What is your view on partial-birth abortion?

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
My point, for those of you who are either too dense to see it or simply choose to ignore it because it doesn't afford you the ability to spout-off your indignant and much-practised rhetoric, is that the entire issue of abortion is NOT A ONE-SIDED, COMMON-SENSE idea that can be addressed with a simple universal answer. There are valid issues to consider from each standpoint. Many pro-lifers refuse to see this, just as many of you pro-choice guys do.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No you come on, not everybody agrees with you religious beliefs and it shouldn't be forced upon anyone. IMO the mental and physical health of the motrher superceed that of the fetus, sepecially if it's serverly retarded or doesn't stand a chance outside the womb.

Name ONE PLACE in any thread that I have reasoned my argument using religion. You can't. Why? Because I haven't. My opinion is based on my extensive self-education on this issue. I've read the best of the best arguments from both sides. You, on the other hand, obviously have not, as the arguments you make are completely without basis and demonstrative of ignorance of the discussion of the educated on this subject. If you had read up, you would realize that there are some points that are logical that could be used to support your stance. Sorry if this hurts your feelings, but that's how it is. Don't lecture down to me like I'm ignorant, as I daresay I'm at least slightly ahead of yourself as far as time spent learning about and considering this issue from all sides.

You can disagree with me all you want and quote C. Everett Kook all you want, I'm not buying it. You and those like you should never have a say in what a woman or a doctor should do for their health even if it means terminating a late term fetus..and you never will!

Well, this just demonstrates your 'I'm right, screw everyone else!' attitude. The surgeon general is a 'Kook', and doctors should never be told how to ethically practice. Let me educate you on one of the finer things regarding the practice of medicine for the last 2000+ years: the Hippocratic Oath, the basis for the consideration of ethics in medicinal practice since Ancient Greece.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

 

[0roo0roo]

koop was an evangelical christian anti abortion activist in the 80's, and well, worked for reagan of course

and you talk of arrogance when you feel the moral authority to make medical decisions for everyone else? you certainly are a righteous bastard.

 

[0roo0roo]

more proof its a bullsh*t political issue.


late term abortion is already illegal

Question
how late in a pregnancy can a woman have an abortion? What is consitered late term abortion? What is legal?

Answer
Hi Lynea,

Some states allow abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy and others restrict it to "fetal viability" which in practice means about 22 weeks.

However, very few states have any place to go for an abortion after 13 weeks or so. California and New York would be two exceptions where a woman can have an abortion of choice up to 24 weeks.

Late-term abortion is the third trimester - after 26 weeks. This is illegal or unobtainable in all states, with a few exceptions. For instance, Dr. Tiller's clinic in Kansas will do a third-trimester abortion if a doctor has diagnosed a lethal defect in the fetus. He also provided an abortion for a 12-year-old girl who was raped by her brother. She tried to get an abortion earlier but was held up by "pro-life" court delays until she was in her third trimester.

It's almost impossible to get a third-trimester abortion in the United States, even under the most serious circumstances.

See my collection of articles and links on the Late Abortion page for more information, at:

http://prochoice.about.com/cs/lateabortion/index.htm

All the best,

Margaret
http://experts.about.com/q/338/1234627.htm

 

[Vic]

Which just goes to prove that the states can handle these issues effectively on their own, with no need for federal intervention. As it should be. And should remain.

Why do so many people feel the need for federal government to everything for them? Or to push legislation through Congress that are only token political statements because the individual states have already handled the issue?

 

[Luck JF]

i'd lke to see abortion reclassified as murder retroactively.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Luck JF
i'd lke to see abortion reclassified as murder retroactively.

Interesting condor, which party would be guilty of murder?

 

[Luck JF]

The doctor, the mother, the counselor who suggested it, the lady who schedules it for the doctor etc. All of the conspirators. Why are you calling me condor?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Luck JF
The doctor, the mother, the counselor who suggested it, the lady who schedules it for the doctor etc. All of the conspirators.

What about the father if he okayed it or let it happened?

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: ntdz
absolutely should be banned. Sucking an 8 month old baby's brain out of its skull is not right...

Amazing to me how many here feel a revulsion and activism towards the DX procedure yet seem to have no problem with the US Air Force using warplanes to bomb civilian targets in downtown Baghdad and other cities in Iraq. Do only fetuses have rights in your morality or do full grown living breathing (on their own) ones also count? Maybe we can fall back on the old standby that Iraqis are "gooks". Showing my age there! What about other happenings in the world like Sudan and much of the rest of Central Africa. Are they all gooks too? Maybe American fetuses are somehow more smiled upon by God?:disgust:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
koop was an evangelical christian anti abortion activist in the 80's, and well, worked for reagan of course

and you talk of arrogance when you feel the moral authority to make medical decisions for everyone else? you certainly are a righteous bastard.

As I've said before, there are many things that society sees fit to restrict based on moral grounds - murder, theft, pretty much every law on the books is such a law. Feel free to personally attack me all you want. It's a poor substitute for a good argument, however. I've yet to do anything but quote experts, hardly making a medical decision for anyone.

Originally posted by: Vic
Which just goes to prove that the states can handle these issues effectively on their own, with no need for federal intervention. As it should be. And should remain.

Why do so many people feel the need for federal government to everything for them? Or to push legislation through Congress that are only token political statements because the individual states have already handled the issue?

Because if it's illegal in state A, I can just drive down the street to state B and get one. My high school health teacher told me which states I would need parental consent in to have an abortion and which I would not. Ethical (note: ethical, not moral - there is a distinction) standards are universally applicable - why shouldn't they be federally applied?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Luck JF
The doctor, the mother, the counselor who suggested it, the lady who schedules it for the doctor etc. All of the conspirators.

What about the father if he okayed it or let it happened?

*crickets*

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Because if it's illegal in state A, I can just drive down the street to state B and get one. My high school health teacher told me which states I would need parental consent in to have an abortion and which I would not. Ethical (note: ethical, not moral - there is a distinction) standards are universally applicable - why shouldn't they be federally applied?

Because that is how our Founding Fathers intended freedom to exist in our country. Freedom is the ability to decide for yourself and your community, and the ability to not take part if you don't wish to -- that if you don't like your community, you can pack up and find another one. Freedom works best on the community level, because to imply otherwise is to say that the majority (mob) will always be benevolent, and that is simply not true.
There would be nothing to stop ALL states for outlawing the practice, it's just if they ALL so chose to do so. How could that be wrong? Shoplifting (simple theft) is not a federal law, but it is illegal in every state. Should we outlaw that on a federal level too even though such a law would not be necessary?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
Because that is how our Founding Fathers intended freedom to exist in our country. Freedom is the ability to decide for yourself and your community, and the ability to not take part if you don't wish to -- that if you don't like your community, you can pack up and find another one. Freedom works best on the community level, because to imply otherwise is to say that the majority (mob) will always be benevolent, and that is simply not true.
There would be nothing to stop ALL states for outlawing the practice, it's just if they ALL so chose to do so. How could that be wrong? Shoplifting (simple theft) is not a federal law, but it is illegal in every state. Should we outlaw that on a federal level too even though such a law would not be necessary?

So, if state A deems it ok to legalize murder, I could take someone there and then kill them and that's ok? Or how about theft? Rape? No. Why not? Some things can be universalized as unethical. These are principles which every man of every (or even no) faith can embrace.

That said, unfortunately for you, abortion laws WERE all state-level laws. It was outlawed in one form or another in almost every state prior to Roe v Wade.

Statutes enacted by state legislatures between 1821 and 1841 specified punishment for the person who performed an abortion (such as an apothecary or a physician) but not the woman seeking it. In order to prosecute, the state was required to prove that the woman was pregnant and that the intent was to perform an abortion; both were impossible to prove prior to quickening (Mohr 1978, 20). Between 1860 and 1880, at least forty anti-abortion statutes were adopted by state and territorial legislative bodies (Mohr 1978, 200). By 1900, virtually all states had passed laws prohibiting abortion. Abortion was made a crime on the part of both the provider and the woman seeking it at any time during the entire pregnancy, including the period prior to viability. Many of these statutes were still on the books and being actively enforced nearly one hundred years later when Roe v. Wade reached the Supreme Court (Mohr 1978, 226).

Blank, Robert and Merrick, Janna C., Human Reproduction, Emerging Technologies, and Conflicting Rights, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1995

So, if you really want to leave it up to the states, the states have already spoken. Now you're going to sing a different tune, I assume. Let's see if I know this one as well as the last one.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
As I've said before, there are many things that society sees fit to restrict based on moral grounds - murder, theft, pretty much every law on the books is such a law.

Oops, missed this one. I already told you in this very thread that murder and theft are not moral laws. They are based on property. Murder is not against the law because it is morally wrong, it is against the law because the murderder has stolen something (the victim's life) that no one else would want stolen from them in like fashion.
I am not saying the murder is not morally wrong -- it most certainly is. But the basis of our laws against it are not based on moral grounds, because if it were, it could be easily argued that the world would be better off without a lot of the assholes currently living in it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So, if you really want to leave it up to the states, the states have already spoken. Now you're going to sing a different tune, I assume. Let's see if I know this one as well as the last one.

And (again) I already said in this thread that I am not opposed to returning abortion to a states-rights issue. Which would imply that I am not pro-Roe v. Wade, right? But neither am I pro-federal ban, which is what you want, and (quite frankly) I hope you never get. Let the states decide. Again, if you want to look at it that way.

edit: and abortion is NOT a property crime. The fetus is the property of the mother. OTOH, rape is a property crime, a woman's body is her own.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
Oops, missed this one. I already told you in this very thread that murder and theft are not moral laws. They are based on property. Murder is not against the law because it is morally wrong, it is against the law because the murderder has stolen something (the victim's life) that no one else would want stolen from them in like fashion.
I am not saying the murder is not morally wrong -- it most certainly is. But the basis of our laws against it are not based on moral grounds, because if it were, it could be easily argued that the world would be better off without a lot of the assholes currently living in it.

I should have used 'ethical' rather than 'moral.' I corrected for this in a later post.

Whether you like it or not, and you obviously don't, the vast majority of our laws are based on morality or ethics. This stems from the generic Protestantism that our founding fathers forged the Constitution around. These principles are universalizable as they are based on sound reasoning rather than mere theological appeal that would only bind those members of society that subscribed to that particular brand of theology. Similarly, I wage my arguments based on reason rather than theology.

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So, if you really want to leave it up to the states, the states have already spoken. Now you're going to sing a different tune, I assume. Let's see if I know this one as well as the last one.

And (again) I already said in this thread that I am not opposed to returning abortion to a states-rights issue. Which would imply that I am not pro-Roe v. Wade, right? But neither am I pro-federal ban, which is what you want, and (quite frankly) I hope you never get. Let the states decide. Again, if you want to look at it that way.

edit: and abortion is NOT a property crime. The fetus is the property of the mother. OTOH, rape is a property crime, a woman's body is her own.

Can a mother sell her organs? Kill herself? Amputate her foot? NO. All of these things are illegal. Why? Because a person's right to his or her body is not absolute. Continue to argue this, as I've disproven it a dozen times, and I'll ignore you. It's a completely baseless and ridiculous argument.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Can a mother sell her organs? Kill herself? Amputate her foot? NO. All of these things are illegal. Why? Because a person's right to his or her body is not absolute. Continue to argue this, as I've disproven it a dozen times, and I'll ignore you. It's a completely baseless and ridiculous argument.

Heh. Go ahead. There is no person I find more amusing than a person who is so obsessed with controlling others that they believe in a law against suicide. What are you gonna do to the successful? Lock the coffin in a prison?
You can only delude yourself into thinking that a person's right to their own body is not absolute and that you can control it. That control is an illusion. A person can and will do with his or herself as they see fit and no law on earth will ever stop them. The only thing that has been disproven is each and every one of these laws fail and leads to the undermining of the Rule of Law, where citizens feign obeisance in public but break the law as often as possible in private, leading to increased crime, black markets, and coat hangers in alleys.
In the meantime, perhaps your favorite food or drink should be outlawed as unhealthy to your body. How's that sound? I mean, it's morally wrong to damage your own body in any way, right?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Can a mother sell her organs? Kill herself? Amputate her foot? NO. All of these things are illegal. Why? Because a person's right to his or her body is not absolute. Continue to argue this, as I've disproven it a dozen times, and I'll ignore you. It's a completely baseless and ridiculous argument.

Heh. Go ahead. There is no person I find more amusing than a person who is so obsessed with controlling others that they believe in a law against suicide. What are you gonna do to the successful? Lock the coffin in a prison?
You can only delude yourself into thinking that a person's right to their own body is not absolute and that you can control it. That control is an illusion. A person can and will do with his or herself as they see fit and no law on earth will ever stop them. The only thing that has been disproven is each and every one of these laws fail and leads to the undermining of the Rule of Law, where citizens feign obeisance in public but break the law as often as possible in private, leading to increased crime, black markets, and coat hangers in alleys.
In the meantime, perhaps your favorite food or drink should be outlawed as unhealthy to your body. How's that sound? I mean, it's morally wrong to damage your own body in any way, right?

You can also pretend that any law is an illusion, as no one can control the actions of another. Nevertheless, we make laws all the same in hopes of curbing behaviors that soceity deems illicit.

 

[Sassy]

Here?s one woman, out of many, point of view. First I think it?s important to know where I?m coming from so you will have some idea on where I stand. From the moment I was told I was with child and continuing through the nine months, a love emanated between the baby and I that is beyond comprehension and words. This must be love at its peak. There was life growing inside me that was in it?s purest and simplest form untainted by the outside world. I cherished the privileges I was given as a woman

I?m not naive in believing every woman felt, or should feel, the same as I during pregnancy but I?ll take a shot at this abortion issue that keeps coming up on the threads.
Bare with me as English is not my first language. If I?m not making myself clear, on any threads, please ask me to clarify.

I agree with many of you that abortion should not be completely illegal. If it?s completely banned we will have back alley abortions and babies thrown into the trashcan upon birth. None of us want this.

There should be some government control but to what extent, I don?t know. If we have no government control, women will be using abortion as a birth control method. Because there are so many variables involved in a woman deciding on an abortion, I feel the government is unable, if not impossible, to address all issues adequately and enact appropriate laws. Therefore, the major choice should be between the woman, family, doctor and whomever else she deems necessary in making her decision. It?s important that social services be involved to inform the woman of alternative choices, such as adoption, and all else that is available for her. She needs every available resource so she can make an informed decision.

Incest or rape: Personally, I would not abort. I feel the baby is not to blame. Under no circumstances would I be judgmental or force my views on a woman who chooses to abort due to incest or rape. I would make sure this woman was completely informed of alternative choices and she had a good support system in place.

Health risk to mother or child: I can?t think of any circumstance where the government should get involved. Though, I may be overlooking something. This should be between the woman and her physician. Only they will know the full scope of the medical situation. Together I would hope all alternatives would be exhausted before the final hatchet job. I would have no problem sacrificing my life for the baby. Yet, I understand this would be a difficult decision for a woman who has other children at home.

PBA: This is a highly controversial procedure. Since I am not a physician, I don?t feel qualified to address this method of abortion. I do know that some physicians are at odds about PBA. I believe many methods of abortion are cruel and gruesome. The stage of pregnancy effects my thoughts in this respect.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

Originally posted by: ntdz
absolutely should be banned. Sucking an 8 month old baby's brain out of its skull is not right...

Amazing to me how many here feel a revulsion and activism towards the DX procedure yet seem to have no problem with the US Air Force using warplanes to bomb civilian targets in downtown Baghdad and other cities in Iraq. Do only fetuses have rights in your morality or do full grown living breathing (on their own) ones also count? Maybe we can fall back on the old standby that Iraqis are "gooks". Showing my age there! What about other happenings in the world like Sudan and much of the rest of Central Africa. Are they all gooks too? Maybe American fetuses are somehow more smiled upon by God?:disgust:

no kidding. bush and his spree of death penalties in texas? life... he values his own life, and well once born f*ck you.

funny how just today he said that medical decisions are best made between a woman and her doctor when talking about insurance lol

when it gets down to it, these people don't even care if the baby is stillborn. they'd make the poor woman go through with it "naturally and perhaps kill her through septicemia. you baby got no brain? its brain is on the outside of its head? its gods will!


http://www.msmagazine.com/summ.../womanandherdoctor.asp

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: kissnup
I agree with many of you that abortion should not be completely illegal. If it?s completely banned we will have back alley abortions and babies thrown into the trashcan upon birth. None of us want this.

There should be some government control but to what extent, I don?t know. If we have no government control, women will be using abortion as a birth control method. Because there are so many variables involved in a woman deciding on an abortion, I feel the government is unable, if not impossible, to address all issues adequately and enact appropriate laws. Therefore, the major choice should be between the woman, family, doctor and whomever else she deems necessary in making her decision. It?s important that social services be involved to inform the woman of alternative choices, such as adoption, and all else that is available for her. She needs every available resource so she can make an informed decision.

Thanks for actually spelling out why you think what you do - it is much appreciated. :thumbsup:

The problem is that abortion is currently used as a form of birth control. It is the single most common surgery performed in the United States, and ends approximately 28% of all pregnancies, amounting to 1.6 million abortions per year.

I agree 100% that the biggest mechanism available to deter or prevent abortions from occurring is education. I am saddened by the complete lack of education that is demonstrated day in and day out of even the most basic and fundamental issues with respect to this topic, as I believe it warrants careful analysis. It is far from a simple topic, but people form their opinion on the matter and cast it in concrete before they have heard the entire story, or even the best parts.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
funny how just today he said that medical decisions are best made between a woman and her doctor when talking about insurance lol

I'm still waiting for a single example of an abortion carried out for the sake of the mother's life, or even a legitimate case where her health was at risk. Until then, it's hardly a 'medical decision', as doctors are legally responsible for using their arts to promote life.

 

[Moonbeam]

Humans are actually chimpanzees because varieties or mice that are the same species can differ genetically by as much as 10% whereas humans differ by only 1 or 2%. Scientists, from what I've read, believe that humans and chimps are cross fertile. So if a scientist impregnated his wife with chimpanzee sperm while she slept, should she have the right to an abortion? Would it be wrong to kill a child that was half ape and half human?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Humans are actually chimpanzees because varieties or mice that are the same species can differ genetically by as much as 10% whereas humans differ by only 1 or 2%. Scientists, from what I've read, believe that humans and chimps are cross fertile. So if a scientist impregnated his wife with chimpanzee sperm while she slept, should she have the right to an abortion? Would it be wrong to kill a child that was half ape and half human?

Good question. I'm not familiar enough with the intricacies of biology to know whether or not any egg from species X can be fertilized by any sperm from species Y. Hypothetically, if it did happen, I would have to refer to my definition of 'person' posted previously. Thus, it would depend on the consciousness of this new species and whether it demonstrated human-like intelligence characteristics. Not a great answer, but I'll have to think some more on this one.

 

[gutharius]

If the baby does not endanger the mothers life I am against abortion. I believe this because there are too many people who want newborn babies but can't have children of thier own.

When it comes to molestation and rape. Well, that is really tough and I as a member of society believe that i have no right to force my opinion on someone who has undergone such a horrible and mean spritied action. An action that will result in a mother who emotionally, mentally, and in somecases physically hates and cannot stand the sight of their ill received child. I can't imagine making that decision nor can i imagine anyone of any respect and moral standing advocating this.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Luck JF
The doctor, the mother, the counselor who suggested it, the lady who schedules it for the doctor etc. All of the conspirators.

What about the father if he okayed it or let it happened?

My only beef with abortion, the father has no rights. Even if your wife decides to abort the child you as the father and husband want, too bad, there goes little johnny to be down the drain...



"What is your view on partial-birth abortion?" (see above and below)

There is no such medical practice, that term was coined to benefit a particular agenda based mostly in part on religous beliefs which have no place in American govt IMO.


Moon, what genetic % do humans and lettuce have in common?