Thousands of children are deprived of birth due to lack of vasectomy regulation

[finehoe]

I think you lost me there, one man -- a Republican candidate -- speaks his mind about his beliefs regarding the issues, while another -- the sitting president -- says he believes all Americans should be required to have health insurance whether it violates their religious freedoms or not. How again is it different?

Having health insurance is now a violation of someone's religious freedoms?  I presume you're talking about Christian Scientists, not Catholics.

I guess you missed the part where I said

...maybe because politicians run for office in order to impose their worldview on the country?

Santorum can speak his mind all he wants about his beliefs.  All candidates should.  But if those beliefs don't jibe with at least 51% of the electorate, then he won't get elected.  And that's the difference between "a candidate" and "the sitting president".  One can translate his views into policy and one can't.

[FayeforCure]

For Gonzo whomever you might be.

I don't have to pull the paralyzed son card.........I have been making it my life's mission to let others know how inhumane a paralyzed existence is and how adult stem cells even from umbilical cords do nothing at all to even make rats walk again, whereas there are many studies showing ESCs able to make rats walk again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faye_Armitage

Regarding criminalizing miscarriages.........will 2 states' bills suffice for you?

Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage


by Rachel Larris

February 20, 2010 - 9:00am (Print)


Tags: fetal homicide | Utah | Access to Abortion


A bill passed by the Utah House and Senate this week and waiting for the governor's signature, will make it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage, and make induced abortion a crime in some instances.

According Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, what makes Utah's proposed law unique is that it is specifically designed to be punitive toward pregnant women, not those who might assist or cause an illegal abortion or unintended miscarriage.

The bill passed by legislators amends Utah's criminal statute to allow the state to charge a woman with criminal homicide for inducing a miscarriage or obtaining an illegal abortion. The basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage. Although the girl gave birth to a baby later given up for adoption, she was initially charged with attempted murder. However the charges were dropped because, at the time, under Utah state law a woman could not be prosecuted for attempting to arrange an abortion, lawful or unlawful.

The bill passed by the Utah legislature would change that. While the bill does not affect legally obtained abortions, it criminalizes any actions taken by women to induce a miscarriage or abortion outside of a doctor's care, with penalties including up to life in prison.

"What is really radical and different about this statute is that all of the other states' feticide laws are directed to third party attackers," Paltrow explained. "[Other states' feticide laws] were passed in response to a pregnant woman who has been beaten up by a husband or boyfriend. Utah's law is directed to the woman herself and that's what makes it different and dangerous."

In addition to criminalizing an intentional attempt to induce a miscarriage or abortion, the bill also creates a standard that could make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by "reckless" behavior. 

Using the legal standard of "reckless behavior" all a district attorney needs to show is that a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she didn't intend to lose the pregnancy. Drink too much alcohol and have a miscarriage? Under the new law such actions could be cause for prosecution.

"This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder," says Missy Bird, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Utah. Bird says there are no exemptions in the bill for victims of domestic violence or for those who are substance abusers. The standard is so broad, Bird says, "there nothing in the bill to exempt a woman for not wearing her seatbelt who got into a car accident."

Such a standard could even make falling down stairs a prosecutable event, such as the recent case in Iowa where a pregnant woman who fell down the stairs at her home was arrested under the suspicion she was trying to terminate her pregnancy.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/19/utah-passes-bill-that-charges-women-for-illegal-abortion-or-miscarriage


Must Reads, Reproductive Rights, Sex and Gender


Ga. Law Could Give Death Penalty for Miscarriages

â€"By Jen Quraishi

| Wed Feb. 23, 2011 4:32 AM PST


It's only February, but this year has been a tough one for women's health and reproductive rights. There's a new bill on the block that may have reached the apex (I hope) of woman-hating craziness. Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklinâ€"who last year proposed making rape and domestic violence "victims" into "accusers"â€"has introduced a 10-page bill that would criminalize miscarriages and make abortion in Georgia completely illegal. Both miscarriages and abortions would be potentially punishable by death: any "prenatal murder" in the words of the bill, including "human involvement" in a miscarriage, would be a felony and carry a penalty of life in prison or death. Basically, it's everything an "pro-life" activist could want aside from making all women who've had abortions wear big red "A"s on their chests.

I doubt that a bill that makes a legal medical procedure liable for the death penalty will pass. The bill, however, shows an astonishing lack of concern for women's health and well-being. Under Rep. Franklin's bill, HB 1, women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage. There is no clarification of what "human involvement" means, and this is hugely problematic as medical doctors do not know exactly what causes miscarriages.

Miscarriages are estimated to terminate up to a quarter of all pregnancies and the Mayo Clinic says that "the actual number is probably much higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn't even know she's pregnant. Most miscarriages occur because the fetus isn't developing normally."

Holding women criminally liable for a totally natural, common biological process is cruel and non-sensical. Even more ridiculous, the bill holds women responsible for protecting their fetuses from "the moment of conception," despite the fact that pregnancy tests aren't accurate until at least 3 weeks after conception. Unless Franklin (who is not a health professional) invents a revolutionary intrauterine conception alarm system, it's unclear how exactly the state of Georgia would enforce that rule other than holding all possibly-pregnant women under lock and key.

I've seen a lot of anti-woman, hate-filled bills this year, but this one takes the cake. And it's not just anti-woman, it's anti-logic. The bill contends that Georgia is exempt from upholding Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade because the Constitution's Article I only governs five crimes: counterfeiting, piracy, high seas felonies, offenses against the law of nations, and treason. According to the bill, since murder is not one of those five crimes, it should be solely governed by the state. The bill also mandates that doctors must try to save the mother and the fetus, even though as we know, there are many situations in which both cannot be saved. It also changes medical terminology, re-designating all zygotes, embryos, and concepti as fetuses. In the bill's logic, a fertilized egg is the same as a person, and its destruction is murder. Sometimes even a fertilized egg will fail to adhere to the uterine lining, so would that make a uterus a murderer? At least the bill doesn't propose instituting pro-life Stork Bucks or outlawing "space abortions"...yet.

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/miscarriage-death-penalty-georgia

[Fallen Buckeye]

First, regarding whether the HHS mandate is a "Catholic issue," the answer is no. It is an American issue because it concerns the rights guaranteed to all Americans in our Constitution. That's why other religious leaders from Jewish rabbis to Southern Baptists have joined the fight. Whether a majority of Catholics disagree with the Church on contraception is irrelevant because if they can take freedoms from one minority what is to stop them taking them from others. That's how tyrants are made.

Well, as I said, a majority of American Catholics agree with the mandate (even more of them disagree with the Church on birth control). I would say a large portion of us wish they hadn't picked this particular wedge issue to take a stand on, as it's a losing battle in the long run. Is this really where we want to spend our energy and resources? For most Catholics, it is not.

The priorities are just ridiculously off. In terms of just our diocese, for instance, I wish they'd take just half the time they spend droning on and on about birth control and abortion and use it for more effective outreach to young men who may feel called to become a priest. That way we wouldn't have to lean so heavily on priests past the age of retirement or imported from far-flung dioceses. Without shepherds you eventually lose the flock.

Sorry to go off on a sidebar conversation, but you bring up an interesting point about priests which I agree should be an absolute priority for Catholics. So let me counter with this: would you be willing to make the radical sacrifices that preisthood requires for a Church that does not actually stand by its own teachings? Truth inspires. Courage inspires. I say living lives of heroic virtue is exactly what reaps workers for the vineyard. Like they say, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. I actually agree with what someone said on here, where was the outcry before in each of these states when Romneycare or in some of these other states with similar mandates? This is a fight that needed to be had a long time ago, and now we're playing from behind.

And Faye, we actually agree on one thing! It should not be a crime to have a miscarriage unless it's caused intentionally. Unfortunately, we still disagree on a ton of other issues. lol. So I want to reiterate, the ends do not justify the means. A man who robs a bank to pay for an operation to save his son's life is not justified even though the end is unquestionably good because stealing is objectively immoral by its nature. Similarly, taking another person's life whether by IVF, embryonic stem cell research, ella, plan b, abortion, or old-fashioned murder is objectively wrong by the nature of the act itself regardless of the possible positive outcomes.

Beyond immoral, these acts are also unamerican. Our own Declaration of Independence tells us, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." These rights do not exist because the government tells us they exist. These rights are inherent to the human person, and the government exists to defend those rights.

[FayeforCure]

There is no "end justifying the means" here.

Simply making the specks that are trashed (at ivf clinics) come to some human good rather than being simply waste. Besides it is up to the donors to decide, not you.

Is it better to throw the specks away than to have these specks save another human life?

In your words........you have a dying (potential child)life (which is sure to die in the trash), do you donate its cells or do you rather have them perish in the trash?

It would be cruel to not use these cells for good.

[Fallen Buckeye]

I see your point Faye, and I appreciate your good intentions. However, the situation remains problematic for a few reasons.

1. IVF is itself immoral for many reasons including the fact that several lives are created which are then as you say tossed in the trash or destroyed. Of course, this is different from a normal miscarriage because it is a deliberate rather than natural act. To equate miscarriage and IVF (or ESC) is like saying that being murdered is the same as dying of natural causes. Same result but much different ways of getting there.

2. Also, the donors do not have the authority to make a decision about whether to take another human life. We would not say that a mother has the right to kill her child because that child has a right to life that is independent of the mother. Those persons created for IVF or ESC research have an inherent right to life that does derive from their biological parents or anyone else. Thus, the "donors" or me do not have the right to decide whether they are destroyed even if for the sake of an admirable cause such as researching cures for disease.

3. Finally, embryonic stem cell research (as well as IVF) disrespects the inherent dignity of a human person. The language used in describing IVF and ESC is telling. "Specks that are trashed." "Medical waste." "Use these cells." It is a utilitarian view of a human life in which a person's value is measured by their usefulness. I know you would reject that view if we talking about your son because I have a disabled brother. A person's value comes from the fact that they are a person not how they can be used. It does not matter what stage of development a person is in. We all once were a speck, but from the moment of our creation we were endowed with certain unalienable rights.

I understand what it like being willing to give almost anything cure a person you love or others like him. I respect you for that, but again the ends (a cure, a child born to infertile parents, the financial stability of a family, etc.) do make an inherently evil act justifiable. There are some prices we just cannot pay no matter the benefits.

[FayeforCure]

The religious hysteria against ESCR has NEVER translated to ivf, and this is why:

More than 3.5 million children have been born worldwide following assisted human reproduction (AHR) (ESHRE, 2008). Today, approximately 1 in 50 births in Sweden, 1 in 60 births in Australia and up to 1 in 100 births in the United States result from IVF (Velda et al., 2009). As infertility is known to affect at least 1 in 6 couples in Canada, Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) are beneficial to family health, including the ability to preserve future fertility capability (Royal Commission, 1993).

http://www.ahrc-pac.gc.ca/v2//pubs/moc-erc-eng.php

Until that hysteria translates to ivf, where the supposed embryos are "murdered" (when they are thrown away in the trash), I cannot take any opponent to ESCR serious.

[Gonzo]

For Gonzo whomever you might be.

I don't have to pull the paralyzed son card.........I have been making it my life's mission to let others know how inhumane a paralyzed existence is and how adult stem cells even from umbilical cords do nothing at all to even make rats walk again, whereas there are many studies showing ESCs able to make rats walk again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faye_Armitage

Regarding criminalizing miscarriages.........will 2 states' bills suffice for you?

Faye,

Thank you for providing the articles about miscarriages. As I read them it became very apparent that you are not characterizing them in the correct light and that the liberal media has tried to spin them to make them look nefarious. While they do make miscarriage illegal, they only make miscarriages that are the result of the mother's willful actions illegal. They DO NOT make natural miscarriages illegal in any way. The only nefarious intent that I see in either of these laws is to stop mothers from seeking to illegally terminate a pregnancy.

As Fallen Buckeye so eloquently wrote:

A man who robs a bank to pay for an operation to save his son's life is not justified even though the end is unquestionably good because stealing is objectively immoral by its nature. Similarly, taking another person's life whether by IVF, embryonic stem cell research, ella, plan b, abortion, or old-fashioned is objectively wrong by the nature of the act itself regardless of the possible positive outcomes.

And:

The language used in describing IVF and ESC is telling. "Specks that are trashed." "Medical waste." "Use these cells." It is a utilitarian view of a human life in which a person's value is measured by their usefulness.

To me, this type of language is the height of callousness. While, as I expressed in an earlier post, I am truly very sorry for the circumstances you and your son are in, I still cannot get past the point that his life is no more important than anyone else's.

My grandparents died not knowing who they were, where they were, or even who their family was. They died lonely, afraid, and confused. And, since they both suffered early onset, there is a one in two chance that I could get this terrible disease, too. But, even this possible eventuality does not sway my stance that the use of embryonic stem cells FOR ANY PURPOSE is inherently and irrevocably immoral.

This is not just "religious hysteria" as a matter of fact, let's remove religion from it altogether. This is a matter of respect for human life in all of its forms. The fact that IVF has resulted in so many births plays no part in this conversation. It is merely another red herring for us to chase.

In no way do I dislike you for your views. As a matter of fact, I find this conversation stimulating and, as I told Stephen on another thread, I like this type of discourse because I learn quite a bit from them. But, no matter how noble your intentions, or how ground-breaking the result is to the human race, the methods are fatally flawed.

I would still like to hear responses to my direct questions, as well.

[FayeforCure]

Who is going to be the arbiter on whether a miscarriage was natural or as a result of willful action.

I could lose my pregnancy while falling down the stairs. Did I do this willfully or not? Who decides?

This means any woman who miscarries could potentially be on trial.

It's like that all male contraception panel deciding about the contraception pill for women..........it's another way men want to control women, plain and simple.

Which is probably in line with your religion too.

[BridgeTroll]

I think you replied earlier that the government would be the arbitrator.  I guess that would be the court.

[FayeforCure]

I think you replied earlier that the government would be the arbitrator.  I guess that would be the court.

ah, so I guess you don't mind us taking your wife to court to determine if she had a natural miscarriage?

Guilty until proven innocent, right?

[BridgeTroll]

No... I think this... is prosecutable.  Dont you?

The basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage.

[FayeforCure]

No... I think this... is prosecutable.  Dont you?

The basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage.

Who said so?

The man?

Typical case of Republicans acting punitively to an alleged case (and with severe overreach in an attack on all women who miscarry) rather than preventively.

I would have much rather have had this girl have access to free birth control, if she really does exist.

[BridgeTroll]

No... I think this... is prosecutable.  Dont you?

The basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage.

Who said so?

The man?

Typical case of Republicans acting punitively to an alleged case (and with severe overreach in an attack on all women who miscarry) rather than preventively.

I would have much rather have had this girl have access to free birth control, if she really does exist.

Is it prosecutable?

[Gonzo]

No... I think this... is prosecutable.  Dont you?

The basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage.

Who said so?

The man?

Typical case of Republicans acting punitively to an alleged case (and with severe overreach in an attack on all women who miscarry) rather than preventively.

I would have much rather have had this girl have access to free birth control, if she really does exist.

Wow, Faye. The more you reply, the more I get that you really have a hatred for men. "If she exisits." Really? So, are you saying that the whole thing is manufactured? Do you think there are black helicopters following you, too?

Seriously, Bridge Troll asked you a valid question, why don't you answer it? Or any of mine for that matter?

A woman who is accused of inducing her own miscarriage has the same rights under the law as anyone else. Innocent until proven guilty. As someone who ran for office you, of all people, should know this.

As far as my religion, I think I can refer you to this quote, "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” (Matt:25) That was Jesus who said that. I give Him a lot of credibility over you.

[buckethead]

We seem to have crossed into the twilight zone.

Jumped the shark, as it were.

The burden of proof for any murder is on the prosecution.

IIRC only a handful of cases have ever been prosecuted on behalf of a fetus/human/citizen killed In Utero.

The burden of proof was on the prosecution.

If I read this argument right (and I could be misreading) Faye seems to think no woman should face a tribunal/prosecution for having a miscarriage. I happen to agree.

I also believe that we need to legally define at what point a fetus becomes a human and therefor protected by the US constitution.

I've been very close to a woman who has experienced a miscarriage. It is VERY traumatic. I would have become homicidal towards anyone who attempted to drag her through having to defend herself at this devastating time in her life.

Justice is never perfect nor absolute. It seems to me that we should trust women on this issue. It won't be a perfect system for absolute justice, but it's far better than prosecuting the innocent.