Partial Birth Abortion Ban almost ready to be signed!

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: glenn1

They are so passionate about the lives of the unborn, yet they don't give a damn about the lives of the born. Ironic, huh?

While that may or may not be the case, it's hardly a contra-argument. This thread is about "partial birth" abortion. Either give a reason why you think it's a good idea to keep it legal or we'll have to presume that you agree that it's a good thing that it's about ready to be banned.

I think abortion is an ugly, unhappy business. I think I don't have the right to impose my beliefs between a woman and her doctor. I think politicians have no business overriding the medical judgment of qualified healthcare professionals. I think the anti-abortion zealots need to recognize that their opinions are merely opinions, no matter how earnestly they believe they are right. I think the anti-abortion zealots need to acknowledge just how hypocritical and un-Christian they are unless they show just as much passion -- backed with their wallets -- for the well-being of the already-born.

I think discussions about abortion are pointless since both sides are so polarized there is no chance of meaningful dialog.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Insane3D, can you provide scientific evidence that a 6 month old fetus is any less a human being inside the womb than out? can you provide links to your sources?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Insane3D, can you provide scientific evidence that a 6 month old fetus is any less a human being inside the womb than out? can you provide links to your sources?

Can you prove otherwise? I know your opinions are heartfelt, but they are only opinions.

 

[glenn1]

I think politicians have no business overriding the medical judgment of qualified healthcare professionals.

So you think the government shouldn't be able to step in to regulate medical practices at all? What about when the judgment of "qualified health professionals" sanctions things like the likes of assisted suicide, or the forced euthanization of mentally retarded people, or the Mendele experiments, or the Tuskegee syphylis experiments on blacks, or refusing emergency medical care to those who can't afford to pay the bills? Those were all examples of what "qualified medical professionals" have done in the past.

 

[Shad0hawK]

I think abortion is an ugly, unhappy business. I think I don't have the right to impose my beliefs between a woman and her doctor. I think politicians have no business overriding the medical judgment of qualified healthcare professionals. I think the anti-abortion zealots need to recognize that their opinions are merely opinions, no matter how earnestly they believe they are right. I think the anti-abortion zealots need to acknowledge just how hypocritical and un-Christian they are unless they show just as much passion -- backed with their wallets -- for the well-being of the already-born.

I think discussions about abortion are pointless since both sides are so polarized there is no chance of meaningful dialog.

that is interesting.

i will acknowledge i am "un-Christian" and a "hypocrite" for being against partial birth abortion when you can demonstrate me to be so rather than calling me names, i am open to honest debate, are you? here are some short questions

1. i will start by asking you the same question i asked insane3d, what scientific evidence do you have that a fetus is less human than a baby the same age existing outside of the womb?

2. where in the bible are the guidelines establishing my hypocracy for being against this? chapter and verse please. if i am acting contrary to the word i am sure you can quote the appropriate scripture.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: glenn1

I think politicians have no business overriding the medical judgment of qualified healthcare professionals.

So you think the government shouldn't be able to step in to regulate medical practices at all? What about when the judgment of "qualified health professionals" sanctions things like the likes of assisted suicide, or the forced euthanization of mentally retarded people, or the Mendele experiments, or the Tuskegee syphylis experiments on blacks, or refusing emergency medical care to those who can't afford to pay the bills? Those were all examples of what "qualified medical professionals" have done in the past.

Pay attention kids. This is what is known as a "straw man" argument. When you cannot refute what your opponent said, you instead assert he said something else that you think you can refute. It is a dishonest tactic, though widely used.

This also nicely demonstrates my earlier comment that trying to discuss abortion is futile. Glenn1 doesn't want a dialog; he wants someone to attack.

 

[0roo0roo]

politicising a medical issue.

most doctors and women aren't about to do a late term for no apparent reason you know

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: glenn1

I think politicians have no business overriding the medical judgment of qualified healthcare professionals.

So you think the government shouldn't be able to step in to regulate medical practices at all? What about when the judgment of "qualified health professionals" sanctions things like the likes of assisted suicide, or the forced euthanization of mentally retarded people, or the Mendele experiments, or the Tuskegee syphylis experiments on blacks, or refusing emergency medical care to those who can't afford to pay the bills? Those were all examples of what "qualified medical professionals" have done in the past.

do not forget the "qualified health professionals" in germany in the 1930's declaring jews to be "sub-human". and thus needed killing too.

 

[DealMonkey]

This seems like yet another Bush Admin attempt at chiseling away at Roe v Wade. Gotta appease the fundies for the 2004 vote...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

I think abortion is an ugly, unhappy business. I think I don't have the right to impose my beliefs between a woman and her doctor. I think politicians have no business overriding the medical judgment of qualified healthcare professionals. I think the anti-abortion zealots need to recognize that their opinions are merely opinions, no matter how earnestly they believe they are right. I think the anti-abortion zealots need to acknowledge just how hypocritical and un-Christian they are unless they show just as much passion -- backed with their wallets -- for the well-being of the already-born.

I think discussions about abortion are pointless since both sides are so polarized there is no chance of meaningful dialog.

that is interesting.

i will acknowledge i am "un-Christian" and a "hypocrite" for being against partial birth abortion when you can demonstrate me to be so rather than calling me names, i am open to honest debate, are you? here are some short questions

1. i will start by asking you the same question i asked insane3d, what scientific evidence do you have that a fetus is less human than a baby the same age existing outside of the womb?

2. where in the bible are the guidelines establishing my hypocracy for being against this? chapter and verse please. if i am acting contrary to the word i am sure you can quote the appropriate scripture.

Sorry, not going to play your game. You twisted what I said to fit your agenda. I'm not going to spend the next two hours laboriously saying the same thing over and over in a futile attempt to get you to read and respond to what I actually said.

Further, you are certainly NOT open to an honest debate. Like glenn1, you are just looking for someone to attack so you can show the world the moral superiority of your position. The difference between us is that I recognize that our opinions are merely opinions. You believe your opinions are gospel.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Insane3D, can you provide scientific evidence that a 6 month old fetus is any less a human being inside the womb than out? can you provide links to your sources?

Can you prove otherwise? I know your opinions are heartfelt, but they are only opinions.

ahh, the good ole "avoid the question by asking one tactic".

yes i can prove it. not from some "dangerous fundie" phamplet, but a medical book.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... "

O'Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996. Human Embryology & Teratology, Wiley-Liss, New York, pp. 5-55.


you may also find this website interesting

aaplorg

perhaps now you will do me the courtesy of answering my qeustion now that i have?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Sorry, not going to play your game. You twisted what I said to fit your agenda. I'm not going to spend the next two hours laboriously saying the same thing over and over in a futile attempt to get you to read and respond to what I actually said.

translation: i am going to call you names and refuse to validate my reasons for doing so.

Further, you are certainly NOT open to an honest debate. Like glenn1, you are just looking for someone to attack so you can show the world the moral superiority of your position. The difference between us is that I recognize that our opinions are merely opinions. You believe your opinions are gospel.

translation: i am going to call anything you say "propaganda" and make assumptions about you, and attack you at the same time i accuse you of only wanting to attack people because that is the "christian" way to do things, because i really cannot answer your questions.





and you were accusing others of making straw man arguments? ROFL!!!

i did not "twist" anything, you said it was "unchristian" to do a certian thing, i asked for scripture to back yourself up. that is not twisting anything friend. what is it exactly that defines something as "christian" and unchristian"? your say so?

 

[SuperTool]

So what are the doctors supposed to do? Kill the fetus in the womb and then extact it? I think doctors with patients should decide what the safest way to perform the abortion is, not politicians.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Anyone who isn't outraged at this procedure and isn't jumping for joy it is going to be banned is simply a "far leftie" who has no idea WTF they are talking about....

No one said that. But it doesn't help your cause when you seem to imply that you think the ban is a bad idea without giving reasons for that opinion.

So i ask again, for anyone who opposes the idea of banning partial-birth abortion, please outline your reason(s) why here so that they can this can actually become a discussion. Obviously there's a reason why you feel it's a bad idea, so why the hesitation to provide it?

Well glenn, first off, this issue is a very polarizing one. It's highly unlikely that regardless of any argument I put up, I would convince anyone to change their belief on this matter. As far as helping my cause, I'm not sure what you mean. I have no interest in convincing anyone that my opinion is more of less valid than anyone else's, nor will I try to convince anyone that my view of this the "right one" while theirs is not....unlike others here.

The point I was trying to make is that I think the choice for such a procedure should be in the hands of a doctor and handled on a case by case basis, rather than flat out outlawed by a bunch of politicians. I find the notion that this form of abortion is very common and apparently just done arbitrarily by everyone involved ridiculous.


I would be interested to hear BaliBabyDoc's thoughts on this...

 

[Zephyr106]

>>>A hospital in Teaneck NJ performed 5000 of them 3 years ago in a 12 month span

Pull out some facts to prove it. Just checking some _medical_ statistics and procedural definitions this seems highly unlikely. Unfortunately, most info out there on the subject is pure manipulated bullshit thrown out by both sides of the debate.

Zephyr

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Sorry, not going to play your game. You twisted what I said to fit your agenda. I'm not going to spend the next two hours laboriously saying the same thing over and over in a futile attempt to get you to read and respond to what I actually said.

translation: i am going to call you names and refuse to validate my reasons for doing so.

Further, you are certainly NOT open to an honest debate. Like glenn1, you are just looking for someone to attack so you can show the world the moral superiority of your position. The difference between us is that I recognize that our opinions are merely opinions. You believe your opinions are gospel.

translation: i am going to call anything you say "propaganda" and make assumptions about you, and attack you at the same time i accuse you of only wanting to attack people because that is the "christian" way to do things, because i really cannot answer your questions.
and you were accusing others of making straw man arguments? ROFL!!!

i did not "twist" anything, you said it was "unchristian" do do a certian thing, i asked for scripture to back yourself up. that is not twisting anything friend. what is it exactly that defines something as "christian" and unchristian"? your say so?

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

By the way, one little question - what, exactly, did I say was un-Christian? Do you know? Did you read all the words? If you did, and if you've ever read the New Testament, then the answers to your questions are obvious.

I don't know who you are, don't know what kind of person you are, and didn't make any specific comments about you personally. I only made comments about a certain group of people who meet certain criteria. Read what I said, read the New Testament, and decide in your own heart whether you're part of that group. I don't really care.

But I'm sure you stopped reading this after "whatever" and immediately began forming your next attack. You continue to prove my point.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Well glenn, first off, this issue is a very polarizing one. It's highly unlikely that regardless of any argument I put up, I would convince anyone to change their belief on this matter. As far as helping my cause, I'm not sure what you mean. I have no interest in convincing anyone that my opinion is more of less valid than anyone else's, nor will I try to convince anyone that my view of this the "right one" while theirs is not....unlike others here.

The point I was trying to make is that I think the choice for such a procedure should be in the hands of a doctor and handled on a case by case basis, rather than flat out outlawed by a bunch of politicians. I find the notion that this form of abortion is very common and apparently just done arbitrarily by everyone involved ridiculous.


I would be interested to hear BaliBabyDoc's thoughts on this...

not all opinions are equally valid, for example some people still are of the opinion that the earth is flat. how valid is that considering the evidence? speaking of evidence...i asked you some questions you have thus far not chosen to answer. i am not calling anyone names such as "hypocrite" as others are, but instead am pursuing honest debate. i(like most people) am stubborn but i am not a closed minded person, if you have evidence that could change my position i WILL consider it.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
By the way, one little question - what, exactly, did I say was un-Christian? Do you know? Did you read all the words? If you did, and if you've ever read the New Testament, then the answers to your questions are obvious.

I don't know who you are, don't know what kind of person you are, and didn't make any specific comments about you personally. I only made comments about a certain group of people who meet certain criteria. Read what I said, read the New Testament, and decide in your own heart whether you're part of that group. I don't really care.

But I'm sure you stopped reading this after "whatever" and immediately began forming your next attack. You continue to prove my point.

LOL! here is your quote, and yes i know you were speaking of a certain group identified as "Anti Abortion Zealots"

Originally posted by: Bowfinger"I think the anti-abortion zealots need to recognize that their opinions are merely opinions, no matter how earnestly they believe they are right. I think the anti-abortion zealots need to acknowledge just how hypocritical and un-Christian they are unless they show just as much passion -- backed with their wallets -- for the well-being of the already-born."

what makes our whole interchange so far farcical is your claim to make no judgements about me the whole time your doing it. you even did it in this last post. "in the same breath" as it were.

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

"I don't know who you are, don't know what kind of person you are, and didn't make any specific comments about you personally...But I'm sure you stopped reading this after "whatever" and immediately began forming your next attack. You continue to prove my point...(from an ealrier post)Further, you are certainly NOT open to an honest debate. Like glenn1, you are just looking for someone to attack so you can show the world the moral superiority of your position.

now let us step back a moment friend, while i am asking questions of evidence(that have not yet been answered BTW) i am accused of "looking for someone to attack" but in OUR interchange YOU have been making this a personal issue about ME rather than answer my questions. and in the same post you claim to know nothing about me but turn around and attempt to portray me as someone "looking for someone to attack" this seems odd since i keep trying to turn the issue around to the topic but your posts seem personally oriented in nature about the motivations of Glen and myself.

as for questions you threw mine back at me, i answered it, now it is your turn. i have repeatedly tried to turn the discussion back on topic, strange behavior indeed of a person "not looking for a debate"!

can you answer the question? can you provide evidence?

 

[Shad0hawK]

goodnight! work comes early...

Shalom alechiem B'shem Yeshua!

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
>>>A hospital in Teaneck NJ performed 5000 of them 3 years ago in a 12 month span

Pull out some facts to prove it. Just checking some _medical_ statistics and procedural definitions this seems highly unlikely. Unfortunately, most info out there on the subject is pure manipulated bullshit thrown out by both sides of the debate.

Zephyr

I find this statement odd as well, especially when NJ banned partial birth abortions in 1997.

 

[Zebo]

Bush +1

-1441


Bow,

Expect better from you. You know damn well the christian fundies differentiate guilty parties from innocent unborn and already born as thier justification. And people like RCs and many other religious sects and normal everyday people believe all murder is morally reprehensible period.

The moral relativism of "pro choice" is assounding to me. "Don't like abortion, don't have one," Well hows that any different than saying "Don't like the holocaust, don't kill a Jew?" If one believes, as pro-lifers do, that all the unborn are fully innocent human (persons), I'm perplexed when "pro-choice" advocates try and ease thier outrage by telling them that you didn't have to participate in the murders if you didn't want to. The "pro-choice" camp should at put some effort into understanding this. It's a non-comprimisable issue, it's morally reprehensible to them, accept this fact and don't mock their beliefs or question their what you believe to be a double-standard. It's not.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Bush +1

-1441


Bow,

Expect better from you. You know damn well the christian fundies differentiate guilty parties from innocent unborn and already born as thier justification. And people like RCs and many other religious sects and normal everyday people believe all murder is morally reprehensible period.

The moral relativism of "pro choice" is assounding to me. "Don't like abortion, don't have one," Well hows that any different than saying "Don't like the holocaust, don't kill a Jew?" If one believes, as pro-lifers do, that all the unborn are fully innocent human (persons), I'm perplexed when "pro-choice" advocates try and ease thier outrage by telling them that you didn't have to participate in the murders if you didn't want to. The "pro-choice" camp should at put some effort into understanding this. It's a non-comprimisable issue, it's morally reprehensible to them, accept this fact and don't mock their beliefs or question their what you believe to be a double-standard. It's not.

So, let me ask you this. If the "pro-lifers" think it is murder and shouldn't occur for any reason, why should those of us that don't feel the same way have to abide by their beliefs? If they succeed and make any and all abortion illegal, then they have essentially done that.

Religous and moral issues aside, why should the government be making decisions that doctors should be making? It seems to me they are much better qualified. Are "pro-lifers" beliefs any more valid than "pro-choicers"? You know...it's funny. A good deal of these people that are so against abortion in any form have no problems with the death penalty.

 

[Zebo]

If the "pro-lifers" think it is murder and shouldn't occur for any reason, why should those of us that don't feel the same way have to abide by their beliefs?

I thought I drew a pretty good comparision. For them it's immoral. A pro-choice womans unborn child/fetus is just as much of a person as their unborn child/fetus in thier mind. So teminiating that unborn child/fetus is murder. Similarly If you owned Slaves I have a democratic right to be objectionable to it and seek it's outlaw. They do too.

why should the government be making decisions that doctors should be making?

We do this all the time. You can't clone yourself, you can't kill your toddler or retarded child. And who says the Dr. should be making the choice anyway? pro-choicers do, this is not democratic society IMO.

Are "pro-lifers" beliefs any more valid than "pro-choicers"?

Are you saying there are no objective moral values like murder?
It's worth exploring why they both, and especially the so called radical pro-lifers, hold these views on abortion.

You know...it's funny. A good deal of these people that are so against abortion in any form have no problems with the death penalty.

I know its sad. Not only we know how falwed the justice system is *OJ* where innocents are conviced all the time, they use their religion as a pretext to the abortion debate which clearly says "thou sall not kill" " help they fellow man" "turn the other cheek" etc.

Both sides have thier glaring contridictions.

 

[Ferocious]

I told Congress that I would sign H.R. 1833 if it were amended to add an exception for serious health consequences. A bill amended in this way would strike a proper balance, remedying the constitutional and human defect of H.R. 1833. If such a bill were presented to me, I would sign it now.

Damn Republicans. :|

Clinton veto message

 

[Fencer128]

Since the "facts" so far seem less than honest, let me make what I think is a series or rational assumptions.

1. IMHO I would think that PBA is probably the least widely used abortion method.

2. IMHO I would think that PBA is probably only used where no other method is possible/safe.

3. IMHO I would think that compared to the numbers of "conventional" abortions, the number of PBAs performed is orders of magnitudes less.

4. IMHO I would think that it is a moral a grey area to allow/ban abortion as it is to say that it is acceptable/unacceptable to allow parents to abort seriously ill foetuses/babies (choose your language as you will) in view of quality of life. For that reason unless there would be a total ban on abortion passed I would be very against the state telling parents they couldn't make this moral judgement.

5. The same applies for the health of the mother (NOT a small point against the current bill IMHO).

6. If religion comes into any of the decisions surrounding abortion that should be due to the parent(s) considering it. Not the state making legal and moral judgements based on it.

Hope that clears a middle ground for someone.

Andy