What is your view on partial-birth abortion?

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: kage69
It just occured to me that no one with a uterus has sounded off on this yet. I think us guys should shut up for a bit. :clock:

Big deal; I don't have a yamulke either, but I know the Holocaust was wrong. I was never a slave, but I know slavery was wrong. Does a doctor have to have cancer to know it should be cured?

 

[Moonbeam]

Petition your congressman demanding science develop surgical procedures for the creation of a male uterus for unwanted babies so that male pro-lifers can become activists on this issue.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: kage69
It just occured to me that no one with a uterus has sounded off on this yet. I think us guys should shut up for a bit. :clock:

What does a uterus have to do with killing a life (as some people see it)? Maybe we should shut up because we haven't heard from God yet? :roll:

I never understood this whole "It's her body, who cares about the right of the child?" argument. We are not discussing breast enlargment, heart surgery, liposuction, or any other procedure that *completely and solely* deals with a womans's body. We have at least two humans directly involved here. Stop trying to make it seem like a simple, one-sided issue.

 

[Moonbeam]

I never understood this whole "It's a baby, who cares about the right of the mother?" argument. We are not discussing any procedure that *completely and solely* excludes a womans's body. We have at least two humans directly involved here. Stop trying to make it seem like a simple, one-sided issue.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I never understood this whole "It's a baby, who cares about the right of the mother?" argument. We are not discussing any procedure that *completely and solely* excludes a womans's body. We have at least two humans directly involved here. Stop trying to make it seem like a simple, one-sided issue.

Exactly. Of course, who is saying they don't care about the rights of the mother?

 

[Gravity]

One citation that it's never neccessary.



another

How interesting to read in your May 6 Page One article "Partial-birth abortion stirs a medical debate" that, although the headline referred to a "medical debate," the article indicates that there is no substantive debate.

Revised: July 1, 2002
"In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along. The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else."
? Ron Fitzsimmons
Executive Director for the National
Coalition of Abortion Providers
The New York Times, February 26, 1997

source

The evidence and even the testimony of the lead abortion provider make it clear that it's never medically necessary.

Of course, don't let the facts change your mind....that would be something wierd akin to thinking.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87
He provides quotes from medical doctors who know more about this stuff than anybody here. Yet everybodys pre-concieved notion that this gruesome procedure is done to protect the mother life is still correct?

I have done a little research on this subject a few years back and from what I can tell there is very little evidence to backup the theory these procedures are done in order to save a mother life. I dont have my sources in front of me but a leading doctor in 1996 in front of congress who performed abortions over a 20 years period had done roughly 2000 of these procedures. He estimated upwards of 90% of them were done on a purely elected basis.

Those 90% should be disallowed, it's the 10% that should be allowed

The simple fact was there were very little medical reason due to advances in medicine.

What about a severly retarded baby that probably won't live outside the womb? How about a woman with a heart condition that threaterns her life if the Baby is carried full term?

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: kage69
It just occured to me that no one with a uterus has sounded off on this yet. I think us guys should shut up for a bit. :clock:

:beer:

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Genx87
He provides quotes from medical doctors who know more about this stuff than anybody here. Yet everybodys pre-concieved notion that this gruesome procedure is done to protect the mother life is still correct?

I have done a little research on this subject a few years back and from what I can tell there is very little evidence to backup the theory these procedures are done in order to save a mother life. I dont have my sources in front of me but a leading doctor in 1996 in front of congress who performed abortions over a 20 years period had done roughly 2000 of these procedures. He estimated upwards of 90% of them were done on a purely elected basis.

The simple fact was there were very little medical reason due to advances in medicine.

You have to ask youself this. What possible medical issue could harm the mothers life that would warrent this? The baby is delivered just like any other baby is. If the baby can be delievered in the fashion there is little reason to think it cant be born natually.

Also I think Abortion should be outlawed completely. But especially after the baby has developed the ability to feel pain and dream. The idea that we as a people have de-evolved to the point where we can mass murder the most innocent of our society has shown just how little we have progressed from thousands of years ago.

Oh wow, you did "a little research" on the subject, perhaps the medical community should get in line then.

When the medical community as a whole declares it unneccessary in all cases, THEN you have a point, untlil then, the "new scientists" and the lot of you who "have done a bit of research" should just shut up against better knowledge.

Fair enough?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I never understood this whole "It's a baby, who cares about the right of the mother?" argument. We are not discussing any procedure that *completely and solely* excludes a womans's body. We have at least two humans directly involved here. Stop trying to make it seem like a simple, one-sided issue.

Exactly. Of course, who is saying they don't care about the rights of the mother?

CW is going against the medical community with his "new scientists" that are not worth their phd's, i actually have a phd, does that mean i am qualified in the area, i think not.

Then we have Genx who "did a little research" on the matter, this is against the medical community.

Christ, why do i even bother trying to educate such idiots?

 

[classy]

Kerry Campaign Statement on Late-Term Abortion Ruling
For Immediate Release

Washington, DC - Kerry spokesperson Stephanie Cutter released the following statement today:

?John Kerry voted to restrict late-term abortions but only where there was a clear exception for life or health of women. However, George Bush pushed through a different piece of legislation that failed to protect the health of women and that is what the Court struck down today. When John Kerry is President he will appoint judges that are committed to upholding the Constitution not pursuing an ideological agenda.?


I think that clears up any confusion. And unfortuately a lot of dumbass republicans failed to realize that usually when the health of the mother comes into question its usually late in the pregancy.

 

[kage69]

What does a uterus have to do with killing a life (as some people see it)? Maybe we should shut up because we haven't heard from God yet?

This issue directly relates to a woman's control over her own body, ignoring or making slight of it only illustrates the kind of self-righteous male crap the ladies have to contend with in fighting for their rights. As men we can talk all we want about it, but the topic takes on more serious slant for women, and I'm interested in hearing their opinions on it. It is a big deal. The comparisons to The Holocaust, God, slavery and cancer are immaterial. None of you are being faced with government regulations which might decide how you care for your body. Apples to apples please...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: kage69
It just occured to me that no one with a uterus has sounded off on this yet. I think us guys should shut up for a bit. :clock:

:beer:

I don't know why. This is one of the most obvious signs that this issue is not about the right to life but about authoritarian right winged males loss of power and sexual appeal in society among women, as women with French lovers will tell you. It's the same reason Republican guys hate those French. They are loosing on every front to the Metrosexual. Their insecurity and sexual frustration over not being able to control women's passions slops over into every thing they do. We hear their high pitched squeal in everything. It's no fun having your testicles chopped off I guess so we should maybe have more compassion and understanding for them and pray that Viagra will help them regain some sense of manhood in some small area of life. Everybody wants to be loved, but not everybody wants to give up their ego front to do it.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: kage69
It just occured to me that no one with a uterus has sounded off on this yet. I think us guys should shut up for a bit. :clock:

What does a uterus have to do with killing a life (as some people see it)? Maybe we should shut up because we haven't heard from God yet? :roll:

I never understood this whole "It's her body, who cares about the right of the child?" argument. We are not discussing breast enlargment, heart surgery, liposuction, or any other procedure that *completely and solely* deals with a womans's body. We have at least two humans directly involved here. Stop trying to make it seem like a simple, one-sided issue.

You are viewing it from a viewpoint that is not biological nor scientific.

A feetus is feeding off the womans body, stop feeding the woman and the fetus will die.

You are killing lifes everytime you brush your teeth, the difference is your definition of human life, we have different laws over here and i think ours are pretty great, 16 weeks is the limit but get this, if the womans life might be in jeopardy, SHE is the one who chooses after that time.

I can just imagine having the likes of you over here shouting murder at the ones who had to have an abortion to save their lives.

I cannot tell you how much i despise you and the likes of you.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

I don't know why. This is one of the most obvious signs that this issue is not about the right to life but about authoritarian right winged males loss of power and sexual appeal in society among women, as women with French lovers will tell you. It's the same reason Republican guys hate those French. They are loosing on every front to the Metrosexual. Their insecurity and sexual frustration over not being able to control women's passions slops over into every thing they do. We hear their high pitched squeal in everything. It's no fun having your testicles chopped off I guess so we should maybe have more compassion and understanding for them and pray that Viagra will help them regain some sense of manhood in some small area of life. Everybody wants to be loved, but not everybody wants to give up their ego front to do it.

LOL..:laugh:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: kage69
It just occured to me that no one with a uterus has sounded off on this yet. I think us guys should shut up for a bit. :clock:

What does a uterus have to do with killing a life (as some people see it)? Maybe we should shut up because we haven't heard from God yet? :roll:

I never understood this whole "It's her body, who cares about the right of the child?" argument. We are not discussing breast enlargment, heart surgery, liposuction, or any other procedure that *completely and solely* deals with a womans's body. We have at least two humans directly involved here. Stop trying to make it seem like a simple, one-sided issue.

You are viewing it from a viewpoint that is not biological nor scientific.

A feetus is feeding off the womans body, stop feeding the woman and the fetus will die.

You are killing lifes everytime you brush your teeth, the difference is your definition of human life, we have different laws over here and i think ours are pretty great, 16 weeks is the limit but get this, if the womans life might be in jeopardy, SHE is the one who chooses after that time.

I can just imagine having the likes of you over here shouting murder at the ones who had to have an abortion to save their lives.

I cannot tell you how much i despise you and the likes of you.

Cut him some slack, he's just a kid.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: kage69
It just occured to me that no one with a uterus has sounded off on this yet. I think us guys should shut up for a bit. :clock:

:beer:

I don't know why. This is one of the most obvious signs that this issue is not about the right to life but about authoritarian right winged males loss of power and sexual appeal in society among women, as women with French lovers will tell you. It's the same reason Republican guys hate those French. They are loosing on every front to the Metrosexual. Their insecurity and sexual frustration over not being able to control women's passions slops over into every thing they do. We hear their high pitched squeal in everything. It's no fun having your testicles chopped off I guess so we should maybe have more compassion and understanding for them and pray that Viagra will help them regain some sense of manhood in some small area of life. Everybody wants to be loved, but not everybody wants to give up their ego front to do it.

Mooonbeam, clever and hilarious at the same time!

I love your posts, you should post more.

 

[ducksoup0]

I support "retroactive abortion."

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: kage69
It just occured to me that no one with a uterus has sounded off on this yet. I think us guys should shut up for a bit. :clock:

What does a uterus have to do with killing a life (as some people see it)? Maybe we should shut up because we haven't heard from God yet? :roll:

I never understood this whole "It's her body, who cares about the right of the child?" argument. We are not discussing breast enlargment, heart surgery, liposuction, or any other procedure that *completely and solely* deals with a womans's body. We have at least two humans directly involved here. Stop trying to make it seem like a simple, one-sided issue.

You are viewing it from a viewpoint that is not biological nor scientific.

A feetus is feeding off the womans body, stop feeding the woman and the fetus will die.

You are killing lifes everytime you brush your teeth, the difference is your definition of human life, we have different laws over here and i think ours are pretty great, 16 weeks is the limit but get this, if the womans life might be in jeopardy, SHE is the one who chooses after that time.

I can just imagine having the likes of you over here shouting murder at the ones who had to have an abortion to save their lives.

I cannot tell you how much i despise you and the likes of you.

Cut him some slack, he's just a kid.

Yeah, that was probably a bit harsh. I think it was justified though, do you really disagree?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

What does a uterus have to do with killing a life (as some people see it)? Maybe we should shut up because we haven't heard from God yet? :roll:

I never understood this whole "It's her body, who cares about the right of the child?" argument. We are not discussing breast enlargment, heart surgery, liposuction, or any other procedure that *completely and solely* deals with a womans's body. We have at least two humans directly involved here. Stop trying to make it seem like a simple, one-sided issue.

You are viewing it from a viewpoint that is not biological nor scientific.

A feetus is feeding off the womans body, stop feeding the woman and the fetus will die.

You are killing lifes everytime you brush your teeth, the difference is your definition of human life, we have different laws over here and i think ours are pretty great, 16 weeks is the limit but get this, if the womans life might be in jeopardy, SHE is the one who chooses after that time.

I can just imagine having the likes of you over here shouting murder at the ones who had to have an abortion to save their lives.

I cannot tell you how much i despise you and the likes of you.

*yawn* I am no more worried about you despising me than you are about me being against PBA. In fact, it seems you have made many assumptions about me from that one post. I didn't say I believed that abortions should be illegal or that I or anyone else should be "shouting murder at the ones who had to have an abortion to save their lives." I was simply offering a counter-argument to the one I responded to.

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.

Your "I hate you and all those people who think like you" attitude is no more noble or valid than the bastards who threaten the lives of abortion doctors and nurses. You are a simple-minded fool if you think as such. You see unborn fetuses as simple parasites who live at the whim of their hosts. That's good for you, but why can't you recognize that not everyone feels that way. Some people see fetuses as human beings that should be given the same rights as the mother. That's good for them, but why can't they recognize that not everyone feels that way.

You seem to think pro-lifers to be holier-than-thou crusaders, but you're the one with the "my way is right, you are all wrong" attitude (as indicated by your post) and that's just as thick-headed. You also claim that you have different laws over there and that you agree with them. Good for you! We have laws over here that differ from yours and I agree with them. Good for me! What's your point?

*sigh* There's not much worse that getting into an online debate on abortion. It's an issue that touches on both rights and morality. It seems to manage to bring out the inner jack-ass in everyone who is involved. I'll go ahead and apologize for any uncalled for or unnecessary arguments I may post, but not for my opinions. I think I'll just declare this thread and those like it useless and move on and let the zealots on each side have at each other's throats.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Cut him some slack, he's just a kid.

Come on now, who isn't a kid compared to you, Old Timer?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Will you excuse everyone if they don't take your word or the articles made by religious peoples over what the medical community is saying?

You are trolling this article made by "new scientists" so hard it isn't even funny.

Give some proof that the medical community as a whole agrees that it is NEVER necessary for that reason or shut the fvck up about it.

Ah, once again you demonstrate your gross stupidity. I'll make an exception to embarrass you, though I doubt you'll even read it or consider it before posting some asshat-ish response.

"With all that modern medicine has to offer, partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother, and the procedure?s impact on a woman?s cervix can put future pregnancies at risk."

Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D. Letter to the Editor The New York Times, September 26, 1996

"Most partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies," and "there is no obstetrical situation that requires the willful destruction of a partially delivered baby to protect the life, health or future of a woman."

Nancy Romer, M.D., Curtis Cook, M.D., Pamela Smith, M.D. and Joseph DeCook, M.D. Letter to the Editor The Wall Street Journal, October 14, 1996

"Our panel could not find any identified circumstance in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method." (The AMA supported the federal ban passed by Congress and vetoed by President Clinton.)

Daniel H. Johnson Jr., M.D. President, American Medical Association Letter to the Editor The New York Times, May 26, 1997

"Why, if it's dangerous to the mother's health to do this when your intent is to deliver the baby alive, that this should suddenly become...the safe method when your intention is to kill the baby?" Dr. Pamela Smith, testimony to Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, cited in Johnson, p. 11.

 

[StageLeft]

Murder.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: kage69
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.

When do you think the child is a sentient being? How can you quantify or prove this position?

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
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.

Why should we abort babies that are going to be severely retarded? How do you gauge 'severely retarded'? This is the exact argument that will likely be used in the UK to outlaw abortion - if you kill babies based on their mental condition, then it amounts to eugenics, which is outlawed under the EU charter.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yeah it is. It might not be the reason most of them happen but there are times that there are valid reasons for them.

I'd like you to find one example where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. I've already quoted a surgeon general, the head of the AMA, and various other physicians stating that it's not.

Originally posted by: PingSpike
The opinions of a few individuals are only their opinions. Just because one member of a community says something is so does not mean all or even the majority agree.

Why were these particular people asked to testify before Congress on the issue? BECAUSE THEY ARE THE RELEVANT EXPERTS ON THIS ISSUE. They're not some nameless shmucks off the street just throwing out an opinion.

Originally posted by: kage69
I got news for you - abortion isn't a recent development. One of the facts many choose to ignore is that women have been undergoing and performing abortions for a long, long time. What modern clinics do in sterile, safe, and professional environments, young women and midwives have ben doing for centuries with sticks, stones, herbs and ungents on dirtfloors. Some native tribes of South America, Africa and Australia to this day opt for a sister or mother to actually jump up and down on the swollen abdomen of the pregnant woman in order to injure the fetus and expell it, usually alongside a liberal amount of stabbing with a twig to irritate the cervix and induce a miscarriage.
Desperate women in the US, Europe and Asia will opt for crude back-alley or hotel room abortions where an untrained individual will use dangerous instruments and chemicals to abort a fetus, often times later killing the women via blood loss, embolisms, or infection.

You see where I'm going with this? As reprehensible at it may be, it is a necessary evil. The desire to preserve life is oddly one of the strongest arguments to relegate the practice to a safe, sterile, and professional environment. Outlawed abortion will result in mother's dying along with the fetuses.

I got news for you - murder-for-hire isn't a recent development. One of the facts many choose to ignore is that men and women have been committing murder-for-hire for a long, long time. What modern firearms do now, men and women have been doing with sticks and spears for millenia. Some native tribes in South America, Africa, and Australia to this day opt for a sister or mother to actually jump up and down on someone to kill them, usually alongside a liberal amount of stabbing with a twig to piss off the victim even more. Desperate men and women in the US, Europe, and Asia will opt to kill people using sticks and knives rather than hiring a trained individual to do it with a nice, safe, sterile gun.

You see where I'm going with this? As reprehensible as it may be, murder-for-hire is a necessary evil. The desire to preserve one's life is oddly one of the strongest arguments to relegate the practice to a trained professional with a gun. Outlawing murder-for-hire will result in me risking my own life to kill someone else.

Your point is beyond ridiculous.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What about a severly retarded baby that probably won't live outside the womb? How about a woman with a heart condition that threaterns her life if the Baby is carried full term?

If it might not live, why the hell are you going to brutalize it in its last moments of life? When you're on your death bed, do you want me to come into the room and suck your brain out through a straw? Come on.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: kage69
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.

When do you think the child is a sentient being? How can you quantify or prove this position?

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
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.

Why should we abort babies that are going to be severely retarded? How do you gauge 'severely retarded'? This is the exact argument that will likely be used in the UK to outlaw abortion - if you kill babies based on their mental condition, then it amounts to eugenics, which is outlawed under the EU charter.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yeah it is. It might not be the reason most of them happen but there are times that there are valid reasons for them.

I'd like you to find one example where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. I've already quoted a surgeon general, the head of the AMA, and various other physicians stating that it's not.

Originally posted by: PingSpike
The opinions of a few individuals are only their opinions. Just because one member of a community says something is so does not mean all or even the majority agree.

Why were these particular people asked to testify before Congress on the issue? BECAUSE THEY ARE THE RELEVANT EXPERTS ON THIS ISSUE. They're not some nameless shmucks off the street just throwing out an opinion.

Originally posted by: kage69
I got news for you - abortion isn't a recent development. One of the facts many choose to ignore is that women have been undergoing and performing abortions for a long, long time. What modern clinics do in sterile, safe, and professional environments, young women and midwives have ben doing for centuries with sticks, stones, herbs and ungents on dirtfloors. Some native tribes of South America, Africa and Australia to this day opt for a sister or mother to actually jump up and down on the swollen abdomen of the pregnant woman in order to injure the fetus and expell it, usually alongside a liberal amount of stabbing with a twig to irritate the cervix and induce a miscarriage.
Desperate women in the US, Europe and Asia will opt for crude back-alley or hotel room abortions where an untrained individual will use dangerous instruments and chemicals to abort a fetus, often times later killing the women via blood loss, embolisms, or infection.

You see where I'm going with this? As reprehensible at it may be, it is a necessary evil. The desire to preserve life is oddly one of the strongest arguments to relegate the practice to a safe, sterile, and professional environment. Outlawed abortion will result in mother's dying along with the fetuses.

I got news for you - murder-for-hire isn't a recent development. One of the facts many choose to ignore is that men and women have been committing murder-for-hire for a long, long time. What modern firearms do now, men and women have been doing with sticks and spears for millenia. Some native tribes in South America, Africa, and Australia to this day opt for a sister or mother to actually jump up and down on someone to kill them, usually alongside a liberal amount of stabbing with a twig to piss off the victim even more. Desperate men and women in the US, Europe, and Asia will opt to kill people using sticks and knives rather than hiring a trained individual to do it with a nice, safe, sterile gun.

You see where I'm going with this? As reprehensible as it may be, murder-for-hire is a necessary evil. The desire to preserve one's life is oddly one of the strongest arguments to relegate the practice to a trained professional with a gun. Outlawing murder-for-hire will result in me risking my own life to kill someone else.

Your point is beyond ridiculous.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What about a severly retarded baby that probably won't live outside the womb? How about a woman with a heart condition that threaterns her life if the Baby is carried full term?

If it might not live, why the hell are you going to brutalize it in its last moments of life? When you're on your death bed, do you want me to come into the room and suck your brain out through a straw? Come on.

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. 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!