You Will Regret Your Abortion

If there is something that never ceases to amaze me it's the lack of credibility of "anti-abortionists" in presenting arguments. Once again the previous statement is false based upon clinical studies:

http://women.webmd.com/news/20000822/study-says-most-women-dont-regret-abortion

A 12-year old study that apparently some anti-abortionists didn't read. Many don't read scientific studies or the legal decision in Roe v Wade and then try to make arguments based upon ignorance as if there is some validity to ignorance.

 

If your 11 year old son and new born baby was both stuck in a burning house and you could save only one---who would you choose?? I would choose the 11 year old son--because I would have a larger bond with him.

but that choice does not make the newborn any less human.

 

And you talk about a "reach" of the Supreme Court! Roberts' decision was nothing compared to the decision reached in Roe v Wade in which they found that the clause pertaining to "privacy" meant a woman and her doctor could kill her baby inside the womb.

With THAT reasoning, I don't know why we don't say that assist in suicide of a loved one under the "privacy" clause. Just the other day, a husband helped his wife to kill herself; she was suffering with a terrible and terminal disease....and now he's up on charges. I think they did it in the "privacy" of their own home too.

I don't get Roe v Wade. Never have; never will.

 

sure. I believe cold heartless purely political beotches such as Fonda and Greer and Steinem would never have a regret.

 

Roe v Wade was a decision that I didn't understand until I actually read it and understood the foundation upon which the Supreme Court made it's decision. Most that oppose abortion haven't read and attempted to understand the logic of the court which was relatively simple so I will paraphrase that decision.

Our Constitution protects the Rights of "People/Persons" exclusively so the Supreme Court in addressing this with both the plaintiffs and defense asked them both the following simple question (paraphrased), "Is there any historical or legal precedent in the history of mankind that establishes 'personhood' prior to birth?" This was the key question before the Court. If there was historical or legal precedent establishing the "personhood" of the pre-born then the Constitutional protections, such as the Right to Life, would be applicable because that Right relates to persons. I not then pre-born are not persons based historical or legal precedent then the Constitutional protections do not apply.

The answer to this key question was the same from both the plaintiff and defense was identical. Both the plantiffs and the defense acknowledged that there was no historical or legal precendent to establish personhood for the pre-born therefore there were no Constitutional protections prior to birth.

At the same time the Woman was acknowledged to be a Person, established at birth, entitled to the protections of the US Constitution. Once agian both the plaintiff and defense agreed on this.

There were no differences between the plaintiffs and defense on the two key issues before the court. The pre-born were not persons and had no Constitutionally protected Rights and the woman was a person with Constitutional Rights.

The Supreme Court could have been draconian in it's decision declaring all abortion laws unconstitutional because the pre-born had no Constitutional Rights and the woman did have Constitutional Rights but it was not. In showing a little wisdom the Supreme Court also recognized that at viability a fetus could be removed from the womb which would establish presonhood by birth. A fetus becomes a baby with Rights at birth. This consideration was what lead to the ultimate decision that imposed no limitations on a woman's Right to have an abortion during the first trimester, limited restrictions during the second trimester, and severe limitations during the last trimester.

Of course this is a very brief summary of the Roe v Wade decision and a complete reading of it is highly recommended for those that want to understand it. It really is worth the read.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

As I've noted in other threads on abortion Roe v Wade was based upon existing precedent and the US Constitution but the precedent can be changed. To do that requires a Constitutional Amendment establishing the precedent of "personhood" for the pre-born. Unless that is done then the precedent does not change and Roe v Wade remains the definative decision which, as note, was based upon the concurance of both sides of the issue on the facts addressed by the Supreme Court. We can't say the decision is flawed when both sides agreed on the facts that ultimately determined the case.

 

This was a case that the supreme court had no business deciding. Ultimately the Supreme Court made the decision of when human life can be killed---not a federal issue for sure. It took a "king" type of wisdom to decide that a fetus was not a person. That had nothing to do with interpeting the Constitution.

 

I don't quite agree. Had the controversy been between a plaintiff and a state that had legalized abortion, it seems to me the case for the SC striking it down under the equal protection clause would have been airtight.

 

When a society condones an action it is reasonable to assume that most folks will not be initially negatively affected by taking that action. This is how societal morality is slowly degraded and how a 'study' can produce predetermined results. The link provided does not state what time-frame AFTER the abortion the study was conducted. Maturity often brings regret for previous actions. Selling abortion as almost a non-consequential, non-moral decision based on what appears to be an incomplete study is disingenuous at best.

 

I think it very much depends on the person and the situation. I knew two women who had early abortions and that was it. It was right for them. They did it and moved on. It is an extremely personal decision and that is how it should be. As the study said the women who were depressed had other things going on - the partner may have left them and so on. They may have made the choice to please the partner or because they were afraid of being alone. That can happen. But when a woman knows it is the right choice for her and goes on and has an abortion usually when the embryo is only a few weeks old, she can put it behind her and carry on with her life. The memory faded with the one person I knew who regretted it after she had two healthy babies. We can all have regrets in life. It depends on how the dice fall.

The memory never faded though with my cousin who had twins when she was 16 and as was the norm at that time, they were adopted. She never stopped thinking and crying about them.

 

Dear. . .if you have a new born, OBVIOUSLY there was no abortion!
We are not talking about "aborting 9 month old fetus!" We are talking about LEGAL abortion, and the OVERWHELMING number of abortions are performed PRIOR to the 3rd month!

So. . .rephrase your example to change the dilemma of "saving a new born," or "saving an 11 year old!" to "saving the 11 year old from a fire, knowing that doing so will provoke a miscarriage (i.e., if to save the 11 year old, you need to jump from a 2nd floor window).

But in the case you give, I may in fact disagree with you, and I would probably try to save the newborn, since I a newborn would have NO CHANCE to find his/her way to safety and would be condemn to death if you leave him/her in the fire, while the 11 year old may be able to follow instruction, probably even be ready to escape the fire by his own ability to think and to act independently.

 

The usual way this scenario is posited is that you have a choice between a baby and a tray full of embryo's

 

How does a woman know that an abortion is the 'right choice' when our liberal-Socialist society and media believe in moral relativity? Is ANY decision moral then?

 

How does our society know that condemning someone to death, or condemning an 18 year old to 140 years in jail is the right choice?
How did Bush know that invading Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and several thousands of our own soldiers was the right choice?

How do you know that a man "suspicious" of a young boy and ending up killing an unarmed teenager is the right choice?

All these examples of "moral relativity" are given using LIFE subjects, not cluster of cells with a "maybe" potential of BECOMING a life baby.

 

Dear.......We weren't talking about abortion. I can't possibly think you missed my point unless you worked very hard at it. I suggest you reread your post leading up to mine.

 

You also should reread the posts...

 

So...You are unable to answer my question...Duly noted.

 

Give it a shot. Which would you save?

 

some will some wont, some will regret having children, would it have saved four childrens lives had andrea yates of aborted her fifth? never know


.

 

It is not a moral choice. In another thread I left a link from a midwife of the time who was asked how she felt. The availability of abortion is a medical choice for a safe outcome to a woman's choice.

Now what I was talking about was whether that choice was right for a particular woman. I said it was an extremely personal experience, hence it is not one in which we can say one size suits all. I will try however to make some general considerations.

A woman becomes unintentionally pregnant. She probably knows there is a chance because she forgot a pill or was sick or took them at the wrong time or whatever. She then does a test very early and discovers she is indeed pregnant. From there each person is going to be different because each person's life situation is different. I am assuming she is not pleased that this has occurred. She will then look at her life situation and add up the pros and cons and come to a rational decision of some kind. Obviously people will vary over what they do, some will need a little time and their decision may in part be based on others. Of course some may have a strong feeling response immediately either for keeping or aborting. It may be overpowering and that may be the end of it but if we assume the person adds up the situation and then comes to the decision that the logical thing to do is to abort, she may even then find that even though it is logical, she does not want to do it at all. It would probably not be the right decision imo for that woman to go ahead. Another women having added up the pros and cons can see that without question a baby in her life at the moment is going to wreck things beyond control. She may well have or want children in the future but to have this one now is going to ruin the well being of herself and possibly others. She feels that abortion is the right thing for her to do. The benefits far out way any discomfort she may feel. She then acts sensibly and sees her doctor and gets it arranged asap while it is still a tiny embryo, maybe has a wee cry when she gets home but sometimes just feels relieved and it is over and she has her life back. The decision was right for her. That is where the 'right' comes in, being 'right' for any particular woman will differ.

It is less likely to be 'right' for her if she does not make the choice freely. However at that point she may be in a position where it is very hard to come to the right decision.

I hope I have explained that better. It is personal and nothing to do with politics, or anyone else's opinion.

 

You mean. . .the post that ends with this comment: "I believe you are making a false equivalency between an early term fetus and a life child!

I believe this whole OP is about abortion. . .and my post to which you responded was pointing out the difference between a CHILD and a FETUS.

Apparently, several people had the same impression I had, and understood BOTH of my posts.

This thread is not based on "parental love differences between two siblings," but emotions towards abortion.

Please stay on topic. . .and try to comprehend posts instead of just criticizing them!

 

You are showing a lot of patience and maturity, and excellent understanding of the complexities involved in making (or rejecting) the possibility of an abortion.

I respect and totally agree with your common sense approach to this difficult subject. There is not ONE correct decision. The only certainty in my opinion is that this kind of decision MUST remain in the woman's hands. . .EACH woman's hands, and it will vary from one woman to another.

 

A hard comment, but very true!

 

Apparently, you are not able to answer my question. . .Dully noted! LOL

Could you try to take yourself a little more lightly?

I do not think this forum is a court of law, and you are not the pope!

Get real, and maybe you should take your own advice and "CORRECT THE ERROR!"

 

Goldwater said,

Yes it does. And the bible does not say anything against child pornography by name…but would you think God would condone it?
The nature of God…everything He is about goes against abortion. God loves children…He created them. And He created the child in the womb. Why would a loving God condone someone purposely killing their unborn child…when He knew them before they were even created?

What is that scripture verse.

When I go pray at abortion mills primarily Catholics are there. They are on the front lines of this issue and have been from the start. i wish more evangelical protestant churches were more vocal. it does not matter however what terms you use to describe the movement it is what it is….wanting protection for the life in the womb.

Well Democrats condone abortion….Obama even voted for infanticide…as many Democrats have done. Look at voting records. Bush did make ground in this fight…but it will take the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. However we can work hard and make abortion harder to get…and that is what we are doing…closing clinics all over the country.

 

So God knew the woman was going to be pregnant before she got pregnant? Then God would know the woman would choose an abortion, so would God allow the woman to become pregnant if he knew she would abort? Sounds to me like it is GOD responsible for the abortion, not the woman.