woman fakes cancer to get a late-term abortion

Future generations will be appalled that in 2015, the religious right was still trying to force their religious beliefs on women, and punish them for having sex.

 

Viability is a ridiculous and arbitrary definition as to when a person is a person.

For one thing, by this definition, anyone on life support is not a person. They can no longer survive on their own without some sort of mechanical life support.

A human...is a human...during the process of conception. It's dependence in the womb does not make it any less human than an infant dependent on outside care.

We are killing our fellow human at their most vulnerable stage of their existence. It is guilty of nothing besides being dependent upon the womb for it's survival. Even as a newborn it is equaly as vunerable without help from another human.

This talk of "punishing" the women for having sex, ignores the reality this human is being killed for being the product of sex.

Pro-choice goes out of their way...have you noticed...to ignore what's going on.

Take the words..."Pro-choice."

No mention of killing or anything. Hey I'm for giving people the right to choose! Those against the right to choose are fascists, they want to take away your right to choose.

Ok, well I choose to steal your car...to steal your purse, to steal your wallet. It's my right to choose and how dare you tell me I can't choose. You'll argue, well stealing is wrong, the fact it is wrong outweighs any loss of freedom to choose to steal.

The exact same applies to abortion. Choosing to kill is wrong, the fact it is wrong outweighs any loss of freedom to choose to kill

Oh well, it's killing, but what's being killed is not a real person. It can't live outside the womb, it can't feel pain, it's not really a person at that point.

You see, the argument is reduced to semantics...and not biology. Even Roe v. Wade avoids the discussion of abortion as killing, what the Supreme Court majority decided was that the the woman's right to privacy with her physiciian is protected. Even the Supreme Court basically dodged the whole mess of what abortion actually is about...killing.

An infant is as vulnerable as a fetus in terms of it's dependence upon human intervention to survive. It's ability to breathe on it's own may keep him or her alive for 48 hours or so, but after that, it will succumb..it will die...unless another human helps him or her with feeding.

Do we allow women to kill infants? Would we not be outraged if they could legally do this? What is the biological difference, in terms of the humanity of a fetus and an infant? both are human. Yet killing one guilt free gets a free pass. In fact the right to kill is defended vehemently.

Human development is the process of growing to maturity. In biological terms, this entails growth from a one-celled zygote to an adult human being.

Killing a fetus is killing a human.

Conception <--------Human--------->Adult

This is not Scripture, this is not religion of any sort...this is Science...this is basic biology.

It doesn't take a religious person to see the fallacious, arbitrary...essentially...
semantical argument put forth by "Pro-choice" advocates. The argument has no merit in logic, it is in fact baseless and abstract.

We don't need religon to define what is human, biology does this for us. A fetus is human...what a "person" is, is abstract..it exists in words only...it's an abstract legal term.

Killing a human is wrong.

If we have decided killing a newborn is wrong, the same standards of protection should be afforded the fetus.

Period.

 

What I found strange about this story is that the foetus wasn't euthanised before it was delivered, which is the usual practise. Probably the whole story is absolute tripe.

Which is probably why it isn't.

 

sounds like the baby was born, and was not viable, sad but happens all the time... that is not an abortion

now, if the staff refuse to preform normal life saving procedures on the baby, the mother can sue

what is the normal procedure for a 1lb baby born?

.

 

Except the labor was artificially induced prematurely to terminate the pregnancy.

Unless the mother doesn't want the baby and came there to get an abortion. That's one of the reasons an abortion clinic is so much cheaper than the delivery room, I've already explained this.

 

no more arbitrary than your definition that a person is a person at conception.

then you don't understand what biological dependency and social dependency are, the person on mechanical life support is socially dependent ie their life is not dependent on a single person it can be sustained by anyone. The fetus is biologically dependent ie their life is fully dependent on a single person no other person can sustain it.

no one says it is less human .. why do pro-lifers keep switching between the human noun and the human adjective?

Actually it is guilty of nothing at all, that however does not mean it does not inflict injuries onto another person, and if as you insist it is a person from conception then it must abide by the restrictions that all persons must abide by. You cannot state it is a person and then give it a right no other person has .. the right to use another persons body without their consent. that is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

When you remove a persons choices you are punishing them, no it is being killed for numerous reasons being the product of sex is not one of them.

Really, where?

Take the word pro-life, no mention of turning women into state owned chattel, no mention of forcing women to do something against there consent, no mention of rendering them less of a person.

All of the above have a detrimental effect on society as a whole, abortion does not.

Yet you allow the choice to kill in war
You allow the choice to kill in executions
You allow the choice to kill in self-defence .. but of course those are justified in your eyes .. guess what abortion is justified killing to me.

It really is of no consequence to me if the unborn were persons or not, in fact the unborn being deemed as persons only strengthens the argument that abortion should be legal at any time for any reason and the state paying for it, be careful what you wish for.

Semantics . .really, the only people I see attempting to change definitions are pro-lifers. SCOTUS were not asked to determine whether abortion was killing, why would they make a decision on something they were not asked to rule on.

social dependency vs biological dependency .. learn the difference.

no we don't allow women (or any one else to kill infants) and I suspect you know very well why.

Yep and the first ~9 months of that involves living inside of another person, which unless they consent to it is a clear violation of their rights .. unless you can produce any other occasion where a person has been granted the right to live inside of or attached to another person without their consent.

So what, humans get killed everyday, even legally killed.

Again so what?

Except that biology also tells us that up until differentiation there is not "A" human being, there are in fact 100's of human beings .. or didn't you know that prior to differentiation every single cell is capable of producing a human being, every single cell at that point is in fact a clone of the original .. tell me which cell is it that is the human being and which is the placenta, because if you can we can get rid of all the others.

really, the argument I use is based in biology and law, perhaps you can point out the "fallacious, arbitrary...essentially...semantical " elements of it - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/363145-abortion-choice-consent.html

Correct, and yet strangely person is the term used by your very own Constitution, and correct again a fetus is human, that does not mean it is "A" human being.

Tell that to the people killed in war, in executions and self-defence cases .. killing a human is NOT always wrong.

Why, because you say so .. great apply the same standards of protection just as long as you apply the same standards or restrictions as well.

Yep Period, a lot of emotional stuff. Period. A lot of interchanging nouns and adjectives. Period. A lot of personal opinion. Period. and a lot of conflicting statements. Period.

 

so now we want laws banning drugs that makes you give birth sooner.... that is not abortion, that is just inducing the pregnancy....

if the baby is not viable yet, then the defense against late term abortion doesn't work... as it's about viability

.

 

I don't know how exactly they terminated the pregnancy. They might have simply gotten forceps and pried the baby out.

 

not sure at this point why she was arrested, sounds like religious fanatics harassing her to me

she had a baby at 22 weeks and it later died.... where is the crime?

having a baby early is not a crime....

.

 

She lied to get the taxpayers to pay for her abortion.

It is a crime to intentionally make the baby come out at 22 weeks, in all except 3 states in America.

Choosing to make the baby come out when it is that far along into the pregnancy, but still not old enough to be ready to come out, is despicable.

This woman tried to make it seem like she had serious health issues that justified it, even though doctors knew the baby would most likely die as a result, and they knew they were not going to give the baby any life sustaining assistance anyway, so that would completely seal the baby's fate.

 

Poor little baby. People are so savage now.

I was just going to fake cancer to get a job, personally.

 

ah, so they are just claiming she did not qualify for coverage and lied to get covered....... got it, thanks, was wondering what law she was alleged to have broke

 

But they will use this to make sure she gets punished for having an abortion.

Judges can, and do, use their discretionary sentencing powers to punish people who committed minor crimes for other more serious crimes, even if a jury did not find them guilty of that more serious crime. Because even small crimes can carry long potential sentences under the law. In 2007, after being convicted for selling half an ounce of crack (worth $600), a federal judge in Washington D.C. sentenced a man named Antwuan Ball to 18 years in prison for this reason.

 

Sounds like insurance fraud......nothing to do with abortion.....and unreliable source anyway

 

See bolded above:

""""""""""But they will use this to make sure she gets punished for having an abortion. """""


Thank you for , ONCE AGAIN, proving that for Anti-Choicers it is all , and only, about punishing the woman .

 

When I was younger, I lied to a movie theater clerk and said I already had a ticket and I lost it when I didn't, and she let me go in anyway, for free unbeknownst to her.

Clearly all movie theaters should be shut-down.

 

That is the most intelligent thing you have said in ages.

and they might not have . .so you are basing your outrage on something that you have no idea is correct or not

 

Barbara Boxer would have been proud.

 

22½ weeks is NOT a late term abortion.