I would say the writing of it in bullet point B clearly indicates this is a late term abortion. 22 days out and I dont think you will see voluntary movement and breating by the fetus. Thus they wouldnt need to explicitly write it into the bill.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
The question is a valid one. I don't consider a week old fetus the same as one who is a day before delivery. So who here thinks the day before she's due it isn't a baby? At that point the difference between a fetus and a baby is a few inches.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Well, I do, for one, but merely for semantical reasons. Babies are born.
I think stringent restrictions on late-term abortions are justifiable. It can be argued that after so many months of pregnancy, the mother had ample opportunity to decide to become unpregnant, and absent risks to her health, the fetus has acquired "squatter's rights."
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
A problem is semantics. Regardless of definitions, it's substantially no different the day before it's birth and the day after. From its perspective it dies just the same. At some point the right to an abortion does indeed compete with a right to life. How that line is drawn defines the entire abortion debate.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
WTF, I've never even been to moveon.org, and Iraq really wasn't behind 9/11.
And pal, you've been trying to label me and everyone else in this thread, so for you to claim outrage about the same thing happening to you is just representative of your overall intellectual dishonesty.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
:thumbsup:
The funniest things about the anti-abortion crowd's devotion to their cause at the exclusion of all other issues are that:
- the Republican party they've depended on for their agenda has done zip-zero-nada about it during the last 8 years they've been power, and
- reversing Roe v. Wade would, at this point, do nothing to stop women from having abortions. The issue would simply revert back to the states, where public opinion support pro-choice in even the reddest of red states. See SD's vote in 2006.
So anyone who thinks that McCain is the 'lesser of 2 evils' based on the abortion issue is sadly misguided. Should he use this angle to become 'emperor of the world,' he will do nothing to forward the agenda, just as Bush has done nothing.
Stud you started this with an agenda...period.
Only a fool would not see that from your OP.
The fact is when life begins is irrelevant.
If life is designated at conception, or a month into pregnancy, abortion is still legal and if that option is exercised the fetus is just as dead.
That choice is up to one person and one person only....there one that the fetus depends on like a parasite....the mother.
if it ain't in you go got no right to say shit.
Only a fool would not see that from your OP.
The fact is when life begins is irrelevant.
If life is designated at conception, or a month into pregnancy, abortion is still legal and if that option is exercised the fetus is just as dead.
That choice is up to one person and one person only....there one that the fetus depends on like a parasite....the mother.
if it ain't in you go got no right to say shit.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
What is the limit on your POV? 6 months before delivery? 3? Maybe a day? While in labor? The head is out? When the big toe is still in?
And me being a huge anti-abortion nut this is a perfectly fine solution imo. I would be nearly jumping for joy if we as a nation ever progressed to such a level.
If it's a 50/50 chance the baby will live, why should the mother suddenly have the rights to abort?
As for rape, well wouldn't anyone just argue she should have aborted sooner? How could you not know you're pregnant with your rapists baby?
The fetus only needs to have a heartbeat, which can occur as early as 22 days. If this bill was really about only late term abortions, it would have been written as such. The fact that they included "at any stage of development" in the language suggests otherwise. Thanks Rick!
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
The mother always has rights, it's just that beyond the 1st tri she will need to show legitimate cause for why she didn't do it earlier. Rape is an emotional issue (but an acceptable one IMO, a woman should never be forced to bring her rapist's baby to term). Incest, birth defect, and danger to the mother's life are all perfectly rational reasons why society would not want the baby.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
It has little to do with the ability of Republicans to roll back abortion laws. It's about principle.
If someone believes that abortion for convenience is murder, then pro-choice people are supporting murder. If Obama is pro-choice, and hence supports murder, then what difference do the rest of his viewpoints make?
I'm not saying I'm this kind of hardliner. I'm just pointing out that it makes perfect sense, if you believe abortion is murder, to put it above every other lesser issue. It seems to me a logical progression from premise to conclusion. Whether or not it's wisely-made, I'll not opine.
Incidentally, I read your post about a 1st trimester cutoff point, and I'd wholeheartedly support such a standard.
at the point when a fetus can survive on it's own outside the womb would be a good point.
At that point it only needs an opportunity, but again the ONLY person who should be allowed to make the decision if it should have that opportunity is the mother or the "host" since that is what she is.....like it or not.
I think his point was that neither party actually does anything about it. So you have one group of people who say they aren't going to restrict abortion. Then you have a second group of people who say that they ARE going to restrict it, but do absolutely nothing to do so. In this situation, what's the point in basing your vote on this issue?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Exactly. Or (from my decidedly cynical view of politics) what's the point in rewarding the liars?
Maybe I've worked too long in professional sales, but I can appreciate someone who is willing to tell the hard truth, while I have no respect for the quick and easy lie.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
Your principles really only matter to yourself. In which case all you do, when you argue principle, is nothing but fight and drive the wedge further between us. Those who argue based on principle will never eliminate the option out there of abortion...it just will never happen. Its nice that those people argue for the life of an unborn child, but it is futile. Nothing will change.
Meantime, while we argue principle, the beat goes on....
Women and kids will still get abortions...its too bad that instead of arguing principle, people could instead discuss education and support for women that have to make these tough decisions....who knows such support might lead to something other than an abortion!?
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
Originally posted by: OrByte
Your principles really only matter to yourself. In which case all you do, when you argue principle, is nothing but fight and drive the wedge further between us. Those who argue based on principle will never eliminate the option out there of abortion...it just will never happen. Its nice that those people argue for the life of an unborn child, but it is futile. Nothing will change.
Meantime, while we argue principle, the beat goes on....
Women and kids will still get abortions...its too bad that instead of arguing principle, people could instead discuss education and support for women that have to make these tough decisions....who knows such support might lead to something other than an abortion!?
You can't argue if you don't hold some principles. Surely your belief in educating and supporting women during hard times is based on some principle.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
Of course you are right.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: OrByte
Your principles really only matter to yourself. In which case all you do, when you argue principle, is nothing but fight and drive the wedge further between us. Those who argue based on principle will never eliminate the option out there of abortion...it just will never happen. Its nice that those people argue for the life of an unborn child, but it is futile. Nothing will change.
Meantime, while we argue principle, the beat goes on....
Women and kids will still get abortions...its too bad that instead of arguing principle, people could instead discuss education and support for women that have to make these tough decisions....who knows such support might lead to something other than an abortion!?
You can't argue if you don't hold some principles. Surely your belief in educating and supporting women during hard times is based on some principle.
I guess I just don't believe in arguing over something that is pointless.
Overturning RvW will only drop the issue back to the states. States will still allow abortions (although not all will)
Abortions would still be around and legal, as an option for women with unwanted pregnancies. Edit: it will just be that much more difficult for women that live in states that outlaw abortion to go get an abortion...more difficult, probably more expensive, and more dangerous.
After its all said and done, my principles will not change any of that.
So you are subordinating all of your other issues to the issue of abortion based upon the idea that McCain has a principle on it that you share. You are doing this while freely admitting that he will do nothing to change it. He will take no action to fix this problem.
This is mind boggling to me. There are a million other issues that presidents can and will affect, ones they will actually act upon. You are choosing one that you know they won't and basing your whole decision on it.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
Originally posted by: OrByte
Of course you are right.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: OrByte
Your principles really only matter to yourself. In which case all you do, when you argue principle, is nothing but fight and drive the wedge further between us. Those who argue based on principle will never eliminate the option out there of abortion...it just will never happen. Its nice that those people argue for the life of an unborn child, but it is futile. Nothing will change.
Meantime, while we argue principle, the beat goes on....
Women and kids will still get abortions...its too bad that instead of arguing principle, people could instead discuss education and support for women that have to make these tough decisions....who knows such support might lead to something other than an abortion!?
You can't argue if you don't hold some principles. Surely your belief in educating and supporting women during hard times is based on some principle.
I guess I just don't believe in arguing over something that is pointless.
Overturning RvW will only drop the issue back to the states. States will still allow abortions (although not all will)
Abortions would still be around and legal, as an option for women with unwanted pregnancies. Edit: it will just be that much more difficult for women that live in states that outlaw abortion to go get an abortion...more difficult, probably more expensive, and more dangerous.
After its all said and done, my principles will not change any of that.
And that's fine with me. I'd welcome returning it to the states, and letting them legislate it. My main opposition to Roe v. Wade is that it's an result of oligarchical power, not legislative process.
If it were to be returned to the states, and it remained legal, then at LEAST it was done according to some semblance of democratic means.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter