What is your view on partial-birth abortion?

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: daveshel
There is a difference between being in favor of abortion and being opposed to government control of it.

That depends entirely on your rationale for being for or against abortion. For myself, I can't see condoning a practice that I consider grotesque at best.

Originally posted by: BDawg
Partial Birth Abortion does not exist. The procedure they are refering to is call dilation and extraction.

The life of the mother doesn't even need to enter into it. If a medical doctor decides it is the best and safest procedure in a situation, it shoudl be used. The fact that it isn't appealing doesn't matter. Abortion is legal, so the best and safest procedure for a situation should be used.

Yes, and blacks don't exist either - only African Americans. Give it a rest.

Your argument might be valid IF it were ever a safer practice than just giving birth or having a C-section. Unfortunately for you, it is not.

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Partial birth abortion is absolutely unethical and immoral, and unlike very early term abortion, it's also disgustingly cruel.

You mean when a fetus is dismembered in utero and removed via suction after the fetus has developed the ability to feel pain? I consider early abortions equally cruel.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jtusa4
I disagree with it morally but I do think it should be outlawed since it's concerning another human life.

I agree with you on drug use though. I find it morally wrong, however I do not think it should be outlawed because almost all drug damage is self inflicted(I'm not talking drug wars here where people get shot, etc. People who use drugs are damaging only their own bodies).

Edit: I'm having a rough night with typos...heh

The difference between murder and abortion is that with abortion the fetus is still physically attached to the mother and is, in effect, part of her body. So she is, quite arguably, only damaging her own body.

The other problem is that morality laws undermine the rule of law. All of our laws are based on the concept of property, and the only true crime is theft. For example, in murder, the life of another has been wrongfully stolen. Rape is theft of virtue and sanctity of body. And so on. On this basis, established on the concept of property, we as individuals in community are able to more or less unanimously agree on justice. We do not steal because we do not want to be stolen from. And because we do not wish to be stolen from, we are able to easily condemn those who have stolen from others.

Morality laws OTOH present an entirely different situation. No theft has occurred. It is possible for a completely sane and otherwise law-abiding individual to believe that breaking such a law should not be a crime, and be right. Therefore, it is my opinion that all such morality laws should be abolished. No one can be forced into leading a righteous life. So don't force them.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

BDawg
Partial Birth Abortion does not exist. The procedure they are refering to is call dilation and extraction.

The life of the mother doesn't even need to enter into it. If a medical doctor decides it is the best and safest procedure in a situation, it shoudl be used. The fact that it isn't appealing doesn't matter. Abortion is legal, so the best and safest procedure for a situation should be used.

Yes, and blacks don't exist either - only African Americans. Give it a rest.

Your argument might be valid IF it were ever a safer practice than just giving birth or having a C-section. Unfortunately for you, it is not.

We're not birthing, we're having an abortion. The safety of the birth doesn't matter. Abortions are legal. As long as they remain so, the safest procedure to accomplish the abortion should be used.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jtusa4
I disagree with it morally but I do think it should be outlawed since it's concerning another human life.

I agree with you on drug use though. I find it morally wrong, however I do not think it should be outlawed because almost all drug damage is self inflicted(I'm not talking drug wars here where people get shot, etc. People who use drugs are damaging only their own bodies).

Edit: I'm having a rough night with typos...heh

The difference between murder and abortion is that with abortion the fetus is still physically attached to the mother and is, in effect, part of her body. So she is, quite arguably, only damaging her own body.

Just because they are attached does not make mother and child one person. That unborn baby still has a seperate conciousness. Under your argument, attached twins would only be one person. When we know for fact that twins, even though they are attached, and can even share the same organs, are definitely two unique individuals.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jtusa4
Just because they are attached does not make mother and child one person. That unborn baby still has a seperate conciousness. Under your argument, attached twins would only be one person. When we know for fact that twins, even though they are attached, and can even share the same organs, are definitely two unique individuals.

I do not think that your analogy is correct. The mother creates the fetus. It is a product of her body. One twin does not create the other.

Regardless, I am male. I would no more wish to control a woman than I would wish to own a slave.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
The difference between murder and abortion is that with abortion the fetus is still physically attached to the mother and is, in effect, part of her body. So she is, quite arguably, only damaging her own body.

Her own body, except it has different DNA. Oh, and a person doesn't have absolute rights to his or her own body. Oh, and if you transplanted an embryo or fetus to another woman, it would develop just the same.

The other problem is that morality laws undermine the rule of law. All of our laws are based on the concept of property, and the only true crime is theft. For example, in murder, the life of another has been wrongfully stolen. Rape is theft of virtue and sanctity of body. And so on. On this basis, established on the concept of property, we as individuals in community are able to more or less unanimously agree on justice. We do not steal because we do not want to be stolen from. And because we do not wish to be stolen from, we are able to easily condemn those who have stolen from others.

There is no reason why law should not coincide with morality. The right thing is the right thing. In most cases, what is right is woefully obvious. In other cases, the right thing to do has been obscured by those with an agenda.

Morality laws OTOH present an entirely different situation. No theft has occurred. It is possible for a completely sane and otherwise law-abiding individual to believe that breaking such a law should not be a crime, and be right. Therefore, it is my opinion that all such morality laws should be abolished. No one can be forced into leading a righteous life. So don't force them.

No one can be forced to not murder. No one can be forced to not steal. No one can be forced to not rape someone. So, since we can't force someone to be righteous, let's allow everything. This logic doesn't hold up.

Originally posted by: BDawg
We're not birthing, we're having an abortion. The safety of the birth doesn't matter. Abortions are legal. As long as they remain so, the safest procedure to accomplish the abortion should be used.

You're just saying "X is as it is" when the discussion at hand is "should X be as it is."

 

[TechJunkie95242]

Babies are annoying, hell until they are outta the womb they are fair game, I'd do it myself but they won't let me.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This logic doesn't hold up.

As long as you purposefully seek to misinterpret and distort it, of course it won't.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242
Babies are annoying, hell until they are outta the womb they are fair game, I'd do it myself but they won't let me.

thats why there shouldnt be a law against it... cuz there are people who really feel this way and would do it if there wasnt a trained professional to do it... sure i would never do or ever speak to my significant if i found out they did it... however... i do feel that there are some people who would do it regardless if it was legal... and id rather have doctors then unliscened quacks

 

[0roo0roo]

one should ban ALL abortion including in cases of incest, rape, deformity, to protect the life or health of the mother, and of course, ban fertility clinics. only then will your position be ethically/morally consistent.

all other positions are limp wristed flip flopping.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This logic doesn't hold up.

As long as you purposefully seek to misinterpret and distort it, of course it won't.

So are you suggesting that, if it happened, I ignore legalization of murder, since my protest would be an attempt to force my morals on other people?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So are you suggesting that, if it happened, I ignore legalization of murder, since my protest would be an attempt to force my morals on other people?

I already explained quite clearly how abortion is not murder from a legal standpoint. You chose to ignore that, so I won't accept your analogy. And I already explained how I was morally opposed to abortion.

If you feel the need to inflict your View and Way of Life on other people, I suggest you do it by example.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So are you suggesting that, if it happened, I ignore legalization of murder, since my protest would be an attempt to force my morals on other people?

I already explained quite clearly how abortion is not murder from a legal standpoint. You chose to ignore that, so I won't accept your analogy. And I already explained how I was morally opposed to abortion.

If you feel the need to inflict your View and Way of Life on other people, I suggest you do it by example.

It's called an analogy. I am providing a counter-example to the logic of your statement, obviating the ridiculous nature of said statement. I didn't state that abortion was murder, just demonstrated that, by your logic, I would have to sit by idly and allow people to find their own path to righteousness were murder legalized. The same can be said for theft, rape, et cetera.

 

[roy1928]

Medical experts have testified before Congress that this procedure is NEVER medically necessary, not taught in any medical school in this country, and not recommended.

Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, said, "There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life of the mother."

 

[0roo0roo]

its never necessary because the procedure doesn't exist anywhere else besides a right wing rhetoric pamphlets. it is not found in any medical dictionary. its just a term that can mean most any abortion procedure after 12 weeks, which is why those with an agena use it. dr pamela smith is a well known pro life activist. genetic deformity and risk to the mother not being reasons for abortion is just her opinion on which other medical experts obviously disagree.

Myth: The "partial-birth" abortion procedure is unnecessary.

Fact: Medical experts state that the safest method of late pregnancy termination for some women is the intact dilation and extraction (D&X) procedure.

Bills that would ban the D&X procedure would place legislators in the unprecedented position of regulating medical decisions and would require doctors to use a less safe method in some cases.

Myth: If late-term abortions are so rare, it doesn't really matter if we ban them.

Fact: Most late-term procedures involve wanted pregnancies that go tragically wrong when the woman's life or health is endangered or the fetus develops abnormalities incompatible with life.

These women deserve protection, even though their situations are rare.


Myth: Late-term abortions have gotten out-of-control.

Fact: Only four one-hundredths of one percent of legal abortions are performed during the third trimester.

Over 95 percent of all abortions are performed during the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.
http://www.now.org/issues/abor...procedure_talking.html


mostly a bullsh*t issue from legistlators and lobbiest groups pushing an agenda.

http://www.now.org/eNews/april...40201partialbirth.html

http://www.now.org/nnt/fall-2004/pba.html

 

[NesuD]

OrooOroo-
Fact: Most late-term procedures involve wanted pregnancies that go tragically wrong when the woman's life or health is endangered or the fetus develops abnormalities incompatible with life.

Your fact is actually more of a Myth. In fact a PBA performed in cases of medical need (to protect the health of the mother) is the exception not the rule. The vast majority of partial birth abortions are performed as electives to terminate unwanted pregnancy. Kansas is the only state that keeps abortion statistics showing the reason why the abortion was performed. The Kansas statistics show that of the 2,639 abortions past 22 weeks gestation (1,524 of them on viable babies) done since 1998 (when statistics began to be kept in this way) , NONE were done to prevent the death of the mother.

Heres the Data to backup My assertion wheres your?
Kansas Abortion Data

 

[0roo0roo]

a little "incompatible with life here" http://asylumeclectica.com/mal...archives/harlequin.htm NSFW.

the definition of partial birth abortion has been stretched to mean most any abortion. its meaningless and not a medical term. it all comes down ot a political agenda that uses this disingenuous tactic of pushing for bans of "partial birth" to bring down all abortion. and the legislation put to vote has proven this. its a bs issue. you have no right to tell a woman to face a risk she does not want. it doesn't matter if it is grevious risk or not, it is not your decision. and as you pointed out, the stats are so incomplete that they are pretty much worthless. how you blur the so called definitions of a procedure that does not exist to apply to whatever you choose lets you play any games you want to with the statistics.

 

[arsbanned]

It's good for the gene pool!

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So are you suggesting that, if it happened, I ignore legalization of murder, since my protest would be an attempt to force my morals on other people?

I already explained quite clearly how abortion is not murder from a legal standpoint. You chose to ignore that, so I won't accept your analogy. And I already explained how I was morally opposed to abortion.

If you feel the need to inflict your View and Way of Life on other people, I suggest you do it by example.

I'd have to go with Cyclowizard on this; he's making perfect sense. And it's irrelevent if abortion is not murder legally at this time; slavery was once legal also, but thankfully the abolitionists were convinced it was not only immoral, but it was also worthy of being made illegal, as it involved injury to another person. I (and apparently Cyclowizard) see abortion the same way - I consider it immoral, and the gov't may make it illegal because it involves injury to another person (the fetus). While I have profound respect for a person's right to do with their own body as they wish (I don't think drug use or prostitution should be illegal, even if I consider them against my personal morals, and I don't oppose the right to sell one's organs, another practice currently illegal), the location of an entity does not affect certain basic ownership rights. If I went into a jewelry store and attempted to steal a few rings by swallowing them, they do not become 'mine' just because they're now in my body. I'd still be a thief. The fetus still retains rights to existence regardless of the fact it's within the mother's body. If her life is truly threatened by it, she should have the right to evict it (as you may ask a salesman to leave your yard), but I don't see how she's justified in killing it, just as you may not kill any small children who run into your yard chasing a ball or something. In this modern age of near-miracle medicine, premature babies can survive earlier and earlier. They need not be killed.

<-- Proud parent of a two-months premature daughter

 

[TBone77]

Originally posted by: Vic
It's not my body.

...and the child's body is not his/her mother's.

Edit:

Congratulations, Murilis! I have a 1 1/2 year old son and a 3 months daughter. Amazing how children can affect how you view the world . By the way, I agree 100%. Slavery was once legal, too.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's not something that needs changed. Afterall, isn't that what liberal politics is all about: forward thinking and not being bound by current standards?

 

[kage69]

...and the child's body is not his/her mother's.

...once the umbilical cord is cut.

 

[TBone77]

Originally posted by: kage69

...and the child's body is not his/her mother's.

...once the umbilical cord is cut.

Just because there's a cord connecting the two doesn't mean that the child isn't its own being. Heck, technically your parents play host to you until you're 18... should they be able to whack you at any point during that 18 year period?

I hate to use such a cliche, but a beating heart is a beating heart. An abortion stops it and kills it.

 

[Gravity]

According to C. Everett Koop, former surgeon general, there is NEVER a case where any type of abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the mother. Abortion is non-thereaputic totally.

Kerry asserts that he wasn't for the infanticide ban because there was no provision for the life of the mother. The libs use that excuse to say that the mother might be depressed if she has the baby but can't afford to care for it or is too busy to care for it.

They say that is to "save the life of the mother". Other than that, there is no medical reason for it.

I'm against it.

 

[kage69]

Just because there's a cord connecting the two doesn't mean that the child isn't its own being. Heck, technically your parents play host to you until you're 18... should they be able to whack you at any point during that 18 year period?

And you are certainly entitled to your perceptions and faulty analogies.

I hate to use such a cliche, but a beating heart is a beating heart. An abortion stops it and kills it.

It wasn't even a cliche, nor was I debating the effects of an abortion. I know full well what happens - while I am definetly pro-choice, I find partial birth abortions to be disgusting and unacceptable. If a woman chooses to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, I feel that's her right providing she does it before the fetus grows into a sentient being. I see a world of difference between expelling a clump of cells smaller than a grain of rice, and vaccuuming out the brains of a fetus that is almost fully developed. Women who opt for that procedure should be subsequently sterilized. I can't sidw with the rabid anti-abortion crowd as they are so polarized over the matter it blinds them to a litany of unescapable realities surrounding women and the abortion issue. I feel it is a necessary evil.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: kage69

Just because there's a cord connecting the two doesn't mean that the child isn't its own being. Heck, technically your parents play host to you until you're 18... should they be able to whack you at any point during that 18 year period?

And you are certainly entitled to your perceptions and faulty analogies.

I hate to use such a cliche, but a beating heart is a beating heart. An abortion stops it and kills it.

It wasn't even a cliche, nor was I debating the effects of an abortion. I know full well what happens - while I am definetly pro-choice, I find partial birth abortions to be disgusting and unacceptable. If a woman chooses to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, I feel that's her right providing she does it before the fetus grows into a sentient being. I see a world of difference between expelling a clump of cells smaller than a grain of rice, and vaccuuming out the brains of a fetus that is almost fully developed. Women who opt for that procedure should be subsequently sterilized. I can't sidw with the rabid anti-abortion crowd as they are so polarized over the matter it blinds them to a litany of unescapable realities surrounding women and the abortion issue. I feel it is a necessary evil.

Agreed. Partial Birth Abostion should only be allowed if the Mothers Life is in Danger of the Fetus is determined to be severely retarded and/or with no chance of survivng after birth. It should not be allowed for Birth Control period.