What do you think about partial-birth abortions?

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: kage69
It's a disgusting procedure and all I can say it's about time it got banned. I support the pro-choice camp to an extent - a woman should not be forced to bear a rapists child for example. I find abortion unacceptable once the fetus has already had the chance to develop into a sentient being. There's an undeniable difference between a cluster of cells and a 6 month old fetus.

All killing is wrong and/or selfish.

You are wrong. Would it be selfish of me to say, use deadly force against some muggers who have announced their intentions to kill me and then rape my wife? I will optimistically agree that no one takes the Christian fundies seriously though.

You know what I mean all killing that can be prevented and/or does'nt risk you're life or limb by not acting...Geez need to write like a lawyer around here....

This includes but is by no means all incusive:
-Revenge/vindication Killing as in capital punishment cases
-Conveinace Killing of unborn and already born children
-Preemptive killing of a non-emminet danger
etc.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Perhaps prostitution shouldn't be illegal then. Who are these congressmen to tell a woman (or man) what she can or cannot do with her body?

You're right - prostitution is a victimless crime.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Perhaps prostitution shouldn't be illegal then. Who are these congressmen to tell a woman (or man) what she can or cannot do with her body?

You're right - prostitution is a victimless crime.

and censentual...Bad example Danny... see my slavery example///

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
if it's partial birth then the baby could've been born alive, right?

PBA Should only be allowed based on medical reason, for example, carrying the baby to full term or other method of taking the baby out is highly risky to the mother. Only the doctor responsible for the mother should be able to make that determination.

My 2cents

 

[glenn1]

I think P.J. O'Rourke got it right.

"You Democrats are pro-abortion but you don't want to come right out and say, 'It's great to kill babies, especially the babies of poor, uneducated teenage girls.' Babies that will grow up to be Democrats. So Democrats are for abortion but will make it stop, while Republicans are against abortion but will let it continue."

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Sternfan
There are a couple of good threads on this and its not rare it happens alot.

From the link I posted:

Third-trimester abortions: Medical intervention to terminate pregnancies during the third trimester is quite rare. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that 1% of all medical terminations of pregnancies are done at or after 21 weeks - (1994 data).

Why Are D&X Procedures Performed?
This is a topic that is rarely discussed:

1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. Also, there is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus.
2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including: She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.
There are mental or physical health problems.
The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester

3rd Trimester: They are also performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

The problem with this whole "partial birth" abortion is it is all about sensationalizing. You take pictures that look gruesome (I admit they look horrible) and say this is what abortion is! Stand against it!
Hey, enbalming is gruesome too, but nobody is complaining about it.
The fact is that D&Xs should not be what pro-lifers are enraged about, they are just using it as a poster child for what they are really interested in. These pictures and descriptions are of legitimate and medically neccessary procedure (see reasons above), a fact that is ignored by currently proposed legislation.

 

[Drensch]

Why is it that persons opposed to abortion are almost always: Pro-war, pro deathpenalty, against welfare, against socialized medicine, against sexual education, against birth control, against condom distribution?

Doctors don't perform abortions for fun, nor do they choose to use a complicated, rare and expensive procedure for fun. Nobody likes to have abortions and nobody is proabortion, but they are often times the best choice of a poor pool of choices. Abortions could be reduced in number if we would fix the healthcare system, adequately educate children sexually, and preach contraception.

Doctors should choose what medical procedures they perform, and persons who carry babies make the choice about what's best for them. Not some guy who got to where he was by taking money and bribes and makes 100-200k legit off the public buck.

 

[Zebo]

Why is it that persons opposed to abortion are almost always: Pro-war, pro deathpenalty, against welfare, against socialized medicine, against sexual education, against birth control, against condom distribution?

Good question. My opinion is almost everything breaks down to selfishness. I want to feel safe so kill the enemy (pro-war). I want vengance and don't want to pay for incarsiration and/or rehabilitation (pro-death penalty). It's my money I'm not paying for someones health and kids (against socialized medicine and welfare). I want people to be married like me before having sex so I'll make the risks so extreme you will not have sex until married (against sexual education, against birth control, against condom distribution and anti-abortion).

It has very little to do with moral issues for the christian fundies dispite what they cloak it in. Hell some of them even kill abortion doctors or at least take a certain amount of joy in seeing one killed.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Drensch
Why is it that persons opposed to abortion are almost always: Pro-war, pro deathpenalty, against welfare, against socialized medicine, against sexual education, against birth control, against condom distribution?

That is a big generalization... and has little to do with abortion.

For example, sometimes war is necessary (aka U.S. involvement in WWII). There are evil people, and they cannot be allowed to terrorize the peaceful nations of the world.

Similarly, the death penalty is a consequence. Criminals that are given the death penalty have broken the law and been proven guilty.

On the other hand, a baby (or fetus, if you prefer) is completely innocent. It did not do anything to deserve to be aborted.

So, those that you speak of that are against abortion abortion, but pro-war and pro-death penalty, believe that certain actions warrant vairous consequences. How can a fetus deserve any mal-treatment if it hasn't done anything?

Most people against sexual education are not against sexual against in general, just the way it is taught today.

Some people choose not to use birth control, and that is their choice. But that doesn't mean that another person can't use it to avoid pregnancies.

Many people also believe that by handing out condoms, we are condoning sex as long as it is protected, and that there are better ways to solve the problem, such as education. Besides, it isn't that difficult to get condoms today...

These are all just bad excuses for woman to have abortions...

"I wasn't properly educated about sex."
"I didn't have a condom."
"I can't afford healthcare for this child if I give birth to it."
"I couldn't afford any condoms, and there weren't any free ones available."

Perhaps they should have thought about the consequences before having sex? I know, shame on me for suggesting such an idea...

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Zebo

It has very little to do with moral issues for the christian fundies dispite what they cloak it in. Hell some of them even kill abortion doctors or at least take a certain amount of joy in seeing one killed.

You are talking about the extreme anti-abortionists... not the average person against abortion.

Abortion is nothing but selfishness when it is not needed for medical reasons. A baby is being killed so that its parents don't have to deal with the consequences of having a child. The fetus has to pay the consequences of its parent's actions... that's pretty selfish.

Originally posted by: Zebo

Good question. My opinion is almost everything breaks down to selfishness. I want to feel safe so kill the enemy (pro-war). I want vengance and don't want to pay for incarsiration and/or rehabilitation (pro-death penalty). It's my money I'm not paying for someones health and kids (against socialized medicine and welfare). I want people to be married like me before having sex so I'll make the risks so extreme you will not have sex until married (against sexual education, against birth control, against condom distribution and anti-abortion).

We are being attacked and need to defend ourself (pro-war). This person broke the law and must pay the consequences which were known before he/she committed the crime (pro-death penalty). It's my money that I worked hard for to support my family (against socialized medicine and welfare). I want people to be responsible for their actions (for PROPER sexual education, for PROPER birth control, for condoms but not for condoms INSTEAD of sex education).[/quote]

 

[DealMonkey]

Daniel -- I, of course, don't believe any of your arguments for even a minute.

If you're against the "murder" of innocents, a fetus in this case, you should also be against the death penalty. Killing, even as an extreme punishment, should be equally wrong. There are perfectly adequate punishments other than the death penalty. Life in prison comes to mind.

Further, you should also be against war. Just to be consistant. During every war, including Operation Iraqi Freedom, many many innocent people die. In Iraq, it's estimated some 6,000 - 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians died during the operation.

You're just another "pro-life" hypocrite. Figures that some lives are worth more to you than others.

 

[daniel1113]

If you're against the "murder" of innocents, a fetus in this case, you should also be against the death penalty. Killing, even as an extreme punishment, should be equally wrong.

Why should it be equally wrong? Criminal = guilty, fetus = innocent. And, just for the record, I have never said that killing is wrong...

Further, you should also be against war. Just to be consistant. During every war, including Operation Iraqi Freedom, many many innocent people die. In Iraq, it's estimated some 6,000 - 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians died during the operation.

Why should I be against war? As I said above, I never said that killing is wrong. On December 7th, 1941 we were attacked by Japan and launched into WWII. Luckily, we went to war to defend our country, as well as the fate of the world. Sure, there were probably 1000s if not more of innocent people that lost their lives. Was it worth it? They died for perhaps the most valiant cause of the 20th century. Now, don't take this out of context. I am not saying that innocent causualties are good. We try to avoid them as much as possible, but war is ugly, and they will happen. But should that stop us from defending our own country?

Tell me, what valiant cause are the millions of aborted fetuses aiding each year?

You're just another "pro-life" hypocrite. Figures that some lives are worth more to you than others.

Yeah... I'm awfully hypocritical... I am against the killing of innocent people and for protecting my country. Shame on me

 

[DealMonkey]

Whatever Daniel, I'm not buying it. Killing is wrong. Killing unborn babies = killing prisoners = killing innocents during war. It's all killing, is it not? I guess for you, however, it's OK to kill some people and not others. How nice of you to play god I guess. Thou shall not murder -- do you recall that from somewhere?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Whatever Daniel, I'm not buying it. Killing is wrong. Killing unborn babies = killing prisoners = killing innocents during war. It's all killing, is it not? I guess for you, however, it's OK to kill some people and not others. How nice of you to play god I guess. Thou shall not murder -- do you recall that from somewhere?

Whatever Monkey... I never said killing is wrong. How many times do I have to say it?

I thought even you would know the difference between murder and killing. Why don't you grab a dictionary before you post your next insulting personal attack towards me.

I don't believe that war is murder, and either does the Bible, since you decided to bring that up for some reason. The Old Testament is full of bloody battles in which the outcome was determined by God himself. I see our war veterans as heros, not murderers.

And the last time I checked, a fetus has yet to attack our country or murder another human being. What has a fetus done to deserve death?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Whatever Daniel, I'm not buying it. Killing is wrong. Killing unborn babies = killing prisoners = killing innocents during war. It's all killing, is it not? I guess for you, however, it's OK to kill some people and not others. How nice of you to play god I guess. Thou shall not murder -- do you recall that from somewhere?

Whatever Monkey... I never said killing is wrong. How many times do I have to say it?

I thought even you would know the difference between murder and killing. Why don't you grab a dictionary before you post your next insulting personal attack towards me.

I don't believe that war is murder, and either does the Bible, since you decided to bring that up for some reason. The Old Testament is full of bloody battles in which the outcome was determined by God himself. I see our war veterans as heros, not murderers.

And the last time I checked, a fetus has yet to attack our country or murder another human being. What has a fetus done to deserve death?

So, it's OK in your book to kill people Daniel? Wow, interesting. That explains a lot. How do you decide who gets to die? Do you have some guidelines for that?

 

[MonkeyK]

Daniel, I think DealMonkey's point is that you have to guarantee that the person you are calling a criminal really is guilty and that the only people killed in the bad guys.

Otherwise you are killing innocents, which is what you have equated with murder.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Whatever Daniel, I'm not buying it. Killing is wrong. Killing unborn babies = killing prisoners = killing innocents during war. It's all killing, is it not? I guess for you, however, it's OK to kill some people and not others. How nice of you to play god I guess. Thou shall not murder -- do you recall that from somewhere?

Whatever Monkey... I never said killing is wrong. How many times do I have to say it?

I thought even you would know the difference between murder and killing. Why don't you grab a dictionary before you post your next insulting personal attack towards me.

I don't believe that war is murder, and either does the Bible, since you decided to bring that up for some reason. The Old Testament is full of bloody battles in which the outcome was determined by God himself. I see our war veterans as heros, not murderers.

And the last time I checked, a fetus has yet to attack our country or murder another human being. What has a fetus done to deserve death?

So, it's OK in your book to kill people Daniel? Wow, interesting. That explains a lot. How do you decide who gets to die? Do you have some guidelines for that?

Yep. Sometimes it's "OK" to kill people Monkey. I don't decide who, they choose for themselves. You see, U.S. law is open for anyone to read. And, in most states, if you commit a murder, the state has the right to kill you if you are convicted. Don't like it? Then don't commit a crime, or change the law. If you choose to attack my family and me, we have the right to defend ourselves. If you get shot in the proccess and die, that is your own fault. It's not like I am walking down the street playing God, poiting at random people who I think should be killed. Rather, they come to me and seal their own fate.

 

[MonkeyK]

Because as we all know only guilty people are convicted of crimes.

And only soldiers and evil maniacal dictators are killed in war.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Because as we all know only guilty people are convicted of crimes.

And only soldiers and evil maniacal dictators are killed in war.

So, are you saying that we should never kill anyone because of the possibility that they might be innocent? Thank goodness the majority of Americans didn't think that during WWII...

"We have just been attacked by Japan; however, if we retaliate, there is a possibility that innocent civilians could be killed. Therefore, we are just going to sit back and watch our country be destroyed."

Good plan...

Under your rational, nobody should be convicted of a crime. After all, there is always that possibility that they could be innocent.

 

[DealMonkey]

Wow, you're pretty naive Daniel.

Innocent men end up on death row ALL THE TIME. How many have we killed? Thank god for DNA testing, right? Innocent men, by their very nature, who would be executed have done absolutely nothing. Are you to say that somehow THEY deserve death too? Besides, who are you to decide what crime deserves death and which one doesn't? You pull the trigger or you approve the death penalty, you're playing god.

Plenty of innocent men, women and children DIE or are horribly maimed in war. But the only sympathy you can generate is for the unborn? Wow, that's pretty sick Daniel. All those other innocent people can just go F off - is that right? And I suppose the 6,000 - 10,000 Iraqi civilians who died at U.S. hands had it coming too? Did they even attack America? Nope. Did their country attack America? Nope again. Don't give me that crap about "defending your country." What a load.

You're the biggest hypocrite to walk these forums Daniel. I hope you're proud.

 

[kage69]

You know what I mean all killing that can be prevented and/or does'nt risk you're life or limb by not acting...Geez need to write like a lawyer around here

Not at all, but you ditching the faulty generalizations wouldn't hurt. I think the topic is far too complex to be remedied by any one altruistic formula.

Bottom line: Abortions have been going on for centuries, and they're not going to stop anytime soon. Better to provide a much safer, albeit heavily regulated, procedure than to banish women to back-alley coat-hanger services. The only time some DC politician should be given a say in what happens with a fetus, is when he put the fetus in the woman. (I've always resented how it seems the male is automatically disqualified from any say in the matter).

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Because as we all know only guilty people are convicted of crimes.

And only soldiers and evil maniacal dictators are killed in war.

So, are you saying that we should never kill anyone because of the possibility that they might be innocent? Thank goodness the majority of Americans didn't think that during WWII...

"We have just been attacked by Japan; however, if we retaliate, there is a possibility that innocent civilians could be killed. Therefore, we are just going to sit back and watch our country be destroyed."

Good plan...

Under your rational, nobody should be convicted of a crime. After all, there is always that possibility that they could be innocent.

I merely point out the hypocrisy of your argument. Roll your eyes a little farther back to that you can see yourself.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow, you're pretty naive Daniel.

Innocent men end up on death row ALL THE TIME. How many have we killed? Thank god for DNA testing, right? Innocent men, by their very nature, who would be executed have done absolutely nothing. Are you to say that somehow THEY deserve death too? Besides, who are you to decide what crime deserves death and which one doesn't? You pull the trigger or you approve the death penalty, you're playing god.

Plenty of innocent men, women and children DIE or are horribly maimed in war. But the only sympathy you can generate is for the unborn? Wow, that's pretty sick Daniel. All those other innocent people can just go F off - is that right? And I suppose the 6,000 - 10,000 Iraqi civilians who died at U.S. hands had it coming too? Did they even attack America? Nope. Did their country attack America? Nope again. Don't give me that crap about "defending your country." What a load.

You're the biggest hypocrite to walk these forums Daniel. I hope you're proud.

Putting words in my mouth again, Monkey? Where did I say that I didn't feel sympathy for the "plenty of innocent men, women and children" who "DIE or are horribly maimed in war"? Oh wait, I didn't!

I don't like it any more than anyone else, but it happens. And, last time I checked, our military does it best to avoid civilian targets. A lot more than 6,000 - 10,000 Iraqis would have died if our military had been wreckless.

As for your whole little on death row...

Of course innocent men (and women) end up on death row. I never said they deserved it, I just said it happens.

Killing someone isn't playing God, either, Monkey. God isn't "responsible" for death. He gives life, remember? Unfortunately, a fetus will never have that opportunity. Who is playing God now?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow, you're pretty naive Daniel.

Innocent men end up on death row ALL THE TIME. How many have we killed? Thank god for DNA testing, right? Innocent men, by their very nature, who would be executed have done absolutely nothing. Are you to say that somehow THEY deserve death too? Besides, who are you to decide what crime deserves death and which one doesn't? You pull the trigger or you approve the death penalty, you're playing god.

Plenty of innocent men, women and children DIE or are horribly maimed in war. But the only sympathy you can generate is for the unborn? Wow, that's pretty sick Daniel. All those other innocent people can just go F off - is that right? And I suppose the 6,000 - 10,000 Iraqi civilians who died at U.S. hands had it coming too? Did they even attack America? Nope. Did their country attack America? Nope again. Don't give me that crap about "defending your country." What a load.

You're the biggest hypocrite to walk these forums Daniel. I hope you're proud.

Putting words in my mouth again, Monkey? Where did I say that I didn't feel sympathy for the "plenty of innocent men, women and children" who "DIE or are horribly maimed in war"? Oh wait, I didn't!

I don't like it any more than anyone else, but it happens. And, last time I checked, our military does it best to avoid civilian targets. A lot more than 6,000 - 10,000 Iraqis would have died if our military had been wreckless.

As for your whole little on death row...

Of course innocent men (and women) end up on death row. I never said they deserved it, I just said it happens.

Killing someone isn't playing God, either, Monkey. God isn't "responsible" for death. He gives life, remember? Unfortunately, a fetus will never have that opportunity. Who is playing God now?

My point, since you obviously missed it, is that you evidently support certain kinds of killing but not others. Killing people on death row is apparantly OK. "Accidently" killing innocent civilians is apparantly OK. I say this because you've shown your support for both war and the death penalty. Selective murder is still murder. Killing prisoners regardless of their crimes, brings us down to their barbaric level. Killing people during war is no more noble either. You should try to be a little more consistant.

If you're going to raise holy hell over Abortion, the least you could do is oppose war (especially unprovoked war like Iraq) as well as the death penalty. I don't see how you can rationalize one kind of killing and not another. It's schitzophrenic if nothing else.

 

[daniel1113]

My point, since you obviously missed it, is that there is a difference between murder and killing. You either don't know the difference or you refuse to accept it. I already told you that I don't think killing is wrong; I think murder is wrong and I have been consistent throughout every post in this thread. Until you get your definitions correct, I refuse to have this discussion with you any more Monkey.

And, last time I checked, I haven't raised holy hell over abortion.