Mom Denied Abortion Even As Her Uterus Crushes Her Baby

[Akama13]

Originally Posted by odinloki1

Yeah, she should travel 4 hours to get appropriate medical care, if a neighboring state allows it. Makes a lot of sense.

The amniotic sac was ruptured. Both the mother and fetus are now at increased risk for severe infection.

State law put this mothers life in danger.

Excuse me, but mothers are mere grown beings, not potential little babies. Clearly therefore their life is not worth quite as much.

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by TylerJAX

My previous posts bring us to the question. Do you think American tax payers would be better off in the long run if all abortions were subsidized for the poor(assuming the welfare system remained intact), and should we as a society encourage under-privileged women who get pregnant out of wedlock to seek an abortion because of the long term benefits that society will gain?

A few thoughts.

I disagree with eugenics in almost all applications, but not for intrinsic behavioral problems. A full blown education (abstinence, birth control, abortion) needs to be spoken of frankly. This squeamish attitude people have about the subject of sex and death needs light and air because it's only serving to hobble teenagers in very vulnerable stage of life. Parents themselves being unwilling to be adult about this is a handicap passed onto their teens. Sarah Palin case in point. America is stuck on stupid. Humanae Vitae — Papal Encyclical on Sex, Marriage, Contraception and Other Issues - Steven Waldman

Unlawful Birth Control Methods
14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

Anti abortionists- How does this apply to a mother of 5 told by her doctor after surviving breast cancer treatment that if she gets pregnant again it will kill them both (and ultimately her 5 children because 2 yrs later her husband died of cancer)? She's adamantly against abortion and she means to prevent it but she's wrong wrong wrong no matter what she does. States plain as day above she is to be condemned for having tubal ligation. Condemned for having ovaries removed if she's got ovarian cancer. Same for testicular cancer. It's <allegedly> interfering with "God's will".

The only thing resembling eugenics I can get behind is tubal ligation and or vasectomy for those universally deemed unfit to be accountable for themselves. Addicts fall into that category. Those on disability rolls might fall under that category as well but it's a case by case basis. Anyone using psychotropic drug treatment precludes the potential of a healthy infant. In other words they've robbed that child of a life even before conception. Most, if not all, of those drugs have contraindications for pregnant women, however the nature of the disease impairs judgment. The science linking ADHD with alcoholic fathers (genetic defect passed onto children through self induced damage of sperm) needs serious attention. Not junk science. Not phrenology. Science science tempered with ethical (morally principled) policy.

Juvenile males using the argument that they only want free sex but not fatherhood- get a vasectomy if you're all too happy to ignore the mandates of your self declared religion. I don't want to hear it. Females taking employment as prostitutes should be encouraged if not mandated to have their tubes tied. The other side of abortion is the Deaver family but anti abortionists don't want to believe there is anything but a sexually licentious side. This interpretation was fed to the masses by men committed to/ attempting to justify/ their own choice of celibacy. These celibate men are left brain defining marital relations after the fact (Adam and Eve) of said relations. Are we all clear on that yet?

Additionally I'd like to stress that my Catholic upbringing shouldn't be inflicted on all others because that is not my purpose of embracing religion. Does it sound right to anyone guilty of 'failing to be Catholic' that my Pope should be authoring legislation applicable to all? Shouldn't it just apply to Catholics and let the teachings be made clear to Catholics in their embrace of free will in free society? It is these sorts of issues that cause strife in interdenominational relations and boundary issues need to be made clear stressing individual rights IAW Biblical free will. What happens the day it's not the Pope but a Caliph dictating law? What if it's a noodly appendage deciding law? Come to think of it, a noodly appendage HAS been deciding the sum total of western civilization law all along!

"Parental rights" should be translated to parental responsibility. I see the law expressed/ administered in ways that protects a parents 'right' to abuse or neglect children. How silent or respectful of anyone's right am I to remain when I witness a parent deliberately withholding medical attention for "religious purposes"? I see preachers (for profit) offering a service-- "do you schizophrenic, take this alcoholic to be your lawfully wedded?". There's something patently wrong with that priest/preacher and the witnesses ("society") that does not object when the byproduct of that union means standing room only in an orphanage sold into indentured servitude to cover the note on the orphanage. Therein lies yet another over extended left brain interpretation of St Paul the Apostle claiming that any preacher who denies the right to marriage is evil. I strongly disagree and think clergy should exercise moral guidelines directly and let the justice of the peace decide for the rest outside religion. A sadist (m/f) and a masochist (m/f) do not belong married if their community is obliged to pick up the pieces and their children are the very first casualties of that arrangement.

The best interest of children need to be the first thing considered, not the best interest of parents. The best interest of the children defines the role of parenthood and simultaneously a just civilization.

So look at the world again with fresh eyes. That is to say through children's eyes. Define by law under what circumstances you would be better off never being born? Make this absolutely personal because it's an excruciatingly intimate choice women are tasked with making. What degree of genetic mutilation passed onto another generation is acceptable if it were you having to live with that disfigurement? Can you live with the idea that you're the byproduct of incest and attempting to give birth to you at 9yrs old killed your own mother? That the man who raised you was Satan reincarnate instructing you to rob banks to cover his plethora of habits?

If I'm pregnant today and against my will a radiation disaster occurs in the doctors office that all but guarantees unimaginable genetic deformity. Because the damage is silent or less than visible, most of you won't consider it damage. It's not dramatic enough to match up with action adventure films you've been raised on. It's the equivalent of that fetus being run over by a bus, only drawn out over protracted process to figure out that it was doomed the moment that radiation leaked. Radiation I never saw or had a hand in directly but am blamed over by superstitious people claiming God cursed me and my child as punishment for a sin I never committed. Spontaneous abortions occur in nature (attributed to God's will and/or God's punishment & hatred of women) regularly, but can folks comprehend that there are times when it should happen but it doesn't? That is to say nature/ God's mercy has considerable lag time for whatever reason that may be?

That's the reality of the human animal in a human civilization not compatible with the human animal. The law does not reflect biological reality and so there will always be strife (religious and legal) until y'all get real. Or until Armageddon, whichever comes first. Things ultimately turn out nicely for womankind in the book of revelations. How many of them are currently praying for end times?

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by TylerJAX

I'm not sure if there is a specific philosophy, but there are quite a few people with those kind of viewpoints. It's a mix of total lack of moral regard, utilitarianism, in certain cases racism, and maybe even libertarianism. I'll have to admit, there is a grain of truth in their arguments.

Forget racism= Join the human race.
These posts are long and reference religion because separation of church and state are not formally minded by law. Morality itself is a subject considered 'owned' by religious, therefore, the Church/ Temple have asserted a right/ imperative to dictate morality to whole nations & petition legislation from remote control even if they cannot practice what they're preaching directly beyond small scale modeling.

-Lack of moral regard:
More compelling is the evidence that a lack of self respect sets dysfunctional behaviors in motion. People (either gender/ race/ creed etc) lacking self respect or reverence for their own life, more obviously apparent in intergenerational habituation, render themselves incapable of having reverence for anyone else's life. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" has what meaning to those filled with self loathing? They're also incapable of being a fit parent until they can correct this in themselves. In the genuine defense of marriage, it makes far too much sense to start right there with individuals. Clarifying the difference between a healthy marriage vs clinging to one another to eternally perpetuate quid pro quo. In the false defense of marriage, hetero's blame gays for their abysmal rate of divorce and pernicious abuses/ scapegoating of their partners.

In the frame of abortion or even the false sense of reality/ safety people accustom themselves to in the use of birth control, the biological reality of their reproductive ability is abstractly ignored. Saying yes to sex meant saying yes to bringing a child into the world for thousands of years until science changed that human reality. This was the legitimate concern of the papal encyclical I cited. Now contrast this profound truth with what's materially expressed on the pulpit, in the pews, and surely as the other shoe will drop, expressed in the law. Despite the profound wisdom of abstinence, their actions/ attitudes are go to pains to generate or exacerbate low self esteem in women, meting out vengeance through writ/ social sanctions, and generalized disregard for womankind. "She" is a veritable stranger in a civilization we've shared for thousands of years. Listen to vast swaths of male population and you'll hear the common theme in thought- womankind is a separate species apart from mankind.

Instead of Church and State acknowledging that ignorance directly, they bury it under a rug to save face. If you'll follow along that encyclical you'll note the clever use of Church= She metaphor, declaring their hands are tied duty bound to upholding "she". Shouldn't you understand your bride before claiming to be in defense of anything? Why am I (by virtue of gender) culturally/ religiously, legally prohibited from self defense???? THAT is a million dollar question for the Vatican (and all organized religions purveying morality) to answer.

In summation, if moral regard were the true goal for all, mankind would be compelled to articulate the worth of womankind far and beyond her direct utility to him, and vice versa when men are being railroaded into the rigid role of sole protector/ provider for humanity. That lesson needs to be taught in conjunction with abstinence (self discipline and conscious choice) but they remain silent wrongfully, or perhaps better characterized as bashfully, on that deeper lesson. Machiavellian fashion and no shortage of breath on the subject, they're fixated entirely on tearing down any and all BC / abortion. They've lost the lesson themselves in the process of declaring yet another war, deny the validity of Nuns/ female theologians correcting myopic interpretations they've committed themselves to promulgate. Population Vatican City: 373 males, 411 females. 411 don't count and have literally been accused of being 'termites' in the instances they've asked questions. They're failing to lead as men in the spirit of the very church (she) they claim to defend. The Holy See cannot teach what he fails to comprehend himself. This carries over directly to political agendas, which only amplifies itself as another layer of corrupted principles and malevolence carried over through writ. Defending a tumor at the expense of health, the flock/ constituency is not led. They're led astray.

-Utilitarianism:
Purist theocracy and free society are incompatible, and is a thread unto itself. The Vatican has had ample time and funding to create a 100% Christian nation in 3rd world, but it's impracticable beyond cloistered settings or even here in America, small scale communes. Negotiating secular life with one foot and the kingdom of God with the other foot is a very arduous path. While it's clear to all the commandment "thou shalt not kill" with no caveats/ exceptions etched in stone along side that commandment, religious always make exceptions for military/ LE. Why is that so?

-Libertarianism (non-atheist branch):
Not a libertarian myself, however, they seem to discern better that 'thou shalt not kill' has legitimate exceptions. They intend to respect free will, support the right to self defense, and therefore, are logically pro choice. Womankind having war perpetrated upon her reproductive ability is still a war even if formally undeclared. Would anti abortionists still be as convinced if an X race (Wile E. Norwegians, Chinese, Blacks, what's in a name) invasion meant the same tactics perpetrated on Tutsi women were inflicted upon 159+ million American women? Is a mass distribution of a morning after pill ok THEN? If Anita Bryant got aids from it was it God's will punishing her?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7HEADlE2iM
BBC News - Newsnight - Rwanda's children of rape
U.S. woman falsely accused of Rwanda genocide rape crimes | San Francisco Bay View
Womankind is justifiably sick to death being abused for political/ religious fodder (rape by any other name) 'for her own protection', which reliably translates out in real time 'for his prerogative to abuse'.
We did not begin as a nation intending womankind be helpless or to refrain from defending herself, but American women remain at best an afterthought or at worst a 'cross to bear'/ manage legally. I'd rather not nail men to a cross, TYVM, I'd much prefer to walk beside them as Bible intended. Equality IS in the Bible. There's just a nasty case of selective attention going on for a few millennia.

American women have been conditioned into that thinking via nonsense religious interpretations/ social abuse/ male centric law that have done more damage to male/female relations in all of western civilization than a dozen villains in history you could name. Once all this wackaloon noise imposed itself on Adam and Eve, the institution of marriage became a nightmare for all parties concerned. I cannot help but conclude that everyone (social rules, law, religious figures) needs a permanent eviction notice from marriage. A priest or preacher standing IN THE WAY of God ought to be fired. A government standing IN THE WAY of husband and wife ought to be fired as well.

Each gender and religion would serve humanity infinitely more by investing effort defining or portraying examples of healthy marriage and leave it to the individuals through reasoned consideration to embrace in their lives what is worthy of embrace. Instead forums/ media/ national narrative is 24/7 fixated on all things negative as if anything good left in the world went extinct in WW2. It's no coincidence totalitarian agendas go to extremes to instigate strife for their bread and butter.