Her Body, Her Choice: Woman on Trial for Terminating 6 Pregnancies

[SuperPhil]

OH its not my god. I thought still births were an act of god. By that it is commonly said god has taken said still birth away to a better place. .

Act of god? You believe that?

 

[IzzyPop]

If convinced of the person hood of the child, I hope you would want the government to take action against the people who continued to perform abortions.

It isn't a rights issue. The ONLY argument is if the baby is alive.

It most certainly is a rights issue. No matter if the fetus is a child, if it is alive, or if it is a person. No person has the right to utilize anybody else's bodily resources without permission. End of story.

I have 2 healthy kidneys while I only need one to survive. Should I be forced to surrender one against my will for someone else that is in need? Is my refusal to supply that kidney tantamount to murder since the person in need will die if I don't give them mine?

 

[CreedIsChrist]

my totally non-professional opinion since I majored in history and not medicine. Munchauser's syndrome by proxy maybe.

Smothering an newborn does not an abortion make.

yea, one is smothered and the other is mutilated and taken apart by tools. Such a huge difference

Both are killing and the taking of a life. Since when is ones humanity dependent on whether a womb surrounds them or not??

This woman is no different than the women who walk into abortion clinics everyday. The only difference is this woman did it herself, while the other pays someone $400 to do it for them.

 

[LyraJean]

So, you're pro-birth control, yeah?

Yes.

 

[LyraJean]

I too would fall into that category, as for myself I could not get an abortion, however I believe other women should have access as I do not live thier lives nor have walked in their shoes...JMO though and MOO

What does birthcontrol have to do with prochoice/antiabortion?
I apologize, however I do not see any correlation bewteen them...many who are anti abortion and totally disagree with prochoice do take the pill and practice forms of birthcontrol.
Birthcontrol does not end a pregnancy, it prevents one!!

There are some anti-abortion people who do not believe in using birth control. Abstinence only. I am not one of those.

When I do have children, I hope to teach them in such a way that abstinence is best but that if they do want to have sex that they could come to me or someone else and get at least condoms if not birth control. I'd rather help them get what they need to stay safe then feel they need to hide having sex from me and not use protection.

At this point I have no children so what can I say. The above paragraph is only a hope.

 

[LyraJean]

To understand an apposing argument, I must try every type of persuasion out there to see the type of answers. I got some great answers.

In other things,

On what grounds are you anti-abortion that doesn't apply to pro-choice people? Do you think it's wrong for just you to have an abortion? I'm not trying to make fun, it's just I've heard that response before and never really got a good explanation.

I would not get an abortion for myself. Now if I were raped and the doctor offered me the day after pill yes I would take it. That is not an abortion.

If I had a friend or family member or someone else come up to me and they were pregnant and were thinking about getting an abortion I would do my best to dissuade them. Including helping them with the coming baby. If they decide to go ahead and get the abortion anyway I won't disown them and support them in this decision as well.

 

[kiwimac]

yea, one is smothered and the other is mutilated and taken apart by tools. Such a huge difference

Both are killing and the taking of a life. Since when is ones humanity dependent on whether a womb surrounds them or not??

This woman is no different than the women who walk into abortion clinics everyday. The only difference is this woman did it herself, while the other pays someone $400 to do it for them.

Yes, there is a difference. A fetus in utero is a potential human-being whilst a child is an actual one. Abortion is legal thus not murder. Moreover lest you think this a modern view point please consider the following:

Feldman notes that

the abortion question in talmudic law revolves around the legal status of the embryo. For this the Talmud has a phrase, ubbar yerekh immo, which phrase is a counterpart of the Latin pars viscerum matris. That is, the fetus is deemed "a part of its mother," rather than an independent entity.

This designation says nothing about the morality of abortion; rather, it defines ownership, for example, in the case of an embryo found in a purchased animal.

As intrinsic to its mother's body, it belongs to the buyer. In the religious conversion of a pregnant woman, her unborn child is automatically included and requires no further ceremony. Nor does it have power of acquisition; gifts made on its behalf are not binding. These and similar points mean only that the fetus has no "juridical personality," but say nothing about the right of abortion. This turns rather on whether feticide is or is not homicide. (81-82)

Further:

Even given the designation of the embryo / fetus as intrinsic to the mother's body and thereby lacking, we might say, personhood - is feticide, the killing of at least a potential human being the same as homicide?

The biblical books of Exodus and Leviticus (part of the Torah - teaching, path, law - in Judaism, and canonical "Old Testament" books for Christians), as understood through the Talmud and Rashi (one of the most important Rabbinic authorities), argue that the answer to this question is, "No."

The law of homicide in the Torah, in one of its formulations, reads: "Makkeh ish..." "He who smites a man..." (Ex. 21:12). Does this include any many, say a day-old child? Yes, says the Talmud, citing another text: "...ki yakkeh kol nefesh adam" "If one smite any nefesh adam" (Lev. 24:17) - literally, any human person. (Whereas we may not be sure that the newborn babe has completed its term and is a bar kayyama, fully viable, until thirty days after birth, he is fully human from the moment of birth.

If he dies before his thirtieth day, no funeral or shivah rites are applicable either. But active destruction of a born child of even doubtful viability is here definitely forbidden.) The "any" (kol) is understood to include the day-old child, but the "nefesh adam" is taken to exclude the fetus in the womb.

The fetus in the womb, says Rashi, classic commentator on the Bible and Talmud, is lav nefish hu, not a person, until he comes into the world. Feticide, then, does not constitute homicide, and the basis for denying it capital-crime status in Jewish law - even for those rabbis who may have wanted to rule otherwise - is scriptural.

Alongside the above text is another one in Exodus that reads: "If men strive, and wound a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befall [her], then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess...But if harm befall [her], then shalt thou give life for life" (21:22). The Talmud makes this verse's teaching explicit: Only monetary compensation is exacted of him who causes a woman to miscarry. Note also that though the abortion spoken of here is accidental, it contrasts with the homicide (of the mother) which is also accidental. Even unintentional homicide cannot be expiated by a monetary fine. (82)

lastly:

Given that abortion does not equate to murder - in the case of threat to the mother's life, abortion becomes a requirement:

Since the mother is not allowed to choose suicide, abortion in that extreme case becomes mandatory. This is the sense of the fundamental passage in the Talmud bearing on the subject.

The Mishna (Oholot 7,6) puts it this way: "If a woman has [life-threatening] difficulty in childbirth, the embryo within her must be dismembered limb by limb [if necessary], because her life [hayyeha] takes precedence over its life [yayyav]. Once its head (or its greater part) has emerged, it may not be touched, for we may not set aside one life [nefesh] for another."

The justification for abortion then is that before the child emerges we do not yet have a nefesh. The life of the fetus is only potential, and that cannot compete with actual human life. (84-85)

Source

To put it in the simplest possible terms: there is a difference between a foetus and a child, Mosaic law does not proscribe a punishment for the death of a foetus.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It most certainly is a rights issue. No matter if the fetus is a child, if it is alive, or if it is a person. No person has the right to utilize anybody else's bodily resources without permission. End of story.

I have 2 healthy kidneys while I only need one to survive. Should I be forced to surrender one against my will for someone else that is in need? Is my refusal to supply that kidney tantamount to murder since the person in need will die if I don't give them mine?

That being said, if there is a way to remove the child from utilizing the woman's body against her will that does not kill the child (at least it gives the child a chance to survive), should we not require that method? Granted, I don't know of any yet, but I would think it would do wonders if a lot of pro-life people started funding things such as that.

 

[united4Peace]

There are some anti-abortion people who do not believe in using birth control. Abstinence only. I am not one of those.

When I do have children, I hope to teach them in such a way that abstinence is best but that if they do want to have sex that they could come to me or someone else and get at least condoms if not birth control. I'd rather help them get what they need to stay safe then feel they need to hide having sex from me and not use protection.

At this point I have no children so what can I say. The above paragraph is only a hope.

That is true
Totally agreed

 

[IzzyPop]

That being said, if there is a way to remove the child from utilizing the woman's body against her will that does not kill the child (at least it gives the child a chance to survive), should we not require that method? Granted, I don't know of any yet, but I would think it would do wonders if a lot of pro-life people started funding things such as that.

Require it? Not sure. I have not really thought it through.

My initial reaction is no. If the parents were not forced to pay for the growth/storage facility or care for the child if they did not want it I would be a bit more willing to entertain the idea. But then that raises a question about what we do with the unwanted children.

 

[MoonLancer]

Act of god? You believe that?

that's how some Christians cope with it, don't look at me.

 

[MoonLancer]

If convinced of the person hood of the child, I hope you would want the government to take action against the people who continued to perform abortions.

It isn't a rights issue. The ONLY argument is if the baby is alive.

It is a rights issue. You have the government trying to take control of peoples reproductive parts. Its right on track with forced sterilizations

 

[lawtonfogle]

Require it? Not sure. I have not really thought it through.

My initial reaction is no. If the parents were not forced to pay for the growth/storage facility or care for the child if they did not want it I would be a bit more willing to entertain the idea. But then that raises a question about what we do with the unwanted children.

Oh, sorry for not clarifying. After the child is removed, the parents have a choice to keep the child or not. If they choose not to, they do not have to pay for any of the medical facilities related to the child. Who does is the subject of another thread.

 

[wanderingone]

Oh, sorry for not clarifying. After the child is removed, the parents have a choice to keep the child or not. If they choose not to, they do not have to pay for any of the medical facilities related to the child. Who does is the subject of another thread.

Well actually that depends on what you mean by the parents choice not to keep the child. If they want to give up their rights and allow the child to be placed for adoption then they do not have to pay for anything, however if the child is taken from them or they place the child in foster care and have any resources or income they will be paying support.

-----------------
Ahhh.. see what I get for reading most recent back... you meant perhaps removing the fetus so that the mother would not be physically or financially beholden to it? I was thinking in terms of child born and given up for adoption etc..

 

[IreneAdler]

So, when does life begin, really? Does it begin at conception, or is it a matter or perception? How is what this woman did any different than what thousands of women do every day?

AFP: French woman on trial for six baby murders

I'm in really late, but I'm pretty sure that this one is a couple crayons short of a full box to do this six times

 

[IreneAdler]

It's really different than abortion. Sorry... but it is.

 

[SuperPhil]

It is a rights issue. You have the government trying to take control of peoples reproductive parts. Its right on track with forced sterilizations

haha, no it isn't... You just said reproductive parts... a living child is not a part. It's a human with just as much rights as you and I.

 

[kiwimac]

A child has the same rights but a foetus does not. It is a part of / dependent upon the mother's body via the placenta.

 

[IzzyPop]

haha, no it isn't... You just said reproductive parts... a living child is not a part. It's a human with just as much rights as you and I.

Yep. And neither you or a fetus or a child has the right to utilize the bodily resources of another against their will.

 

[katautumn]

Yep. And neither you or a fetus or a child has the right to utilize the bodily resources of another against their will.

But could it be said that in order to act against another person's will one must be sentient and aware that they are imposing on another's will? A fetus cannot possess such knowledge, so they are truly innocent and unknowingly utilizing the woman's body to sustain life.