Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Woman denied abortion dies in hospital
I completely agree with you on this.
I see what you're saying. I can honestly say that I don't think there is a right answer when the mother's life is at risk.
Yes, there is. The mother's life should be saved. How is that not the right answer?
Because it means ending another life. I don't believe that any life being ended is a right answer.
In the words of SBP...
Here's where what you believe meets what actually is. The Constitution recognizes three basic rights: life, liberty, and property. In order to avail yourself of any of these rights, you must be a person. "Person" is not used in it colloquial sense, but in a legal sense. So the issue of whether a fetus is a "life" is irrelevant. The real issue is whether it is a person. If it is a person, then it has a right to life. If it is not a person, it has no constitutional rights at all. The woman is a person. There is no issue with that. It is not a matter of debate. So she has certain liberty interests that are constitutionally protected. One of those is privacy: the right to be left alone. The issues of abortion, pregnancy, and family are private matters which the woman is entitled to control and safeguard against government interference. So what you have right now is a situation where a non-person would have greater rights than a person. At a moral level, this may not bother you. You may be thinking, great, all we have to do is assign fetuses "personhood" status and then they have a right to life and we're good.
That's fine. I understand what the constitution says, that doesn't mean I have to believe it's right. The part I bolded is an absolutely rediculous argument. Those types of things are not regulated for parents of children who are considered "persons" what reason is there to believe that unborn "persons" parents' would be regulated in such a way?
She's discussing things that could have a quantifiable negative effect on a fetus ("TV watching causes miscarriages" or "Overweight pregnant women endanger fetuses through gestational diabetes"). If that fetus is considered a person, and that fetus' rights are independent of / superior to the rights of the baby-sack that has become its mother, then anything that could possibly endanger the fetus is just as much a liability as if the mother were personally responsible for physically endangering an actual already-born child, which people can at this time be arrested for.
But don't you think that is contradictory? I absolutely agree that the decision should be up to the mother alone. Which is most definitely why I'm against outlawing abortion in any way shape or form. Outlawing abortion puts that decision in the hands of the government, not the mother.
How can you reconcile that with your support for the PPACA?
No, I don't see it as contradictory. IMO, the only time it should be permissable to purposely end any life is if it is the only option to save another, and in that situation that decision should be up to those 2 lives involved, as much as possible. And yes, I understand that an unborn baby lacks decision making ability.
Ok, but what I'm saying is, there's studies out there that say watching TV is dangerous for kids (with rights). No one has threatened to arrest me because my son watches Jake and the Neverland Pirates. Driving down the road in the car could potentially endanger the life of my child, but I'm not getting arrested for that. This is a very extreme, hyperbolic arguement, which is why I called it rediculous.
Thank you! I knew it didn't look right, but didn't take the time to type it into Word. I should have!
ETA: It does look atrocious now that I actually see it. Sometimes my fingers work faster than my brain. I'll try to do better.
I honestly wasn't trying to be a jerk just because I disagree with your position in this thread. Hope you don't think that. It was just standing out to me.
Nope, I didn't take it that way at all!
<-- See, smiley face....it's all good!
It isn't ridiculous though. Having a glass of wine, eating lunch meat, certain sports, etc could become the equivalent of not buckling your child in when driving if a foetus has rights. Women could literally be arrested for doing things like that. Also, miscarriages could become criminal investigations if anybody claims that a woman did something to cause them.
It might not happen often, but if a woman did something that was judged to have contributed to her miscarriage could be charged with homicide or manslaughter. Seriously. I don't know how you can't see a problem with that. (Not being snarky, I honestly can't comprehend it.)