OT - What's The Truth?

[Riggins44]

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS

Seems to be a lot of controversy over the latest bill signed by the president. A lot of people that support PBA says it doesn't take into account the health of the mother.

Is there an actual medical condition that requires the child to be delivered from the mother and then killed in order to protect the mother from a serious health risk?

[Buccaneer]

I was born at the very start of the third trimester, weighing in at 2 lbs 14 oz. My mother would have sacrificed her life if that improved my chances of survival (which was very slim). Through God's grace, we both are living and reasonably healthy.

[Riggins44]

This is one of those issues that if you know anything about the procedure... you're against it.

I've been looking on all the pro-choice type web sites and can't find any examples of a medical condition that requires this procedure.

Maybe someone will enlighten us.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Riggins44
This is one of those issues that if you know anything about the procedure... you're against it.

That's just a ridiculous statement.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Riggins44
This is one of those issues that if you know anything about the procedure... you're against it.

Shows how little you know. Try searching by the real name...dilation and extraction.

Why Are D&X Procedures Performed?
This is a topic that is rarely discussed during public debates:

1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus.
2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including: She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.
There are mental or physical health problems.
The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

In addition, some physicians violate their state Medical Association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.

There appears to be no reliable data available on how many D&X procedures are performed for each of the above reasons.

The physician is faced with two main alternatives at this late point in pregnancy:

a hysterotomy, which is similar to a Cesarean section, or
a D&X procedure

A midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It "poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies." 2 Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill her.

There is evidence that the procedure is sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that no competent physician with state-of-the-art skill in the management of high-risk pregnancies needs to perform a D&X. Of course, many physicians lack this level of skill, and so need to resort to the D&X procedure. And, even in the United States, not all women have access to good quality pre-natal care. Many pregnant women first seek medical attention when they are about to deliver.

A committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) thoroughly studied D&X procedures in 1996. They reported: "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." They also determined that "an intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision." Their statement was approved by the ACOG executive board on 1997-JAN-12. 3

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Riggins44
...

Is there an actual medical condition that requires the child to be delivered from the mother and then killed in order to protect the mother from a serious health risk?

I am not a doctor, but I think the answer is No. I think that is specifically why the phrase " unless the mothers health or life is in jeopardy" does not appear in the bill. Now the folks filing the lawsuits are, in my opinion, looking at this as a slippery slope issue. In other words they are saying "if they outlaw this one procedure, what is to stop them from incrementally taking away a womans right to choose". I don't think it is conceivable that delivering a baby breach, which is actually more dangerous to the mother than a head-first delivery, and then killing it, could be any less life-threatening to the mother, than letting her simply deliver the child. A lot of doctors that perform abortions, will not perform this procedure. To those people opposing this new law, I would say that the bill had to be written "vaguely", and didn't contain the phrase "partial birth" because doctors would have circumvented the law.

I am a religious person, but you will NEVER see me at an anti-abortion rally. I think it is legally acceptable for a woman to end her pregnancy by abortion. I think it is irresponsible, and in some cases reprehensible, but it is certainly a decision she can make. I am in the middle on this issue, and I wish more folks would find a way to make their way to some middle ground here. I mean it is pretty ridiculous to me, to say that a full term fetus doesn't count as a life. It is also pretty ridiculous to me to say that the few cells gathered on the wall of the uterus deserves the same consideration as a full term fetus. I think abortion ought to be legal for a certain number of days, probably somewhere mid-term. Say 120 to 150 days. Sure a woman six months pregnant would not legally be able to get an abortion, but she would have had 4 months of opportunity to do so. Some would say this is stripping this woman of her rights, I would say it is forcing her to have some personal responsibility.

[wishbone]

Originally posted by John Galt
That's just a ridiculous statement.

Aren't partial birth abortions where they draw the head into the birth canal, deflate it and then pull the body out?

My cousin was 14 when she got pregnant and begged me and everyone else in the family to give her the money to have the above procedure done. When I read the pamphlet she was passing to people to show them how easy it was, I about puked.

[Blackadar]

"The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first. The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb."

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
I am a religious person, but you will NEVER see me at an anti-abortion rally. I think it is legally acceptable for a woman to end her pregnancy by abortion. I think it is irresponsible, and in some cases reprehensible, but it is certainly a decision she can make. I am in the middle on this issue, and I wish more folks would find a way to make their way to some middle ground here. I mean it is pretty ridiculous to me, to say that a full term fetus doesn't count as a life. It is also pretty ridiculous to me to say that the few cells gathered on the wall of the uterus deserves the same consideration as a full term fetus. I think abortion ought to be legal for a certain number of days, probably somewhere mid-term. Say 120 to 150 days. Sure a woman six months pregnant would not legally be able to get an abortion, but she would have had 4 months of opportunity to do so. Some would say this is stripping this woman of her rights, I would say it is forcing her to have some personal responsibility.

I think the problem with this argument is, when do you draw the line? I agree there is a difference between a baby at 9 days and 9 months, but the problem for me is, where do you draw the line and say, this is when life starts? To me, if you don't know for sure, you really can't take the chance, unless there is a medical issue.

[Blackadar]

My biggest problem with this whole thing is that I don't like the Government regulating what medical procedures are acceptable and what isn't. They're not the doctors.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Blackadar
My biggest problem with this whole thing is that I don't like the Government regulating what medical procedures are acceptable and what isn't. They're not the doctors.

Normally I would agree but in this case you are dealing with the lives of mother AND baby, not just mother; the child's right to life should be equal to those of the mother, and in most cases here they are not.

And this is the crux of the argument, the question of whether the fetus is truly a life or not. Though I guess the 'live with the consequences of your actions' argument would apply as well.

Of course, I think when discussing a life-threatening medical condition involved with the mother or fetus, that is a different issue altogether.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by ice4277
I think the problem with this argument is, when do you draw the line? I agree there is a difference between a baby at 9 days and 9 months, but the problem for me is, where do you draw the line and say, this is when life starts? To me, if you don't know for sure, you really can't take the chance, unless there is a medical issue.

Ok, then what's the alternative? And deal with the reality, not the bullshit typical "if she didn't want the baby, she shouldn't have had sex" response, because it's a total cop-out. It takes two parties to get it on and it's going to happen - we're sort of genetically predisposed to want to do the humpy-dumpty.

So, what do we do?

Force women to have the babies? What about the impact of the medical bills? Time off from work? Day care? Physical trauma? Emotional trauma?

Who pays for all of this? The woman herself? What if she can't? The Father? What if he can't/won't/can't be found? Do my tax dollars have to go to this? How much with the State Social Services bills run?

Answer all of the real social and monetary impacts of the abortion issue, then we can discuss the morality side of it.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Riggins44
This is one of those issues that if you know anything about the procedure... you're against it.

Abortion is the left's Gun Rights. The supporters are always against any restriction because they believe the other side is just using it as a step towards total banning of it, and most of the time, they're right.

Personally, I'm against the Government stepping in and telling people what to do on either issue, but I'm not too concerned about this issue because the Supreme Court will most likely strike it down and quite honestly, I am not going to shed any tears over the banning of this particular procedure.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Answer all of the real social and monetary impacts of the abortion issue, then we can discuss the morality side of it.

Well, if the monetary issue is the big thing for you, thats fine, but for me, the morality of it is the big issue. The other concerns take a backseat. Using monetary arguments when talking about ending lives ring hollow to me. Sorry.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by ice4277
I think the problem with this argument is, when do you draw the line? I agree there is a difference between a baby at 9 days and 9 months, but the problem for me is, where do you draw the line and say, this is when life starts? To me, if you don't know for sure, you really can't take the chance, unless there is a medical issue.

I agree with you. I guess I am saying the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I would try to balance a womans right to choose against her baby's life. I dont' think you can be specific, I don't think there is a right answer. I just know the answer doesn't lie at either of the extreme points of view on this issue.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by Blackadar
My biggest problem with this whole thing is that I don't like the Government regulating what medical procedures are acceptable and what isn't. They're not the doctors.

...and they are not a lot of other things either but that never stopped from (over)regulating everything.

[Eaglesfan27]

I'm going to stay clear of the debate regarding this issue. However, I must say in 4 years of medical school, observing a dilation and extraction (I was required to do so) is the only thing that ever made me lose it and vomit. I dissected a cadaver with no problem, saw a half dozen bloody autopsies, assisted in a lot of surgeries, performed some really nasty gyneological exams, but that one "procedure" was the most disturbing thing I ever saw in medical school.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by ice4277
Well, if the monetary issue is the big thing for you, thats fine, but for me, the morality of it is the big issue. The other concerns take a backseat. Using monetary arguments when talking about ending lives ring hollow to me. Sorry.

"It's just wrong" is such a simple view of the world and shows that you've done very little thinking and have adopted someone else's spoon-fed rhetoric. So I'll give you a second chance...

What's the solution, Einstein? And it's not just money, junior.

How are you going to ensure the care of all of these babies? Mothers? Where are the doctors going to come from? The hospitals? Day cares? Nurseries?

How will the laws be written to protect jobs? Careers?

Will there be exceptions written for rape, incest or the health of the Mother? Why or why not?

How would you rewrite adoption laws? Where will all of the experienced social workers come from?

ALL of these MUST be considered before you can begin to outlaw abortions. There are so many ramifications that have to be ironed out before you can do anything it's staggering.

I'd support an outright ban on abortion immediately if I saw a plan that took the reality of the situation and designed a plan that took care of all of the issues raised. But, alas, no such plan exists or it's too costly to implement and would result in more problems than it would fix.

[JonInMiddleGA]

ALL of these MUST be considered before you can begin to outlaw abortions.

Would it just shock the %^$ out of you to discover that we seem to be in total & complete agreement on this subject?

[Jon]

I agree with Blackadder here. In many instances, the same people who want to limit the right of a woman to choose whether to have children are the same who want limited welfare, limited government sponsored medical care, etc. They all go hand in hand. It's pro-choice, not pro-abortion. The right simply doesn't want to provide many viable choices.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Would it just shock the %^$ out of you to discover that we seem to be in total & complete agreement on this subject?

Nope, b/c even though we come from different sides of the political spectrum, we both tend to think out the ramifications of the decisions.

[cody8200]

So a child's life is about finances and lack of child care? Wow...at least you have the balls to say that. Personally I couldnt have that kind of shit on my conscious. That's bullshit. Think about it like this: In most states if a mother is pregnant and wants the baby and someone does something to her (beats her, hurts the baby inside) it is considered feticide. You goto prison. It's like murder. However if the woman doesn't WANT the baby then it's no longer considered murder or feticide...just a choice. Interesting I think...

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by cody8200
So a child's life is about finances and lack of child care? Wow...at least you have the balls to say that. Personally I couldnt have that kind of shit on my conscious. That's bullshit. Think about it like this: In most states if a mother is pregnant and wants the baby and someone does something to her (beats her, hurts the baby inside) it is considered feticide. You goto prison. It's like murder. However if the woman doesn't WANT the baby then it's no longer considered murder or feticide...just a choice. Interesting I think...

Um, no, it's not. Go look at the law again.

The friggin' misconceptions of the misinformed staggers me.

[cody8200]

Then correct me professor

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by cody8200
Then correct me professor

Go...look...at....the....law....again.

Simply put, the law does not afford fetuses the same legal protections as people.

[cody8200]

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/feticide.htm

BTW, Im right...your wrong

"Similarly, California amended it's Penal Law §187 in the wake of the Keeler decision, above. This statue was held by the California Supreme Court (6-1, Mosk dissenting) to apply from seven weeks gestation on in People v. Davis, 872 P.2d 591 (Cal. 1994).

Both these statutes make killing a fetus (or an embryo in the case of §609) murder with life imprisonment as a penalty. Minnesota's statute is perhaps the most remarkable in term's of its comprehensiveness, applying from conception and having gradations for degrees of murder, manslaughter, and assault
"

[JonInMiddleGA]

FWIW, while the law varies from state to state (as even the quoted passages show), I've always thought feticide should cease to exist as a criminal charge.

[cody8200]

JonInMiddleGA, you are absolutely correct. It does vary from state to state but murder charges are a very real possibility was all I was stating.

[Blackadar]

What I was saying is that a fetus does not carry the same legal weight or penalty in most States, so we're making different points. Each one of these laws clearly defines that a fetus does not have the same legal protection as a person. As you can see below, in almost every State, the laws are different for hurting a person versus hurting a fetus. A fetus can't even be assigned a guardian in virtually every state.

Even more telling is how little these statutes get used. I believe it's only 4 or 5 States where these laws have actually been used in case law and stuck.

State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims

National Right to Life Committee
June 23, 2003

Full-Coverage Unborn Victim States (15)
(States With Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Children as Victims Throughout the Period of Pre-natal Development)

Arizona: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is manslaughter. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-1103 (A)(5) (West 1989 & Supp. 1998). Also to be read with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-702(c)(10).

Idaho: Murder is defined as the killing of a "human embryo or fetus" under certain conditions. The law provides that manslaughter includes the unlawful killing of a human embryo or fetus without malice. The law provides that a person commits aggravated battery when, in committing battery upon the person of a pregnant female, that person causes great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement to an embryo or fetus. Idaho Sess. Law Chap. 330 (SB1344)(2002).

Illinois: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is intentional homicide, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide. Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 720, §§5/9-1.2, 5/9-2.1, 5/9-3.2 (1993). Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-3.1. A person commits battery of an unborn child if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means causes bodily harm to an unborn child. Read with Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-4.4.

Louisiana: The killing of an "unborn child" is first degree feticide, second degree feticide, or third degree feticide. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§14:32.5 - 14.32.8, read with §§14:2(1), (7), (11) (West 1997).

Michigan: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter under Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.555. The Supreme Court of Michigan interpreted this statute to apply to only those unborn children who are viable. Larkin v. Cahalan, 208 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. 1973). However, a separate Michigan law, effective Jan. 1, 1999, provides felony penalties for actions that intentionally, or in wanton or willful disregard for consequences, cause a "miscarriage or stillbirth," or cause "aggravated physical injury to an embryo or fetus."(M.C.L. 756.90)

Minnesota: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is murder (first, second, or third degree) or manslaughter, (first or second degree). It is also a felony to cause the death of an "unborn child" during the commission of a felony. Minn. Stat. Ann. §§609.266, 609.2661- 609.2665, 609.268(1) (West 1987). The death of an "unborn child" through operation of a motor vehicle is criminal vehicular operation. Minn. Stat. Ann. §609.21 (West 1999).

Missouri: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is involuntary manslaughter or first degree murder. Mo. Ann. Stat. §§1.205, 565.024, 565.020 (Vernon Supp. 1999), State v. Knapp, 843 S.W.2d 345 (Mo. 1992), State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997).

Nebraska: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is murder in the first degree, second degree, or manslaughter. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-391 to § 28-394. (2002)

North Dakota: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is murder, felony murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. N.D. Cent. Code §§12.1-17.1-01 to 12.1-17.1-04 (1997).

Ohio: At any stage of pre-natal development, if an "unborn member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another" is killed, it is aggravated murder, murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide, and vehicular homicide. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2903.01 to 2903.07, 2903.09 (Anderson 1996 & Supp. 1998).

Pennsylvania: An individual commits criminal homicide in the first, second, or third-degree, or voluntary manslaughter of an "unborn child" if the individual intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of an unborn child. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 2601 to 2609 (1998) "Unborn child" and "fetus." Each term shall mean an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth."

South Dakota: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is fetal homicide, manslaughter, or vehicular homicide. S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §22-16-1, 22-16-1.1, 22-16-15(5), 22-16-20, and 22-16-41, read with §§ 22-1-2(31), 22-1-2(50A) (Supp. 1997).

Texas: Under a law signed June 20, 2003, and effective September 1, 2003, the protections of the entire criminal code extend to "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." The law does not apply to "conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child" or to "a lawful medical procedure performed by a physican or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent." (SB 319, Prenatal Protection Act)

Utah: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is treated as any other homicide. Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-201 et seq. (Supp. 1998)and UT SB 178 (2002).

Wisconsin: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, second-degree intentional homicide, second-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, homicide by intoxicated use of vehicle or firearm, or homicide by negligent operation of vehicle. Wis. Stat. Ann. §§939.75, 939.24, 939.25, 940.01, 940.02, 940.05, 940.06, 940.08, 940.09, 940.10 (West 1998).



Partial-Coverage Unborn Victim States (13)
(States with Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Children as Victims, But only During Part of the Period of Pre-natal Development)

NOTE: These laws are gravely deficient because they do not recognize unborn children as victims during certain periods of their pre-natal development. Nevertheless, they are described here for informational purposes.

Arkansas: The killing of an "unborn child" of twelve weeks or greater gestation is capital murder, murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-102(13)(b)(i)(a), read with Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 5-10-101 to 5-10-105. (A separate Arkansas law makes it a battery to cause injury to a woman during a Class A misdemeanor to cause her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth, or to cause injury under conditions manifesting extreme indifference to human life and that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-13-201 (a)(5)(a)).

California: The killing of an unborn child after the embryonic stage is murder. Cal. Pen. Code § 187(a) (West 1999)

Florida: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 782.09 (West 1999). The killing of an unborn child after viability is vehicular homicide. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 782.071 (West 1999).

Georgia: The killing of an "unborn child" after quickening is feticide, vehicular feticide, or feticide by vessel. Ga. Code Ann. § 16-5-80 (1996); § 40-6-393.1 (1997); and § 52-7-12.3 (1997).

Indiana: The killing of "a fetus that has attained viability" is murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. Indiana Code 35-42-1-1, 35-42-1-3, 35-42-1-4.

Massachusetts: The killing of an unborn child after viability is vehicular homicide. Commonwealth v. Cass, 467 N.E.2d 1324 (Mass. 1984). The killing of an unborn child after viability is involuntary manslaughter. Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 536 N.E.2d 571 (Mass. 1989).

Mississippi: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-37 (1994).

Nevada: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.210 (1997).

Oklahoma: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 713 (West 1983). The killing of an unborn child after viability is homicide. Hughes v. State, 868 P.2d 730 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).

Rhode Island: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. The statute defines "quick child" to mean a viable child. R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-23-5 (1994).

South Carolina: The killing of an unborn child after viability is homicide. State v. Horne, 319 S.E.2d 703 (S.C. 1984); State v. Ard, 505 S.E.2d 328 (S.C. 1998).

Tennessee: The killing of an unborn child after viability is first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and reckless homicide. Tenn. Code Ann. §39-13-201, 39-13-202, 39-13-210, 39-13-211, 39-13-213, 39-13-214, 39-13-215 (1997 & Supp. 1998).

Washington: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.32.060(1)(b) (West Supp. 1999).

Conflicting Statutes

New York: Under New York statutory law, the killing of an "unborn child" after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy is homicide. N.Y. Pen. Law § 125.00 (McKinney 1998). But under a separate statutory provision, a "person" that is the victim of a homicide is statutorily defined as a "human being who has been born and is alive." N.Y. Pen. Law § 125.05 (McKinney 1998). See People v. Joseph, 130 Misc. 2d 377, 496 N.Y.S.2d 328 (County Court 1985); In re Gloria C., 124 Misc.2d 313, 476 N.Y.S.2d 991 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1984); People v. Vercelletto, 514 N.Y.S.2d 177 (Co. Ct. 1987).

[Leonidas]

I am against abortion, but...

As I understand it, this law outlaws abortions after 12 weeks. For my first son we had certain tests done that showed he could have had Downs Syndrome or worse, but we couldn't have a confimration of that until an amnio at 18 weeks. So that means under this law if our son had Downs Syndrome, or something possibly worse, we couldn't even confirm it until after we had the option to do anything about it.

My wife and I talked about this and probably would have had him even if he eventually came up positive for Down's (which thank God he didn't), but it kinda would have been nice at least to have the option.

Then there are people like Barbara Eden of "I Dream of Genie" who found out after 15-20 weeks that their child was dead in the womb. Under this law (and the pre-Roe V Wade law of her time) it would have forced her to carry a dead fetus to term. Seems pretty damn assinine to force a women through several months of that type of ordeal beacause of an inflexible law crafted on certain principles that aren't always applicable in real life.

I agree in principle with the idea of outlawing partial birth abortions, but this particular law is way too inflexible.

[Jon]

Originally posted by cody8200
So a child's life is about finances and lack of child care? Wow...at least you have the balls to say that. Personally I couldnt have that kind of shit on my conscious. That's bullshit. Think about it like this: In most states if a mother is pregnant and wants the baby and someone does something to her (beats her, hurts the baby inside) it is considered feticide. You goto prison. It's like murder. However if the woman doesn't WANT the baby then it's no longer considered murder or feticide...just a choice. Interesting I think...

Choosing to have an abortion is not comitting murder. The law is clear, which is why the Bush administration is trying to change it, a fetus is not a person. Murder is the killing of a person.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by cody8200
So a child's life is about finances and lack of child care? Wow...at least you have the balls to say that. Personally I couldnt have that kind of shit on my conscious. That's bullshit. Think about it like this: In most states if a mother is pregnant and wants the baby and someone does something to her (beats her, hurts the baby inside) it is considered feticide. You goto prison. It's like murder. However if the woman doesn't WANT the baby then it's no longer considered murder or feticide...just a choice. Interesting I think...

And you still haven't offered any plan or suggestions. Want to know the cost of bringing each pregnancy to term?

There's about 1.2 million abortions each year. If even 1/2 of those each year were brought to term...you'd be looking at over $100 billion dollars each year in child support alone after 18 years. Never mind the costs for the deliveries and other expenses.

I'm not arguing the morality of abortion. I'm arguing the reality of it. It's easy to sit on high and preach the morals. It's much harder to get in the trenches and look at the cold reality of a situation.

[Ben E Lou]

To answer the original question.

The truth is that it is murder.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by SkyDog
To answer the original question.

The truth is that it is murder.

Yet another example of an idealist with no plan or suggestions.

Sorry SkyDog, but THAT'S the truth.

[Buccaneer]

While I would make exceptions for dead fetuses and other extreme health risks, I very much take exception to those thinking that what is inside the womb is not an unborn child. How shameful. :(

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
While I would make exceptions for dead fetuses and other extreme health risks, I very much take exception to those thinking that what is inside the womb is not an unborn child. How shameful. :(

Still waiting for a plan...still not ONE attempt forthcoming.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by SkyDog
To answer the original question.

The truth is that it is murder.

your paintbrush seems to be capable of some mighty broad strokes.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Yet another example of an idealist with no plan or suggestions.

Sorry SkyDog, but THAT'S the truth. My wife works in the adoption industry. There are so many loving families waiting on a childout there, and we're murdering them instead. That is the truth.

And I'm sorry. If calling a murder a murder is idealistic, then call me idealistic.

[cuervo72]

Ok....my personal belief is that the manner and timing of how this is done seems pretty barbaric and disturbing, at least to me.

What I don't understand about this issue, and admittedly I haven't fully researched it, is under what circumstances this is usually performed. I see three scenarios:

1) Safety of the mother. I can understand if it is a safety issue for the mother. This implies that the mother wanted and tried to carry the baby to term. If it is that late in the pregnancy, is it possible sometimes to just have an early c-section where the baby will be viable with aid? Like Bucc pointed out, plenty of babies are delivered pre-term and turn out just fine. If this isn't possible however (i.e. no or little possibility of the mother and baby both surviving) and there is a situation where the mother is in danger, I can then see an argument for having the procedure available.

2) Genetic defects/debilitating ailments. This is a little shaky. If there is something where the baby is 100% guaranteed to not survive past say a few months, ok. But what is the cutoff for the severity of the ailment? Possible slippery slope argument.

3) The mother's choice. This is what gets me about groups like the ACLU and NOW that are arguing for this. Ok, it is law that a woman has the choice to have an abortion or not (like it or not, that's what the law is). But....IF YOU DON'T WANT THE BABY OR DON'T THINK YOU CAN "AFFORD" IT, COULDN'T YOU HAVE FIGURED THIS OUT MONTHS AGO? WHAT IN THE BLOODY HELL TOOK YOU SO LONG? I just can't understand this argument. If you're committed to not having the baby, make that choice before the fetus becomes that developed.

[cody8200]

Ok lets take that number...1.2 million. How many of those abortions are for convenience? Ok lets say half. That's 600000 less legal murders a year. Now your going to say that women would have had those abortions legally or not. Maybe true...but since it's not legalized there will probably be many less. Ok so the other 600000 do have a 'legitimate' reason for not having the baby...adoption agencies would love to have those kids. There are plenty of well off impotent families in America and elsewhere. I think they would take care of a good chunk. It's not a plan or anything but they are ideas...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Tell ya what, I'm gonna say my piece, shorter than usual I hope. And then I'm gonna try to avoid this thread like the plague, because I've never seen a discussion of this subject yet do anybody any good.

My staunch, adamant support of the right to a legal abortion comes with a simple caveat: When the foster homes are empty, when the adoption rolls are vacant, and when every child born is properly cared for in a sufficient manner, and most of all, when every baby born is actually treated as though they are wanted ... when all of those things happen, then I'll consider supporting a ban on abortion.

Until then ... I'll do everything possible to prevent another child from suffering because their breeders don't have the wisdom to avoid conception nor the common decency to take proper responsibility.

I'm out.
Jon

[Buccaneer]

Plan? I'm sorry, I didn't see the question. Were you talking about having a plan for those engaging in pre-marital and extra-marital sex or not being conscientious (sp?) of family planning and thus having to deal with the consequences of such actions? Or are you talking about matters of lifestyle choices and inconvenience or matters of life and death?

[Jon]

Originally posted by SkyDog
To answer the original question.

The truth is that it is murder.

Murder is a legal term that requires the killing ofa person. A fetus is not a person. That's why they are not afforded rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, because they are not people. A group of people tried that in South Carolina and weren't successful.
And, what about the interest of the woman? Shouldn't she have a say as to whether or not she wants to have a child rather than us shoving the choice down her throats?
Blackadder's right...what are teh other options?

[cody8200]

Didn't she have her choice already(in most cases)? Or did someone have sex for her?

[Blackadar]

I'm being a bit prickly to prove a point. I'm pretty much done now until someone actually does come up with a viable alternative, because at this point it's just religious dogma and self-serving rhetoric.

It's just to simple to say "it's wrong". I don't think anyone SUPPORTS abortion. And if there were a viable alternative, I bet 95% of us would go for it.

But the right-to-lifers can't come up with one beyond going back to the scarlet letter days. Make the woman suffer. Make her pay. Make her feel ashamed. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

If you can deal with the reality of the situation, then do so. Look at the whole mess and find a way out. If you can't, then you have no other option besides abortion. So Bucc, SkyDog, etc., by just shouting out self-serving slogans and platitudes, you do nothing but reinforce the battle-hardened positions of both sides and reinforce the evil itself. Really, by having no thought or plan, you ENCOURAGE abortions. Congratulations.

Deal with the reality and the world will embrace you. Think, gentlemen, think.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Tell ya what, I'm gonna say my piece, shorter than usual I hope. And then I'm gonna try to avoid this thread like the plague, because I've never seen a discussion of this subject yet do anybody any good.

My staunch, adamant support of the right to a legal abortion comes with a simple caveat: When the foster homes are empty, when the adoption rolls are vacant, and when every child born is properly cared for in a sufficient manner, and most of all, when every baby born is actually treated as though they are wanted ... when all of those things happen, then I'll consider supporting a ban on abortion.

Until then ... I'll do everything possible to prevent another child from suffering because their breeders don't have the wisdom to avoid conception nor the common decency to take proper responsibility.

I'm out.
Jon

Here here! Well said.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by Blackadar
I'm being a bit prickly to prove a point. I'm pretty much done now until someone actually does come up with a viable alternative, because at this point it's just religious dogma and self-serving rhetoric.

It's just to simple to say "it's wrong". I don't think anyone SUPPORTS abortion. And if there were a viable alternative, I bet 95% of us would go for it.

But the right-to-lifers can't come up with one beyond going back to the scarlet letter days. Make the woman suffer. Make her pay. Make her feel ashamed. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

If you can deal with the reality of the situation, then do so. Look at the whole mess and find a way out. If you can't, then you have no other option besides abortion. So Bucc, SkyDog, etc., by just shouting out self-serving slogans and platitudes, you do nothing but reinforce the battle-hardened positions of both sides and reinforce the evil itself. Really, by having no thought or plan, you ENCOURAGE abortions. Congratulations.

Deal with the reality and the world will embrace you. Think, gentlemen, think.

excellent, excellent post.

[cody8200]

Blackader:"Deal with the reality and the world will embrace you. Think, gentlemen, think."

Sometimes when I hear things like this I just want to get as far away from the worlds embrace as possible.

[Buccaneer]

But you didn't listen, Blackie. SkyDog offered a real viable alternative. My alternatives involve thinking up front and as far as the consequences, I would add that being parent of a child has its rewards, no matter how difficult it can be - economically, socially, culturally, etc. It takes personal courage and personal responsibilities and bringing an unborn child into the world (instead of dumping it in a trash can) should be something to celebrate. One does not have to bear the burden alone but forsaking the life of a child (it is a real person, it is not "nothing" until it is born) can not be the answer.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Deal with the reality and the world will embrace you.As a general principle. I'm a lot more concerned with doing what is right than with earning the world's embrace. Sorry.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Blackadar

It's just to simple to say "it's wrong". I don't think anyone SUPPORTS abortion. And if there were a viable alternative, I bet 95% of us would go for it.

I don't think this is true, I'd say plenty of people support abortion because they see it as a woman's prerogative and as a convenient way to correct an unwanted pregnancy. If they truly don't regard a fetus as a human being and have no moral objection or guilt to terminating a pregnancy, they they support it. Nothing more than removing an unwanted wart or having some cosmetic surgery. Something that improves the quality of life of a woman.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by SkyDog
As a general principle. I'm a lot more concerned with doing what is right than with earning the world's embrace. Sorry.

I think he was talking about embracing real alternate solutions to this hard issue. Thing is, there is and always have been such solutions, but they are not easy ones. The world seems to want easy solutions to problems and aborting the life of an unborn child is a perceived easy way out because the alternative is too hard (carrying full term, delivery, caring for an infant, raising a child, etc.). Some say that those born to crack mothers or raised in extreme poverty shouldn't have been born in the first place. But I think a child would always choose to have a fighting chance for survival than having that life taken away.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
But you didn't listen, Blackie. SkyDog offered a real viable alternative. My alternatives involve thinking up front and as far as the consequences, I would add that being parent of a child has its rewards, no matter how difficult it can be - economically, socially, culturally, etc. It takes personal courage and personal responsibilities and bringing an unborn child into the world (instead of dumping it in a trash can) should be something to celebrate. One does not have to bear the burden alone but forsaking the life of a child (it is a real person, it is not "nothing" until it is born) can not be the answer.

Bucc, you can't be that naive.

1. I am a parent. Don't talk to me about how rewarding it is. It's my favorite thing to do.

However, SkyDog's alternative isn't an alternative. Adoption is only a small part of it. Let's look at the numbers. 1.2 million abortions a year. Outlaw them all, as many are suggesting and you have a lot of new babies. Let's just take 1/2 that number - 600,000. That's per year. Considering one is considered a child until 18 and you're looking at 10,000,000 children over 18 years.

Do you realize that there's only 542,000 kids in foster care today in the USA? You're looking at a 20-fold increase!!! In a given year, 120,000 adoptions are done in the USA. Again, you're looking at a huge increase per year. Less than 1/2 are to a non-family member - 55,000 or so. You want to increase that 10-fold? How?

Where do we get the space? Money? Food? Social service workers? Doctors? Hospitals? What about the social costs? Missed work? Health care? Mental trauma? Psychologists?

SkyDog doesn't have a plan. He has a pipe dream.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by cuervo72
I don't think this is true, I'd say plenty of people support abortion because they see it as a woman's prerogative and as a convenient way to correct an unwanted pregnancy. If they truly don't regard a fetus as a human being and have no moral objection or guilt to terminating a pregnancy, they they support it. Nothing more than removing an unwanted wart or having some cosmetic surgery. Something that improves the quality of life of a woman.

there are a great deal of people who are Pro Choice, but not Pro Abortion. Pro Choice advocates want abortion as an option for pregnant women, not, as you seem to characterize it, as simply another form of birth control. I can't recall a single person I've known to be Pro Choice who would have taken an abortion as lightly or as callously as you suggest.

I know I don't.

[sabotai]

In case anyone was wondering...I deleted a few posts of mine because I just don't want to get into this kind of debate again...I've seen this episode, I know how it ends.

I try to stay out of these threads... :)

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by SkyDog
As a general principle. I'm a lot more concerned with doing what is right than with earning the world's embrace. Sorry.

Yea, well, new babies can't eat morals. They require similac and someone to feed it to them.

[cody8200]

Sabotai..you tell everyone to get over murder and then say that Christians are the ones telling everyone what is right and wrong. Well maybe we are...I think somebody needs to do it. Call it what you will...a fetus, a child, choice, convenience, a money issue...it's still something that has a very good percentage of life...(over 90 percent in America) that is being murdered. So what is wrong with the claim that "if they didnt have sex before then they wouldnt have this problem." Isn't this true? Why do you think this is a cop out? Please explain.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Gentlemen I have been enjoying reading your discussion. I think it is very interesting to read opinions from men on an issue that many label a "woman's issue" simply because the woman is the one to give birth.

I wanted to interupt my lurking to give another point of view, one that I don't think has been offered yet. I call it "Pro-Choice but Anti-Abortion". That is what I classify myself as. I don't think any government should be able to tell me what I can and cannot do with my ovaries. However, I believe that life begins at conception (and with the advancement in technology, science is proving that ie GE's new 4D ultrasound). I don't want abortion banned, because I know there will be instances where they will be necessary, either medically or instances of rape or incest.

That said, I would like to see a reduction in the rate of abortions in this country. Encouraging adoption is a great way, but I have another suggestion. Why don't we stop teaching our daughters that sex = love.

When I was little, my parents always told me that you only have sex with someone you love very much. Which is innocent enough, until you're a teenager in love. And when you are taught time and time again that sex = love, you have sex with your boyfriend because you love him. No I know that sounds like "If I have sex with him he'll love me". But it's not. It's more of a wow, "I love him so much, I will show him. And since he's having sex with me, he must love me too." Which, as y'all know as men, that's not always the case.

Never in my teenage years did my parents tell me that guys don't always have love in mind when they put the moves on you in high school. I'm sure in the back of my mind I knew, but I never had anyone to put the pieces together for me.

I think as parents (well not me, but maybe one day, unless dogs count :P ) we need to do a better job of teaching our daughters that guys can show you they love you in ways other than sex, more important ways. Maybe that will cause girls to think twice before they have sex.

Just my $.02. Thanks for letting me interrupt my lurking to join your discussion.

[cody8200]

I won't say I'm pro choice, anti abortion because of the connatation that 'pro choice' brings. People will read the first part and not the rest. Choice has become synanomous with murder of babies...until that is changed I can't say I'm pro choice.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by cody8200
So what is wrong with the claim that "if they didnt have sex before then they wouldnt have this problem." Isn't this true? Why do you think this is a cop out? Please explain.

It is a cop-out because all it does is assign blame, but does nothing to address the reality of the situation. In addition, it puts the burden squarely on the woman. According to your own posts, it must be her fault (and I quote): "Didn't she have her choice already(in most cases)? Or did someone have sex for her?"

Her...her.. No "him" in there at all. Guess it was an immaculate conception again. <shakes head>

You'd rather assign blame than fix the situation. In addition, not everyone believes that the fetus is a "person". How did you come to this opinion?

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn
I think as parents (well not me, but maybe one day, unless dogs count :P ) we need to do a better job of teaching our daughters that guys can show you they love you in ways other than sex, more important ways. Maybe that will cause girls to think twice before they have sex.


Worst.
Idea.
Ever.

:D

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn
Gentlemen I have been enjoying reading your discussion. I think it is very interesting to read opinions from men on an issue that many label a "woman's issue" simply because the woman is the one to give birth.

I wanted to interupt my lurking to give another point of view, one that I don't think has been offered yet. I call it "Pro-Choice but Anti-Abortion". That is what I classify myself as. I don't think any government should be able to tell me what I can and cannot do with my ovaries. However, I believe that life begins at conception (and with the advancement in technology, science is proving that ie GE's new 4D ultrasound). I don't want abortion banned, because I know there will be instances where they will be necessary, either medically or instances of rape or incest.

That said, I would like to see a reduction in the rate of abortions in this country. Encouraging adoption is a great way, but I have another suggestion. Why don't we stop teaching our daughters that sex = love.

When I was little, my parents always told me that you only have sex with someone you love very much. Which is innocent enough, until you're a teenager in love. And when you are taught time and time again that sex = love, you have sex with your boyfriend because you love him. No I know that sounds like "If I have sex with him he'll love me". But it's not. It's more of a wow, "I love him so much, I will show him. And since he's having sex with me, he must love me too." Which, as y'all know as men, that's not always the case.

Never in my teenage years did my parents tell me that guys don't always have love in mind when they put the moves on you in high school. I'm sure in the back of my mind I knew, but I never had anyone to put the pieces together for me.

I think as parents (well not me, but maybe one day, unless dogs count :P ) we need to do a better job of teaching our daughters that guys can show you they love you in ways other than sex, more important ways. Maybe that will cause girls to think twice before they have sex.

Just my $.02. Thanks for letting me interrupt my lurking to join your discussion.

Wonderful post. My sentiments exactly.

[Buccaneer]

Blackie, how was it all done when family sizes were much bigger than it is now, birth rates were higher and abortion was not a real alternative? Do not underestimate the behavior change that would come from realizing the problems and finding solutions, even dramatic liefstyle changes and choices. We humans have adapted well throughout history and will continue to do so. It is speaking in generalities but there is a fundamental difference in where we are coming from that goes beyond govt services, adopting agencies and economics.

[sabotai]

"I love him so much, I will show him. And since he's having sex with me, he must love me too."

Ha! Now that's funny. :)

I think as parents (well not me, but maybe one day,

Arlie, I think she's trying to inform you of something. *cue pr0n music*

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
Worst.
Idea.
Ever.

:D


You're just upset 'cause then you wouldn't get any :p

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
Blackie, how was it all done when family sizes were much bigger than it is now, birth rates were higher and abortion was not a real alternative? Do not underestimate the behavior change that would come from realizing the problems and finding solutions, even dramatic liefstyle changes and choices. We humans have adapted well throughout history and will continue to do so. It is speaking in generalities but there is a fundamental difference in where we are coming from that goes beyond govt services, adopting agencies and economics.

Bucc, do you think that there were no abortions prior to Roe v. Wade?

LMAO!

[cody8200]

Blackader. Ok first part:
Of course 'he' is involved but as it is can't the woman decide whether he wants her to keep 'his' child or not? That is entirely a different issue. The male who makes up 50 percent of the child has no choice. If she gets choice then he should I guess but since that is not possible I do not bring up that issue.

Part 2:
A fetus becomes a baby. It's inevitable if the fetus is healthy. Like I said before the amount of live births in America is somewhere over 90-95 percent. That says to me that a fetus will become a baby and live 90-95 percent of the time if nothing happens or it is aborted.

[cody8200]

Black I don't think that was Bucs point. Of course there were 'some' abortions but they were not near as accesible or easy to have. I think it really cuts down on the amount of convenience abortions.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn
You're just upset 'cause then you wouldn't get any :p

EXACTLY.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by cody8200
Blackader. Ok first part:
Of course 'he' is involved but as it is can't the woman decide whether he wants her to keep 'his' child or not? That is entirely a different issue. The male who makes up 50 percent of the child has no choice. If she gets choice then he should I guess but since that is not possible I do not bring up that issue.

Part 2:
A fetus becomes a baby. It's inevitable if the fetus is healthy. Like I said before the amount of live births in America is somewhere over 90-95 percent. That says to me that a fetus will become a baby and live 90-95 percent of the time if nothing happens or it is aborted.

The first paragraph seems to really have no point, so I won't address it.

The second is a logical fallacy. Just because a fetus will become a baby doesn't mean a fetus IS a baby. A caterpiller becomes a butterfly, but a caterpiller is NOT a butterfly. There's a major difference between the two. So now we have to get into defining "life" and what is a "baby" and "viability". This is where abortion breaks down into legal versus moral terms where no two people will agree.

[Blackadar]

Again, go back to Jon's post. All we're asking is for the pro-lifers to embrace reality (sex WILL happen, it's not a bad thing, don't always blame the woman, etc.) and find a way to take care of the children AND the mother. Do both and then I have no problem outlawing abortions.

[cody8200]

If a woman who is trying gets pregnant everyone is excited about what? The baby. They already consider it to be a done deal. That's because people realize that the zygote, then fetus, will eventually become a baby. It's common sense.

[cody8200]

You say that there is no plan for too many children...is the best plan you pro choicers can come up with is extermination? That's the best you've thought of? I'd much rather be a idealist.

[VPI97]

Originally posted by cody8200
If a woman who is trying gets pregnant everyone is excited about what? The baby. They already consider it to be a done deal. That's because people realize that the zygote, then fetus, will eventually become a baby. It's common sense. The four miscarriages that my wife and I have experienced leads me to believe that it's far from a done deal.

[JPhillips]

Let me throw out another reason why this is bad law. From what I've read this ban only applies to vaginal abortions. That means doctors can do the same thing if they do it through c-section. That costs more and increases the risk to the mother. Wonderful.

One of my biggest arguments against many laws is that they in effect do more harm than good. Here's a great example.

[cody8200]

VP197, im very sorry to hear about that. It's an difficult thing to go through.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by cody8200
Black I don't think that was Bucs point. Of course there were 'some' abortions but they were not near as accesible or easy to have. I think it really cuts down on the amount of convenience abortions.

Exactly, that was why I phrased it "not a real alternative" as oppose to "not something that happened".

But I do see Blackie finally getting the point...


find a way to take care of the children AND the mother. Do both and then I have no problem outlawing abortions.

However, the answer cannot rely solely on govt services, which can only be ineffecient. Also it cannot involve the courts and the legal system for bringing life into the world (and taking it out) becomes a moral issue. Our society has become very lazy in caring for others, whether it be the elderly, infirmed, abandoned infants, unwanted newborns, mental ills, etc. We have grown to expect the govt to take care of these needs while we play with our toys and our selfish desires (me included). If we devote our spare time to more caring for others, like a neighbor who is struggling to raise three kids or those walking into a soup kitchen with two small kids in tow, then there would be far less reliance on inefficient govt services and more people that would be raised healthier with a better chance of being somebody. All you have to do is take a look at those that are doing this work (like many churches and ecumenical and outreach ministries) and support them or even to volunteer. You call for caring for the mother and child, it starts with each one of us. That is the plan.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by Blackadar
All we're asking is for the pro-lifers to embrace reality (sex WILL happen, it's not a bad thing, don't always blame the woman, etc.) and find a way to take care of the children AND the mother. Do both and then I have no problem outlawing abortions.
What is always perplexing to me in arguments such as this one is the fall-back position that it's the perogative of "pro-lifers" to find some logical solution to the "problem" of unwanted children, and that the default answer should be that abortions are a viable and necessary evil. Why do you sell your souls so cheaply? And before you start your name-calling and labeling, I am no right-wing fanatic...if anything I am an issue-driven moderate.

The facts are pretty clear - (1) we are sexual creatures, (2) there are a huge number of pregnancies that for whatever reason are deemed "unwanted," (3) raising children under these circumstances is very difficult to both mother, father (if around), and society, and (4) abortion kills a living fetus. Do any of you who favor "choice" or abortion in general dispute #4? It kills a living fetus. All else aside, whatever your arguments, you are buying your point(s) by killing a fetus. Don't feed me the line that a fetus isn't a baby, particularly if you're a parent! Jesus, don't you remember the joy of hearing the heart beat? Of knowing the existence of that new little life in your wife's body? And you'd have them killed because of XYZ hardships in raising them as a society?!?

Bottom line for me is this: argue with the same urgency about fixing a social structure that accepts unwanted pregnancy. Don't sell the lives of fetuses because it's too awkward if their born.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Blackadar
sex WILL happen

I think there are plenty of instances of individuals avoiding sex or having sex avoid them however. It is possible :)

[sabotai]

I had sex avoid me for a good long time...but when it finally came around...so did I. Many times. :D

[cuervo72]

I'm married with small children...so sex still avoids me ;)

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

I'm married with no children and sex avoids me. That darn football game....

Kidding!


Actually, we have had two pregnancy scares too many, so we're as protected as Ft. Knox. ;) We think we should be responsible about children. I wasn't allowed to have doggies until I was ready, why should we have babies before we're ready?

[HornedFrog Purple]

It is hard to tell what the difference is these days. We as a society throw away the elderly, we have thrown away the mentally handicapped, we have thrown away the adopted, we have thrown away the inner city, we have thrown away the Native American...

Yet as a hypothetical example when there are twins joined at the head from a woman on welfare and dcctors save them nobody complains about how much it cost. Everybody just feels good about it.

The government can't force anyone to care about their common man/woman. It is much easier to kill then to care.

No, I don't have a practical solution to this, but neither should the government.

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Again, go back to Jon's post. All we're asking is for the pro-lifers to embrace reality (sex WILL happen, it's not a bad thing, don't always blame the woman, etc.) and find a way to take care of the children AND the mother. Do both and then I have no problem outlawing abortions.

I wasn't going to get into this, but okay...

...all we're asking is for pro-choicers to exercise a little personal responsibility and regard sex is more than some gratuitous in the moment thing (and, hey, we can just get rid of that little "problem" later).

You ask for a plan for dealing with the financial and social ramifications of banning abortion. Fine, yes, that is very necessary before we consider that step. But isn't it about time we started working it from the other end, too? Shouldn't we be taking steps to try and lower the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place?

You say you agree 100% with Farrah Rahn's post (which I also agree with), but you don't even acknowledge that people not willing to accept personal responsibility for their actions is a problem that can also be focused on to limit the problems with abortion. You say "sex will happen, la-ti-da", and don't attach any responsibility to the parents whatsoever. It has to be society's problem, because the parents can't exercise any control.

Well, I got an idea. How about we start making the parents (both of them) at least partly responsible here? Because right now, while I doubt few people consider an abortion lightly, it is the easy way out and is obviously taken quite often, so it can't be as heavy a decision as one might think.

CR

[Fonzie]

Originally posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn
I think as parents (well not me, but maybe one day, unless dogs count :P ) we need to do a better job of teaching our daughters that guys can show you they love you in ways other than sex, more important ways. Maybe that will cause girls to think twice before they have sex.

Great post. I wanted to add one thing, however: perhaps it would be a good idea to instruct boys to think twice before having sex as well. Things have changed a bit over the years, but boys are still given much more discretion, indeed even encouragement, to have sex. If we work on both genders then perhaps we'll get somewhere.

As a slight aside: at the very least our society could work to eliminate the stigma around masturbation for both genders, providing an approved, safe avenue for the (partial) satisfaction of sexual urges.

[Lucky Jim]

Great discussion. A lot of issues at stake here, and a lot of things I think any person is going to feel very strongly about. One of the things that seems to be being missed here is how utterly inadequately this bill addresses the real issues people care about when it comes to abortion though. I don't see the bill as anything more than the administration trying to ban something with the word 'abortion' in it. I'll concede to some of the reduced numbers arguments, but I don't think the statistics really fall out that way. The procedure is not pretty, no question. But this bill is unfortunately just political maneuvering in my opinion, and in a lot of ways is simply inflaming the issue and pushing each side further apart as they harden their arguments. The fervor of this discussion should be directed at the (almost) uselessness of the bill, instead of lines being drawn on the issue as a whole.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Great discussion? Another one of these things that goes nowhere?

Welcome to the board anyway, Lucky Jim. :)

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by Lucky Jim
The fervor of this discussion should be directed at the (almost) uselessness of the bill, instead of lines being drawn on the issue as a whole.

nah. we aren't interested in politics. we just like to argue.

[Lucky Jim]

Haha, nice.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by VPI97
The four miscarriages that my wife and I have experienced leads me to believe that it's far from a done deal.

My wife and I have been down that road too. Ours happened early on. We discovered we didn't have a viable fetus during the ultra sound at 12 weeks. When I refered to a clump of cells, that is as far as that one got. This time around I have seen the ultra sound, seen the face, seen and heard the heartbeat. He/She is only three months along, but it is a baby, and he or she is alive.


I typed that and then went back to re-read what I had quoted, and realized that your post prompted me to reply, but I was really replying to someone who said that a fetus is not equal to a human being. I think that formula only applies in a very pragmatic and selfish world.

VIP,
I wish you and your wife luck, that is if you haven't already been so blessed since the miscarriages.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
I wasn't going to get into this, but okay...

...all we're asking is for pro-choicers to exercise a little personal responsibility and regard sex is more than some gratuitous in the moment thing (and, hey, we can just get rid of that little "problem" later).
...

You say you agree 100% with Farrah Rahn's post (which I also agree with), but you don't even acknowledge that people not willing to accept personal responsibility for their actions is a problem that can also be focused on to limit the problems with abortion. You say "sex will happen, la-ti-da", and don't attach any responsibility to the parents whatsoever. It has to be society's problem, because the parents can't exercise any control.

Well, I got an idea. How about we start making the parents (both of them) at least partly responsible here? Because right now, while I doubt few people consider an abortion lightly, it is the easy way out and is obviously taken quite often, so it can't be as heavy a decision as one might think.

CR

Excellent post, however I don't see this happening for quite a while. Not in today's society anyways.

[Schmidty]

I haven't read this thread and I'm not going to, but I need to get some things off my chest.

This world is so sad, it makes me cry sometimes. Life is life, whether is it's an animal, a baby, an adult, or a "fetus". It's really quite simple. It's sad that politics take precedence over kindness.

I know all of the "conundrums" about the mother's rights, especially when it comes to rape and such, but what about the baby's rights? Logic is nice, but mercy and love is so much nicer.

I guess this issue makes me more sad and disappointed in humanity than other pro-lifers because I am the product of rape myself. I'm not ashamed to admit that now, but I won't go into the ugly details (unless someone wants me to). My mother was encouraged to abort me by just about everyone, but she didn't because she knew (or was convicted by God) that I had a right to live regardless of horrible the circumstances of my conception were. She could have been selfish, but instead she was selfless. Selflessness isn't something very many people have during the current times, and that's where a lot of our problems come from in my opinion.

I'm just going to stop now because I don't think this will change anyone's opinions or heart. I suppose that's up to God to do.

[Blackadar]

Probably our greatest hope for resolving the abortion issue is with medical science. The kind of "social activism" that many of the pro-lifers espouse has wonderful intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I can't see our entire society changing in regards to this issue - we'd have to change our general attitudes towards mass media, music, etc. as well. You're also dealing with different cultures, social norms, rich and the poor, etc. That's a damn tough change and it would probably degrade into a religious thing, which the abortion issue itself has often done.

But once it's possible to remove the fetus, no matter how young, with minimal damage to the mother (we can't be talking major surgery here) and incubate it on its own, then I don't see a need for most abortions. Far fetched? Yup. Possible? With the advances in medical technology, it may not be too far off. At that point then hopefully the social structure will kick in and adoptions will greatly rise to adopt these kids. The second part may be tougher than the first. But that's my great hope, at least.

Until that time, I don't see any other alternative.

[WussGawd]

I believe that the government has no right to tell a woman what she can or can't do to her own body.

I believe that certain members (certainly not all) of the anti-abortion crowd use the issue not so much as to protect unborn children as to punish women.

I believe that abortion is a remedy of last resort to pregnancy. But considering we have an administration that is espousing an emphasis on the farce that is "abstinence" in sex education in public schools (if any sex education is taught at all), as if all teenagers/young adults are going to be able to resist the pull of raging hormones, unwanted pregnancy is going to be a fact of life.

I believe that there are enough unwanted babies born into homes that subsequently abuse or neglect said children to believe that a moral case can be made for abortion, in some instances.

I believe that no matter what legislation the government, at the behest of the Christian Coalition and others of that ilk, may pass, abortions, including "partial birth" abortions, will continue to go on. They were, after all, going on illegally for a long, long time before Roe vs. Wade.

The real question here is, do you want them to go on with a fully qualified physician, in safe conditions, with modern techniques, or would you prefer that they go on in a dingy, half-lit room, with an overpaid, unqualified quack extorting a ton of money for the woman, and risking her life.

So, the real question then, is not whether or not abortion is wrong (there are some circumstances, in my mind, where it may be, but that's a moral, not legal question), but do you want it safe and legal, or dangerous and illegal.

I believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and performed as little as possible, by better educating young folks about safe sex and birth control (and abstinence, which I believe is a noble effort, but a dismal failure as the only way of fighting the problem), and by better educating the same people about alternatives to abortion (such as adoption).

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by Fonzie
Great post. I wanted to add one thing, however: perhaps it would be a good idea to instruct boys to think twice before having sex as well. Things have changed a bit over the years, but boys are still given much more discretion, indeed even encouragement, to have sex. If we work on both genders then perhaps we'll get somewhere.

As a slight aside: at the very least our society could work to eliminate the stigma around masturbation for both genders, providing an approved, safe avenue for the (partial) satisfaction of sexual urges.

Good point this. Most girls are cautioned from menstruation in the first place about the dangers of sex (pregnancy), but I have known of many (too many) instances where boys openly boast about sexual conquests.

As long as this double standard exists, abstinence is foreordained to fail, IMO.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by Lucky Jim
Great discussion. A lot of issues at stake here, and a lot of things I think any person is going to feel very strongly about. One of the things that seems to be being missed here is how utterly inadequately this bill addresses the real issues people care about when it comes to abortion though. I don't see the bill as anything more than the administration trying to ban something with the word 'abortion' in it. I'll concede to some of the reduced numbers arguments, but I don't think the statistics really fall out that way. The procedure is not pretty, no question. But this bill is unfortunately just political maneuvering in my opinion, and in a lot of ways is simply inflaming the issue and pushing each side further apart as they harden their arguments. The fervor of this discussion should be directed at the (almost) uselessness of the bill, instead of lines being drawn on the issue as a whole.

A very good point this. Truth is, I think the bill is nothing more than a cynical attempt by the Republicans to solidify their hardcore supporters for an election year. Because there is no provision for the safety of women, this one WILL get struck down in the courts, and then the Republicans will get to rail about the Supreme Court (a favorite target during an election year for them at all times, it seems, along with that other vague bogeyman, the media).

[QuikSand]

WussGawd, your 8:42 post is probably the clearest articulation of the sensible pro-choice position that I have ever read.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by QuikSand
WussGawd, your 8:42 post is probably the clearest articulation of the sensible pro-choice position that I have ever read.

Thank you.

I wish I could claim they were entirely mine, but they aren't. I might point out that these beliefs were pretty much first articulated by another "born-again" President (the first), James Earl Carter, in terms of his own effort to reconcile abortion with his own devout Christian beliefs.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by WussGawd
I believe that the government has no right to tell a woman what she can or can't do to her own body.

So then.....assisted suicide should be legal ;)

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Blackadar
My biggest problem with this whole thing is that I don't like the Government regulating what medical procedures are acceptable and what isn't. They're not the doctors.

So, anything regarding medical practice should be decided upon by doctors and not laws? Too bad Josef Mengele is either dead or in Brazil, I'm sure he would love to hear that.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by WussGawd
I believe that the government has no right to tell a woman what she can or can't do to her own body.

so, why are there anti-prostitution laws? Shouldn't Roe v Wade have struck down every law regarding whoreship?

[wbonnell]

It seems to me that we can approach all moral problems similarly. This is because only the most nihilistic among us would deny the prescence of compelling moral laws that transcend our legal and political institutions. Where we might differ, however, is in the origination of these laws (are they imposed by a universal lawgiver or simply a necessary foundation of society?). For now, I will ignore that issue. I'm not suggesting that this isn't an interesting problem nor do I wish to imply that all problems are equally tractable or even ethically equal. But if there is some absolute moral Truth (be it universal or societal), it must apply to all our actions.

First, let's consider theft. Who among us condones it? I suspect few if any of us would enjoy having our house burglarized or our wallet taken? Why? Well, for one, we are jealous of our possessions. Perhaps more importantly, our ordered society could not exist as it does today without controlling it (alternatively, you might believe that a universal lawgiver condemns it, but either way, its effect on society is clear).

If you agree that theft is inherently wrong because of its negative impact on society, you must then agree that all theft is wrong. But wait a minute you say: "What about the poor and famished with no means for acquiring food? Without food they will die. Surely they are justified in stealing to survive." What if this one act of stealing leads to a slow detioration of motivation such that even though they don't need to steal, they do so because it's easier? More compellingly, <b>what if in stealing food, they unknowingly steal another's last meal?</b>

Therefore, I contend that it is wrong always and everywhere to steal. If a man starves because of lack of food even when abundant food is available, society has failed him; indeed, society has stolen from him. He may still steal- and I wouldn't blame him for doing so- but his act is still wrong.

The problem of abortion can be similarly addressed. If a fetus is capable of living outside of a mother's womb, then the termination of its life is murder, plain and simple. The fact that the mother or society at large is unwilling or unable to properly care for the child is irrelevant. The mother, in terminating the child, has stolen the child's right to live.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
So, anything regarding medical practice should be decided upon by doctors and not laws? Too bad Josef Mengele is either dead or in Brazil, I'm sure he would love to hear that.

As someone who lost most of his family due to Nazis in WWII, this is about as offensive as it gets. To equate abortion with the systematic destruction of an entire race is beyond the boundaries of decency. May God have pity on you.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Blackadar
As someone who lost most of his family due to Nazis in WWII, this is about as offensive as it gets. To equate abortion with the systematic destruction of an entire race is beyond the boundaries of decency. May God have pity on you.

Is it? Is not all termination of human life equivalent? Not according to the Nazis. For them, society would be better off without Jews. Is that truly any different than saying society would be better off with unwanted babies?

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Is it? Is not all termination of human life equivalent?

No, it's not. There's a HUGE disparity between aborting a fetus that's not yet viable and the systematic murder of millions of adults. Even suggesting it is incredibly offensive and that's the reason why the Christian Right-Wing scares the shit out of people. There's no common sense at all.

[Blackadar]

And at that, I'm out of this discussion. Otherwise, I'll end up typing things that will force SkyDog to either ban me or others.

God have mercy on your souls, because you obviously have none.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Blackadar
No, it's not. There's a HUGE disparity between aborting a fetus that's not yet viable and the systematic murder of millions of adults. Even suggesting it is incredibly offensive and that's the reason why the Christian Right-Wing scares the shit out of people. There's no common sense at all.

Wait a minute. This discussion is about the "partial birth" abortion of viable fetuses...

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Blackadar
As someone who lost most of his family due to Nazis in WWII, this is about as offensive as it gets. To equate abortion with the systematic destruction of an entire race is beyond the boundaries of decency. May God have pity on you.

Did you just play the Nazi card. WTF?!? He didn't say the doctors were nazis, that is a ludicrous notion. You have made sense in this thread, but throwing down this nazi bullshit like that to counter a point you apparently otherwise couldn't is bushleague.

[Butter]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Is it? Is not all termination of human life equivalent?

How about the killing of a person by murder and the killing of the murderer by the death penalty? Not equivalent.

It's amusing that people still try to have logical discussions with people whose basis for reasoning is that which transcends the boundaries of logic. It just ain't gonna happen.

That said, your theft analogy was quite amusing, sadly extremely flawed. In many ways. Attempting to approach these moralistic ideals using a standard set of logic will not work. Morals and logic are like Mother Teresa and Harry Caray. They just don't mix.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
How about the killing of a person by murder and the killing of the murderer by the death penalty? Not equivalent.


By my definition, it's wrong. Hmmm. I'll have to think about that one...

It's amusing that people still try to have logical discussions with people whose basis for reasoning is that which transcends the boundaries of logic. It just ain't gonna happen.


My reasons don't necessarily transcend logic. There could be a universal lawgiver, but I don't know one way or another.


That said, your theft analogy was quite amusing, sadly extremely flawed. In many ways. Attempting to approach these moralistic ideals using a standard set of logic will not work. Morals and logic are like Mother Teresa and Harry Caray. They just don't mix.

My argument may very well be flawed; I'm not claiming to be the ultimate authority. That said, you need to be more constructive than offer a better response than "...was quite amusing, sadly extremly flawed". Why?

[Butter]

Originally posted by wbonnell
That said, you need to be more constructive than offer a better response than "...was quite amusing, sadly extremly flawed". Why?

No, I don't actually. I'm just fine as I am. If you can't see the flaw, 2 pages worth of arguing isn't gonna make it appear.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
No, I don't actually. I'm just fine as I am. If you can't see the flaw, 2 pages worth of arguing isn't gonna make it appear.

Great- very constructive. I'm tired of people refuting arguments without any substance. Like I said, my argument may have holes, but obviously I don't see them yet. I'm sure once you point them out, it'll be obvious to me, and then I won't make the mistake again. Unless I'm too dense to understand... :)

[Butter]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Great- very constructive. I'm tired of people refuting arguments without any substance.

This board must REALLY get on your nerves then, eh? "Nuh-uh" is pretty much an accepted basis for argument around here.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
This board must REALLY get on your nerves then, eh? "Nuh-uh" is pretty much an accepted basis for argument around here.

No its not.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
This board must REALLY get on your nerves then, eh? "Nuh-uh" is pretty much an accepted basis for argument around here.

Sometimes. I suppose since the internet is so impersonal, it is much easier to be so black and white. In "real life" discussions, I find that people are much more willing to explore all possibilities. As for me, nothing is obvious. The more I learn, the more ignorant I feel.

[Riggins44]

Dang, I started this stupid thread and didn't even get in an argument.

Oh well, maybe next time. Off to the haircut topic I go.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Ronnie Dobbs2
The Josef Mengele Bonegavel mentions is indeed a Nazi.
[/B]

Oh he meant that Joeseph Megele :eek: !
This quote deserves some kind of "No Shit Sherlock" award.

Originally posted by Ronnie Dobbs2
Actually, you're pretty wrong.


EHHHHHHH!(Think game show wrong answer buzzer)

THese are paraphrases
Post A says: "I don't think the governement should control what procedures doctors do"

Post B says: "What about Mengele?"
The point of Post B is to say. "Gee isn't there a point where common sense dictates that the government have SOME say in what a doctor can do" It doesn't compare doctors who perform abortions to Mengele or any other Nazis.

Post C: plays the Nazi card. "How dare you equate abortion to the Holocaust"

ME: Hey poster C, get your head out of your ass, and read Post B. You throw down the Nazi card, because you somehow feel you can't with the argument without it. Now I really believe he could have countered with a logical argument, but chose instead to play the nazi card. That is bushleague. The reason it is bushleague to play the Nazi card in an argument, is that you play it supposing that anyone who now disagrees with you, sides with the Nazis.

Oh I almost forgot
Dipshit poster E: Mengele was IN FACT a nazi. I typed his name into Google, and look at the link I found.

[Butter]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
The reason it is bushleague to play the Nazi card in an argument, is that you play it supposing that anyone who now disagrees with you, sides with the Nazis.

Well, you know if you disagree with Bush, you're with the terrorists.

In case you didn't know. I have a feeling you did, though.

[Bonegavel]

blackadar
As someone who lost most of his family due to Nazis in WWII, this is about as offensive as it gets. To equate abortion with the systematic destruction of an entire race is beyond the boundaries of decency. May God have pity on you.


to BA: Jesus man! Whether you are out of this thread or not, I must respond. Read my post again, and explain how your conclusion is valid.

I was in NO WAY equating Mengele to Abortion doctors. I thought it would seem abundantly clear, but I was saying that if doctors were allowed to make the decisions sans regulation, Lord knows what whacko doctors would concoct. Mengele was the most HORRIFIC doctor I could think of, that, given power, would be a good example of why Doctors need to obey laws as opposed to what THEY think is right.

[edit: I don't need pity from God. He has enough crap to worry about.]

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Ronnie Dobbs2
Eaaaaaaaaaaasy champ.

Perhaps I was wrong when I read his original quote. I can handle being wrong. Thanks for the dipshit comment, that will really pinhole the rest of your posts for me quite easily.
...
Can you put your response in dipshit-ese so I'll have an easier type responding to it? Thanks, oh wise knowledge-giver.

Allright. The dipshit comment was overboard. I sometimes get carried away, when I get motivated to smack someone down. In order to avoid being pigeonholed, I will apologize.

I am sorry I said you were a dipshit, I should have just let the reader infer you were a dipshit from the general tone and content of my post.


Oh and you're welcome.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
I am sorry I said you were a dipshit, I should have just let the reader infer you were a dipshit from the general tone and content of my post.


Worst ... Apology ... Ever.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Ronnie Dobbs2
This is the last I'm going to say on this thread, but as a pro-choice person who has argued with people re: Nazism/abortion, I honestly thought that that was what was implied by Bonegavel. I thought you had missed it. I apologize.

No need, but thanks. I know that, even though this board can give the illusion of "knowing people", it is still an impersonal method of communication and you don't know me, so it is understandable that a post can be misread.

I would NEVER trivialise the holocaust in any way, even though a lot of people try to equate abortion as its own holocaust. For personal reasons, I stay away from the pro-choice/pro-life debate, and my post wasn't even related to the issue. I was answering the point about doctors and the law.

I guess it is good that things like this still spark emotion in people. It is when the lethargy sets in, that we have lost our souls.

[Subby]

Originally posted by Leonidas
I am against abortion, but...

As I understand it, this law outlaws abortions after 12 weeks. For my first son we had certain tests done that showed he could have had Downs Syndrome or worse, but we couldn't have a confimration of that until an amnio at 18 weeks. So that means under this law if our son had Downs Syndrome, or something possibly worse, we couldn't even confirm it until after we had the option to do anything about it.

My wife and I talked about this and probably would have had him even if he eventually came up positive for Down's (which thank God he didn't), but it kinda would have been nice at least to have the option.
Sorry to dredge up this post, but as a father of a little boy with Down syndrome I feel compelled to talk about both him and the chromosomal abnormality trisomy-21 (more popularly known as Down syndrome.)

When Ben was born in 2000, my wife and I were completely blind-sided. To this point it is probably one of the worst days of my life. All of your hopes and dreams for your child - success, intelligence, self-reliance - seem to vanish. After a lot of crying - hell, SOBBING - I came to the realization that Ds is NOT a death sentence. Far from it. Now three years old, Ben is in a pre-school program in our public school system that specializes in helping kids with special needs. Is Ben delayed in some areas? Of course - he has speech and gross and fine motor delays - but that doesn't mean he can't communicate (by talking or through sign language) or run or do puzzles or put a DVD in the DVD-player or give me big hugs and the sign for "I Love You." He is always laughing and gimmicking and wrestling with his 5-year old brother and hugging our 1-year old twin boys.

Ben is included and I will always see that he is included. The stigma that comes with Down syndrome has been perpetuated for decades by a medical establishment that had NO CLUE about the potential of children with Ds. In my parents' and grandparents' time, children with Ds were put into institutions - a shameful legacy that we as a society have only moved away from in the last 20 years.

Anyway - this has nothing to do with the topic really, but it always makes me sad when I hear that parents are considering terminating their pregnancy because the child might have Ds. In my experience, at least, Ben has been a wonderful gift in my life - I can't imagine not being his Dad and seeing him reach milestone after milestone after milestone.

Thanks.

[John Galt]

I want to echo Subby's comments. Before I moved to NYC, I used to volunteer with helping kids with Down Syndrome and I think everything he said is 100% right on. Just because the kids are living a "different" way and growing in a "different" way doesn't mean they aren't wonderful, happy kids.

[Butter]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Great- very constructive. I'm tired of people refuting arguments without any substance. Like I said, my argument may have holes, but obviously I don't see them yet. I'm sure once you point them out, it'll be obvious to me, and then I won't make the mistake again. Unless I'm too dense to understand... :)

I apologize for being too "flip" earlier. I was trying to avoid involvement in this thread, and this was my poorly thought out way of not discussing the issue at hand.

I just don't agree with applying logical theory to moralistic debate. It doesn't seem to work. For me, anyway.

[CamEdwards]

Subby,

Thank you for sharing that. You're so rarely serious that it's always a blindside when you share something like that.

I have a neice with Down's Syndrome. She's now 13, and has actually been mainstreamed into some of her classes. Not that everything's perfect. She's whiny, controlling, manipulative... in short, everything a 13 year old girl should be. :) She can also be incredibly loving and kind to her brothers and sister... also just like a 13 year old.

Anyway, I'm actually going to stay out of this debate, because my thoughts have been echoed by several of the posts above. I just wanted to say thanks.

[wbonnell]

Okay- forget my previous, incoherent attempt at logic. Here's a better argument:

<b>Premise 1</b>: Human life is defined as having a beating heart and a functioning brain (i believe this is the medical defintion)
<b>Premise 2:</b> Termination of a human life is immoral
<b>Premise 3:</b> A fetus after the second trimester is a human life
<b>Conclusion:</b> Therefore, it is immoral to terminate a fetus after the second trimester


FYI: my eldest son was born almost 3 months early. Today's he's a beautiful, intelligent 8 year old. Clearly he was able to not only survive but thrive outside the womb.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Okay- forget my previous, incoherent attempt at logic. Here's a better argument:

<b>Premise 1</b>: Human life is defined as having a beating heart and a functioning brain (i believe this is the medical defintion)
<b>Premise 2:</b> Termination of a human life is immoral
<b>Premise 3:</b> A fetus after the second trimester is a human life
<b>Conclusion:</b> Therefore, it is immoral to terminate a fetus after the second trimester


FYI: my eldest son was born almost 3 months early. Today's he's a beautiful, intelligent 8 year old. Clearly he was able to not only survive but thrive outside the womb.

OK - despite my better judgment, I'm entering this thread.

Premise 1 is flawed - it is not a medical definition and it only serves to define "life" not "human." A rat also fits under the definition.

Premise 2 is defensible, but taken in absolute terms would prevent the use of capital punishment (which I'm fine with) and the use of the military in almost all caes (something I'm not fine with). Factors like the health of the mother are also relevant and show why an absolutist stance is flawed.

Premise 3 is flawed - it is a conclusion without a warrant. Is the fetus viable? Potentially, but not certainly. 6 months is not a magic number and only recently has science enabled survival at close to that time.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by cuervo72
So then.....assisted suicide should be legal ;)

Yes, why not.

Of course, I say this as I'm watching my wife and kids go through the agony of watching her mom die of pancreatic cancer.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
so, why are there anti-prostitution laws? Shouldn't Roe v Wade have struck down every law regarding whoreship?

What part of the case underlying Roe vs. Wade had anything to do with prostitution?

[dawgfan]

Something that seems to have been lost amidst the inevitable debate of pro-choice vs. anti-abortion arguments is this:

- I can't imagine there are any rational human beings out there that aren't appalled at the 'partial-birth' abortion procedure.

With that in mind, it never ceases to amaze me that some people seem to think this is a procedure performed just for the hell of it. The fact that some here have asked whether or not this procedure is even necessary for issues of health or medical risk to the mother astounds me.

If you want to ban the use of this procedure for anything other than medical risks to the mother and other health issues (dead fetus, etc.) then you have my full support. I think this would be largely a non-issue though, since I believe in most states elective abortions are not permitted in the third trimester, and the percentage of 'partial-birth' abortions that are purely elective and not related to medical/health risks in those that do permit it is very small.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by John Galt
OK - despite my better judgment, I'm entering this thread.


should have stayed away!


Premise 1 is flawed - it is not a medical definition and it only serves to define "life" not "human." A rat also fits under the definition.


Okay, let me ask you this: what is the definition of medical death?


Premise 2 is defensible, but taken in absolute terms would prevent the use of capital punishment (which I'm fine with) and the use of the military in almost all caes (something I'm not fine with). Factors like the health of the mother are also relevant and show why an absolutist stance is flawed.


ya, i meant to include the word innocent but that would have muddied the argument a bit (because I would have had to define innocent)



Premise 3 is flawed - it is a conclusion without a warrant. Is the fetus viable? Potentially, but not certainly. 6 months is not a magic number and only recently has science enabled survival at close to that time.


After 2 trimesters, a fetus has a beating heart and a functioning brain. Sorry, I should have defined that.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by dawgfan
- I can't imagine there are any rational human beings out there that aren't appalled at the 'partial-birth' abortion procedure.


There have been many statements like this in this thread and I think they are ridiculous and dismissive of the other side. Not only do many people recognize this procedure as necessary, they see at as the only solution in some cases. Thousands of "rational" doctors and nurses perform this operation each year and they are obviously not "appalled" by it.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by wbonnell
should have stayed away!

Okay, let me ask you this: what is the definition of medical death?

ya, i meant to include the word innocent but that would have muddied the argument a bit (because I would have had to define innocent)

After 2 trimesters, a fetus has a beating heart and a functioning brain. Sorry, I should have defined that.

As to medical death - the problem is that by leaving off the "human" part, you skipped the most important question. No one disputes that a fetus is alive (and thus, not dead).

Even adding "innocent" seemingly precludes military action in most instances as loss of innocent life is inevitable. And of course, innocence is hardly easy to define. According to some who oppose abortion, we are all sinners (and thus, not innocent).

[John Galt]

My views on abortion are best summarized by a book (and articles) written by Susan Sherwin. Unfortunately, I can't find a decent summary on the web. The best I could find is at the link below, but it leaves out all of the "meat" of the argument, so I doubt many here will find it persuasive.

http://www.cariboo.bc.ca/ae/php/phil/mclaughl/students/phil433/sherwin3.htm

[wbonnell]

With that in mind, it never ceases to amaze me that some people seem to think this is a procedure performed just for the hell of it. The fact that some here have asked whether or not this procedure is even necessary for issues of health or medical risk to the mother astounds me.

For the record, I don't believe that a mother has a legal obligation to carry fetus (although it would be the right thing to do, in my humble opinion). However, if the baby is "viable"- I define viable as being able to survive outside of a mother's womb- terminating it is equivalent to killing it. However, there may be times when killing a human is justified (ie self-defense for instance). But if the baby can live on its own, the mother has no right to terminate it.

If you want to ban the use of this procedure for anything other than medical risks to the mother and other health issues (dead fetus, etc.) then you have my full support.

You realize that this isn't compatible with the pro-choice stance, don't you?

I think this would be largely a non-issue though, since I believe in most states elective abortions are not permitted in the third trimester, and the percentage of 'partial-birth' abortions that are purely elective and not related to medical/health risks in those that do permit it is very small.

I'm a wary about defining an absolute date. Even the heart/brain test is shaky.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by John Galt
There have been many statements like this in this thread and I think they are ridiculous and dismissive of the other side. Not only do many people recognize this procedure as necessary, they see at as the only solution in some cases. Thousands of "rational" doctors and nurses perform this operation each year and they are obviously not "appalled" by it.

I think you may have misconstrued my point:

Even people that accept that there are situations where this procedure is necessary for medical reason (which includes myself) find the act itself, when considered by itself and stripped of any surrounding implications, appalling.

I understand that there are situations where the procedure is necessary and the only solution in some cases, and I fully support the right of people to have that choice; that doesn't make the procedure itself any less gruesome.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by dawgfan
I think you may have misconstrued my point:

Even people that accept that there are situations where this procedure is necessary for medical reason (which includes myself) find the act itself, when considered by itself and stripped of any surrounding implications, appalling.

I understand that there are situations where the procedure is necessary and the only solution in some cases, and I fully support the right of people to have that choice; that doesn't make the procedure itself any less gruesome.

I know your point was more refined, but it was the most recent incarnation of the "appalled" statement, that I picked on it. I just think that "rational" people can actually not be grossed-out/disturbed/appalled by the procedure itself. And I'm also sure a lot of other medical procedures would freak me out if I knew about them.

[John Galt]

And as a side note - these 3rd trimester abortions are a red herring. Under Roe, a 3rd trimester abortion is allowed if either the mother or baby is at risk. No one waits to the 3rd trimester to have an abortion of "convenience."

[cartman]

To look at this from another angle, and take abortion out of the picture:

A girl has sex, but doesn't realize that she is now pregnant. She continues to smoke and drink alcoholic beverages, which leads to a miscarriage. If abortion is murder, is this girl now at least guilty of manslaughter?

I have never heard a decent response to this question. If the laws are to be applied equally, then this is a very valid scenario to consider. If you criminalize abortions (the willful intent) then some miscarriages (the non-willful, but avoidable circumstances) also come into the realm of prosecutable offenses.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by cartman
To look at this from another angle, and take abortion out of the picture:

A girl has sex, but doesn't realize that she is now pregnant. She continues to smoke and drink alcoholic beverages, which leads to a miscarriage. If abortion is murder, is this girl now at least guilty of manslaughter?

I have never heard a decent response to this question. If the laws are to be applied equally, then this is a very valid scenario to consider. If you criminalize abortions (the willful intent) then some miscarriages (the non-willful, but avoidable circumstances) also come into the realm of prosecutable offenses.

I forget the state, but if you harm a pregnant woman and the baby dies, you are guilty of manslaughter.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by John Galt
I just think that "rational" people can actually not be grossed-out/disturbed/appalled by the procedure itself.

I have a hard time believing that. I think a rational person can acknowledge the necessity of such a procedure, but I can't imagine that if you seperate the surrounding politics from the equation that if you think about the details of the procedure by itself you wouldn't find it disturbing.

Originally posted by John Galt
And I'm also sure a lot of other medical procedures would freak me out if I knew about them.

Absolutely. You just don't know about them because they haven't been politicized. That's my underlying point - the attempt by anti-abortionists to demonize this procedure by playing up how gruesome it is as a reason for outlawing it.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by John Galt
And as a side note - these 3rd trimester abortions are a red herring. Under Roe, a 3rd trimester abortion is allowed if either the mother or baby is at risk. No one waits to the 3rd trimester to have an abortion of "convenience."

That was my suspiscion. Is it not also true that there are some legal restrictions on 2nd trimester abortions? Since I've never been closely involved with a pregnancy, I don't automatically convert weeks into months and trimesters.