Partial-birth abortion ban ready for vote

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Waluigi, Oct 1, 2003.

  1. Waluigi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #1
    Partial-birth abortion ban ready for vote
    You can expect that in the coming weeks and months this already hot issue will become beyond scorching.

    --Waluigi
     
  2. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #2
    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.

    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.
     
  3. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #3
    "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?
     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
    the mother clearly survived the birth.
     
  5. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #5
    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?
     
  6. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #6
    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...
     
  7. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    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.
     
  8. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #8
    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?

    I can tell you the similarity -- each almost never happens.
     
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    I said "slut;" whores get paid.

    Do you oppose abortion in cases of rape and/or incest?
     
  10. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #10
    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.
     
  11. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #11
    whores don't always get paid. it has several meanings. interestingly, a slut can get paid too.

    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.
     
  12. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #12
    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 :)
     
  13. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #13
    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.
     
  14. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #14
    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.
     
  15. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #15
    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.
     
  16. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #16
    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
     
  17. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #17
    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
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
  19. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #19
    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?
    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?
     
  20. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #20
    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.
     
  21. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #21
    stabbing your neighbor involves an act against another's body. a woman having an abortion involves an act w/ her own body.
     
  22. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #22
    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?
     
  23. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #23
    all arguments against it are either ethical or moral

    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?
     
  24. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #24
    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...
     
  25. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #25
    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
     

Share This Page