HOWEVER
My friend who is a studious and intelligent government process individual, revealed this:
"HB12 is the major abortion bill this session and as such draws diverging interest groups to their traditional battle lines. HB12 was written in response to the recent case in Vernal, UT where a young pregnant woman hired a man to assault her with the goal of causing an abortion. The assualt occured, the baby lived, the man was punished and the woman's case was dismissed since the act was interpreted as an abortion legal under Utah law.
HB12 allows for prosecution of a woman who "kills" her unborn child outside of a standard medical abortion. The language specifically includes exemptions for women who refuse medical care. That is, refusing medical care such as a C-section or prenatal vitamins and then experiencing a fetal death as a result of refusing the medical advice, would not constitute homicide. Additionally, there is the following wording
"This bill...provides that a woman is not guilty of criminal homicide of her own unborn child if the death of her unborn child: is caused by a criminally negligent act of the woman; and is not caused by an intentional, knowing, or reckless act of the woman..."
Could a woman be prosecuted for not wearing a seatbelt or going skiing and subsequently experiencing a miscarraige? Perhaps, but I think this would be a very unlikely outcome.
In my opinion, the bigger concern is the more likely scenario where women who seek illegal abortions would face homicide charges. But since early-term abortion is legal in Utah, I personally do not know how many illegal, so called "back alley" abortions occur.
This bill, however, does not encroach on a woman's current access to medical abortion law in Utah. I personally do not agree that meaningful life begins at conception so I am opposed to a law that treats an unborn child on par with a living child. That being said, in my opinion, we spend way too much time discussing and fighting abortion. While we do need to remain vigilent to ensure abortion remains a legal choice, I personally am not overly concerned about this bill."
Hmmm....a process of intelligent discovery. I have since reviewed the bill myself and agree with her review. Take matters in your own hands! An ignorant population is full of docile believers - liberal or conservative.
THINK.
3 comments:
Dana- this is from the Liahona 2008
Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless
"Elective abortion has been legalized in many countries on the premise that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To an extent this is true for each of us, male or female. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences.So it is with people who choose to embark on a journey that leads to parenthood. They have freedom of choice—to begin or not to begin that course. When conception does occur, that choice has already been made.
Yes, a woman is free to choose what she will do with her body. Whether her choice leads to an astronaut’s mission or to a baby, her choice to begin the journey binds her to the consequences of that choice. She cannot “unchoose.”
When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life—and a lifetime of choices that her child would make.
As Latter-day Saints, we should stand up for choice—the right choice—not simply for choice as a method
Nearly all legislation pertaining to abortion considers the duration of gestation. The human mind has presumed to determine when “meaningful life” begins. In the course of my studies as a medical doctor, I learned that a new life begins when two special cells unite to become one cell, bringing together 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. Approximately 22 days after the two cells have united, a little heart begins to beat. At 26 days the circulation of blood begins. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has consistently opposed the practice of abortion. More than a century ago, the First Presidency wrote, “We again take this opportunity of warning the Latter-day Saints against those … practices of foeticide and infanticide
I am not sure how this comment is relevant to the blog post re: legislation related to miscarriage?
And two comments related to abortion
1) Yes, I agree that abortion should not be a birth control method. No one grows up wanting an abortion. Unwanted pregnancies are the majority of cause. If as much money was spent in interventions that help to prevent unwanted pregnancies as it is in fighting against 'pro-choice' (please note I use this word tenatively as I think the use of pro-life and pro-choice are intensely limited), I tend to believe that we would see a decrease in abortions. This is the outcome that all sides of the issue want. Win Win, if you will.
2) Not all pregnancies are a choice. This is why legislation that keeps abortion legal and safe is required (The LDS church has policy regarding applicable exceptions for abortion - what would those victims do if it wasn't legal?) The article you provided is related only to a subset of pregnancies.
Unfortunately, this being a moral issue, it is difficult to legislate and is very devisive. The other difficulty is that this issue carries a tremendous burden on the woman. 23 chromosomes from each sex and yet, it is the woman alone who carries the biological outcome. Rather than legislate a decrease in rights, we can teach proper application and consequence of the utilization of rights - just as a woman should maintain the right to keep a baby that others are telling her to get rid of.
I personally don't have any real interest in the bill- my previous comment was only in regards to your own personal commentary-
"...I personally do not agree that meaningful life begins at conception so I am opposed to a law that treats an unborn child on par with a living child. That being said, in my opinion, we spend way too much time discussing and fighting abortion. While we do need to remain vigilent to ensure abortion remains a legal choice.."
I think it is quite presumptious to distinguish a difference between "unborn" and "living." Medically you should know, if it is growing, dividing, heart beating, blood pumping, it's "LIVING."
Also, to say the life of a baby is not "meaningful" if not brought to a certain time period during the pregnancy, could only be spoken by someone who has not carried even the tiniest of lives in their womb. Let me tell you- EVERY PART, TIME PERIOD, AND STAGE HAS MORE MEANING THAN WE COULD POSSIBLY EVER UNDERSTAND. But anyone who has ever carried life to any stage, can tell you best- it has great, great meaning.
All the fancy semantics aside, abortion at any term, at any time is completely wrong and absolutely not supported by the church in all but the most extreme and dire circumstances.
Post a Comment