Are all liberals this confused?

[Tripleshot]

... I find myself in complete agreement with both Harvey & Isla..

Me too. Not to take away from the impassioned beliefs of their detractors,It is a breath of fresh air to hear Harvey and Isla debate this subject with a monicum of rationality.

Kudos

 

[Isla]

And What Of This?


I would rather this child have been aborted than endure what she had to suffer at the hands of a pathetic system.

Does this make it right? No.

Is there a better solution in place or even on the horizon?

I don't see it any time soon.




Millions of children are spared this fate because abortion is legal. Drug addicted people should not be raising children. At this point in time, there are no laws against giving children to their criminal/unfit parents to destroy. Pass a law that will stop this from happening and maybe I'll see things your way. Until then, may children be spared this fate, even if it means not being born. Cold and heartless? Maybe. I still prefer legalized abortion to child abuse and murder of a child who has already been on the 'outside'.

Abortion is a sad thing. However, I consider this case---similar ones of which happen every day---to be much sadder. Unwanted children are at risk. Help them with your time and your money and by helping to pass laws that will protect the children who are already here.

Just my very sad .02

 

[MrPALCO]

<< Tell us about it again, after you've spent some time as a pregnant sixteen year old. >>



Are you saying that because this 16 year old got knocked up,and is unable to cope emotionally with motherhood, that aborting her child ( or fetus if you prefer) is &quot;ok&quot;.

Let's assume this same 16 year old and her family are about to be thrown out of their house, because of a default on the mortgage.

Would it be &quot;ok&quot; if she broke into your home and stole your silverware, in order to cover the note? After all, she is unable to cope with the eviction.

 

[jjm]

You mentioned killing animals for food, but that's not a black-and-white issue either. Lots of people draw the line between killing for food and killing for sport. Others say the result is the same regardless; a dead animal.

I think most people attempt to find a balance. Those who try to paint the world all in one color are considered extremists.

 

[Ornery]

Abortion is okay, but she's a vegetarian because she doesn't think we should kill animals, and she's also against capital punishment. Yep, if you were to change your topic title, you might have found a little more agreement. Personally, I think the irony is pretty humorous.

And this issue is black and white. Either it's legal or it isn't. Sounds black and white to me. Why is everybody having fits because a baby killer only got 3 years? All the arguments for losing the kid in utero, still hold true after it's born. Why not just throw it in the trash, if it's a bother, up to the age of 18? What, some kind of civil rights being violated there? But no civil rights issues just prior to birth? Heh, the law can change that.

And speaking of &quot;Cold inflexibility&quot;, perhaps banning partial birth abortions (link from bottom of his home page)* would be a nice compromise for the time being, eh?

I have to put my children in a child seat or be buckled in the car up to a certain age by law. Why is that? It's my kids. Something to do with the government watching out for their well being despite my stupidity, ya think? Yet a child about to be born is at the mercy of the same parents that would let them ride in a car without a seat belt. The government steps in while you're in a car, but not 8 months in utero. Hmmmm, maybe this is confusing after all, Xerox Man!

* Edit: I'll just post the text, since the pics are horrendous!

• In September of 1993, Nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer watched in horror as edit were thrust into a living baby's edit during a partial-birth abortion. In March of 1996, Congress gave final approval to a bill to ban the brutal partial-birth abortion procedure, except if necessary to save a mother's life. On April 10, 1996, President Clinton vetoed the bill -- allowing partial-birth abortions to continue to be performed without restriction. What the nurse saw...
  
  In September, 1993, Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse with thirteen years of experience, was assigned by her nursing agency to an abortion clinic. Since Nurse Shafer considered herself &quot;very pro-choice,&quot; she didn't think this assignment would be a problem. She was wrong. This is what Nurse Shafer saw: &quot;I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a edit and inserted them into the back of the baby's edit, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor edit. Then he stuck the edit into the edit and edit the baby's edit. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen.&quot; The partial-birth abortion procedure is used after 20 weeks (4 1/2 months) of pregnancy -- often to six months, seven months, and even later. The difference between partial-birth abortion and homicide is a mere three inches...

 

[Tripleshot]

>>In March of 1996, Congress gave final approval to a bill to ban the brutal partial-birth abortion procedure, except if necessary to save a mother's life. On April 10, 1996, President Clinton vetoed the bill -- allowing partial-birth abortions to continue to be performed without restriction<<

I recommend pulling that link Onery. there are young people who visit here and I'm not sure that is appropriate for young viewers.:Q


I do not have a problem with the language of the congresional bill as I read it here,and I do not know the circumstance of Clintons veto. However, i would accept the March 1996 language. Would you?

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes the issue is black and white. As I said, all you prolifers are mass murders every time you swallow, but you keep on living your miserable murderous lives because you lack the vision, imagination, and moral integretity to see the potential human being in every cell. You are just incapable of extending your morality to cover the wider reality. You refuse to see your own hypocracy and circumscribed morality.

 

[classy]

What am I????????? Liberal or conservative????????????
I believe in Equal rights for all people.
I believe in Affirmative Action.
I believe in Welfare Reform.
I believe in Gun Control.
I believe in having prayer back in schools.
I believe in abortion under these circumstances. The parents must be notified for underage girls. For rape victims or molestation. I believe that partial birth abortions should be banned immediately.
I believe in the death penalty.

So whatever these beliefs make me that's what I am.

 

[GL]

Partial-Birth Abortions are one of those issues on the slippery slope that pro-choice advocates don't want to touch because their argument starts to crumble. If you look at the term &quot;Partial-Birth Abortions&quot; a priori - that is, by pure reason - you come to the conclusion that something is in the process of being born (partial-birth). This thing being born (excuse my use of the word thing), must be alive in order to be born. Actually, it may be still-born, in which case the &quot;Abortion&quot; part of the procedure would be unnecessary, but we know it is. So, the abortion terminates this thing that is alive.

Up until this point, there still is no definitive evidence why partial-birth abortions should not occur. After all, we kill living things all the time - chickens, cattle, or even chicken embryos (eggs), trees, etc. However, there is a universal moral/ethical rule that the killing of human life is not just. So if we accept this universal moral/ethical rule, and we can prove that this &quot;thing&quot; being born is human life (i.e. it exhibits the tell-tale characteristics of human life - the main one being thought), then we can prove that partial-birth abortions are simply &quot;wrong&quot; without having to prove that abortion as a whole is a black-and-white, &quot;right&quot; or &quot;wrong&quot; issue. Well, this is a trivial task. Towards the end of the second-trimester, to the beginning of the third-trimester, when most (if I'm not mistaken) partial-birth abortions occur, the fetus has observable human brainwave activity. We know that this brainwave activity is a byproduct of thinking and that the absence of it implies that there is no &quot;thinking&quot; going on - i.e. many doctors use this to declare a brain-dead patient and cease all efforts to keep him/her alive. Well, since there is brainwave activity going on, this implies that this &quot;thing&quot; is human life and therefore must be protected under the same rules/laws and with the same rights as any other human life.

The above, is largely the opinion of Carl Sagan, much of which I tend to agree with. Although, being pro-life myself, it is uncomfortable for me to accept that early-term abortions can be justified (in this case, with the absence of brainwave activity), it is as close to a rational determinant on this issue as I've seen. Because something is uncomfortable, does not mean it is wrong. And, I have no concrete evidence to argue against early-term abortions. Of course, it is arguable whether additional human characteristics can be observed at an earlier point in the pregnancy, thereby making abortions wrong by Sagan's logic even at earlier points in the pregnancy. However, keep in mind that these characteristics must be uniquely-human. I for one, after trying to search for a uniquely-human characteristic other than thought, can't come up with one. Mind you, even thought is debatable as a uniquely human characteristic, unshared by the animal world. But one thing is certain, that human thought is orders of magnitude more complex than even our closest DNA relatives. That being said, I'm sure the complexity of this thought can, and is, observable in the brainwave activity.

-GL

 

[chess9]

XeroxMan:

I have lots of conservative friends. In fact, most of my male friends who are my age are very conservative. We have lots of knock down battles over politics but we are old enough to know that being friends is more important than any political views we may have. My wife of many, many years is much more conservative than me. But we complement each other in the other important ways so the relationship works. If you are going to cut liberal girls out of your dating schedule, you will be reduced to a very short list.

If she can't justify abortion to you, how will you justify killing animals to her? If she's inconsistent, then so are you.

Anyway, if politics is that important to you then you need to start reading some mind expanding literature. I'd suggest something in the social sciences. I'm sure Isla could get you started.

Boy, you would be a project.

 

[Isla]

I'm all for banning partial birth abortions except when the mother's life is in danger... it's a step in the right direction.

Another step in the right direction is the establishing &quot;Safe Places&quot; for women to leave their unwanted newborns without fear of prosecution. This I applaud... and may this trend catch on like wildfire.

Many people are in favor of making abortion illegal AND cutting funds to welfare services. Let's see... more unwanted children born... less funds to feed them... I dunno, but I think maybe we need to do a little more brainstorming on how to solve the problems before we go making drastic changes.

I believe that the more practical and realistic solutions we can implement, the better. Will this mean a cost to the taxpayers? Probably. Are children a good investment? Definitely.

I just don't understand how people can see this as a simple, black or white issue.

Oh well, I guess we all come from different places afterall...

 

[Harvey]

< Rant Responses >

Palco -- << Are you saying that because this 16 year old got knocked up,and is unable to cope emotionally with motherhood, that aborting her child ( or fetus if you prefer) is &quot;ok&quot;. >>

Yes, except that I would remove the quotes around &quot;ok.&quot; The rest of your feeble attempt at analogy is your usual lame blather.

Moonbeam -- (Comment deleted after further PM'd explanation of intended meaning).

< /Rant Responses >

 

[BoberFett]

Ornery

Put the link back in. I say that if abortion is something that's acceptable (because we dare not make it illegal) then I say it's good enough for anybody to see.

Moonbeam

For somebody who tries to sound as enlightened as you do, every time you open your mouth lately you sound like an @sshole.

 

[Tripleshot]

GL

>>That being said, I'm sure the complexity of this thought can, and is, observable in the brainwave activity.<<

I'm just curious. I do not have facts. would there not be brainwave activity for any body movement or function,apart from a definitive concience thought? How could that be measured and set apart if that where to be the yardstick to define life in the womb? It seems the hardcore prolifers want to declare &quot;life&quot; in the womb to have started at conception. That being the case,we better ban birth control pills as well.

Oh hell,just give up sex. It's too complicated and you people are taking the fun out of it

 

[Ornery]

Damn, this is too, too serious considering the chuckle I got when reading about her ironic philosophy.

I'd vote for any banning Tripleshot, because as GL mentioned, it leads down that slippery slope where you end up banning all abortions. That's because it may be hard to define the exact cut off point for that third trimester. Where someone's civil rights are concerned (the infant), it's best to err on the safe side

But I would sure go along with the RU-486 solution. Seems like a PERFECT compromise to this whole mess!

And as far as the concern for too many kids being born, I'd go after the parents to pay for the kids. One way or another! When a kid is born, I want both parents SS number and I want them to pay forever more for that kid. Hound them for the rest of their lives. Garnish their wages, put them in a work camp... whatever! I'm pretty damn tired of paying and paying for their mistakes. I'm sure their kids aren't too thrilled either. Maybe if their peers saw them being constantly harassed for money by the government, they'd be a little more careful where and when they sow their seed :|

Edit: Oops, that link was slightly biased Try this one...

 

[GL]

Tripleshot,

I'm not an expert on the matter. I'll have to look up this issue. I was always under the assumption that statistically random brainwave activity was characteristic of an absence of thought, and that thought caused the brainwave activity to become statistically less random - i.e. I'm sure there is an onslaught of brainwave activity in a student taking a test, and then considerably less when that student is eating lunch. Observing these fluctuations in brainwave activity in adult humans would most likely correlate with certain activities (like taking that test). But as I said, I'm not entirely sure, so I'll have to look up this issue.

Isla,

You made some great points. But don't forget that there is a significant population of women who have had abortions who did so because they felt a pregnancy and subsequent child-raising, would hinder their career aspirations. What kind of a world do we live in where the pursuit of the almighty dollar and &quot;successes&quot; of a career undermine the miracle and gift of raising a child? I think every effort should be made to allow women to advance their career and raise a child. This means universal child-care at an affordable price, the ability for mothers and fathers to take leaves of absence from their job to care for newborn babies, affordable housing (so maybe one parent can choose to stay home for a few years and live off a single-income), continued education of birth control methods that prevent pregnancy instead of ones that deal with pregnancies once they occur (abortions), and much more that I cannot mention in such limited space. All in all, abortion is very much an issue of the middle-class and all classes further up the ladder.

Ornery
Both sides of the abortion issue are at risking slipping down the same slippery slope. I've pointed out partial-birth abortions as one of those issues that pro-choice advocates would rather not talk about because it leads down this slope. But similarly, there are some issues that pro-life advocates would rather not bring up as well, such as abortion in the case of rape/incest (in most cases, the extreme pro-life advocates are against birth control such as the emergency contraceptive pill that, when taken after an incident of rape/incest, would prevent pregnancy).

Quick facts...
Q. When was abortion &quot;outlawed&quot; by the Catholic Church?
A. 1869. With advances in the microscope, and the acceptance of the theory of the homunculus (that inside every man's testicles were wholly-formed tiny humans encapsulated in the sperm, in which the testicles of the wholly-formed tiny human in the sperm were even more sperm that were wholly-formed...extending to infinity).

Q. Was the Catholic Church against abortion always?
A. No. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine were not against early-term abortions and explicitly stated this.

<< This view was embraced by the Church in the Council of Vienne in 1312, and has never been repudiated. The Catholic Church's first and long-standing collection of canon law...held that abortion was homicide only after the fetus was already &quot;formed&quot; - roughly, the end of the first trimester. >>

- Abortion: Is It Possible To Be Both &quot;Pro-Life&quot; and &quot;Pro-Choice&quot; by Carl Sagan.

Q. What did Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism, have to say about abortion in the case where the mother's life was in danger?
A. &quot;If they become tired or even die through bearing children, that does not matter. Let them die through fruitfulness - that is why they are there&quot; (Luther, Vom Ebelichen Leben [1522]).

...and to get back on track...

Let me point out that this isn't just a thread on abortion although I seem to be helping it along in a way that would indicate differently.

-GL

 

[vi edit]

&quot;Many people are in favor of making abortion illegal AND cutting funds to welfare services. Let's see... more unwanted children born... less funds to feed them... I dunno, but I think maybe we need to do a little more brainstorming on how to solve the problems before we go making drastic changes. &quot;

Thank you Isla!

And to add to it, many conservatives are against programs such as Planned Parenthood and other low income health clinics.

We've got a serious conflict of interest here. Many conservatives think it's ok to bring a child into the world, but as soon as it's shot out of the birth canal, it had better not be on their dime.

To add to the confusion, they try to shut down Planned Parenthood who's purpose is educate the youth that visit the clinic and to teach and sell them proper forms of birth control to prevent pregancy in the first place. If it wasn't for these clinics, we would see thousands of more pregancies a year. (Notice I didn't say births).

One more thing - it is also conservatives who are against teaching sex education in the class room. Their solution is simply to tell a kid that sex is &quot;bad&quot; and sex is &quot;wrong&quot;, so don't do it. What happened the last time that you told a 16 year old not to do something?

Many conservatives want to be able to tell a woman what she can and can't do with a child as long as it's still in her womb, but as soon as she pops that kid out, she's on her own. -- You're poor and can't care for this child. Awwww...too bad, not my worry.

Nice.

 

[loosbrew]

what i choose to eat and what a woman chooses to do is no ones business. if i beleive that animals hsouldnt die but beleive that a woman has the right to make her own decisions is no ones business also..so i feel that you shouldnt have really been angry at her for believing what she does. im a vegetarian and i beleive in abortion...big deal..i also feel that id much rather eat a cow than a fish because cows are bred for that purpose and fish are taken from a barely sustainable resource...humans...well.. we have too many as is, so why care about someone elses decision when you have too many of your own to worry about.

my 2 sense

looooo

 

[XMan]

Chess,



<< If you are going to cut liberal girls out of your dating schedule, you will be reduced to a very short list. >>



We've got a date tonight, actually.

And for the person that asked about how you justify hunting - well, let me see. Here, there is a pretty bad a overpopulation problem of elk, antelope, deer, etc. None of those animals are endangered. There are something like 100 car accidents a week here in northwest Colorado where people hit wildlife. Culling the population can prevent such accidents, and possibly save lives. Besides, elk is good and it's good for you. It's also a lot cheaper than going to the store and buying a T-bone.

 

[Fatdog]

Thank you vi_edit. You just saved me typing the same thing. The Manchester Union Leader just used it's ultra conservative editorial power to get a planned parenthood clinic turned down for Manchester NH. The clinic would have been right in an area to help people most, but after using it's usual half truths and firey rhetoric to get people stirred up, the planning board denied the permit. That's the conseravive way, take away the choice, then abandon the people you forced your views on.

 

[AndrewR]

To answer your question, Xerox Man -- yes, they are.

I used to believe that it was fine to abort if brain activity had not started yet, since that is the functional definition of human life (since brain death=death). However, my views changed when it dawned on me that the chance that the mass of cell tissue will develop brain activity are extremely high and nil when outside methods are used to prevent it.

Yes, the same can be said of birth control, but there is a bright line between a fertilized egg and a non-fertilized egg. Further, since the progression of medicine has slowly pushed back the age at which a fetus is viable, it is only a matter of time before a fertilized egg can be incubated into a baby. Quite far off, I would say, but certainly possible at some point. A test tube with an egg and a test tube with sperm, separated, will never develop into anything.

The fact is that we are talking about LIFE here, not choice or convenience or civil liberty. I would much rather err on the side of innocent life (hence, derailing the capital punishment issue) than on the side of convenience. As is mentioned above, there are plenty of couples willing and able to adopt a baby but without the means to do so since private adoptions can be horrendously expensive. I am personally aware of two couples that may have to consider adoption in the very near future.

Whether or not a 16 year old is emotionally mature enough to handle a child, THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO OUR ACTIONS IN THIS WORLD, WHETHER OR NOT LIBERALS WANT TO ADMIT THAT. It is regrettable that such is the case, but unfortunately the cold reality of life intrudes into the golden world of liberals. The death of an innocent is extremely hard to justify, especially when the actions leading to it were voluntary. Oh, rape or incest, you say? Give me some figures as to how often that occurs (from a reliable source, please). Last I checked, the cases of incest, rape, and life threatening abortions were less than 3% of abortions performed in this country. Far be it from liberals to cloud the issue with facts.

The convenience factor and the argument that a woman's life would be ruined, childhood lost, etc., is so close to a justification for killing so many people that it's scary. Since the lives of mentally retarded or mentally ill people are difficult and sometimes painful, perhaps we should execute them. After all, they are a burden, do not enjoy a high quality of life given their limited abilities, etc. Better yet, let's murder those with an IQ of less than 80. It's better for them in the long run, isn't it? Lovely.

 

[vi edit]

AndrewR

Would you support a law that prohibited women from drinking and smoking while pregnant?

 

[GL]

AndrewR,

I don't quite follow your logic here:



<< However, my views changed when it dawned on me that the chance that the mass of cell tissue will develop brain activity are extremely high and nil when outside methods are used to prevent it. >>



I'm interpreting this as: &quot;the mass of cell tissue will develop brain activity so long as there is no outside interference to prevent brain activity from occuring at some point in the pregnancy&quot;

This does not conflict with your previous view that lack of brainwave activity is an indication that human life is not yet existant. Don't get me wrong...I'm not trying to argue with you...as I stated earlier I'm pro-life, but I'm interested in hearing your reasoning and I'm just not following it right now.

-GL

 

[Harrald]

Just to add my 2 cents.

With the exception of a few posts that are nothing but nasty this thread is a very polite disscussion on some serious topics.

I would like to commend that various posters on the job they are doing keeping this from degrading to a flame war.

Thats it from here. I'll keep my opinions on the topic to myself because I don't want to attract lightning and wouldn't be able to add anything helpful.

 

[Corn]

<< I'm all for banning partial birth abortions except when the mother's life is in danger... it's a step in the right direction. >>



Here is my question regarding this argument: Why does the baby need to be killed? Thousands of pre-mature babies are born each year and survive, obviously if a woman's life in in jeopardy by carrying a child to complete term then induced labor is justified--I just don't understand why the child must be murdered at that point--as soon as it's out there is no longer any danger to the mother. Seems to me that Partial Birth Abortion in EVERY circumstance is one of convienence since the child and mother are already seperated by birth.