Partial-birth abortion ban ready for vote

[Waluigi]

Partial-birth abortion ban ready for vote (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030930-113018-1410r.htm)

A ban on partial-birth abortions could be on President Bush's desk by as early as next week, after a conference committee yesterday finished with the bill and sent it to be cleared by both chambers.

President Clinton twice vetoed a similar ban — in April 1996 and October 1997.

"After two presidential vetoes, this ban will finally become law and the performance of this barbaric procedure will come to an end," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican and member of the House-Senate conference committee.

The House is expected to clear the legislation this week and the Senate could do the same, though the bill's supporters say Democratic senators could delay the inevitable by demanding hours of floor debate before a final vote.

The conference committee approved the bill yesterday in two party-line votes. House conferees voted 3-2 for the measure. Senate conferees also voted 3-2 to approve it. All Republicans supported the bill; all Democrats opposed it.

Most notably, the bill approved by the conference left out language inserted into the Senate version that would have expressed support for Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that struck down state laws against abortion.

Republicans defeated an attempt by Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat and conference panel member, to add back that language, which was sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat.

"I worry with this language out ... what we're saying to American women is 'your health doesn't matter,' " said Mrs. Boxer, who thinks the bill is unconstitutional.

The legislation would ban partial-birth abortions, except when necessary to save the life of the mother. In a partial-birth abortion — also known as dilation and extraction — the baby is partially delivered before its skull is pierced and its brain extracted.

Pro-choice groups plan to challenge the legislation in court immediately after the president signs it. They, along with some Democrats, say it is as unconstitutional as a Nebraska ban the Supreme Court struck down in 2000 because the procedure is too broadly defined and would not allow a partial-birth abortion to protect the mother's health.

"I wonder why we are bothering passing a bill that is so clearly unconstitutional," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and conference member, said yesterday.

Ban supporters said those issues are addressed in the current legislation, in part by providing a more precise definition of the procedure.

The legislation does not include a "health exception," but instead includes a lengthy "findings" section, stating that medical evidence presented in congressional hearings showed partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to women's health, is never medically needed and is outside the standards of medical care.

Democrats on the conference panel tried twice yesterday to create a "health exception" to the ban, but Republicans defeated them in two sets of party-line votes.

Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio Republican and conference member, said abortionists have stated publicly that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's health. He said that if the bill were to contain a health exception it would amount to a "phony ban," and doctors would be able to continue performing partial-birth abortions unfettered.

In March, a bipartisan group of 17 senators voted in favor of both Mr. Harkin's Roe v. Wade language and the Senate bill, which passed the Senate 64-33. The question is whether some of those senators will switch and oppose the final bill now that the Harkin language is not included.

Supporters of the ban doubt that will happen.

"I don't know anyone who supported the bill because of the Harkin language, so I don't anticipate any diminution of the vote," said bill sponsor Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican.

Even opponents, including Mrs. Boxer, have said they expect the legislation to clear both chambers and go to the president.

The only thing Democratic opponents could do is delay a final vote in the Senate until after the upcoming weeklong break by demanding several hours of debate on the bill, said one pro-life lobbyist.

Mr. Santorum said he expects Mrs. Boxer to demand a lengthy floor debate. He predicted the Senate will wait until after the upcoming break to take up the bill.


You can expect that in the coming weeks and months this already hot issue will become beyond scorching.

--Waluigi

[pseudobrit]

There is no such thing as "partial-birth abortion."

It is a term invented to defame an ultra-rare procedure that is typically performed to save a woman's life or health in the final stages of her pregnancy.

It is not an elective abortion procedure.

IOW, it's a non-issue.

par·tial-birth abortion (pär?sh?l-bûrth?)
n.

A late-term abortion, especially one in which a viable fetus is partially delivered through the cervix before being extracted. Not in technical use.


Unless, of course, you want to use this issue as an unopposable trailblazer to move on more bold, anti-Roe v. Wade unconstitutional agendas, kinda like how it was so hard to oppose the "Patriot Act" right after Sept. 11, 2001. Next thing you know, Ashcroft knows what your girlfriend's cup size is and where you get your news.

Same thing here. First, it's a horrific-sounding, rare, late-term, medically required abortion procedure (that no one can stand up for because it doesn't even really exist -- it's the ultimate straw-man), then elective first trimester abortion, because those women should be punished for being sluts.

Next thing you know, you have to get a judge to sign off on your purchase of Trojans. You heard it here first.

[shadowfax]

"so clearly unconstitutional." hah, yeah right. the constitution really doesn't address the issue of abortion adequately to rule on this legislation. ESPECIALLY not partial birth abortion. someone explain to me, what's the difference between a doctor performing this operation and a mother taking a drill to her day-old child?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by shadowfax
what's the difference between a doctor performing this operation and a mother taking a drill to her day-old child?

the mother clearly survived the birth.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
because those women should be punished for being sluts. since when does abortion have anything to do with whores? for any rational pro life person (me), it's about the sanctity of human life. to me, there's not any real difference between a fetus and a day-old child. as such, i think we should legalize the murder of children until they have a right to life. when do they have a right to life?

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by zimv20
the mother clearly survived the birth. it's my understanding that this law pertains to partial birth abortions when the mother's life is not at stake, which apparently registers rare to non-existent on the scale, but that's what's on the table right now. you'll have to find another difference...

[zimv20]

Originally posted by shadowfax
it's about the sanctity of human life.

you're right. it's a horrible, horrible procedure and i wish it never happened.

however, as a representative of the government, i'm not going to tell a woman what she can and can't do w/ her body.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by shadowfax
"so clearly unconstitutional." hah, yeah right. the constitution really doesn't address the issue of abortion adequately to rule on this legislation.

It does. You have the right to privacy and you have the right to your health and to choose your treatment as far as you and your licensed doctor see fit.

Are you suggesting we should have an Ob-Gyn clear everything he does with a judge? Where does it stop, then?

ESPECIALLY not partial birth abortion. someone explain to me, what's the difference between a doctor performing this operation and a mother taking a drill to her day-old child?

I can tell you the similarity -- each almost never happens.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by shadowfax
since when does abortion have anything to do with whores?

I said "slut;" whores get paid.

for any rational pro life person (me), it's about the sanctity of human life. to me, there's not any real difference between a fetus and a day-old child. as such, i think we should legalize the murder of children until they have a right to life. when do they have a right to life?

Do you oppose abortion in cases of rape and/or incest?

[shadowfax]

sanctity of the life of the infant was what i was referring to. the mother's right to life has to supersede that of the child, of course, because it is dependent on hers, but when you start getting into the "real" abortion debates--the ones where only the infant's life is at stake, this question of who's life should be saved first drops out and the question--can we kill this thing? arises.

the right to privacy has almost nothing to do with the constitutionality of abortion. it only comes into play after abortion is legalized. a doctor is not allowed to kill a patient, or a patient's child, more accurately. he would on both counts be condemned for murder. so the question is whether or not the fetus is a human. the constitution says absolutely NOTHING AT ALL about when people have a right to life, so the supreme court has no right to determine the constitutionality of abortion laws--it is the responsibility of the people of the united states as reperesented by their legislative bodies to decide when this right to life occurs. even that i am a little uncomfortable with, but i do know for certain that the supreme court had no ground to rule on whether or not abortion can be legislated on.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I said "slut;" whores get paid.



Do you oppose abortion in cases of rape and/or incest? whores don't always get paid. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whore) it has several meanings. interestingly, a slut can get paid too. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slut)

that's the most stereotypical question i get. and it's irrelevant. pregnant rape victims account for a less than infinitessimal percentage of abortions. but if you'd like to know, no, i don't think that because a crime was committed against someone that she has the right to extenuate that crime to the innocent child. oh, gosh, what a terrible thing! hah, yeah, exactly, that's what rape is, an abomination of the most beautiful thing that can occur between two people. but again, there's no call to kill someone because a girl got raped, unless you want to kill the rapist, which may or may not be a valid punishment.

[shadowfax]

uhhh.... pseudo... i know that we're both pretty good at arguing, but i know i've had like this exact argument on these forums before, and i know that neither of us changes our mind in the end...

we can keep turning over the arguments, of course, if you like, but i can certainly say that i won't think less of you either way :)

[pseudobrit]

One last thing and I guess we can call it a day:

I oppose any elective abortion past the first trimester.

I really don't think that a lump of flesh with no brain activity classifies as life. As soon as there's real brain activity, it's life. Until then, it's a specialised tumor.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I really don't think that a lump of flesh with no brain activity classifies as life. As soon as there's real brain activity, it's life. Until then, it's a specialised tumor. heh, this is where everyone argues to, and this is the argument that no one ever seems to change their mind on, and no evidence has or probably will ever change those minds, one way or the other.

[pseudobrit]

Perhaps. And then it's all down to this:

I personally oppose any elective abortion, but I support the legal right of the woman to do as she and her doctor see best for her.

I will not support a system where abortion is legal only when the mother's life or health is at risk. That leaves the doctor-patient relationship at the whim of a government judge.

What if you get a judge who doesn't value the woman's life? Doesn't understand the medical terms/ implications of the doctor's recommendations? What about a judge whose religious convictions are so strong that he doesn't care?

What if he decides, as a judge has before, to make a pregnant woman wait (she was in prison and at his mercy) until it was too late to abort the fetus as punishment?

These are the things that scare me into being pro-choice. It's not the government's place to interfere with this matter.

[pdham]

I just did some quick research. According to Planned Parent Hood. 1.4% of all abortions take place after the 5 month period. That equals 16,605 abortions. This does not mean they have to be Partial Birth abortions, but after 5 months they are nearing the point where they could be.

The center for reproductive law told the New York Times that they believe that between 500 and 1,000 partial birth abortions occur each year. This number is based on the number of abortions voluntarily reported.

No one really knows how many late abortions are done by the partial-birth procedure. The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy told The New York Times, "The number of procedures that clearly meet the definition of partial birth abortion is very small, probably only

I also found estimates as high as 2,200 partial birth abortions each year.

In my opinion any of those numbers is not a small insignificant amount.

If you want to check yourself visit www.nrlc.org or www.plannedparenthood.org
or do a quick google search.

I cant say what sources are accurate, but even being inaccurate at 1,000 is too many for me.

Paul

[Taft]

Originally posted by pdham
I just did some quick research. According to Planned Parent Hood. 1.4% of all abortions take place after the 5 month period. That equals 16,605 abortions. This does not mean they have to be Partial Birth abortions, but after 5 months they are nearing the point where they could be.

The center for reproductive law told the New York Times that they believe that between 500 and 1,000 partial birth abortions occur each year. This number is based on the number of abortions voluntarily reported.



I also found estimates as high as 2,200 partial birth abortions each year.

In my opinion any of those numbers is not a small insignificant amount.

If you want to check yourself visit www.nrlc.org or www.plannedparenthood.org
or do a quick google search.

I cant say what sources are accurate, but even being inaccurate at 1,000 is too many for me.

Paul

Given those figures a very tiny percentage of women have a partial birth abortion every year. Assuming there are approximately 100,000,000 women with the capability to conceive in this country, it would mean approximately .002 % of all women capable of having a baby have a partial birth abortion each year.

It is plausible that this figure reflects the number of women who had to abort their fetuses due to health problems. The number is low enough.

You say, "but even being inaccurate at 1,000 is too many for me." Well what if carrying the baby to birth risks the mothers life? Who decides those cretieria? A court? A judge?

An abortion after the first trimester is a medical procedure that should be discussed between the doctor and the mother. I agree that they should be performed unless the mother's health is threatened, but these laws aren't the way to accomplish that.

Taft

[mactastic]

The House has passed the ban....

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Taft
Well what if carrying the baby to birth risks the mothers life? Who decides those cretieria? A court? A judge?is that worse than a frantic mother? a doctor who needs the money or thinks that the woman should have an abortion because he doesn't think the child is worth it? An abortion after the first trimester is a medical procedure that should be discussed between the doctor and the mother. I agree that they should be performed unless the mother's health is threatened, but these laws aren't the way to accomplish that.

Taft again, you say that a court and a judge can't decide right, but how can you seriously trust every doctor who might ever perform the operation?

[pdham]

Taft,
What if a new virus swept through the neonatal wings of hospitals all over the country and it ended withh 500 - 1,000 babies dead. Would you respond to that by saying, well it is a small percentage of the number of babies that survived?

Also with your logic I will make this arguement. As you said the number of partial birth abortion is .002% of all the women who could bear children. And it is ikely that these procedures were performed to save the mothers life. Well as you have already siad .002% is virtually insignificant, so why not find out if the mother would survive during the pregnancy. Since we have already determined that .002% of babies dying is "low enough", why not .002% of mothers?

And to answer your last question. I say noone decides the criteria for when a women's life is at risk. There are many more women who risk there lives to deliever a baby because the truely want their child than those that abort it because of health risks.

And yes you are right, I am making this a moral arguement. But that is no different than why murder or rape became illegal. Those are moral arguements as well. Dont tell me that abortion must be made by policy analysis, when many of our bodily protection, i.e. the outlaw of murder and rape stem from moral and just norms that have been turned into policy.

If you can give me a non-moral policy based arguement as to why it is illegal to stab my neighbor 12 times than you have made your point.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by pdham

But that is no different than why murder or rape became illegal. Those are moral arguements as well. [...]
If you can give me a non-moral policy based arguement as to why it is illegal to stab my neighbor 12 times than you have made your point.

stabbing your neighbor involves an act against another's body. a woman having an abortion involves an act w/ her own body.

[pdham]

Originally posted by zimv20
stabbing your neighbor involves an act against another's body. a woman having an abortion involves an act w/ her own body.

Take it farther, why is it not okay to do someting like that to another's body

Also:

At the developmental stage of a partial birth abortion, the baby, fetus what ever you want to call it, can feel pain, and has a beating heart, and a functioning nervous system. Sounds like a another body to me. Just because we cant ask it if it wants to live or die, it doesnt get rights?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by pdham
Take it farther, why is it not okay to do someting like that to another's body


all arguments against it are either ethical or moral


At the developmental stage of a partial birth abortion, the baby, fetus what ever you want to call it, can feel pain, and has a beating heart, and a functioning nervous system. Sounds like a another body to me. Just because we cant ask it if it wants to live or die, it doesnt get rights?

the real grey areas, from a biological standpoint, occur much earlier in the pregnancy. the first trimester, for example.

or, taken to more of an extreme, many people are against the morning after pill, where your argument above wouldn't apply. same w/ IUD (not used much in the US, but still heavily used in china).

but my personal feelings about the legal aspect of the matter rely less on the biological aspect and more on the right to privacy aspect. i.e. the state shouldn't be in the business of telling people what to do w/ their bodies.

less extreme examples than abortion: limiting sexual practices between consenting adults, tattoos and piercings, fashion expression. across history, the US gov't has tried to legislate against certain aspects of these things.

how do you feel about that?

[shadowfax]

if i am a siamese twin, can i kill my other self? i mean, he is a part of my body. that would be weird though...

[Taft]

Originally posted by pdham
If you can give me a non-moral policy based arguement as to why it is illegal to stab my neighbor 12 times than you have made your point.

You would have violated his rights. Our constitution enumerates the rights we have as citizens. One of those rights is the right to life. By stabbing him and ending his life, you have violated his most basic of rights.

That is not a moral argument.

We all have certain rights given to us by the constitution. While you may argue that these laws were based in morality, I could just as easily argue that they were based out of logic. We can talk about murder, stealing, disturbing the peace, etc without assigning a "right" and "wrong" to them.

Do I think its wrong to murder? Sure I do. But the basis for making murder illegal can be found in the fact that the act of murder denies a person of his right to pursue life.

And please to extend my argument to cover fetuses as it is a much different scenario.

Taft



Taft

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Taft
You would have violated his rights. Our constitution enumerates the rights we have as citizens. One of those rights is the right to life. By stabbing him and ending his life, you have violated his most basic of rights.

That is not a moral argument.

We all have certain rights given to us by the constitution. While you may argue that these laws were based in morality, I could just as easily argue that they were based out of logic. We can talk about murder, stealing, disturbing the peace, etc without assigning a "right" and "wrong" to them.

Do I think its wrong to murder? Sure I do. But the basis for making murder illegal can be found in the fact that the act of murder denies a person of his right to pursue life.

And please to extend my argument to cover fetuses as it is a much different scenario.

Taft



Taft what if the neighbor is 12 years old? he's not a citizen till he's 18. Or, what if he's an immigrant?

[Taft]

Originally posted by pdham
Taft,
What if a new virus swept through the neonatal wings of hospitals all over the country and it ended withh 500 - 1,000 babies dead. Would you respond to that by saying, well it is a small percentage of the number of babies that survived?
[b][quote]

No I wouldn't. But this circumstance is completely different than the example of a mother having a late term abortion to save her own life. In your example, the babies dies of an "unstoppable" desease. In mine, the babies dies as the result of assigning more importance on the life of the mother than of the baby.

More on this further down.

[quote][b]Also with your logic I will make this arguement. As you said the number of partial birth abortion is .002% of all the women who could bear children. And it is ikely that these procedures were performed to save the mothers life. Well as you have already siad .002% is virtually insignificant, so why not find out if the mother would survive during the pregnancy. Since we have already determined that .002% of babies dying is "low enough", why not .002% of mothers?

Because the mothers already have the ability to reason, have an instinct to preserve their own lives, have loved ones that care for them, have a place in society and likely contribute to society in some way. Hell, some mothers also have other kids that depend on her. The fetus has none of those things. Someday it could have all of those things, but if the mother takes the risk, both the mother and the fetus could end up dead.

A choice to abort a fetus to save your own life must be a difficult one to make, and some mothers do decide to take the risk and have the baby. But other mothers might decide that the risk is too great. Maybe they will adopt and give another person's baby a home. Maybe they devote their lives to something else. Maybe they work with doctors to figure out if they could have future babies so they could try again.

There are a lot of hard choices to be made in this scenario. The last thing a mother in that position needs is some fanatic screaming at her that she's contemplating MURDERING her child.

And to answer your last question. I say noone decides the criteria for when a women's life is at risk. There are many more women who risk there lives to deliever a baby because the truely want their child than those that abort it because of health risks.

No-one decides, eh? Not even the mother?

Lets put a hypothetical out there and play with it a bit.

Lets say theres a woman named Ann. Ann got pregnant by accident from a boyfriend who later broke up with her. Ann decided to have the baby and raise it by herself, as she wanted to avoid an abortion. But then, during the 22nd week of her pregnancy, the doctor told her that her heart was under a great deal of strain from carrying the fetus. She had a heart defect that she never knew about. After some tests, it looks as though Ann might not survive the pregnancy due to the increase in circulation necessary to have a baby.

Should Ann be forced to risk a pregnancy? She didn't decide to have the baby, so why should she be stuck with the decision now that it is threatening her life? Why should Ann put priority on a fetus insider her that isn't a fully developed human yet? And even if she did assign that priority, both Ann and the baby could die during labor. Then nobody wins.

I don't see how you could possibly justify a complete ban on these procedures. Its not as if you can walk into a doctors office during the 8th month of your pregnancy and demand an abortion for no good reason. There are already controls on this type of behavior.

This law is just another attempt to chip away at Roe vs. Wade. And it is unconstitutional. Nearly identical laws have been struck down many times in the past due to the lack of appropriate "outs" of the law. A woman must be able to make a decision about how to take care of her own body in the event that the pregnancy adversely effects her health.

Taft

[Taft]

Originally posted by shadowfax
what if the neighbor is 12 years old? he's not a citizen till he's 18. Or, what if he's an immigrant?

Come on! Immigrants receive the same protections as anyone else in this country in terms of rights. If I killed a German citizen somewhere in Chicago, you better believe that US authorities will arrest me and I'll be tried under US laws. Same with minors.

It has nothing to do with citizenship. It has everything to do with rights assigned to humans. The constitution talks in terms of persons, not citizens. I'm no legal scholar, but I'd say its pretty clear.

Taft

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Taft
Come on! Immigrants receive the same protections as anyone else in this country in terms of rights. If I killed a German citizen somewhere in Chicago, you better believe that US authorities will arrest me and I'll be tried under US laws. Same with minors.

It has nothing to do with citizenship. It has everything to do with rights assigned to humans. The constitution talks in terms of persons, not citizens. I'm no legal scholar, but I'd say its pretty clear.

Taft but it doesn't give a scientific definition of "person." that must be established... and science hasn't had much success determining that fetuses are for sure not humans.

[Taft]

Originally posted by shadowfax
but it doesn't give a scientific definition of "person." that must be established... and science hasn't had much success determining that fetuses are for sure not humans.

But a few things are known for certain. During the first trimester, the fetus doesn't have a brain and subsequently can't learn, think or react to its environment. During that stage (and for quite some time afterwords) the fetus is also unable to survive without the mother. Also, though this could go without saying, the fetus has never been able to do any of those things.

Therefor this scenario is distinctly different than any "similar" situation that you could pose as a hypotethetical. Like the siamese twins example, or someone in a coma, etc.

We may disagree on what this information means, but the evidence does stand as true.

Taft

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Taft
But a few things are known for certain. During the first trimester, the fetus doesn't have a brain and subsequently can't learn, think or react to its environment. During that stage (and for quite some time afterwords) the fetus is also unable to survive without the mother. Also, though this could go without saying, the fetus has never been able to do any of those things.

Therefor this scenario is distinctly different than any "similar" situation that you could pose as a hypotethetical. Like the siamese twins example, or someone in a coma, etc.

We may disagree on what this information means, but the evidence does stand as true.

Taft how about a person living on welfare who would starve without help? is it ok to kill him, or even let him die? just because the fetus is totally depended doesn't mean it doesn't have rights.

and about thought as a requirement for humanity. i tend to agree, but then i realize that a minority of human beings actually experience this thing called thought...

the thing is, something that's human is human. it may be developing to it's maturity, but it's still human. once you've started that natural process that generates a human being, i think it's wrong to destroy that "piece of tissue" that could otherwise become the next Einstein, the next Lincoln, the next John Nash...

[mactastic]

Originally posted by shadowfax
i think it's wrong to destroy that "piece of tissue" that could otherwise become the next Einstein, the next Lincoln, the next John Nash...

Ok, but then how is it ok to condone sending that "piece of tissue" off to war? I mean, it could turn out to be the next Einstein, Lincoln, or Nash...

And I can't recall your position on capitol punishment? Pro or con?

[Taft]

Originally posted by shadowfax
how about a person living on welfare who would starve without help? is it ok to kill him, or even let him die? just because the fetus is totally depended doesn't mean it doesn't have rights.


You are right, of course. But at the same time you are completely wrong as you ignored the list of limitations that came before this one. In short, this was only one of the many reasons I listed. You ignored the rest and focused on this one alone.

So I would agree with you, but only if the starving person couldn't think, learn or react to his/her environment and had never been able to. You must take all of my arguments as a whole in order to make this a productive conversation.

and about thought as a requirement for humanity. i tend to agree, but then i realize that a minority of human beings actually experience this thing called thought...

I'm not sure how you would reach such a conclusion. Unless you subjectively decide a level that thinking must rise to to qualify as thinking, this argument is impossible. There is a scientific set of criteria that most people agree on to determine when an entity is capable of thought. You can't ignore this.

the thing is, something that's human is human. it may be developing to it's maturity, but it's still human. once you've started that natural process that generates a human being, i think it's wrong to destroy that "piece of tissue" that could otherwise become the next Einstein, the next Lincoln, the next John Nash...

Thats the only real point we disagree on, I believe. I doubt we will ever agree on this point. But, as I've mentioned in other threads, I'm not sure we have to agree on it to have a productive discussion on the pros and cons of abortion.

Also, I hate that "could have been an Einstien" argument. Its really dumb. The fetus could just as easily have been the next Hitler. Or become the man who kills the scientist about to cure AIDS. Or, if carrying the chlid to birth might kill the mother, the mother could have been the next Einstein. Etc. Etc. Etc.

For every shortsighted hypothetical you come up with, I can counter it with an equally short-sighted hypothetical.

Do you want to trade ridiculous hypotheticals or do want to discuss the meat of the issue: abortions total cost or benifit to society.

Taft

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ok, but then how is it ok to condone sending that "piece of tissue" off to war? I mean, it could turn out to be the next Einstein, Lincoln, or Nash...

And I can't recall your position on capitol punishment? Pro or con? ok, first, let me bring up the issue of responsibility: if you take a life in cold blood (or something along those lines), your life should be called to account for it. this is totally different from abortion, where the fetus is undeniably innocent of crime and wrongs...

as to war, it is a terrible thing. no one has the right to call men to start an offensive war. a war to protect one's own country, however, is justified, and calling the able who enjoy its protection is perfectly moral. a war to liberate the oppressed among the nations is also just, though forcing men to do it is borderline unconscionable (this is an issue i have with iraq, as i believe i have mentioned).

[zimv20]

i used to be fascinated by the apparent contradictions in two types of people:

1. pro-life, pro-death penalty
2. pro-choice, anti-death penalty (me)

but i've figured out the deal. group 1 places morals as the highest authority, group 2 places individual rights above state authority.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by zimv20
i used to be fascinated by the apparent contradictions in two types of people:

1. pro-life, pro-death penalty
2. pro-choice, anti-death penalty (me)

but i've figured out the deal. group 1 places morals as the highest authority, group 2 places individual rights above state authority. i think your last sentence has a severe spin on it. it's not just morals as the highest authority, it's a perspective about A) the nature of human life and B) the price of violating individual rights (think: what is murder but the most blatant intrusion of your rights as an individual?). i see no contradiction in the first view, or the second, really.

again, abortion is not a moral issue. everyone agrees that murder is morally wrong and should be illegalized. but not everyone agrees that abortion is murder. so it's almost a semantic debate.

[rainman::|:|]

you're really changing each others' minds, aren't you? great use of your time and energy, debating this... a little hint to everyone: it only makes the other side dig their heels in further.

i think a lot of pro-lifers would be a lot happier if they just didn't think about this so much. i mean, unless a scientific basis can be developed for the pro-life stance, it's going to remain legal. why get yourselves so upset about it? seriously. anti-abortion opinions are almost always religious based, and for very good reasons the government and law are protected from religion.

and i think a lot of pro-choicers would do well to understand that pro-lifers are really NOT on a secret agenda to diminish womens' rights. No pro life person has ever said "hey, let's go take away a right from women, abortion sounds good". pro-lifers are arguing because they feel that an injustice is occurring. if you're sound in your beliefs, pro-lifers won't hurt anything, as the act of abortion can stand up to scrutiny (again, unless science condemns it). just let the pro-life people have their say, what will it hurt.

i don't think things are going to change on this front any further. i don't think a ban on partial-birth abortions will in any way indanger roe v wade. and i don't think a ban on elective partial-birth abortions will hinder a women's right to choose, as she's already known about the pregnancy for some time (if she's mentally capable, that is). so, everyone relax. jeez.

pnw

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by pdham
it is likely that these procedures were performed to save the mothers life...why not find out if the mother would survive during the pregnancy...

And to answer your last question. I say noone decides the criteria for when a women's life is at risk. There are many more women who risk there lives to deliever a baby because the truely want their child than those that abort it because of health risks.

Dude, you ****ing scare me.

[pdham]

Originally posted by pdham

Also with your logic I will make this arguement. As you said the number of partial birth abortion is .002% of all the women who could bear children. And it is ikely that these procedures were performed to save the mothers life. Well as you have already siad .002% is virtually insignificant, so why not find out if the mother would survive during the pregnancy. Since we have already determined that .002% of babies dying is "low enough", why not .002% of mothers?


Ok first of all, thank you for taking what I said completely out of context. The frist quote you listed (which appears in full above) was a illustration to show that I felt it was insulting to say .002% of babies dying from partial birth abortions was "low enough." That is why I began the quote "using your logic..", which you seemed to have left out. I proposed the above analogy to see if he would still feel that way if those .002% were the Mothers instead. Apparently, since noone else insulted me, you were the only one who didn't seem to grasp my point.

The second part was a poorly worded statement on my part. Taft proposed the question:
"Well what if carrying the baby to birth risks the mothers life? Who decides
those cretieria? A court? A judge?" What i meant to say, and admittedly it was not worded well (I was already late for class) was that I dont feel that is an issue because, I believe, for moral and religious reasons (which I have not tried to push on any of you) that abortion is unacceptable under any terms.

Now, thank you Pseudo for making me be more clear about my arguement, however next time you could do it wihout being offensive. Also, in the future, please include the entire quote. Not a cut up portion of it that illustrates what you think my point was.

Also please, noone bother to try and convince me that my views are incorrect or ill-begotten because they are rooted in a religious doctrine that I wont be convinced otherwise of.
I never came out and tried to convince any of you that you were incorrect, I just found it enjoyable to debate the logstics of what is a "human" as well as the fact that I believe all law and order has a moral or value judgement at its base, and therefore, believe abortion should be no different.

Paul

[pseudobrit]

Okay, here:

Originally posted by pdham
There are many more women who risk there lives to deliever a baby because the truely want their child than those that abort it because of health risks.

You still ****ing scare me.

Do you really think that all women should be forced to carry a child to term knowing it has a high chance of killing them because other women would make such a choice?

That's ************. If I get cancer and my doctor and I agree on a strategy to beat it, who is the government to say I have to do what other people would do?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
If I get cancer and my doctor and I agree on a strategy to beat it, who is the government to say I have to do what other people would do?

so -- suddenly, your body is generating cells that are mutating and carry a different genetic code than the rest of your body has.

who's to say that that mass of cells doesn't eventually become the next einstein?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
and i think a lot of pro-choicers would do well to understand that pro-lifers are really NOT on a secret agenda to diminish womens' rights. No pro life person has ever said "hey, let's go take away a right from women, abortion sounds good". pro-lifers are arguing because they feel that an injustice is occurring. if you're sound in your beliefs, pro-lifers won't hurt anything, as the act of abortion can stand up to scrutiny (again, unless science condemns it). just let the pro-life people have their say, what will it hurt.
pnw

I like your post, but I have to disagree on this point. I think a lot of the ideas of pro-lifers, especially of the right-wing fundamentalist variety, are at least partly generated by the fact abortion takes the decision making out of the hands of men. There are still too many who view women as the "vessel" to carry men's "seed." But then perhaps I'm not placing enough emphasis on your use of the word "secret." Many fundamentalist are pretty upfront about their disdain for women's rights.

[pdham]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Okay, here:



You still ****ing scare me.

Do you really think that all women should be forced to carry a child to term knowing it has a high chance of killing them because other women would make such a choice?

That's ************. If I get cancer and my doctor and I agree on a strategy to beat it, who is the government to say I have to do what other people would do?

This is where we differ. I dont believe that the government or any other human being is the final authority or life. I dont hold my position because I want to strip women of their rights or beleive men should have a say. I hold my position because I beleive humans do not, and should not have the authority over life. I do beleive that doctors should do all they can to save lives because that expertise was given to humans by God to help perserve the gift of life, but the expertise to take a future life away is not the work of God it is the work of man. This is where I stand... please dont let it scare you. I am not out to condem and women to death, but similarily I am not out to condem and unborn child to death. Life deals a hand that was shuffled by God and our authority over what lives and dies stops when the choice ends a life, not saves one.

Paul

[zimv20]

Originally posted by pdham
I dont believe that the government or any other human being is the final authority or life.

it follows then that you're anti-death penalty?

[pdham]

Originally posted by zimv20
it follows then that you're anti-death penalty?

that is correct

[raschild]

Originally posted by Taft
There are a lot of hard choices to be made in this scenario. The last thing a mother in that position needs is some fanatic screaming at her that she's contemplating MURDERING her child.


I would hate to unnecessarily burden a mother with the knowledge that she's ending a life, in many cases, for her own convenience.

I'm against all abortions, period. I believe that life begins at conception, and that the morning after pill and abortion are two forms of murder. Sure, the child doesn't have a body, but it is a person. If all it takes is a body to constitute a life that has value, if I lop off your hand, are you less of a person, or less valuable? NO! There's more to a person than a body. If you end that life before it is born, I sincerely believe you have murdered a human being. As such I support this legislation to end partial birth abortion, and will support any future legislation that bans any other types. We're killing too many people this way. It needs to stop.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by raschild
As such I support this legislation to end partial birth abortion, and will support any future legislation that bans any other types.

You realise the procedure (when it was practiced) is only used to save the mother's life. It is not elective.

Do you still support the legislation?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by pdham
This is where we differ. I dont believe that the government or any other human being is the final authority or life.

Do you oppose modern medicine? Trauma/emergency medicine?

If I'm struck by lightning and my heart stops, should the doctors restart my heart and save me, or is that a sign from God that I should just stay dead?

We're talking about saving the mother's life here, not elective abortion. I can't see a member of modern society defending such an unenlightened position (unless you're Amish).

This sort of stone-age stance belongs in the waste heap along with anti-evolution and flat, centre-of-the-universe Earth ideologies.

[raschild]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
You realise the procedure (when it was practiced) is only used to save the mother's life. It is not elective.

Do you still support the legislation?

You're playing games by differentiating between the life of the mother and the life of the child. They are of equal value. I don't see how guaranteeing the destruction of one to save the other can be condoned. There may be a significant risk to the mother's health, even her very life, but that's not a guarantee that she will die if she carries the baby to term. You are setting up an either/or situation. Bad things happen in this messed up world, but I don't see why we, as a society, need to be the cause of it. I also don't see how we can determine one life inherently has more value than another. Do everything possible to save both!!

BTW, for my own clarification, by saying the procedure is not elective, does that mean that the doctor can do it without consulting the mother, or that she can't merely decide to have it done one day on a whim?

[pdham]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Do you oppose modern medicine? Trauma/emergency medicine?

If I'm struck by lightning and my heart stops, should the doctors restart my heart and save me, or is that a sign from God that I should just stay dead?

We're talking about saving the mother's life here, not elective abortion. I can't see a member of modern society defending such an unenlightened position (unless you're Amish).

This sort of stone-age stance belongs in the waste heap along with anti-evolution and flat, centre-of-the-universe Earth ideologies.


Did you even read my whole post?

to answer your first question I will quote what I said:

I hold my position because I beleive humans do not, and should not have the authority over life. I do beleive that doctors should do all they can to save lives because that expertise was given to humans by God to help perserve the gift of life, but the expertise to take a future life away is not the work of God it is the work of man

maybe you should read it more carefully next time. As for the rest, I am not going to even respond to you insulting me over my religious views. You believe what you would like, I will believe what I would like. I have not once insulted you because of what you believe.

And no I am not amish, in fact I am a published author at the age of 20 for my work in location anyalisis and media ownership.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by raschild
You're playing games by differentiating between the life of the mother and the life of the child. They are of equal value. I don't see how guaranteeing the destruction of one to save the other can be condoned. There may be a significant risk to the mother's health, even her very life, but that's not a guarantee that she will die if she carries the baby to term.

So you can force a living, breathing woman, who was born, grown up, gone to school, fell off her bike and cut her knee, fallen in love, had her heart broken, bought a car, smiled at her prom, made love to a man...

you can force her to die for a fetus?

That's scary, and I think if you were a woman you would feel very differently.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by pdham
Did you even read my whole post?

Yes, and it seemed the reasons you hold for opposing life-saving abortions would also put you at odds with modern trauma medicine.

As for the rest, I am not going to even respond to you insulting me over my religious views. You believe what you would like, I will believe what I would like. I have not once insulted you because of what you believe.

I called your stance unenlightened. This has nothing to do with religion. If you were Amish, I would understand why you hold your views a little better. As it is, for a member of our modern society to place the potential life of an unborn fetus above the very real life of a mother and not allow her to make the conscious decision to save her own life is frightening.

[raschild]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
So you can force a living, breathing woman, who was born, grown up, gone to school, fell off her bike and cut her knee, fallen in love, had her heart broken, bought a car, smiled at her prom, made love to a man...

you can force her to die for a fetus?

That's scary, and I think if you were a woman you would feel very differently.

You're still differentiating between the life of the mother and the child. I see them as having equal value. The fact that the mother has had more experiences doesn't make her worth more than the child, who is being denied the opportunity to have even one of those experiences. The only way the mother could be seen as worth more is in the sense of relationships with others, something that has also been denied to the child who has been aborted. In a perfect world, both would always be able to live normal, healthy lives. Unfortunately, life doesn't always treat us fairly, but I don't see any reason to penalize the unborn or partially born child for that fact.

Also, I disagree with your terminology for the unborn child. As long as you call it a fetus, it's very easy to be unattached to it. It is a person, and I hope that someday all of the laws that protect human life outside of the womb will extend to those still inside. Abortion is murder. I can't see it any other way.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by raschild
You're still differentiating between the life of the mother and the child. I see them as having equal value. The fact that the mother has had more experiences doesn't make her worth more than the child, who is being denied the opportunity to have even one of those experiences. The only way the mother could be seen as worth more is in the sense of relationships with others, something that has also been denied to the child who has been aborted. In a perfect world, both would always be able to live normal, healthy lives. Unfortunately, life doesn't always treat us fairly, but I don't see any reason to penalize the unborn or partially born child for that fact.

Do you also place the existence of an embryo at an equal level of human beings?

Also, I disagree with your terminology for the unborn child. As long as you call it a fetus, it's very easy to be unattached to it.

The medical term for an underdeveloped, unborn human still in the womb is a fetus. You're the one using the wrong terminology if you want it changed. It is a fetus, no matter what you want to call it. This is a medical issue as much as an ethical issue.

It is a person, and I hope that someday all of the laws that protect human life outside of the womb will extend to those still inside. Abortion is murder. I can't see it any other way.

If conjoined twins are born and one is feeding off the other and endangering its life, should the doctors try to save either child or let them both die? What if one child is brain dead?

[raschild]

Yes, I do place an embryo at the same level as "human life." I don't know if I've stated this before or not, but I believe life begins at conception and that from that point on, it should be protected. Thus there is no difference in the value of a 70-year-old grandfather and a 70-day-old child in the womb.

I am aware that the medical term is fetus, but it's too impersonal. The techcical term for you is homo sapien, but most people call you by your name, don't they? Why? Because you're a living person, not an object.

As far as conjoined twins are concerned, life is unfair. In a perfect world, it wouldn't happen but ours is far from perfect. As far as this hypothetical situation is concerned, all I can say is as much as is possible should be done for both children. Beyond that, it's all conjecture. I don't envy anyone in that position, rare though it is.

I just want emphasize my point, life is precious, and every form of human life deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. This absolutely includes unborn babies.

[pdham]

I think it is time we stop beating a dead horse. We all have our opinions on abortion and every other issue that surrounds the contentious topic. Some people choose to develop their opinions and arguments with a religious foundation, others a political, and others a third, fourth or fifth foundation. We can all agree to disagree and we can also agree that debating on the Macforums is not going to change anyone's mind.