkies!

If you do not possess the technical knowledge to decide for yourself when life begins, how can you possibly decide it is justified to articficially terminate a pregnancy when you are potentially committing murder?

Murder = unlawful killing. Abortion = legal in the U.S. Hence, abortion is not murder.

I believe you've confused the term "murder" with "killing". Is abortion a killing? Of course it is. So is slaughtering a cow, or weeding a garden. The question is, is it an immoral killing? Well, morals are subjective, so the answer--for you--is whatever you think it is--for you. My answer would certainly be quite different.



The idea that if an unwanted baby was not aborted it would not be loved or cared for properly is a red herring. Adoption is always an option.

Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not pregnancy. Not to mention that an unwanted child who is not a 100% healthy white newborn is quite likely to languish in the system without receiving that love or care.

The concept of "choice" also masks the fact that almost all pregnant women have already made the choice to become pregrant. That is implicit in the decision to engage in sexual activity. Here choice appears to actually mean the ability to ignore consequences of actions. The exception is victims of rape.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. You cannot choose to get pregnant--you can try, and it either happens or it doesn't. Likewise, you can try like hell not to get pregnant, and it's possible you will anyway. No one can just ignore the consequences, as you say. Abortion is a way of dealing with those consequences--just because you don't like it doesn't change that.

Then they either give up the kid for adoption, the wife forgives the husband and they don't, or the wife keeps the kid and the couple is divorced.So, the child should not be aborted?

You cannot ethically have two rights-bearing entities inhabiting the same body. The glaring distinction between a fetus and a neonate is that one of them is occupying a woman's body, physically dependent on her resources to sustain it's own life.

The glaring distinction between a disabled person on welfare and an able-bodied worker is that one of them is capable of productive work and one dependent on the other's resources to sustain it's own life. But dependence on others is not an excuse for denying rights. There is a responsibility to provide and share common resources to the benefit of both.

Since personhood is a sociological concept rather than a scientific one, there is no "right" answer as to where such a distinction might be made.

Exactly my point. If we cannot make a distinction in theory how can justify drawing a sharp line in practice?


This is a fact, eh? You've done the hours of exhaustive research, had in-depth conversations with the millions of pro-choicers out there? What's that? You just assumed that if someone disagrees with you, they haven't really thought about it?.

Good point. I was wrong to use such strong language. However, my own experience tells me that this is a problem. And that is my point. I suspect far too many people merely accept abortion without critically thinking about it because it is the status quo.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of pregnancy. It is an implicit part of the sex act. There is no way to consent to sex without understanding that you might become pregnant.

In the United States, it is legal to have an abortion only in the first trimester, so if a couple decides to have a baby and the husband cheats on his wife halfway through the second trimester, should she still be forced to have that scumbag's baby?

Your thoughts on this?
"Should she"? Of course not. No women should be required to participate in ANY pregnancy for one second longer than she wishes. A woman's right to end her participation in a pregnancy should be upheld at all times and for all reasons. No exceptions. No human being should be required to donate their body, or any part of it, against their wishes.

However, American law currently does not uphold this right. American law is often misguided, backward, and broken. This does not mean America is a bad place, just that it sometimes takes a while before our legal system catches up with reality. Hell, it took us a couple of centuries to figure out that womenfolks should be allowed to vote. We can be dense that way.

You cannot ethically have two rights-bearing entities inhabiting the same body. Siamese twins.

A lot of the logic for asserting that the unborn is not actually a life that has rights seems to be based on sophistry. Sophistry is no game to play when lives could be involved.

Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of pregnancy. It is an implicit part of the sex act. There is no way to consent to sex without understanding that you might become pregnant.
Consenting to sex means consenting to the possibility of becoming pregnant, yes. It does not mean consenting to REMAIN pregnant, or to carry a pregnancy to term.

It's like how when I choose to go skiing I am doing so with the knowledge that I may fall and break my leg, even if I don't want to break my leg and I try my best to avoid it. However, if I do fall and break my leg, nobody is going to tell me that I consented to have my leg broken and therefore may not have the bone set or get any aspirin.