Thread: Hell: "Partial-birth abortion" (misnomer alert) Update Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000418
Posted by (gracia) (# 1812) on
:
Today’s New York Times has the latest on an issue that we discussed here several months ago, & is an issue close to my heart, because of its potential to deeply hurt women, while supporters (deceitfully, IMHO) say they have the moral high ground.
Here is the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/13/opinion/13mon2.html?th
but…you may have to register (free).
Here are the highlights, for those who don’t have the time or inclination to read the entire article:
Three federal judges across the breadth of the country ha ve now delivered a stinging rebuke to the potentially far-reaching assault by the White House and Congress on women's health and reproductive freedom, declaring the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 to be unconstitutional.
In the latest ruling, last week in Nebraska, Judge Richard Kopf found that the politicians who crafted the statute erred by failing to provide any exception for instances where a woman's health is at stake…
quote:
He devoted much of his lengthy new decision to a meticulous review of the extensive, freshly amassed evidence. He refuted Congress's flimsy legislative "finding" that the ill-defined procedure it bans "is never necessary to protect the health of the mother," and therefore no exception was needed. Judge Kopf said the evidence, to the contrary, was "overwhelming."
Judge Kopf's decision was not unexpected. It largely echoed the ruling against the measure two weeks ago by Judge Richard Conway Casey in New York, and another in June by Judge Phyllis Hamilton in California.
The extreme nature of this assault on women's health and privacy should not be lost on voters. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
[ 21. September 2004, 21:17: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Indeed. It's shocking that it took so long for that filthy, wrong-headed legislation to be struck down.
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
Seems that allowing that procedure makes a filthy mess of the wrong heads.
Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on
:
Yeah let's let them suck a baby's head off instead. That's doesn't impinge on the baby's health or privacy does it? ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
(5) However, substantial evidence presented at the Stenberg trial and overwhelming evidence presented and compiled at extensive congressional hearings, much of which was compiled after the district court hearing in Stenberg, and thus not included in the Stenberg trial record, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed and is outside the standard of medical care.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
More pro-life 411
This issue is a bit more complex than the NY Times article seems to let on.
[ 13. September 2004, 17:32: Message edited by: duchess ]
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
I must disagree.
I think that most people are uncomfortable with the idea of abortion, but that most people are also understanding that These Things Happen. Religious people and others of good will can disagree on when life starts, but the old concept that it's when the fetus "quickens" is when it becomes human still holds for many, if not most. That's why there's not the outcry over early abortions that there is -- rightly, in my opinion -- over late-term abortion.
By the time a baby can live outside the uterus, killing it is no longer an abortion: it's infanticide. A woman who waits until that late date to get rid of it and the medical personnel who handle the procedure have overstepped a huge moral boundary.
By the time the baby's big enough that its skull has to be sucked empty so that the rest of the corpse can be extracted, it is no longer a question of "an assault on a woman's health and privacy." It is the loss of a human life, not just a potential life. And I think society has a legitimate interest in preserving that life. The woman who waits until viability to seek an abortion would do better to offer her baby for adoption.
Knowing that any middle ground or grey area is seldom allowed on this most volatile of issues, I await the deluge. But I truly don't understand how anyone can justify partial-birth abortion, by whatever name you care to call it.
Rossweisse // where's my helmet and flak jacket?
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on
:
May I here add to my signature that I also pray for those who experience pain, hurt, anger, helplessness, bitterness, emptiness, loneliness and anxiety in the light of abortion.
Mary, pray!
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I agree with Rosseweisse. I am not sure a clump of cells counts as a full human life, so I'm not opposed to first trimester abortions. But after that there is no doubt in my mind that the fetus is a full fledged baby.
Zach
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
I don't think there are many people with the faintest capacity for emotion would have much to disagree with Rossweisse or Zach on their specific points.
What I disagree with is the insidious desire to get a piece of law, any piece of law, passed that includes the words "ban" and "abortion". There is no need to make a law against infanticide, so what should be done is to classify the casual use of this proceedure as infanticide. Instead of really working to get that done, it's being used as a thinly-veiled beach head legislation to begin an assault on the issue of all abortions.
3000-5000 cases out of a population of 350,000,000 is an absurdly small annual incidence rate. It is certainly less than the rate at which regular surguries suffer complications, wherein patients die - that's murder too, right? I submit that many of these cases could qualify as simple triage - the doctor has to decide on who lives and who dies because of complications during delivery... which is probably what the overturned rulings are about.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
I find it interesting that a study has shown that the current low rate of crime the U.S. is currently enjoying has been partially attributed to the enactment of abortion rights.
It seems that if those babies were born they would have a high propensity towards crime since their parents do not want them and the bible thumping anti-abortioners can't put their money where their mouth is and adopt them.
To those that are anti-abortion: how many of you have adopted a crack baby lately?
Posted by Equinas (# 2907) on
:
From the bill:
quote:
(A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: An increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, `there are very few, if any, indications for * * * other than for delivery of a second twin'; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.
If the health of the mother is really the goal of it rather than the death of the child, I suggest that a C-section might be the better choice if natural childbirth is contraindicated. The bill does not prohibit the emergency performance of the procedure in order to save the life of the mother, which I would assume happens when labor is advanced enough that an emergency C-section is no longer possible.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Crikey, Mad Geo. These are researchers who aren't afraid to make a study the results of which are likely to piss off a lot of people.
I wonder what the actual breakdown re: abortion/race is. It was my understanding that educated women of means are far more likely to abort than ... non-educated women of ... non-means. But perhaps I am mistaken. I'd very much like to know more about the study's methodology.
Posted by Equinas (# 2907) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I submit that many of these cases could qualify as simple triage - the doctor has to decide on who lives and who dies because of complications during delivery... which is probably what the overturned rulings are about.
The language of the bill would permit such triage.
quote:
Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Also, the study has to be either poorly constructed or over-constructed, because there's no way to design a study which would demonstrate that any one factor led to a 50% decline in crime -- there'd be no way to take into account the multiple confounding factors that would stem both from the time of the event hypothesized to have the effect, and from the time at which the reduction in crime occurred. Then there's the question of whether there really was a 50% reduction in crime, or whether reporting factors are influencing the data. Just to name a few problems I can think of off-hand.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
The study is linked at the bottom of the page I provided. The study was later questioned and then the original authors rebuttled the questioners.
In other words, good economics science is being practiced by reputable sources on both sides.
Bottom line to me: it makes fucking sense.
If someone doesn't want a baby and is forced to have it and raise it, how fucked up is that kid gonna be?
[typo]
[ 13. September 2004, 18:58: Message edited by: .Mad Geo ]
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
If someone doesn't want a baby and is forced to have it and raise it, how fucked up is that kid gonna be?
Are there no workhouses?
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Apparently not, since I have no idea what that is.
Posted by Equinas (# 2907) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
Apparently not, since I have no idea what that is.
He's quoting Scrooge.
Posted by Lurker™ (# 1384) on
:
Have you ever read Dickens? Especially Oliver Twist?
Workhouses were homes for poor people, where they would work for their food and board, usually in sweatshop-like conditions. They wouldn't be paid money.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
Apparently not, since I have no idea what that is.
Think "Oliver Twist".
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Crikey, Mad Geo. These are researchers who aren't afraid to make a study the results of which are likely to piss off a lot of people.
I wonder what the actual breakdown re: abortion/race is. It was my understanding that educated women of means are far more likely to abort than ... non-educated women of ... non-means. But perhaps I am mistaken. I'd very much like to know more about the study's methodology.
Abortion Statistics
* 40 MILLION ABORTIONS SINCE 1973
* 4,000 each day
Look at the reasons cited for abortions. Doesn't look like the majority of them are crack-babies.
[ 13. September 2004, 20:13: Message edited by: duchess ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Duchess, thanks for proving my point.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
The difference between you and me RooK, is that I think 40 million gone is a heart-breaking tragedy while you think it is a small number in the whole scheme of things and nothing to be concerned about.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
To those that are anti-abortion: how many of you have adopted a crack baby lately?
I haven't, yet, though I came close a couple of years ago. However, I also take the necessary precautions (birth control, not actually smoking crack) to ensure that I don't end up with a crack baby.
Would that everyone else were as careful.
Posted by Pax Romana (# 4653) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
By the time the baby's big enough that its skull has to be sucked empty so that the rest of the corpse can be extracted, it is no longer a question of "an assault on a woman's health and privacy." It is the loss of a human life, not just a potential life. And I think society has a legitimate interest in preserving that life. The woman who waits until viability to seek an abortion would do better to offer her baby for adoption.
Absolutely!
I just don't understand this at all.
Personally, I agree with the idea that we are human at the time of conception. But even if you don't believe that way, and a lot of people don't, how can anybody even THINK that it's okay to crush the head of a living, feeling, almost fully-formed baby???!
If the mother's life is really at stake, then why not perform a C-section at a point where it would be possible to save both the mother and the baby, do everything possible to save the life of the premature baby, and, if the parents don't want the baby, give it up for adoption to somebody who does want it.
Maybe the kid will turn out to be "fucked up" and maybe not. Any of us could have ended up being "fucked up," too, and some of us probably are, but we weren't killed by our parents as infants. We had a chance to at least have a life and to try at it. Which is the basic right of every human being on earth.
Pax Romana
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
quote:
To those that are anti-abortion: how many of you have adopted a crack baby lately?
That's not a log I see there, is it MadGeo? I mean, I'll be completely impressed if your a happy adoptive father of two babies with congenital issues. That so?
quote:
3000-5000 cases out of a population of 350,000,000 is an absurdly small annual incidence rate.
Actually, Rook, the mainstream media only recently 'celebrated' the 1000th casualty from the ongoing War in Iraq. Seems the threshhold of anger over deaths-by-numbers is lower than you think... or not.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
No Riv, I have chosen not to not have any kids at all, since I am not at all sure I wouldn't be one of the irresponsible parents I tend to detest. I also am in favor of freedom of choice, which is completely consistent with what I have espoused.
I would not want to tell a crackhead to keep their baby and make a criminal because I am not prepared to adopt it.
Riv, Duchess, et al, have you applied for your baby adoption yet?
P.S. Thanks to all for the Oliver Twist references.
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
How are you for freedom of choice for those who are anti-abortion? Your linking an assumed adoption application with that position seems haughty, particularly for one who's opted out of child-rearing of any kind.
Where are the reliable stats for maternal mortality in childbirth these days? That stat never seems to be linked with the 'health of the mother' issue.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
The difference between you and me RooK, is that I think 40 million gone is a heart-breaking tragedy while you think it is a small number in the whole scheme of things and nothing to be concerned about.
That's the classic mistake - assuming that I think any of those non-viable clusters of cells count as actually being people. Extrapolating your same logic, you let another person die every month that you don't get pregnant, you egg-wasting monster. The only argument you have against this is arbitrary, and you know it.
The Riv, your tangent seems like a salient one - except when you consider that the hyped figure of 1000 deaths includes that the majority occurred after Dubya pronounced victory.
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
And the 3000+ that began the slaughter on September 11, 2001.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Riv, this tangent really belongs on the appropriate thread - where I can rip off your head without distraction.
No, wait - I see that you're sticking to just numbers now. Fine. Thousands of people versus millions of cells with human DNA. So what.
[ 13. September 2004, 21:11: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
How are you for freedom of choice for those who are anti-abortion? Your linking an assumed adoption application with that position seems haughty, particularly for one who's opted out of child-rearing of any kind.
Do I want them shut-up or something? Hell No. Free speech and freedom all the way baby.
Haughty? Pot Kettler.
Don't fuck with me, breeder. You're the one presumably telling people what they can or can't do with their own bodies and can't step up with the solution to the problem you are thereby creating.
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
So it's better to advocate the slaughter of everyone not born into optimum circumstances, than to pull for everyone who possibly can be born -- people already conceived -- to be born?
Who gets to decide what is optimum?
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
The side that advocates more freedom is how you decide. The side that advocates otherwise are being religious tyrants.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
So it's better to advocate the slaughter of everyone not born into optimum circumstances, than to pull for everyone who possibly can be born -- people already conceived -- to be born?
Culling some cells isn't a slaughter, unless you have some particularly morbid thoughts about exfoliants whenever you wash up.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I think 40 million gone is a heart-breaking tragedy while you think it is a small number in the whole scheme of things and nothing to be concerned about.
And what of those who think it is something to be concerned about, but choose to find another way to try to prevent it? Are there really people who can look at our current government and say it should be making choices for individuals?
Please, don't tell me. I have enough trouble sleeping as it is.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
The side that advocates otherwise are being religious tyrants.
Feel free to shove your sanctimonious bullshit up your ass sideways, dumbass. My anti-abortion stance has fuck-all to do with religion. So instead of failing miserably at reading my mind, go pleasure the pig you rode in on.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
So how do you justify trampling over other people's rights Erin?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
What rights would I be trampling on, MadGeo? The right to pickle and/or dismember an innocent child? Wasn't aware that was a right.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
The right to determine for yourself if it is a child.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Huh. I wasn't aware that we had the right to determine who has the status of human. In that case, I've got a list and I'll be contacting my representative and senators shortly.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Technically, before they're viable, embryos can easily be classified as a form of cancer.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Huh. I wasn't aware that we had the right to determine who has the status of human. In that case, I've got a list and I'll be contacting my representative and senators shortly.
Glad to hear it. You may want to refer them to "Roe versus Wade" while you're helping them come to their senses.
[crosspost]
[ 13. September 2004, 21:59: Message edited by: .Mad Geo ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
So, while I realize that we're having a grand old time here...
Is anyone even going to try to defend the notion that this legislation is anything other than using an extremely rare and atypical procedure as a means to validate the beginnings of an assault on the broader abortion issue?
Fine. I shall accept victory as graciously as ever.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Well done on your recent victory, Rook.
Well Done.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
So how do you justify trampling over other people's rights Erin?
Which people's rights, though, MadGeo? The right of a woman to dispose of an inconvenient pregnancy at the last minute, or the right of a fully- or almost-fully developed child to be born?
And, once again, bear in mind that I'm not talking here about abortion in the first trimester. I'm not even talking about slightly later in a pregnancy if something like Tay-Sachs or a severe birth defect is discovered. (I prefer to leave those decisions to the parents, and keep government well out of it.) I'm talking about babies who would be viable if not killed halfway out of the uterus.
The folks who mentioned the c-section option have it right: if the baby can't be delivered safely, we DO have surgical techniques to take care of it! And there are adoptive parents lined up who would give anything to take home those other people's unwanted infants.
Rossweisse // who also couldn't deliver a full-term baby safely -- and had c-sections instead
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
As a strident, unapologetic opponent of abortion, I think this "partial-birth abortion" legislation was hypocritical and downright stupid.
If abortion is wrong, it's wrong. If it's OK, it's OK. Is it less wrong to kill someone by strangling or drowning than by stabbing fifty times with an ice pick? Murder is murder.
It's argued that partial-birth abortion is safer for the mother. I can believe it. If you're going to abort, it's got to be safer to extract the fetus nearly intact than to yank it out bit by bit; surely the latter increases the mother's risk of infection, among other things.
Partial-birth abortion is just as barbaric as any other kind of abortion. I'm not sure what those who passed the law thought they were accomplishing (beyond throwing an ineffectual bone). I think it would make more sense if we pro-lifers worked to outlaw all abortion rather than to make senseless distinctions of the sort that this dumb law made.
Posted by Equinas (# 2907) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
So, while I realize that we're having a grand old time here...
Is anyone even going to try to defend the notion that this legislation is anything other than using an extremely rare and atypical procedure as a means to validate the beginnings of an assault on the broader abortion issue?
Fine. I shall accept victory as graciously as ever.
California Decision
The health issues start on page 31. The Act is producing something other than an assault on the broader abortion issue. The government is actually arguing that one repulsive procedure should/can be replaced by another, equally repulsive procedure. Hardly an actual assault on abortion, whatever the intent of the original sponsors of the bill. I'd much rather they had pushed for a ban on all late term abortions that aren't medically critical.
For those who don't care to read the link, the equally repulsive procedure referred to is D&E by disarticulation. Instead of piercing the skull and sucking out the brain, the child is cut up in the womb and scraped out. So, this law is not really limiting late-term abortions at all.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
I really don't see why there can't be a legal distinction between sucking out the brain of a full-term baby and a pre-twelve weeks abortion -- to me it is clear that the former can't be justified except in the case of actual impending maternal death that cannot be prevented by c-section; the latter is up to the individual's conscience. I fully support banning of abortion after an early point, that has to be a bit arbitrary by nature but recognizes the difference in status between an almost full-term child with actual physical pain capability and a small clump of cells that could easily miscarry and can't feel pain.
Anyway, for the assistance of Mad Geo in his abhorrent argument re: worthy life, I direct him again to A Christmas Carol: from a speech by the Ghost of Christmas Present:
quote:
``I see a vacant seat,'' replied the Ghost, ``in the poor chimney-corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved. If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, the child will die.''
``No, no,'' said Scrooge. ``Oh, no, kind Spirit! say he will be spared.''
``If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race,'' returned the Ghost, ``will find him here. What then? If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.''
Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief.
``Man,'' said the Ghost, ``if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child. Oh God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!''
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
Oh, well-done, Laura!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Rossweisse // quietly applauding
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
So how do you justify trampling over other people's rights Erin?
Which people's rights, though, MadGeo? The right of a woman to dispose of an inconvenient pregnancy at the last minute, or the right of a fully- or almost-fully developed child to be born?
And, once again, bear in mind that I'm not talking here about abortion in the first trimester. I'm not even talking about slightly later in a pregnancy if something like Tay-Sachs or a severe birth defect is discovered. (I prefer to leave those decisions to the parents, and keep government well out of it.) I'm talking about babies who would be viable if not killed halfway out of the uterus.
The folks who mentioned the c-section option have it right: if the baby can't be delivered safely, we DO have surgical techniques to take care of it! And there are adoptive parents lined up who would give anything to take home those other people's unwanted infants.
Rossweisse // who also couldn't deliver a full-term baby safely -- and had c-sections instead
Look, we have a known sentient, alive, and awake being:
The mother.
Then we have a theoretically sentient alive and awake being,
The Embryo.
If the mother is known to be sentient and has rights and the embryo is not known to be sentient, than we have to err on the side of the known with rights.
Or at least I do.
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban is just the first step in many to take away that right.
I still can't see how we have a huge problem of unwanted babies up for adoption in a largely Christian nation (U.S.), and the (presumably) same Christian people clamoring against abortion. It seems hypocritical to me in extreme.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
If it's viable, MG, it's well beyond the "embryo" stage. The baby becomes officially a fetus at 10 weeks. And I have said specifically and repeatedly that I don't think abortion should be banned at the embryo stage.
Infanticide is, however, another matter altogether.
When I was pregnant, in the latter stages particularly, I marvelled at how my babies responded to stimuli, including music and my voice. Of course, I wanted my babies. But I think they were sentient, and science does seem to bear that out.
Rossweisse // how does convenience outweigh a viable infant's right to live?
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Very stirring.
Now, if only people could be talked to and actually persuaded to think about their actions. And I don't just mean the contemplation of abortion, but all the contributing decisions that had to be made before that as well. That would be a way to reduce incident of abortion that I could support.
But no. The only way anyone sees to attempt it is to invoke big brother. This I will resist, so long as breeders fail to recognize the perils they force on all of us.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
how does convenience outweigh a viable infant's right to live?
The law was not struck down because it might prove inconvenient. It was struck down because it had no exception for cases when the woman's health is in danger.
Posted by quirky_beth (# 5696) on
:
I'm being slightly thick here, I know, but can anyone either tell me or post a link to explain what partial birth abortion actually is?
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Ross:
See the problem is, in the real government world, politicians are not capable of thinking as clearly as you seem to be. They can only go:
Senator Sheepdip:
quote:
"Abortion, duuuuuuh. Yep."
or
Senator Fogwit: quote:
"Abortion, duuuuuuuh. Nope."
but if you give them all these options with our freedoms, such as viable/not viable, they get all confused and vote stupidly, i.e.:
Senator Dipstick:
quote:
"Well last week a scientist farted in Wyoming as to viability, and now we have to ban it"
So. Vote Freedom. Vote Choice for the mother. Period. No exceptions. No compromise with politicians.
[ 14. September 2004, 00:02: Message edited by: .Mad Geo ]
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Huh. I wasn't aware that we had the right to determine who has the status of human. In that case, I've got a list and I'll be contacting my representative and senators shortly.
Glad to hear it. You may want to refer them to "Roe versus Wade" while you're helping them come to their senses.
[crosspost]
Just because there's a Roe v. Wade on the books DOES NOT MEAN that we have the right to decide who is human and who is not. A piece of paper DOES NOT GRANT US RIGHTS. If it did, then by God we had the right to deny women and blacks the vote all along.
Geez, and here I was thinking you were smart enough to have figured that one out. I won't be making that mistake again.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Sorry to disappoint you.
Actually on second thought, I don't give a fuck.
Your right it's not a piece of paper. It's me that decides for me, and you for you. If you want the government telling you what you can do with your body than your not as smart as I thought you were either.
[typo]
[ 14. September 2004, 00:09: Message edited by: .Mad Geo ]
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
Trivia: Jane Roe herself is testifying against abortion.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
It's not about her now, if it ever really was.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
Sorry to disappoint you.
Actually on second thought, I don't give a fuck.
Your right it's not a piece of paper. It's me that decides for me, and you for you. If you want the government telling you what you can do with your body than your not as smart as I thought you were either.
[typo]
The thing is, the embryo/fetus/whatever is not my body. It's someone else's.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Bullshit. They die if they are not attached to a woman. It's a parasite on the vagina till nearly birth.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Parasite though it may be, it is still not my body. I am curious, though, if you really know wtf you are talking about. It's a parasite on the uterus, not the vagina, and I've seen babies born 14 weeks early that survived, so clearly the infant can survive on its own quite some time before a normal delivery date.
Since you're so medically ignorant, maybe you should bow out of this one.
Posted by Equinas (# 2907) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
I think it would make more sense if we pro-lifers worked to outlaw all abortion rather than to make senseless distinctions of the sort that this dumb law made.
But that's just what we've been doing for the past 30+ years. Legislatively, it hasn't worked out too well.
Ideally, I agree with you, but I'd be happy to see a ban on elective abortions past the first trimester or at the very least, past viability. The desired ideal isn't going to happen, IMO, and I can't see the sense of insisting on all or nothing at all. IOW, if I were in Congress (heaven forbid), I'd push for the ideal, but I'd take the compromise, if that's all that could be realized, but it would have to be something better than the smoke and mirrors this bill is.
(Still ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
at the thought of the government arguing for D&E with disarticulation. Madness.)
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Parasite though it may be, it is still not my body. I am curious, though, if you really know wtf you are talking about. It's a parasite on the uterus, not the vagina, and I've seen babies born 14 weeks early that survived, so clearly the infant can survive on its own quite some time before a normal delivery date.
Since you're so medically ignorant, maybe you should bow out of this one.
Yeah and the 14 week baby will in all probability be an unhealthy wreck for the rest of its miserable life. Minor problems like underdeveloped lungs, bleeding in the brain, eyes underdeveloped, heart defects, digestive problems, cerebral palsy, and possibly developmental and learning problems. Increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
Nah, it's a "viable" baby!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 14. September 2004, 00:37: Message edited by: .Mad Geo ]
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
Someone needs to tell Scott Peterson, unless he's up for single murder.
quote:
You're the one presumably telling people what they can or can't do with their own bodies and can't step up with the solution to the problem you are thereby creating.
Well this is asinine. I have contributed to no problem. "Breeders", by the way, practice purposeful reproduction -- intentionally. The people you're rageing against are not like me in the least. But really, don't let things like reason get in your way. And if you think I ought to have to adopt a crack baby just because I'm anti-abortion and have my own kids, fine.
I'll happily comply the day you let the fingers on one hand of a virtually fully-delivered baby grasp and hold one of your fingers while you simultaneously take a pair of scissors in your other hand, plunge them into the base of the writhing child's skull, withdraw them, put them down, pick up a suction tube and vacuum out the cranium of the child as you continue to hold the tiny hand of your victim and feel the life vanish from in front of you. That would be walking your ever-so sanctimonious walk, my friend. Go ahead and say you could do it without batting an eye. You'll be lying, and a terminally sicker bastard than I'll ever be.
Does no one have a good link to reliable stats on all of this 'health of the mother' crap? Where are the most recent US maternal mortality figures? People that hide behind such phrases really ought to have the requisite numbers at your fingertips.
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
quote:
It's a parasite on the vagina till nearly birth.
With that staggering know-how of the female anatomy, it comes as far less of a surprise that you have no children.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
I have female friends who commonly refer to boyfriends as vaginal parasites. It's funny because it's sometimes true.
It's a lot funnier than how the value of life gets variably attributed. And there's nothing funny about facing the reality of human predicament with some comfortably detached philosophical ideals. Anyone who thinks that military actions can be justified should just shut the fuck up right about now with their hypocritical anti-choice blather.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
Yeah and the 14 week baby will in all probability be an unhealthy wreck for the rest of its miserable life. Minor problems like underdeveloped lungs, bleeding in the brain, eyes underdeveloped, heart defects, digestive problems, cerebral palsy, and possibly developmental and learning problems. Increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
Nah, it's a "viable" baby!
Were you born stupid, or are you taking lessons? I've worked in hospitals for eleven years. For seven of those I clerked in ERs and L&D wards. I've seen these children after they've been discharged. They are happy and healthy and don't have any of the problems that you list. If they did, they would not have stayed at our hospital as we did not have a Level IV NICU. The fact that they stayed at our hospital until they reached the magical 4lb. weight is proof in and of itself that they are healthy.
Women delivering at 32 weeks of gestation is not an uncommon thing -- hell, most of the time the infant gets a night in the NICU and is released from the hospital within two weeks. And there is no doubt that the earlier a baby is born the more risk there is for complications, but Jesus H Tap Dancing Christ, Mad Geo, with the advances in medical science a LOT of so-called premature babies are as healthy as those of normal gestation.
Now while I have great sympathy for the idea, because I cannot abide stupid people, your whole argument for abortion seems to center on the fact that any child who is not loved and perfect should be pickled, dismembered, or otherwise terminated. Eugenics much?
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Riv
I wouldn't want to conduct ANY surgery, dipshit.
Erin et al:
How about this, I get to decide when you get neutered? I bet you would get religion about reproductive rights then wouldn't you?
It's so fucking easy to throw away other people's rights isn't it?
[crosspost]
[ 14. September 2004, 00:50: Message edited by: .Mad Geo ]
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Anyone who thinks that military actions can be justified should just shut the fuck up right about now with their hypocritical anti-choice blather.
Why? Enlighten us all with your pearls of wisdom, sunshine. I'm most interested in hearing it.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Thou art a true dolt, Mad Geo. That, or you've got some personal experience here which is making you batshit spittle-emitting insane. Whichever, I couldn't care less.
That said, no one is preventing dear old mom from choosing to not have a child. In fact, I believe there are any number of birth control methods out there, along with the much maligned choice of abstinence. That is where the right to choose lies.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Erin, your full of shit:
quote:
Even still, technology can't save every premature baby, or make up for the gains they would have made in the womb. "The major reason that newborns die in the United States is because of prematurity," Johnson says. "And the earlier they're born and the less they weigh, the higher their risk of both death and long-term problems."
Among those problems: lungs so weak that ventilators have to breathe for the babies for weeks or months; blood vessels so fragile that babies experience bleeding in their brains that can cause permanent damage; and eyes so under-developed that their vision is harmed. Premature babies are at a higher risk for heart defects, digestive problems, cerebral palsy, and for other developmental and learning problems that will last a lifetime.
Source
If your gonna give anecdotal bullshit, try it with someone else.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Your own cite said "at a higher risk", you illiterate knuckle-dragging cretin, not "guaranteed".
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
And yours said "They are happy and healthy and don't have any of the problems that you list."
Anecdotal crap and you know it. Don't fucking play "all that" with me when you know you know your bullshit was called.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
I was going to point out the nuance in the anti-abortion argument Erin is making, but I read several Mad Geo posts and I'm not sure there's a point. I think I'll just go to bed.
Posted by MadFarmer (# 2940) on
:
Republicans largely use stuff like scares about "partial birth abortion" as a means to get the ultra-conservative vote. Or haven't you noticed that in 30 years of making noise about the issue, not only have they not accomplished their goal, but they have done a lot to make things worse. Americans don't like to think about economic class, and so they don't like to think about the reasons why a woman might want an abortion - it is far easier to assume she's cold-blooded than it is to imagine the various circumstances and forces that propelled her into the spot where she feels she needs an abortion.
For example, we have a media culture that sells using sex and "sexiness" as maniuplative tools, and packaged with this is lie that sex can be used aas entertainment without consequence. Now, why don't Republicans actively try to do something about the problems (like this one) of which abortion is a symptom? Because more important to modern Republicans is lassez-faire capitalism, and the profits earned from selling a bunch of crap to people, including crap sold using sex.
The "morals" stuff is probably a cover for many republicans - they use it to attract voters but they never do anything about these issues - homosexuality is fixed in our culture and homosexulas will likely get the right to civil unions of some kind soon; abortion has not gone away; Hollywood movies are more crass and oversexed than ever, prayer is not going to ever be in the public schools again, etc. etc. These are all losing battles the GOP has picked to rally around, because battles that can't be won make people the angriest, and ensure voter loyalty, even when voters are voting against their own best interests in all pratical areas.
[ 14. September 2004, 01:02: Message edited by: MadFarmer ]
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Once again parading your illiteracy for all the world to see. The premature babies I saw -- and if you actually possessed the ability to read, you would have caught this, but I suppose we must make allowances for the stupid amongst us -- were happy and healthy because they come back for yearly "reunions".
That 26 weeker is now a healthy six year old with no learning, developmental or physical challenges whatsoever. So why don't you be a dear and shut the fuck up until you know what you're talking about? Thanks everso.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Erin, I realize this is Hell and anecbullshitdotal exidence is the norm, but I used a fucking OBGYN source, and you used dick all. So sweetheart, as much as I love your most highness, I really couldn't be bothered to give a fuck about what you think on this one, so why don't you just fucking move on and get laid tonite so maybe you'll be able to think tomorrow.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Anyone who thinks that military actions can be justified should just shut the fuck up right about now with their hypocritical anti-choice blather.
Why? Enlighten us all with your pearls of wisdom, sunshine. I'm most interested in hearing it.
The underlying fundament of military action is choosing lives. Everything after that is philosophical quibbling. Any allowance for justification means that there can be allowance for justification.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
MG, is there any special reason you're swallowing your tongue on this issue? It seems an extreme reaction even for you.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MadFarmer:
For example, we have a media culture that sells using sex and "sexiness" as maniuplative tools, and packaged with this is lie that sex can be used aas entertainment without consequence. Now, why don't Republicans actively try to do something about the problems (like this one) of which abortion is a symptom? Because more important to modern Republicans is lassez-faire capitalism, and the profits earned from selling a bunch of crap to people, including crap sold using sex.
What sort of measures would you propose the Republicans (or, indeed, anyone) do to combat the "sex used as entertainment" problem? Seriously, there's not really anything that can be done short of censoring it (and here we veer dangerously towards that other thread). While this may be a symptom, I can't really see a "cure".
Mad Geo's incoherent rantings aside, abortion is a very complex issue. It should come as no surprise that I think it's wrong, and you can call me pro-life, anti-choice, anti-abortion, whatever you choose. To paint it in simple black and white terms is at once naive, dangerous, and idiotic.
An abortion is an abortion is an abortion. "Partial-birth" abortions fall in the same category as the vacuum abortion and the saline abortion and whatever other methods there are. While I have never been able to find a single cite that shows how this particular technique saves the life of a mother -- in fact, a feet-first delivery is rather dangerous -- I'm not sure that it matters.
I believe The Riv asked for cites regarding the prevalence of reasons cited for obtaining abortions. This is an interesting study which shows that there are some underlying factors we need to address. No child should ever be regarded as a burden, and the fact that they are is a fundamental failure in our society.
Anyway, that's my view.
Mad Geo: your own cite disproves your assertion that ALL premature babies are doomed to lives of misery and suffering; I have no need to counter you when you've done it quite nicely all by your very own self.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Swallowing my tongue?
Please explain that expression.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
I really couldn't be bothered to give a fuck about what you think on this one...
Geez, I wonder how much attention I'll get from you when you do give a fuck what I think. I don't know if I could bear it.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Anyone who thinks that military actions can be justified should just shut the fuck up right about now with their hypocritical anti-choice blather.
Why? Enlighten us all with your pearls of wisdom, sunshine. I'm most interested in hearing it.
The underlying fundament of military action is choosing lives. Everything after that is philosophical quibbling. Any allowance for justification means that there can be allowance for justification.
Well, except that for the most part service men and women choose to go into the service. I am unaware of any fetus or infant who chooses to be conceived or chooses to be conceived to parents who are, for whatever reason, unable to handle a(nother) child.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Well, except that for the most part service men and women choose to go into the service. I am unaware of any fetus or infant who chooses to be conceived or chooses to be conceived to parents who are, for whatever reason, unable to handle a(nother) child.
Who choses to justify deploying them against others?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Oh, I think this is another thread. "Explain the inconsistencies between your views on abortion, capital punishment and war." My firm belief is that if you have to justify military deployment, they shouldn't go.
Posted by Equinas (# 2907) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quirky_beth:
I'm being slightly thick here, I know, but can anyone either tell me or post a link to explain what partial birth abortion actually is?
The cervix is dilated, either through mechanical means, which takes a couple of days, or through drugs, which is faster but has more risk. If the baby is not in breech position, the abortionist manipulates it into that position. It is extracted from the uterus into the birth canal. The skull is pierced and a cannula is inserted to suction out the brain to collapse it before delivery is completed.
Posted by MadFarmer (# 2940) on
:
quote:
What sort of measures would you propose the Republicans (or, indeed, anyone) do to combat the "sex used as entertainment" problem? Seriously, there's not really anything that can be done short of censoring it (and here we veer dangerously towards that other thread). While this may be a symptom, I can't really see a "cure".
This is indeed. close to the other thread. Suffice to say that I don't think advertisers ought to be able to lie, or imply a lie (e.g. drink beer, get sexxy girls). Perhpas you would consder truth in advertising laws censorship, but I wouldn't, for the same reason I don't consider libel laws censorship.
quote:
Mad Geo's incoherent rantings aside, abortion is a very complex issue. It should come as no surprise that I think it's wrong, and you can call me pro-life, anti-choice, anti-abortion, whatever you choose. To paint it in simple black and white terms is at once naive, dangerous, and idiotic.
I agree with you that it's wrong, and I wasn't trying to call you anything, and really wasn't trying to address you individually. I just find the abortion issue divisive and distracting. Nothing much aside from a Supreme Court ruling will change that, I don't see that happening. Yet we expend a lot of energy on the issue, and I think it's because the issue is being "used" by its champions in office cynically, to get people to vote against their own interests.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Oh, sorry, that last part wasn't to you... I was attempting to get this thread back into the living horse territory. Time will tell how well the attempt worked.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The law was not struck down because it might prove inconvenient. It was struck down because it had no exception for cases when the woman's health is in danger.
I understand the rationale. I simply disagree with it. There are other ways to deal with health issues than the appalling measure of partial-birth abortion.
Rossweisse // suspecting (can it be?) political motivations on the part of the judges in that case
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
suspecting (can it be?) political motivations on the part of the judges in that case
Surely there were no political motivations on the part of the legislators who crafted and passed the law.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
And what a sad indictment of our society it is that so many people (professional politicians and otherwise) choose to pose while standing on the corpses of murdered infants, Mousethief..
Rossweisse // remembering just why I normally avoid this particular issue
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
What in the hell are you talking about?
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
I thought I was talking about what YOU were talking about, which I interpreted as politically-motivated judges. What the hell were YOU talking about?
Rossweisse // whatever....
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
What do you mean by "standing on the corpses of murdered infants"? I don't know of anybody who does that.
Posted by MadFarmer (# 2940) on
:
She's using a metaphor.
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
Exactly. Like "wrapping himself in the flag" or "rattling his saber."
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
Yeah and the 14 week baby will in all probability be an unhealthy wreck for the rest of its miserable life. Minor problems like underdeveloped lungs, bleeding in the brain, eyes underdeveloped, heart defects, digestive problems, cerebral palsy, and possibly developmental and learning problems. Increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
Nah, it's a "viable" baby!
I'm going to skip right over the blatantly false "in all probablity" claim and get right to my biggest problem with this uncharacteristically muddle-headed post.
You are suggesting that a justification for abortion lies in an "increased risk" of a medical condition. Do you really believe that? Do you think that an entity that would otherwise be protected should be subject to termination simply on the basis of an "increased risk"? That is some scary shit.
If you want to make an argument that abortion ought to be legal as a matter of individual freedom, or privacy, or whatever, go right ahead. People of good conscience can and do disagree on this one. But to claim that there is a distinction to be made on the basis of "increased risk" is, as was previously noted, eugenics.
You are about one-and-a-half intellectual steps away from rounding undesirables up into camps. You need to go have a quiet think about this one.
Posted by mertide (# 4500) on
:
32 week babies do very well usually in well equipped neonatal units. 25/26 week babies (14 weeks premmie) do a lot less well. About half have learning or other significant long term problems (vision, hearing). Those handicaps can make a huge difference to the child and the family. Even in the best units, a 500g baby has about a 50% chance of surviving. It's not an insignificant cost, either, getting a very premmie baby to discharge. That sort of money could save thousands of babies dying of starvation. Life is very precious, but saving the life of one unwanted baby when the resources could have saved many wanted babies is an unhappy calculus.
Posted by kiwigoldfish (# 5512) on
:
I am reminded of our lecturer in human genetics asking the class the following.
"Let's imagine there was a simply identified genotype that you could test for fairly cheaply, and was known to make someone 9 times more likely than others to be violent, as well as considerably increasing the risk of other diseases and reducing average life expectancy by a measurable amount. Would it be ethical to screen for that condition antenatally and then have an abortion if the embryo was shown to have that condition?"
Most of the class agreed that such a screening programme would probably be worthwhile, and that in fact such screening should be near-mandatory.
He smiled and congratulated us on deciding to reduce the numbers of males in the population.
What this adds to the debate will probably depend on your view of males...
Posted by Ilkku (# 8123) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Equinas:
The cervix is dilated, either through mechanical means, which takes a couple of days, or through drugs, which is faster but has more risk. If the baby is not in breech position, the abortionist manipulates it into that position. It is extracted from the uterus into the birth canal. The skull is pierced and a cannula is inserted to suction out the brain to collapse it before delivery is completed. [/QB]
Why Oh Why would anyone want to do this?
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on
:
Last time we had this discussion, someone with midwifery experience indicated that pba was an absolute last and extreme resort and included the occasions of still birth where the baby was lodged in the birth canal and had to be removed somehow.
The mechanics of PBA procedure I find distressing - but I'm not a medical person, so I trust people who are wiser and more knowledgeable than me to make the decisions of whether it is necessary. And I really find it hard to believe that you would find a doctor ethically willing to carry out a PBA beyond the legally allowed cut-off period just because the mother didn't want to keep it (and before it: no reason for any of the other termination methods not to be used).
[And while I'm here!!!! I wish people who demo outside abortion clinics and demand legislation to stop abortion (in general) would do something positive, put their money with their mouth is and offer material and other support so women who have terminations for reasons to do with being unable to keep the kid rather than health risk have some other choice. It's too friggin' easy to tell people what to do without helping them do it. [eg. go and volunteer at your local Catholic Pregnancy Help Centre, give them your unwanted furniture, white goods; offer to help sole parents with respite care etc]
That's how you will stop abortion. Not by legislation. Otherwise it will be back to backyard abortions and dead teenagers. ]
Posted by MadFarmer (# 2940) on
:
quote:
so I trust people who are wiser and more knowledgeable than me to make the decisions of whether it is necessary.
What with HMOs and all, I don't automatically trust any doctor's judgement. There is a huge profit motive behind the industry in general, and this has ruined the doctor/patient relationship in many cases.
quote:
That's how you will stop abortion. Not by legislation. Otherwise it will be back to backyard abortions and dead teenagers.
Well, abortion is a symptom, not the main problem. Solving the problem(s) themselves would be much more effective at stopping abortions (or at least reducing them significantly) than legislation (which is worthless while Roe v Wade stands anyhow. And Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere. It's here to stay.)
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
You know what gets me? All the men who jump up and down screaming one way or another about abortion.
If I were king of the world, only women would be allowed to take part in the debate. I'm not sure how valid one's opinion is if you've not been pregnant or have a chance of becoming pregnant. But it seems like the men are the ones who really froth at the mouth. Maybe they don't like the idea of valuable breeding stock being damaged.
And have you ever noticed how people who are anti-abortion frequently tend to be for the death penalty? I've never been able to figure that one out. I mean, if life is so sacred, you'd think it would be across the board. Maybe it's because babies are cuter than hardened criminals.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
They ARE cuter than murderers, but that doesn't really have anything to do with it. For me, I'm pro-capital punishment because you consciously chose to kill the other person. It all has to do with the ability to reason. We are ingrained as a species to protect our children and allow adults to reap what the sow. Just consider these to be the ultimate expressions of those two sentiments.
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
I'm with Coot about the demonstrators outside abortion clinics. What they're doing is entirely negative and counter-productive. Yet I seem to remember a Catholic bishop in Scotland offering help to single mothers who was pilloried in the press for it. Whether the mothers had chosen not to have abortions or whether they were just single mothers without support I don't remember, but personally I think that offering to buy them pushchairs etc was a more Christian response than demonising them.
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
.Mad Geo
quote:
The right to determine for yourself if it is a child.
Rook wrote
quote:
Technically, before they're viable, embryos can easily be classified as a form of cancer.
And I suppose an extraterrestrial looking at the earth would imagine it infected with something which built colonies, dwellings and roads.
It would be nice to locate the value of human life in something intrinsic and obvious. It's not and we suspend the absolute value of life on battlefields and in courtroom judgements in some nations. We do it at both ends of life and have done even before abortion was either legal or 'perfectly ordinary'.
It's a sliding scale. It seems fairly clear to me that a clump of cells is not yet Johnny and that to so maintain and to enforce the completed pregnancy of somebody in the early months of pregnancy who is frankly too young to have a child, unable to cope with a pregnancy, etc etc seems all wrong.
Seeing the diagramatic cross section of a woman's body in the family planning pamphlet where the therapeutic abortion is being described and seeing the 'fetal contents' drawn as an undifferentiated black mass makes me wonder what's being glossed over to avoid offence. Seems all wrong to me too.
If it's just left us to us to make these definitions the sliding scale can be moved around according to the mood of the day.
Do we keep prisoners locked up during national disasters or do we let them go. Do we let go the ones who are inside for parking fines but leave the pedophiles, murderers and terrorists inside? Take a poll amongst readers of the Daily Mirror? Lotsa non-persons rotting away in Guantanamo Bay. Who gets dialysis and who doesn't in an underfunded health service? Shut your eyes and throw the dart!
I don't think you can escape making arbitrary limits. And there'll always be some clever boots with a situation - real or imagined - which skirts the edge of the limits.
Raspberry Rabbit
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
quote:
I wouldn't want to conduct ANY surgery, dipshit.
Thought so.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
To me, that PBA is horrid and should not be performed - unless as an absolute last possible resort where not to perform it would kill both mother and child - does not necessarily mean all abortion is wrong.
I don't see why it's seen as so impossible to ban one type of abortion (with such a clause), but not all.
Then again, I never was a huge fan of "slippery slope" arguments in cases like this.
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
Sine Nomine wrote
quote:
If I were king of the world, only women would be allowed to take part in the debate. I'm not sure how valid one's opinion is if you've not been pregnant or have a chance of becoming pregnant.
This is the sort of logic that pisses me off the most. Life and death - personhood or nonpersonhood - the rule of law as it governs decisions made by some which affect others - discussed uniquely by those who have an interest in the subject.
There's a reason, asshole, why the lady with the sword and the scales has a blindfold on! There's a reason why we don't hand over criminals for punishment to the people they've robbed or the famlies of the people they've murdered. The stakeholders in the question of what constitutes life in se and what constitutes life worthy of intervention on its behalf are all of us.
Notwithstanding the male chorus of churchmen and legislators who previously dominated the debate, these are questions which require the input of both genders......
Miserable twaddler! Guess we sorta lucked out that you aren't king of the world.
Raspberry Rabbit
Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on
:
Medical reasons for late term abortions (caution, graphic medical specimen pics)
anencephaly (ie no brain)
iniencephaly (malformation of skull and vertebrae)
exencephaly (brain outside skull)
meningomyelocele (another neural tube defect)
fetal hydrops with chromosomal defect
I would say -
How would you feel if you were pregnant with a child this afflicted?
Would you want an abortion then?
How would you feel if you had to go through the full pangs of labour knowing you would give birth to a already dead or dying baby ?(This can routinely happen with stillbirth).
If this were a first, much wanted pregnancy, and an abortion/ were on the cards, would you want to have options available that would most maximize your future fertility and have as little risk as poss of future infection? Would you want to have as many choices as possible open to your doctor?
These are the issues I would want to have clear legislation for.
My impression is that there is quite a lot of human tragedy associated with late abortions and I would be careful about flinging reproach at women who are often in appalling medical or social situations.
[edited to strengthen warning about medical pics at request of non-medical, somewhat squeamish shipmate]
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
[ 14. September 2004, 12:08: Message edited by: welsh dragon ]
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
I use the term 'male chorus' and immediately somebody Welsh turns up. Funny how that happens!
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
There's a reason, asshole, why the lady with the sword and the scales has a blindfold on! Raspberry Rabbit
Except that she doesn't.
Not on the Old Bailey at any rate - it's one of those commonly held myths.
Justice is not blind.
Nice flush of rhetoric, though. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by LookingUp@TheClouds (# 6989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
They ARE cuter than murderers, but that doesn't really have anything to do with it. For me, I'm pro-capital punishment because you consciously chose to kill the other person. It all has to do with the ability to reason. We are ingrained as a species to protect our children and allow adults to reap what the sow. Just consider these to be the ultimate expressions of those two sentiments.
Courts are fallible so inevitably miscarriages of justice occur and innocent people will be found guilty.
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
Well she does SOMEWHERE anyway. I might add that the statue on top of the OLD BAILEY is apparently the only one in the world *without* a blindfold. So - a nice flush of rhetoric *and* accurate 9 times out of ten.
RR
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LookingUp@TheClouds:
Courts are fallible so inevitably miscarriages of justice occur and innocent people will be found guilty.
True, but that doesn't negate the fact that those who ARE guilty (that is, actually committed the crime) deserve a quick jolt from Old Sparky.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Oops, hit submit too soon.
Welsh Dragon... I don't think there are people who deny that there are fetal defects which are fatal once the infant is delivered. However, reading the cite I provided on the previous page, it appears as though fetal abnormality ranks pretty damned low on the list of why women get abortions.
Besides, there's not much evidence that this particular technique has any benefits other than "well, at least we won't leave pieces behind".
Sine... I beg to differ. I think that men have a huge stake in the abortion argument. After all, we expect them to be responsible for their spawn, right? So why shouldn't they be allowed an opinion on their gestation?
Posted by LookingUp@TheClouds (# 6989) on
:
But the problem is you can't just support capital punishment for the guilty, in supporting it you have to accept that occasionally someone innocent will be killed.
Posted by Ilkku (# 8123) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
I would say -
How would you feel if you were pregnant with a child this afflicted?
Would you want an abortion then?
How would you feel if you had to go through the full pangs of labour knowing you would give birth to a already dead or dying baby ?(This can routinely happen with stillbirth).
My impression is that there is quite a lot of human tragedy associated with late abortions and I would be careful about flinging reproach at women who are often in appalling medical or social situations.
[edited to strengthen warning about medical pics at request of non-medical, somewhat squeamish shipmate]
These ARE gruesome.
but then so is sucking the brains out of your unborn child!
My cousin's first born was still born. Toxicity. She delivered "normally" and said it helped to give birth to and then say goodbye to her.
With these awful and presumably in-operable defects, it might be too awful to look at your child when s/he was delivered.
My hearts go out to parents in these situations. I didn't think it through and I'm sorry.
Since we're in hell, does it justify abortion though?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LookingUp@TheClouds:
But the problem is you can't just support capital punishment for the guilty, in supporting it you have to accept that occasionally someone innocent will be killed.
When an innocent man is executed, call me.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
And while I'm here!!!! I wish people who demo outside abortion clinics and demand legislation to stop abortion (in general) would do something positive, put their money with their mouth is and offer material and other support so women who have terminations for reasons to do with being unable to keep the kid rather than health risk have some other choice.
I know plenty of people who do this. Some of them also join a peaceful protest once a year, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Others never demonstrate at all.
But people providing financial support and such don't make it in the newspapers. It's just not as photogenic as a nice march.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
And while I'm here!!!! I wish people who demo outside abortion clinics and demand legislation to stop abortion (in general) would do something positive, put their money with their mouth is and offer material and other support so women who have terminations for reasons to do with being unable to keep the kid rather than health risk have some other choice.
They do. The Purdue University Pro-life group used to sponsor and send volunteers to a help-line for pregnant women. Before the extremists took over, that is.
Zach
Posted by Lurker™ (# 1384) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
You know what gets me? All the men who jump up and down screaming one way or another about abortion.
If I were king of the world, only women would be allowed to take part in the debate
Oh fuck, it's the "only people in group X should be allowed to talk about issue Y" argument.
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ilkku:
My hearts go out to parents in these situations. I didn't think it through and I'm sorry.
Since we're in hell, does it justify abortion though?
Read the rest of Welsh Dragon's post - if the best way to ensure that you were likely to be able to conceive a healthy child next time was to have a late-term (because you didn't know about the problem before) partial-birth (because as I understand it, there's less chance of damage) abortion, then surely it IS justified. If the child can't survive anyway, and the mother is in less danger, yes it does.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
When an innocent man is executed, call me.
Erin, I think your ringer must be turned off, because your phone's been ringing for quite a while.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Really? Cite, please, of an innocent man executed in the United States.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
Sine Nomine wrote
quote:
If I were king of the world, only women would be allowed to take part in the debate. I'm not sure how valid one's opinion is if you've not been pregnant or have a chance of becoming pregnant.
This is the sort of logic that pisses me off the most. Life and death - personhood or nonpersonhood - the rule of law as it governs decisions made by some which affect others - discussed uniquely by those who have an interest in the subject.
There's a reason, asshole, why the lady with the sword and the scales has a blindfold on! There's a reason why we don't hand over criminals for punishment to the people they've robbed or the famlies of the people they've murdered. The stakeholders in the question of what constitutes life in se and what constitutes life worthy of intervention on its behalf are all of us.
Notwithstanding the male chorus of churchmen and legislators who previously dominated the debate, these are questions which require the input of both genders......
Miserable twaddler! Guess we sorta lucked out that you aren't king of the world.
Raspberry Rabbit
Indeed you have lucked out that I'm not king of the world. I wouldn't be a very nice one, I assure you.
I had a good night's sleep and feel fairly rested, but I'm still having a bit of difficulty digging down to the meaning beneath your rather impressive rhetoric. (Preach for food? No, I think you deserve to be paid.) If I'm following your analogy of not handing murderers over to the family of the victim, I'm guessing you're saying a woman can't be trusted to make the decision herself. Fine. That's one point of view.
But you're certainly not undermining my impression that men seem to froth at the mouth on the subject more than women do. I just think that having another living creature growing inside one's body is so unimaginable to men that there's no way we can really have an idea what the relationship or the feelings must be like. So any opinions we might bring to the table on the subject are grossly incomplete.
Of course that never stops people from talking, on this or any other subject, as far as I can tell. I do so envy all of you who have everything all sorted out. I tend to wallow around in a morass of indecision myself.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
... reading the cite I provided on the previous page, it appears as though fetal abnormality ranks pretty damned low on the list of why women get abortions.
Unless I missed something, the study you cited did not discriminate on the stage of pregnancy during which the abortions were performed. Thus it seems very likely that a very high percentage of the subjects had early abortions by more conventional means. That particular study is probably not a very good indicator of why women get partial birth abortions. I would be very interested in seeing reliable data on the rate of purely elective partial birth abortions performed on a healthy fetus compared to those with some kind of medical indication.
quote:
Besides, there's not much evidence that this particular technique has any benefits other than "well, at least we won't leave pieces behind".
Does there need to be? If you are not going to ban late-tem abortions altogether (which would be a different discussion), I don't understand how you justify picking this one technique out of the pile and banning it.
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on
:
Sine Nomine wrote
quote:
I tend to wallow around in a morass of indecision myself.
Well you sounded pretty decisive to me. I haven't figured out what I would decree if I were king of the world.
Except that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would be forced to broadcast the World Cup Final on the internet and would be forced to put their classical music programmes back the way they were in the 90s Wankers!
Raspberry Rabbit
growing steadily older and more enraged
Posted by MadFarmer (# 2940) on
:
quote:
Really? Cite, please, of an innocent man executed in the United States.
Tut, tut, Erin. Surely you know the famous satistic that 115 people have been released from Death Row after new evidence has come to light proving their innocence. To deny the possbility that people who have already been executed might also have been executed just because you haven't got a citation for it is poor logic - you're denying a strong inference. Most people won't spend their time trying to clear the name of someone already executed, so a citation is unlikely. But it's logical to assume that innocent people have been executed.
Posted by Lurker™ (# 1384) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Really? Cite, please, of an innocent man executed in the United States.
Here are some cases of execution where there has been a strong reason to doubt that the person was guilty. Of course, as the site points out quote:
There is no way to tell how many of the over 750 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved. Some of those with strong claims include:
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
Hi,
I have no trouble understanding why many people who oppose abortion also favour the death penalty.
I have observed this particular type of person to have a particularly narrow, punitive, unforgiving, and angry mindset. It's very simple logic for them:
They believe that sex should be punished by a "life sentence", such as bringing an unwanted child to term.
They believe that crime should be punished by a "death sentence."
I think they see the world in purely literal terms, and feel a kind of cathartic joy every time they contemplate someone they know nothing about "getting what they deserve."
I have never observed one of these people not to be deeply, irretrievably, grindingly resentful and miserable human beings.
But..then again, there's always an exception.
Cheers
FF
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on
:
Why does it have to be the US? Are juries cleverer there?
But I'd say a posthumous pardon was pretty good evidence the state recognised the person's innocence. And that's just on a quick Google - I'm sure there are others.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
Hi,
I have no trouble understanding why many people who oppose abortion also favour the death penalty.
I have observed this particular type of person to have a particularly narrow, punitive, unforgiving, and angry mindset. It's very simple logic for them:
They believe that sex should be punished by a "life sentence", such as bringing an unwanted child to term....
I have never observed one of these people not to be deeply, irretrievably, grindingly resentful and miserable human beings.
But..then again, there's always an exception.
Cheers
FF
Cheers, is it?
While there are people of poor spirit on both sides of this benighted debate, I have never met personally, or known personally, a person opposed to legal access to abortion who embraced that view from a punitive spirit.
On the contrary, they despair over the failure of the general population to see and feel for what seems to them a heartless injustice, inflicted on the members of the human race least able to defend themselves. As such, a number of the seriously "pro-life" people I know are political liberals, and include the unborn in this philosophy that we must care for those who cannot care for themselves.
I disagree with their conclusions, but these conclusions do not stem from a desire to punish people for having sex.
The sort of rhetoric that you are spouting is as divisive and unelpful as anything I have heard from the "pro-life" side.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
I have never observed one of these people not to be deeply, irretrievably, grindingly resentful and miserable human beings.
But..then again, there's always an exception.
Cheers
FF
I have always noted the type of people who say things like this are self righteous, sanctimonious, members of some self styled liberal intelligentsia who look down on everyone else for being a Pharisee but fail to see such leanings in themselves.
For the record I am pro-life and against the death penalty. I don't however, assume anyone who disagrees with me is emotionally retarded.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
In fact, in my humble opinion, the whole notion of sex-without-consequences [rushing sound as my liberal card is taken away] and the concomitant notion that pregnancy is a punishment for sex (and nothing else) has been one of the most depressing shifts in human philosophy I can think of, and has done neither men nor women any good.
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
Oh!
I beg your pardon, did I post in purgatory by mistake?
I wasn't aware that hell was where we were supposed to be "helpful". ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
I'm calling it like I see it, Laura. So sue me if it's not "helpful." If you read me carefully, I am observing the kind of person who supports the death penalty AND opposes abortion.
I am not typifing all opponents of abortion, but if the shoe fits...by all means be my guest.
And...I have not weighed in with my stance either pro-choice or anti-abortion, so don't get any ideas...smarty-pants.
Cheers!
FF
Posted by Ilkku (# 8123) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I would be very interested in seeing reliable data on the rate of purely elective partial birth abortions performed on a healthy fetus compared to those with some kind of medical indication.
If you got that info Scot, would it make it better? but I suppose the latter point in your post suggests that you do think that the method of abortion in late pregnancies is irrelevent.
Any one else like to comment on that?
Something else to ponder. What was the worse crime.. starving Jews to death or gassing them, or shooting them immediately?
Mmmm. and wasn't it you who accused someone of
quote:
You are about one-and-a-half intellectual steps away from rounding undesirables up into camps. You need to go have a quiet think about this one.
[If you're going to quote someone, do it right, or else it's confusing and you look stupid.]
[ 14. September 2004, 15:26: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
I have to say that I find those who view pregnancy as a punishment to be absolutely disgusting and in reality are one load their momma should have swallowed. The world would be a much better place if this attitude, and those who held it, were extinct.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
Oh!
I beg your pardon, did I post in purgatory by mistake?
I wasn't aware that hell was where we were supposed to be "helpful".
I'm calling it like I see it, Laura. So sue me if it's not "helpful." If you read me carefully, I am observing the kind of person who supports the death penalty AND opposes abortion.
I am not typifing all opponents of abortion, but if the shoe fits...by all means be my guest.
And...I have not weighed in with my stance either pro-choice or anti-abortion, so don't get any ideas...smarty-pants.
Cheers!
FF
I understand that you were making ridiculous overgeneralizations about people who opposed abortion and supported the death penalty. And thanks for the reminder that we're in Hell -- did you know that the intial idea to break the Ship boards into separate realms was developed by a small group of persons including myself, lo these many years ago? No?
But, hey, since we're in Hell, I should have gone on to add that only someone terminally stupid would suggest that there's no distinction whatsoever between a convicted killer and an unborn baby. Whatever that person's position on either issue.
For the record, I support legal access to abortion through 12 weeks, and while I in principle support the death penalty I oppose it opn the grounds that, it is virtually guaranteed to fail regularly (like any government program).
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I just think that having another living creature growing inside one's body is so unimaginable to men that there's no way we can really have an idea what the relationship or the feelings must be like.
Tapeworm just aren't the same, are they?
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I have to say that I find those who view pregnancy as a punishment to be absolutely disgusting and in reality are one load their momma should have swallowed. The world would be a much better place if this attitude, and those who held it, were extinct.
But not through abortion, of course... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
By the way, does anybody know what Illku's trying to say?
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
I wasn't aware that hell was where we were supposed to be "helpful".
I hate that smiley. It's just so "tee-hee-hee. Aren't I a wicked little thing."
(You're right, RR. There are some things I'm not undecided about.)
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Well well well, we've beaten this dead horse into a bloody, rotting pulp.
I am sorely tempted to open a special board with restricted posting rights and allowing only those who have demonstrated that they understand nuance to discuss this topic. The rest of you who think that X view is always right or always wrong need to just shut the fuck up and let the adults speak.
Posted by Ilkku (# 8123) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
Why does it have to be the US? Are juries cleverer there?
But I'd say a posthumous pardon was pretty good evidence the state recognised the person's innocence. And that's just on a quick Google - I'm sure there are others.
Did you notice it took 99 YEARS for him to get the posthumous pardon!
OH and Laura - what was it that you didn't understand .. maybe I can help?
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ilkku:
If you got that info Scot, would it make it better? but I suppose the latter point in your post suggests that you do think that the method of abortion in late pregnancies is irrelevent.
Yes, I do think the method is irrelevant. If we are going to talk about banning something, I think it is worth asking what reason people have for wanting to do it. I don't know if that makes it better or not, but I'm sure you will tell me.
quote:
Something else to ponder. What was the worse crime.. starving Jews to death or gassing them, or shooting them immediately?
Mmmm. and wasn't it you who accused someone of
You are about one-and-a-half intellectual steps away from rounding undesirables up into camps. You need to go have a quiet think about this one.
Yes, it was me. What's your point? Have you not read my posts or did you just not understand them? Or are you making the sorry mistake of thinking that I'll be an easy patsy that you can use to draw some lame analogy between abortion and genocide? Consider this your one and only warning that it isn't likely to work out well for you
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MadFarmer:
She's using a metaphor.
Thank you, MadFarmer.
Mousethief, you surprise me!
Rossweisse // just a, like, you know, literary type, eh?
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
They ARE cuter than murderers, but that doesn't really have anything to do with it. For me, I'm pro-capital punishment because you consciously chose to kill the other person. It all has to do with the ability to reason. We are ingrained as a species to protect our children and allow adults to reap what the sow. Just consider these to be the ultimate expressions of those two sentiments.
I agree with you, Erin.
I understand people who are "pro-life" across the board: they are consistent.
I understand people who are "pro-choice" and in favor of the death penalty: they are consistent.
I understand people who oppose abortion but support the death penalty: they are protecting the innocent but figuring that those who do murder deserve what they get.
The people I do NOT understand are those who are "pro-choice" but anti-death penalty. I just don't see the logic there.
Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The people I do NOT understand are those who are "pro-choice" but anti-death penalty. I just don't see the logic there.
That is approxmately the position in English law.
The death penalty is opposed, as I understand it, because of the possible injustice if an innocent person is found guilty. And because killing as a punishment is widely thought to be inhumane.
The "pro-choice" policy reflects a desire to allow people to make their own moral choices about abortion. It is widely felt that women should have the right to make their own decisions about what they want to do with their own bodies. The emphasis is on the rights and freedom of the individual.
I see no real inconsistency between these 2 points of view. If you met a Guardian-reading, left-voting, graduate, English person, he or she would be more likely than not to go along with both these viewpoints...
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The people I do NOT understand are those who are "pro-choice" but anti-death penalty. I just don't see the logic there.
Well, that technically includes me. I'd like to give it a try.
I think that in the world in which we live, there are situations wherein decisions occasionally arise where people much decide between lives. In the case of abortion, it usually involves a woman, a medical professional who should have her best interests in mind, and a potential for human life that the woman has utter responsibility for. So, in the case of embryonic abortion, I deem that there should be no laws restricting a woman's freedom to make these hard decisions, because the ramifications are only felt by those responsible.
In the case of capital punishment, I absolutely believe that there are crimes for which the life of the transgressor is forfeit. The problem I have is that this mechanism involves a wide variety of extremely fallible entities, and the ramifications can include any member of society. So, I'm against capital punishment because I don't trust anyone enough to wield it.
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
Heh,
I live in a southern American city that boasts more churches per capita than any other city in the country.
After a decade of close acquaintance with all shapes and sizes of these churches' memberships through local mission, I am entitled to observe what I have about people who support the death penalty and oppose abortion.
I have not made a "ridiculous generalization", just reported what I have observed. I SAID I have never observed any one of these people to be other than truly miserable. Of course I have not observed them all, nor in all situations, so my conclusions are based solely on my acquaintance.
You ( and one other) were the one who reacted like I had leveled this observation against every abortion opponent in general, and you, in particular. Did I hit too close to home then?
BTW...thanks for hell. Great idea.
Cheers
FF
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
And I don't trust a frightened/worried woman and a "yeah I think I'm God" doctor to decide about wiping out a life without lots of guidelines and incentives against the abortion.
That's why the Libertarians will always turn up their noses at me and not let me play at their house. I do want to influence what goes on in the wombs around me.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
You can count me in with RooK and Laura, since the differences in our positions amount to splitting hairs.
I was strongly persuaded by an argument presented a while back by Laura, in which the line on abortion was drawn using the same standard as is commonly used at the end of life - higher brain function. Apparently frontal lobe activity starts up somewhere around the 16th to 22nd week. Allowing a generous margin for error, that standard permits elective first-trimester abortion. I could support later abortions only for strong medical reasons (much stronger than "increased risk").
I am in favor of the death penalty in principle. Some crimes are so heinous that death is a fitting punishment. However, my faith in the judicial system was badly shaken by the events following the widespread application of DNA technology. It is clear that the system's historic error rate on capital cases is too large to ignore. Thus, as a practical matter, I don't think we can implement the death penalty.
Notice that neither my pro-choice nor my anti-death penalty (or is it anti-choice and pro-death penalty?) position is based on knee-jerk, black-and-white approaches. Both positions require the application of principles to difficult, shades-of-grey realities. Neither was arrived at easily or initially. Both are subject to revision based on future evidence or further consideration. I guess a moral absolutist would declare me to be illogical or inconsistent, but I don't really care.
[edited to further blur unclear labels just in case anyone missed the point]
[ 14. September 2004, 16:04: Message edited by: Scot ]
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
I have not made a "ridiculous generalization", just reported what I have observed. I SAID I have never observed any one of these people to be other than truly miserable. Of course I have not observed them all, nor in all situations, so my conclusions are based solely on my acquaintance.
You are mentally deficient if you think that posting this after someone (i.e., ME) said they were anti-abortion and pro-death penalty is meant as anything other than a personal swipe. Actually, you clearly are mentally deficient anyway but this just proves it.
If you have something valid to contribute to the discussion, why not contribute it? If you don't have anything valid (and here's a hint: you haven't contributed anything of value yet and judging by your contributions, you won't be in the future, either) to contribute to the discussion, why not go fuck yourself with the syphilitic goat carcass we keep out back for such morons as yourself?
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
oooH Ow! Erin!
You are stomping on my itty bitty feewings.
So sorry you took it personally. I would have thought you might have been smart enough to think "Well, she's never met me yet, so I'm OBVIOUSLY the exception she was talking about in her original post."
You had this great opportunity to show me how wrong I am, but here you are doing just the opposite.
Ah me...
It's OK, no hard feelings. I'll just take a stroll around back and check out this fly-blown goat carcass you refer to.
Cheers
FF
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
You ( and one other) were the one who reacted like I had leveled this observation against every abortion opponent in general, and you, in particular. Did I hit too close to home then?
No, as I am not an opponent of legal access to abortion, before a certain point, as I keep repeating.
Scot: I almost started crying when I read that I had posted a compelling argument that affected someone's view about something. God, it's been so long. I struggled for years with the abortion issue before finally embracing the view I hold (and which you described here). I may be wrong, but I hope God will understand that the view was achieved through much suffering and thought.
I'm starting to think that we should just eliminate Dead Horses, but set up a registry of People Capable of Appreciating Nuance ("PeCAN") (whatever side they come down on), who would be then licensed to argue about certain Dead Horse topics like this one.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Ok, so some people have opinions.
Any of you ever sat with a woman when faced with this?
No?
Then shut up.....for a while.
Any of you ever nursed a baby taken to term with multiple, multiple problems?
No?
Then shut up.....for a while.
Any of you ever laid out a dead baby with so many problems you don't quite know what to put where?
No?
Then shut up...for a while.
You ever had a parent (or two) shouting In Your Face "Where is a bloody God if my baby is born like THIS then?"
No?
Then shut up..for a while.
Any of you ever had to sit with a nurse after an especially nasty termination?
No?
Then shut up..for a while.
Any of you ever had to slowly go OUT of a room as the doctor is sat there crying after a procedure like the ones you are talking about?
No?
Then shut up......for a while.
Any of you ever had to sit with a couple as they break up their marriage....... because the strain of caring for a very badly disabled child, who will never, ever leave an institution has torn them apart?
No?
Then shut up....for a while.
There is so much arm-chair pontificating on here that I feel ill.
You have the luxury of choosing and choice...because you're not in the situation.
......and to say you never would be is a cheap shot.
......and to assume that if you WERE then your moral high ground would hold is presumptuous.
IF any of you HAVE done even half of these then I might , just might, begin to listen.
But I guess you haven't so I'm not going to miss much by going out for the evening.
Oh..forgot to say.... I'm anti-abortion.
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
Ok so...
for the record now.
I am pro-joy and anti-death.
Cheers
FF
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on
:
A number of people on this thread have rightly pointed out the extreme difficulty of pinpointing when "life" begins. Like Erin, my pro-life views don't come from a religious position. My faith teaches me that life is precious but then my faith hardly has a monopoly on that idea. My faith certainly doesn't teach me when life begins. The reason why I am sort-of pro-life is that it seems a lot to risk if there is ambiguity. Ambiguity isn't a reason to proceed with abortion but rather a reason to hold back. To show the rightness of abortion one would need to show that life hadn't begun at a certain point, rather than show that you couldn't prove that it had.
BUT:
This is a bit of a cliche but I don't think this point has yet been made on this particular thread so I might as well make it. We live in a world where tragically we are often forced to choose not between good and evil but between two or more evils. Although I am basically pro-life I have never yet met a pro-choicer and nor do I expect to who thinks that abortion is simply a wonderful thing. They do not think life is cheap but recognise that life is special and precious.
However they also generally recognise that it is not simply a case of abortion=evil but that in some cases legal abortion=evil but not-legal-abortion=more evil, e.g. because of the danger in a rise of backstreet abortions, potential fatal damage to the mother's health, possible to probable death of the baby if the pregnancy is carried to term and so on.
Saying that sometimes a legal, safe abortion is tragic but less evil than that abortion not taking place, or encouraging abortions to take place in an extremely unsafe environment is not the same as saying that abortion is right or good. It's often (usually?) a lose-lose situation.
In my view, that doesn't translate as abortion on demand e.g. two consenting healthy adults who did not use birth control and where there is no risk to the health of the baby or mother. Denying abortions in such circumstances is most emphatically not a case of forcing people to have a baby as a punishment, but a case of saying to people "your actions have consequences, but the fact that some of the consequences of this action may be negative does not give you the right to end the gestation of what may be a human life."
I know very little about the American legal system but in the UK I do believe it is too easy to get an abortion for what I would regard as poor reasons. If we use the criterion not of "which is the greater good" but "which is the lesser evil" I think we would have a much less emotive and more sane criterion by which to judge whether an abortion should be allowed, taking into account factors like the stage the pregnancy has reached, the possible healths of the baby and mother and so on.
There are no simple answers because regardless of what you think is right and wrong in an ideal world, we live in a world where it is rarely possible to live by ideals.
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
You have the luxury of choosing and choice...because you're not in the situation.
Actually for me it is a case of working out some thoughts in advance as who knows maybe one day I will be in such a situation and it would be good to have thought it through though obviously it would be stupid and arrogant to think my feelings at the time wouldn't affect me.
And it is also helpful for me to think it through to try and achieve some empathy and sympathy as I have no doubt that my life will bring me into contact with people going through situations like these. I am sure I haven't achieved much of either compared to what such tragedies deserve but please don't ever assume that people are just armchair pontificating.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
And I don't trust a frightened/worried woman and a "yeah I think I'm God" doctor to decide about wiping out a life without lots of guidelines and incentives against the abortion.
That's why the Libertarians will always turn up their noses at me and not let me play at their house. I do want to influence what goes on in the wombs around me.
Actually, Janine, the Libertarians I know are very much of differing views on this issue. They're divided between the "the mother has the right to decide, period" party, the "that's another human being in there and it has the right to life" party, and people like me who see the gray areas all too clearly. (Thus, some would see me as "pro-choice," some would see me as "pro-life" and some would see me as a member of the "hopeless waffler" party.)
Anyway, you're more than welcome to come to my house to play!
To Rook, et al: As far as I'm concerned, the possibility of executing the wrong person is the primary legitimate argument against the death penalty. But when we've got some homicidal monster dead to rights (as it were), I see no problem with hastening his exit.
To Ethne Alba: Yeah, I've done some of that. Perhaps that's one reason I do see the gray areas.
I agree that we might say that the fetus crosses the line from "potential human life" to "human life" when there is higher brain function. But even potential human life should not be casually terminated -- and yes, I've seen some of that, too.
Rossweisse // thinking again of my paternal grandmother's favorite curse, borrowed from the Chinese: "May you live in interesting times!"
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Ok, so some people have opinions.
Any of you ever sat with a woman when faced with this?
No?
Then shut up.....for a while.
Any of you ever nursed a baby taken to term with multiple, multiple problems?
No?
Then shut up.....for a while.
Oh..forgot to say.... I'm anti-abortion.
Again, this fallacy that only those who face a very specific situation have a right to develop an ethical system addressing such a situation. We are not here on this board lecturing a person in a given situation described above, so I for one, do not intend to shut up. If I were counseling a person in such a situation, then indeed, I would not be expressing initial any opinion at all. Ethne, these are discussion boards. We discuss things here. If you have a problem with it, you don't have to read it.
Furthermore, you have no idea whether one or all of us have been in one of the situations you describe, so even if you were somehow right to tell people who haven't to shut up, I'm guesssing you don't have any right to level that to this audience. I, for one, have held a woman's hand while she was having an abortion, in fact on four separate occasions (with four separate women). I have been in at least one of the other positions you describe, though I'm certainly not going to say which.
Again, I utterly reject the notion that only women/only people facing a handicapped child/etc. have the right to speak on this issue. If that were the case, we could just go ahead and dispense with representative democracy altogether.
Posted by (gracia) (# 1812) on
:
Dear A Feminine Force, Nothing hurts more than the truth, & I think maybe you’ve scored a bulls-eye here:
quote:
I have not made a "ridiculous generalization", just reported what I have observed. I SAID I have never observed any one of these people to be other than truly miserable Of course I have not observed them all, nor in all situations, so my conclusions are based solely on my acquaintance.
You ( and one other) were the one who reacted like I had leveled this observation against every abortion opponent in general, and you, in particular.
These comments (from Erin on this thread alone)speak for themselves:
*That said, no one is preventing dear old mom from choosing to not have a child. In fact, I believe there are any number of birth control methods out there, along with the much maligned choice of abstinence. That is where the right to choose lies.
*reading the cite I provided on the previous page, it appears as though fetal abnormality ranks pretty damned low on the list of why women get abortions.
*I also take the necessary precautions (birth control, not actually smoking crack) to ensure that I don't end up with a crack baby.
Would that everyone else were as careful.
*My anti-abortion stance has fuck-all to do with religion. So instead of failing miserably at reading my mind, go pleasure the pig you rode in on.
*Geez, and here I was thinking you were smart enough to have figured that one out. I won't be making that mistake again.
*Since you’re so medically ignorant, you should bow out of this one.
*Were you born stupid, or are you taking lessons? I've worked in hospitals for eleven years…
*Thou art a true dolt, (valued shipmate). That, or you've got some personal experience here which is making you batshit spittle-emitting insane. Whichever, I couldn't care less.
*you illiterate knuckle-dragging cretin
*and if you actually possessed the ability to read, you would have caught this, but I suppose we must make allowances for the stupid amongst us
*We are ingrained as a species to protect our children and allow adults to reap what the sow.
*I find those who view pregnancy as a punishment to be absolutely disgusting and in reality are one load their momma should have swallowed. The world would be a much better place if this attitude, and those who held it, were extinct.
*you who think that X view is always right or always wrong need to just shut the fuck up and let the adults speak.
*Actually, you clearly are mentally deficient anyway but this just proves it.
*If you have something valid to contribute to the discussion, why not contribute it? If you don't have anything valid (and here's a hint: you haven't contributed anything of value yet and judging by your contributions, you won't be in the future, either) to contribute to the discussion, why not go fuck yourself with the syphilitic goat carcass we keep out back for such morons as yourself?
However much it strengthens my own position to read such sentimental, judgmental claptrap as quote:
And what a sad indictment of our society it is that so many people (professional politicians and otherwise) choose to pose while standing on the corpses of murdered infants,
it has been worth it to hear from what sounds to me like the voice of experience:
*My impression is that there is quite a lot of human tragedy associated with late abortions and I would be careful about flinging reproach at women who are often in appalling medical or social situations.
*…Any of you ever had to sit with a couple as they break up their marriage....... because the strain of caring for a very badly disabled child, who will never, ever leave an institution has torn them apart?
No? Then shut up....for a while.
There is so much arm-chair pontificating on here that I feel ill.
You have the luxury of choosing and choice...because you're not in the situation.
......and to say you never would be is a cheap shot.
......and to assume that if you WERE then your moral high ground would hold is presumptuous
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on
:
Ok folks this dead equine has trotted along quite happily now if you want to flame each other or rant about 'Partial-birth abortion' please stay here. Sensible discussion about abortion is found here. Stupid emotional poetry belongs in heaven. Please go and find the correct thread.
Nightlamp
Hellhost
Posted by Equinas (# 2907) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Furthermore, you have no idea whether one or all of us have been in one of the situations you describe, so even if you were somehow right to tell people who haven't to shut up, I'm guesssing you don't have any right to level that to this audience. I, for one, have held a woman's hand while she was having an abortion, in fact on four separate occasions (with four separate women). I have been in at least one of the other positions you describe, though I'm certainly not going to say which.
Thanks, Laura. I've been in at least two of these situations and in a few that were not mentioned, but I don't consider that the credibility of my particular views (anti, Ethne Alba) to be dependent on that fact.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
You ( and one other) were the one who reacted like I had leveled this observation against every abortion opponent in general, and you, in particular. Did I hit too close to home then?
Is this a reference to me? If so, I did not react as if you had levelled this at every abortion opponent.
I merely said you were spouting sanctimonious crap. Which you still are, incidentally.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (gracia):
...However much it strengthens my own position to read such sentimental, judgmental claptrap as quote:
And what a sad indictment of our society it is that so many people (professional politicians and otherwise) choose to pose while standing on the corpses of murdered infants,
...
Ah, (gracia), I wondered where you were -- writing your OP (speaking of "claptrap") and then disappearing while the discussion raged for four pages in your absence!
Are you saying that the victims of late-term partial-birth abortion (or whatever you want to call it) aren't infants, and that a woman's "right to privacy" transcends their right to live? Remember, we're not talking about embryos here, nor about fetuses without higher brain function. We're talking about infants that would make it on their own outside the womb.
If you can justify this view, I would be most interested in reading what you have to say. Otherwise, while you're entitled to dismiss others' words, you don't really have much credibility in doing so.
Rossweisse // "sentimental"? whatever...
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The people I do NOT understand are those who are "pro-choice" but anti-death penalty. I just don't see the logic there.
That is approxmately the position in English law.<snip>.
I see no real inconsistency between these 2 points of view. If you met a Guardian-reading, left-voting, graduate, English person, he or she would be more likely than not to go along with both these viewpoints...
Guilty as charged! That's me alright!
In fact, that's one definition of a liberal - "Someone who thinks it's OK to kill innocent unborn babies, but wrong to kill convicted criminals". Which is a definition that made me think.
However, I defend my position in the same way as RooK, Laura and Scot. Which is, frankly, a worrying combination of people to agree with!
I don't claim to be morally consistent anyway. I find this whole area one mass of greys with very little black or white.
Posted by Ilkku (# 8123) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I don't know if that makes it better or not, but I'm sure you will tell me.
LOL - No Scot I won't! You can work it out for yourself. Can't you?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (gracia):
Dear A Feminine Force, Nothing hurts more than the truth, & I think maybe you’ve scored a bulls-eye here:
quote:
I have not made a "ridiculous generalization", just reported what I have observed. I SAID I have never observed any one of these people to be other than truly miserable Of course I have not observed them all, nor in all situations, so my conclusions are based solely on my acquaintance.
You ( and one other) were the one who reacted like I had leveled this observation against every abortion opponent in general, and you, in particular.
These comments (from Erin on this thread alone)speak for themselves:
*sigh*
I forgot from the last abortion argument that you are an absolute raving loon.
I'm not "truly miserable". I'm not even slightly riled by the appalling ignorance that you and others have displayed for the world to see. So no, The Dumbass Known as The Feminine Force didn't hurt me, or score a bull's-eye, or anything else.
I am, however, irritated by people who think they can read my mind and psychologize accordingly. If you are intellectually unable to agree to the following:
- that there is an element of personal responsibility that has been overlooked in the abortion debate;
- that society in general does not do a good job taking care of its most vulnerable;
- that reasonable people can and do differ on when life begins;
- that society has gradually shifted its emphasis from sex as an expression of love AND potential reproduction to sex on demand without any consequences whatsoever; and,
- that society has come to regard children as the ultimate accessory
you need to either educate yourself or keep your trap shut. The absolutes like yourself are what entrench the other side (no matter which side you are on). You either don't see that or you don't care, but no matter what the underlying cause, you're part of the problem.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ilkku:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I don't know if that makes it better or not, but I'm sure you will tell me.
LOL - No Scot I won't! You can work it out for yourself. Can't you?
No. Let's assume that I can't. Explain for me the moral implications of the relative frequency of purely elective late-term abortions compared to medically-indicated late-term abortions. Perhaps after that you could explain how each case relates to the approval of genocide that you seemingly tried to smear me on the last page.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
Yeah and the 14 week baby will in all probability be an unhealthy wreck for the rest of its miserable life. Minor problems like underdeveloped lungs, bleeding in the brain, eyes underdeveloped, heart defects, digestive problems, cerebral palsy, and possibly developmental and learning problems. Increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
Nah, it's a "viable" baby!
I'm going to skip right over the blatantly false "in all probablity" claim and get right to my biggest problem with this uncharacteristically muddle-headed post.
You are suggesting that a justification for abortion lies in an "increased risk" of a medical condition. Do you really believe that? Do you think that an entity that would otherwise be protected should be subject to termination simply on the basis of an "increased risk"? That is some scary shit.
If you want to make an argument that abortion ought to be legal as a matter of individual freedom, or privacy, or whatever, go right ahead. People of good conscience can and do disagree on this one. But to claim that there is a distinction to be made on the basis of "increased risk" is, as was previously noted, eugenics.
You are about one-and-a-half intellectual steps away from rounding undesirables up into camps. You need to go have a quiet think about this one.
Actually, I was attempting to make the case that babies need to exist a seriously long time in the womb before becoming viable. In other words, IMO a baby is not a baby until it can pop out without an entire medical staff with the newest machinery to support it.
This was probably not stated well under the barrage that is Erin. My apologies if I misspoke.
I have NO interest in undesirables being rounded up, thanks.
I'll leave that to Ashcroft.
Posted by (gracia) (# 1812) on
:
To make an attempt to address Scot’s question about the relative frequency of "partial birth abortions" which are motivated by tragic circumstances, vs. those motivated by “maternal inconvenience” this is what I found online.
Chief Judge Richard G. Kopf of Federal District Court in Lincoln, said Congress had ignored the most experienced doctors when it determined that the banned procedure would never be necessary to protect the health of the mother, a finding he called "unreasonable." (A.P)
I located the transcript from the recent case cited in my O.P.
On page 113 of the transcript:
"These women,their patients, find themselves in the horrible situation of having to determine whether to end a wanted pregnancy."
In testimony before Judge Kopf, Dr. Chasen said
quote:
,”Almost all the patients I see have desired pregnancies. Planned or unplanned, they have been very happy to be pregnant and at some point recently they have received some devastating news.
He went on to explain
quote:
many patients confide with me that what they are going to do violates every moral and religious belief thy may have had to that point.
But they are choosing to do that because they think it is the most apporopriate thing for them to do. That is the choice that these patients have a right to make.
The misinformation currently circulating in political discussions of abortion procedures only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician — not legislators — are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.
Chief Federal Judge Richard G.Kopf:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/08/nebraska.abortion.ap/
The American College of OB/Gyn:
http://www.acog.org/publicsearch
Posted by (gracia) (# 1812) on
:
The complete transcript
When one realizes how complex (and important to fertile women)the issue is, it doesn't hurt to have some knowledge, experience, & understanding under your belt (rather than bluster and hot air).
Posted by (gracia) (# 1812) on
:
Complete transcript (fingers crossed)
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
Hi Leprechaun,
No I didn't mean you. Thanks for giving yourself the benefit of the doubt...I did say in my original post on page 3 that there's always room for the exception.
Erin decided that I was attacking her personally, and rejoined with resoundingly vigorous ill-will. Quite bracing, and funny. The syphilitic goat thing was most apropos, as she seems to think that sex needs to have "consequences". In this case, a death sentence.
(gracia) you noticed a pattern I didn't...heh. You had the stomach to wade through it all. I glossed over a page or so..but now you mention it...
I hope everyone is getting their money's worth out of this thread. Let the passions boil! Let the sturm und drang go on! It's a humdinger. Let's all have a big cathartic rant!
LOL..
Cheers!
FF
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
It is my favorite thing in the entire world when the new people think they understand how it works.
No, really, it is.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
New people being anyone under 10,000 posts.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
Oh...Oh! I Know! I know, pick me!
Let's see I think I see how it works.
You, Erin, get to define the terms of the debate.
Anyone who wants to take it in another direction or who want to pipe up with less tha 10,000 posts to their credit is to be bullied and insulted into cowering admiration of your murderous insult wit.
Have you considered a career as an insult comic? You'd be very good. I think you have missed your calling.
I think you'd find an audience among the very people I described in my original post.
Can I book you here in the Bubba Belt? You'd clean up in this town....I see Vegas in your future.
Seriously! You have the chops, girl.
Cheers
FF
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
AFForce, would it surprise you to know that we've read posts almost exactly like yours? Almost word for word.
Just thought I'd mention that, in case it affects your compulsion to respond to every stray remark that Erin makes.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
New people being anyone under 10,000 posts.
Well, it's always been my fervent belief that if they have less than 150 posts they are completely qualified to comment on the dynamics of the debates on the bulletin boards and should be taken Very Seriously.
Getting back to the discussion and setting aside the two pro-abortion feminist nutjobs who are infesting the place...
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
Actually, I was attempting to make the case that babies need to exist a seriously long time in the womb before becoming viable. In other words, IMO a baby is not a baby until it can pop out without an entire medical staff with the newest machinery to support it.
I think there is a rather signficant period of time bbetween full fetal viability and birth. If the expected gestational period is 40 weeks, and women are delivering healthy infants up to eight weeks earlier, that doesn't qualify as "not viable until the very end". So going back to this...
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
Bullshit. They die if they are not attached to a woman. It's a parasite on the vagina till nearly birth.
I don't think that's a medically supported point of view. If you want to argue the line until the child is delivered naturally it's completely her decision to make, that's one thing. But to say that abortion up until week 38 is acceptable because the child is not viable outside the womb is relying upon unsupported science.
[ 15. September 2004, 00:15: Message edited by: Erin ]
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (gracia):
When one realizes how complex (and important to fertile women)the issue is, it doesn't hurt to have some knowledge, experience, & understanding under your belt (rather than bluster and hot air).
And so anyone who disagrees with you on any aspect of all of this is devoid of "knowledge, experience, & understanding," precisely because they disagree with you? Fascinating.
Rossweisse // albeit ridiculous
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If you are intellectually unable to agree to the following:
- that there is an element of personal responsibility that has been overlooked in the abortion debate;
- that society in general does not do a good job taking care of its most vulnerable;
- that reasonable people can and do differ on when life begins;
- that society has gradually shifted its emphasis from sex as an expression of love AND potential reproduction to sex on demand without any consequences whatsoever; and,
- that society has come to regard children as the ultimate accessory
you need to either educate yourself or keep your trap shut. The absolutes like yourself are what entrench the other side (no matter which side you are on). You either don't see that or you don't care, but no matter what the underlying cause, you're part of the problem.
After reading through this thread, this is actually the only part that jumps out at me and makes any logical, realistic, everyday sense. Not based on any religious view, not based on society's view of morality, not based on a personal judgment of those involved. Totally objective, and totally compelling, IMO. I think it bears a re-read.
For me, pro-choice is really no-choice. Abortion should be available only for the most extreme and desparate of circumstances, who are in a situation where there is no other choice. That may be an innocent teen, it may be an unhealthy mom... whatever. It just shouldn't be so accessible that some women use it as their birth control du jour.
Any way you slice it -- or scrape it or suction it -- abortion is a bad thing, for the individual, for the nation... and for the baby.
I really hate that it even has to be addressed, don't you?
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
...I really hate that it even has to be addressed, don't you?
Yes.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by (gracia):
When one realizes how complex (and important to fertile women)the issue is, it doesn't hurt to have some knowledge, experience, & understanding under your belt (rather than bluster and hot air).
And so anyone who disagrees with you on any aspect of all of this is devoid of "knowledge, experience, & understanding," precisely because they disagree with you? Fascinating.
Rossweisse // albeit ridiculous
Rossweisse, got a little tip for you. The bitch started this thread in Hell. That should tell you her intentions right there.
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
heh Rook....
You mean to say Erin has actually passed up a career as an insult comic?
Thanks for the tip...I hope to survive many many more skewerings of Erin's...one could actually begin to enjoy it...
Have a great evening, y'all!
FF
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Rossweisse, got a little tip for you. The bitch started this thread in Hell. That should tell you her intentions right there.
Of course. What was I thinking?
Thank you, Erin.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
Have a great evening, y'all!
FF
Nite, nite.
Get some rest. Being relentlessly cheerful must be exhausting. I know I'm tired just reading your posts.
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on
:
I think she may be... gulp... Southern.
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
Well, say no more.
Posted by Ilkku (# 8123) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by Ilkku:
Perhaps after that you could explain how each case relates to the approval of genocide that you seemingly tried to smear me on the last page.
Did I say that Scot?
Did I try to smear you with approval of genocide?
I don't think so.
But If I did, or implied it, then I apologise.
Genocide is genocide, whatever the method. In my book, so is abortion.
I wanted to make the point that sucking out your baby's brains for any reason is, in my books, an inhumane thing to do. That said, I also think all methods of abortion - in particular in the last trimester - aren't "cricket" either.
I think we do agree on that, don't we?
Posted by Ilkku (# 8123) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
I, As Whoopi Goldberg once said to a man, "If you're against abortion, why don't you cut your dick off?"
But...I...digress......
I'm double posting... but this has NOTHING to do with the last post (honest!)
just read this over in purg .... and well ... it says it all LOL
Posted by Sir Isaac Cootton (# 220) on
:
quote:
Rossweisse:
Are you saying that the victims of late-term partial-birth abortion (or whatever you want to call it) aren't infants, and that a woman's "right to privacy" transcends their right to live? Remember, we're not talking about embryos here, nor about fetuses without higher brain function. We're talking about infants that would make it on their own outside the womb.
My italics.
This is why Scot was asking about statistics (I think). Those links that WD posted show occasions when PBAs are performed - when the baby is unviable or already dead. We need some statistics as to the reasons that PBAs are carried out before we even know that it is "infants that would make it on their own outside the womb" that are aborted.
I don't know whether a baby that is so neurologically malformed can feel pain - but if so, there must surely be some way of ending its life in utero before the PBA.
And then if it's found that say, 1 per 100 PBAs are healthy viable fetuses (?correct term for the development late in pregnancy) that were carried out for 'convenience'; how would those who oppose PBA legislate to stop it?
As I see it, here's how it would work: you legislate for a list of medical conditions for which PBA is indicated, then you must have an a generic condition 'other condition where PBA is recommended as the only resort by a medical doctor' - because with humans, you can never predict what will come up... Now unscrupulous people will find a way to exploit that clause. Much better to leave the decision making to the person, their conscience and the doctor. And make sure your medical students get a healthy dose of ethics... lol in fact, everyone could do with that. Because you are not going to stop the people who will abuse the legislation and place their convenience above the life of a normal healthy foetus.
And now, who, who favours a complete ban on PBA could tell the mother of an infant diagnosed in utero with iniencephaly (NB. prognosis for new born extremely poor - few hours life; danger posed to mother due to distortion of the foetal body) that she should carry it to term and give birth to it?
If the pro-life organisation in the US was serious about stopping abortion, they should be lobbying for a sole parent pension. Make contraception and sex education more available. Unmarried people are not going to magically stop having sex. And you can't have it both ways - you want ppl to keep the babies or not to have them in the first place, give them the means to do it.
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ilkku:
I wanted to make the point that sucking out your baby's brains for any reason is, in my books, an inhumane thing to do. That said, I also think all methods of abortion - in particular in the last trimester - aren't "cricket" either.
I think we do agree on that, don't we?
What if the child is not going to survive? Is it still inhumane? Why should we agree that all methods of abortion in the last trimester, if the infant cannot survive, are inhumane? Surely it's more humane to try and help the mother to have another child in the future, if the method of abortion can help that? Or if the mother's treatment for cancer cannot be carried out in pregnancy without damaging the child, but she will die before the end of the pregnancy without it?
You see, that's what we're actually talking about here, at least according to gracia's links. Rather than, say, the general issue of abortion (see Dead Horses), or the death penalty (start a new thread, apologies for contributing to the tangent).
You may take a hard-line view like some older Catholics might do (gross generalisation there of course) and say that even if the mother's life is in danger, the foetus should be preferred; and even if the child would survive for only a brief period (maybe days or minutes) and a later labour would endanger the mother's fertility, the pregnancy should be carried to term.
Or you may weigh up the mother's health (reproductive or otherwise) or life against the infant's and decide this is justified in some circumstances.
That is precisely what we're discussing here - I would be interested to hear views on that. I'm sure I'm not alone in being really BORED by views on abortion in general.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ilkku:
I wanted to make the point that sucking out your baby's brains for any reason is, in my books, an inhumane thing to do. That said, I also think all methods of abortion - in particular in the last trimester - aren't "cricket" either.
I think we do agree on that, don't we?
No, I don't think we agree on that. What we probably do agree on is that third trimester abortion for convenience (or any other purely elective reason) is inhumane.
I can't imagine a mentally competent late-term pregnant woman seeking out an abortion. I'm not saying that it has never happened, but I suspect that it must be exceedingly rare. I would guess that the vast majority of third-trimester abortions involve either a non-viable fetus or some sort of severe medical crisis that will result in the death of the fetus, the mother, or both.
I could be completely wrong, since this is based on nothing but my own instincts. That's why I said I would be interested in seeing reliable data on matter.
Gracia, while I appreciate your effort, I don't consider unverified testimony by politically-motivated and financially-vested physicians to be particularly reliable. Something resembling a scientific study by an outside party would be a different matter.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
New people being anyone under 10,000 posts.
Well, it's always been my fervent belief that if they have less than 150 posts they are completely qualified to comment on the dynamics of the debates on the bulletin boards and should be taken Very Seriously.
Getting back to the discussion and setting aside the two pro-abortion feminist nutjobs who are infesting the place...
Well, you certainly know that I take them Very Seriously. But I am a little surprised that you put it as low as 150. I figured one couldn't get any serious respect until at least 3046 posts.
As for me being a feminist in the conventional sense of the word: ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Now, nutjob? Guilty as charged and normally proud of it.
After two days of considering it I am now going to do a very unHellish thing and apologize to Erin, Duchess, Riv, and whoever else I may have attacked on this thread.
Abortion is such a lovely topic.
Posted by Equinas (# 2907) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I would guess that the vast majority of third-trimester abortions involve either a non-viable fetus or some sort of severe medical crisis that will result in the death of the fetus, the mother, or both.
Which the PBA does allow.
quote:
I could be completely wrong, since this is based on nothing but my own instincts. That's why I said I would be interested in seeing reliable data on matter.
IIRC, it is stated in the California decision that such a study has not yet been done.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Isaac Cootton:
<snip!>
If the pro-life organisation in the US was serious about stopping abortion, they should be lobbying for a sole parent pension. Make contraception and sex education more available. Unmarried people are not going to magically stop having sex. And you can't have it both ways - you want ppl to keep the babies or not to have them in the first place, give them the means to do it.
My dear fellow, I belong to not just one but 2 Organizations. One of which is
First Resort in the Bay Area. I give money and time, so that women get care and help to KEEP their babies. I have brought this up before but never posted the link to one. I thought about it and decided to since you can see for yourself if you are not familliar with these places. One gal from First Resort met with someone from Planned Parenthood and had lunch. The whole concept is to make abortion an undesirable and unnecessary alternative. There is no screaming on the sidewalk outside Planned Parenthood...and approx 50% of the women that walk in there (First Resort) still opt sadly to get abortions after seeing the baby on the free ultrasound and hearing about free care, adoption and other options.
[duchess gets up on soapbox]Sorry this is not hellish, but I get sick of hearing how pro-lifers like myself are not doing anything outside of screaming and condemning. It just ain't true. I do have people close to me in my life who have had abortions. I do not judge them for it however while I have breath in my body, I will do whatever is in my power, prayer, give money, time...etc...to change people's minds.[/duchess gets up on soapbox]
Mad Geo, abortion is never a "lovely topic", you freakazoid. It is a sad sad upsetting one for everyone.
[code and a few minor changes]
[ 15. September 2004, 15:08: Message edited by: duchess ]
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
Mad Geo, sorry I got hung up on the last few words of your post and after you pm'd me, just got with the program and noticed the rest of it. Sorry about that. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
You are totally forgiven. thx.
Posted by .Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
[QUOTE]Mad Geo, abortion is never a "lovely topic", you freakazoid. It is a sad sad upsetting one for everyone.
Duchess, I was being ironic.
Try and stay with me, dear.
[Crossposted with the Duchster]
[ 15. September 2004, 15:13: Message edited by: .Mad Geo ]
Posted by Ilkku (# 8123) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
What we probably do agree on is that third trimester abortion for convenience (or any other purely elective reason) is inhumane.
I can't imagine a mentally competent late-term pregnant woman seeking out an abortion. I'm not saying that it has never happened, but I suspect that it must be exceedingly rare. I would guess that the vast majority of third-trimester abortions involve either a non-viable fetus or some sort of severe medical crisis that will result in the death of the fetus, the mother, or both.
I could be completely wrong, since this is based on nothing but my own instincts. That's why I said I would be interested in seeing reliable data on matter.
For the record I agree with Scot on both these points.
Posted by Equinas (# 2907) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
The whole concept is to make abortion an undesirable and unnecessary alternative.
And I would hope everyone can agree it's a worthy goal.
quote:
[duchess gets up on soapbox]Sorry this is not hellish, but I get sick of hearing how pro-lifers like myself are not doing anything outside of screaming and condemning. It just ain't true. I do have people close to me in my life who have had abortions. I do not judge them for it however while I have breath in my body, I will do whatever is in my power, prayer, give money, time...etc...to change people's minds.[/duchess gets up on soapbox]
Unfortunately, the screaming and condemning is deemed more press-worthy.
Posted by (gracia) (# 1812) on
:
Scot asked for stats; I suspect that the numbers involved are so small as to render statistics meaningless.
Though the numbers are small, the impact on the family involved is tremendous. It bothers me when the issue is portrayed anything like “selfish adults vs. helpless infants”.
That’s just not (IME) the case in reality – though it’s duck soup to a demagogue to rile people up by referring to helpless infants being cut up.
To my mind, one would have to have a pretty grim view of humanity to believe that mothers and trained obstetric personnel would do this for the sake of convenience. If you take some time & read toward the end of the most recent court case’s transcript, you will get some idea of the fact that this represents a tragedy & sometimes an emergency to those involved.
Would that we are all so blessed as to never be in the position where we would have to choose between such really, really, bad alternatives.
But some small number of people will find themselves in such a position.
I was a very small part of one such procedure, & I will never, ever forget the pall of deep tragedy that lay over the whole obstetric department, in the time leading up to, during and even for a time after the procedure.
But we did all (AFAIK) believe that the least bad alternative had been chosen. It was the family and their doctor who chose, & I don’t believe the Justice Dept. had any need to give their input at all. It really, to my mind, was not a matter of criminality, but of the cruelty that life sometimes presents a few of us.
Posted by MadFarmer (# 2940) on
:
quote:
The whole concept is to make abortion an undesirable and unnecessary alternative.
Yes.
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
Abortion...just shouldn't be so accessible that some women use it as their birth control du jour.
That it is so used is the reason Roe herself turned pro-life.
Incidentally, the church I grew up in had a number of families with adopted children, including children of different races and ethnicities; one (white) family's five kids include a Vietnamese boy, and another's five children (also white) include an adopted black girl. Others served as foster parents to a whole slew of babies (albeit one at a time, of course).
Whenever this subject comes up I see people ask why the protesters don't quit protesting and start adopting. But no one ever seems to cite figures showing what a huge number of unwanted, unadoptable babies we'd have if abortion were illegal.
I suspect that this is because birth control is a continuous hassle whereas abortion is, by comparison, a one-time hassle. If the one-time hassle weren't possible at all, I daresay people would pay more attention to birth control, and so that huge wave of babies to adopt would never happen. (PDAs go for under $100 now; there's no better way to be reminded to take that pill every day.)
But if someone can bolster that argument about scores of babies needing adoption with some facts, I'd be interested to read them; I've never encountered them before, for some reason.
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
... But no one ever seems to cite figures showing what a huge number of unwanted, unadoptable babies we'd have if abortion were illegal.
Because we wouldn't, and didn't. We just had back-alley, unsanitary abortions with coathangers on kitchen tables, sometimes fatal to mother and child.
In my view of the world, legal abortion-on-demand is a harm-reduction strategy, and like any strategy in that family, should not be the only thing done about the problem.
[Aside: it'd be interesting to define the "problem"...]
***
Ane obnoxious thing about the ban that's the subject of this thread is that it purports to ban a procedure, never indentifies the procedure in medical terms, and thereby creates uncertainty.
Do I think that the authors of the said Bill had "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" in mind -- creating it for others, I mean? Verily, I think that. "If this be treason, make the most of it."
Posted by MadFarmer (# 2940) on
:
Thinking about this thread today reminded me of this painting.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Actually, it is in Eastern Europe, where good birth control was for some years hard to obtain, but abortion easy, that abortion became truly a "birth control method". It has never been that way on that level in the US. I will go hunt up the statistics, but I remember an interview with a woman who had had twenty abortions, in Poland. Most women I know who have had abortions (admittedly anecdotal) had one only, very early, and the pregnancy was the result of contraceptive failure.
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
We just had back-alley, unsanitary abortions with coathangers on kitchen tables, sometimes fatal to mother and child.
Did we now? Well, let's see, how many abortions are there per year? Numbers range:
1.3 million abortions per year
800,000 abortions per year
So tell us, what's the story? Did that many women, as many as a million per year, go for back-alley abortions? Just how lethal are these back-alley abortions? What percentage of women who got them should we expect to have died from them? What percentage were otherwise injured?
Or has the number of children to adopt dropped precipitously in the years since Roe v. Wade since they're being aborted now?
Or were there just fewer pregnancies back then? What's the story here? Let's have some facts for a change. I've heard far and wide about this spectre of back-alley abortions, but more and more I have the distinct impression that it's all rhetoric and no substance. Feel free to show me something that would disabuse me of that idea, though.
Let's suppose that the numbers have grown, and that there were a mere half-million unwanted pregnancies back in the back-alley days. And let's suppose that, oh, two percent of those women both (a) got back-alley abortions and (b) died of it. That would be ten thousand women a year dying of back-alley abortions. Tell us all about it, Henry Troup; just how many women did die of back-alley abortions back in those dark days?
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
The Roman Catholic church opposes both abortion(no matter when or why) and birth control (except for "natural" birth control which is very unreliable and presupposes extremely careful and complicated procedures) In practice, I am told, the injunction against birth control is largely ignored by American RCs, but this is only hearsay.
There are a few blessed souls who willingly adopt severely handicapped children, but the vast majority want basically almost perfect ones, though it is indeed much more acceptable to adopt those of different ethnicity.
[ 16. September 2004, 03:05: Message edited by: Zeke ]
Posted by Equinas (# 2907) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Most women I know who have had abortions (admittedly anecdotal) had one only, very early, and the pregnancy was the result of contraceptive failure.
And the problem with anecdotal evidence is that some of my anecdotes would counter your anecdotes and neither of us would provide anything like a definitive answer, but I'm inclined to doubt that American statistics come close to the Eastern European account.
Posted by Ilkku (# 8123) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Or has the number of children to adopt dropped precipitously in the years since Roe v. Wade since they're being aborted now?
Or were there just fewer pregnancies back then?
The fast improvement in birth control methods, and their wide availability - free or at low cost - must surely have contributed to this too.
I don't have any statistics to show though, but they are 'out there' somewhere.
[ 16. September 2004, 05:26: Message edited by: Ilkku ]
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
When a pregnancy is assumed to be going along well and something is only found to be amiss towards the end......what to do?
Tests and results take time...the days tick by...partners make decisions....counselling is taken up.
The weeks pass and before you know it, there's a "situation".
Brutally the alternative is to take to term.
Deliver a baby who might or might not be live.
If live, then do you procede to maintain life?
If so how far?
Do you wrap and leave? TLC only? take an incubator?
( and Laura, if I riled you sorry )
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Or has the number of children to adopt dropped precipitously in the years since Roe v. Wade since they're being aborted now?
Or were there just fewer pregnancies back then?
Hopefully I've attributed it right...
I suspect there were a lot of rushed marriages - where the partners are now in their 70s and the kids in their 40s - and many, many of them are long divorced. In fact, a boom in divorce 10-20-30 years after the last pre-widely-available-contraception generations teens seems pretty clear (late 50s/early 60s accidental pregnancies - divorce rate starts rising early 70s, no?)
It is hard however to know if this has anything to do with unavailability of abortion, however, as it became legal about the time contraception got better.
In case you're interested in my personal stance: I'd say as the lesser of two evils, early abortion should be available to avoid unsafe abortion, and in extremis such as for cases of incest; pre-implantation especially with issues of twinning I am not sure it's actually abortion, so I'm fairly happy with the morals of the morning-after pill though its over-use is probably bad for women, plus it doesn't cut down on STDs; and for later abortions I am actually surprisingly strongly in favour when they are needed for the health and life of the mother - and if they are ever found to be misused for elective abortions, the full weight of the law should be brought down strongly on the doctor and mother concerned.
I applaud organisations like Duchess' though I fear they may be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted - better to wake up to the fact that people are shockingly casual about contraception and sex, and intervene at that end.
And I also worry very much that anti-abortion campaigners either know very little about the medical conditions that may mean a late abortion is necessary, or, worse, they know about them and choose to pretend they don't exist.
Posted by Natchtwatch (# 266) on
:
Now get back to the OP and take the general abortion discussion to dead horses. Please note I am within an inch of closing this thread.
Nightlamp
Hellhost
[ 16. September 2004, 10:10: Message edited by: Natchtwatch ]
Posted by E Lisabeth (# 7290) on
:
I don't know if it's constitutional or not, but abortions when the fetus is viable are JUST WRONG.
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on
:
What if the foetus is viable, but the mother needs cancer treatment or she'll die before delivering?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I'd worry less about whether it's constitutional, and more about whether it's a Deceased Equine.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
It's constitutionally a dead equine, Karl.
(another anecdote) I do know of a couple who had a second trimester abortion after the ultrasound showed their very much wanted baby was anencephalic. The insurance company refused to pay for what it said was an "elective" abortion (even though it would of course be paying for the c-section to come four months later, at much greater expense), until the father basically yelled his way up the food chain at the insurance company about the hopelessness of anencephaly (an entirely unfixable condition) and the unimaginable cruelty of making his wife carry for four months more a wholly unviable child. They caved in the end (not that the insurance angle is relevant, but it shows how much ignorance there is out there).
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
What if the foetus is viable, but the mother needs cancer treatment or she'll die before delivering?
Chances are that the full and complete work-up performed when a woman finds she's pregnant (at least in this country) would detect a cancer.
Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The people I do NOT understand are those who are "pro-choice" but anti-death penalty. I just don't see the logic there.
That is approxmately the position in English law.<snip>.
I see no real inconsistency between these 2 points of view. If you met a Guardian-reading, left-voting, graduate, English person, he or she would be more likely than not to go along with both these viewpoints...
I'll bite, although I don't read the guardian! I'm only posting because my reasoning differs from a lot of what has previously been posted.
With the context of my faith, I see abortion as being wrong. However, I am well aware that there are many things I consider sinful, which we do not legislate against. No woman is forced to have an abortion even though abortion is legal. If the choice were mine, I hope I would chose to bear the child. However, I would not be willing to make abortion illegal on the basis of my religious views, when this is such an extremely complex and nuanced issue. PBA is a particularly good example of that complexity. So effectively, I am pro-choice.
On the death penalty, I agree with other posters that the risk of executing an innocent person is too great. However, I also feel that all of us should be given the chance to repent of our sins, and post-execution repentance may be difficult.
All the best,
Rachel.
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Did that many women, as many as a million per year, go for back-alley abortions? Just how lethal are these back-alley abortions? What percentage of women who got them should we expect to have died from them? What percentage were otherwise injured?
Good questions, and I don't have the answers. Anecdotally, Marilyn Monroe had over a dozen abortions, and wound up unable to have a child when she did want to.
Cecil Adams has some of the answers, and this is an editted quote
...
quote:
A statistic perhaps more typical of the pre-Roe era was reported in a 1969 Scientific American article cowritten by Christopher Tietze, a senior fellow with the Population Council: "The National Center for Health Statistics listed 235 deaths from abortion in 1965. Total mortality from illegal abortions was undoubtedly larger than that figure, but in all likelihood it was under 1,000."
...
quote:
I will spare you the details, but the 10,000 figure … came from Dr. Frederick Taussig, circa 1936. In 1930, abortion was the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women. But "official" wasn't the whole story. Though data was admittedly skimpy by today's standards, Taussig's research estimated 8,000 to 10,000 deaths.
Over the decades, the numbers shrank to hundreds and then dozens because of penicillin...
This means I was wrong. Wrong! WRONG!!
[ 16. September 2004, 13:46: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
The Roman Catholic church opposes both abortion(no matter when or why) and birth control (except for "natural" birth control which is very unreliable and presupposes extremely careful and complicated procedures)
Actually, it's only unreliable because it involves somewhat (hardly "very") careful procedures. It's not particularly mentally taxing to take one's temperature.
The chief burden it imposes is that you must periodically abstain from sex in order for it to work.
FCB
Posted by E Lisabeth (# 7290) on
:
I would make an exception for the mother who required cancer treatment; however a c-section would also serve.
And though I am a Christian now, I wasn't always a Christian. I came to believe abortion is wrong from studying biology at UIC. While reading about what happens seconds after conception, it hit me like lightning. And no, embryos do not technically qualify as a tumor. Tumors do not have their own genetic codes but those of the body they are on.
I'm convinced abortion is wrong and I'm also convinced that deep down inside, everybody knows it's wrong but we manage to pull the wool over our own eyes whenever it's convenient.
Nevertheless, I would hesitate to make a first-trimester abortion illegal. We have freedom of religion here and I'm not sure imposing my religious beliefs on other people helps accomplish anything. It makes me sad to think that so many babies never get a chance to experience life here on earth, but it's comforting to know that we'll see those babies in heaven. And I hope two of them up there forgive me for what I did before I ever studied biology.
[ 16. September 2004, 14:09: Message edited by: E Lisabeth ]
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
The Roman Catholic church opposes both abortion(no matter when or why) and birth control (except for "natural" birth control which is very unreliable and presupposes extremely careful and complicated procedures)
Actually, it's only unreliable because it involves somewhat (hardly "very") careful procedures. It's not particularly mentally taxing to take one's temperature.
The chief burden it imposes is that you must periodically abstain from sex in order for it to work.
FCB
This is correct. The outdated calendar or "Rhythm" method is no longer what is meant by Natural Birth Control. Natural Birth Control now involved a combination of 1) basal body temperature; 2) cervical mucus assessment and 3) calendar (lemgth of cycle) to determine which periods are fertile for the purposes of avoiding pregnancy or achieving it. It works better than condoms at preventing pregnancy (though not STD transmission) when properly done. However, as a practical matter, it requires committment as one has to chart cycles for several months before being really reliable and it is really only usable by persons of certain basic levels of intelligence. And willingness to touch their "icky" parts.
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
quote:
However, as a practical matter, it requires committment as one has to chart cycles for several months before being really reliable and it is really only usable by persons of certain basic levels of intelligence. And willingness to touch their "icky" parts.
Now here's an entrepreneurial opportunity I hadn't considered before. "You too can become a Ryhthm Method Assesment Facilitator..." Before you snigger, think how possible, or even probable it could be. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
What if the foetus is viable, but the mother needs cancer treatment or she'll die before delivering?
Chances are that the full and complete work-up performed when a woman finds she's pregnant (at least in this country) would detect a cancer.
That's assuming that women have adequate access to health care and get that complete work-up when they find they're pregnant. It's also assuming that no women who do get the complete work-up will have a cancer that goes undetected. But the realities are that many women do not get adequate pre-natal care, and that a few women who do receive adequate pre-natal care will be diagnosed with cancer partway through their pregnancies.
According to Motherisk, cancer complicates 1 out of 1000 pregnancies. Many of those cancers will be dealt with without harm to the mother or child, but some of them lead to situations where terrible choices must be made. The question is whether or not we're going to let Congress make a politically motivated blanket decision about what can and cannot happen in all of these situations or whether we will let those involved make individual decisions in consultation with their doctors.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by .Mad Geo:
Well, you certainly know that I take them Very Seriously. But I am a little surprised that you put it as low as 150. I figured one couldn't get any serious respect until at least 3046 posts.
As for me being a feminist in the conventional sense of the word:
Now, nutjob? Guilty as charged and normally proud of it.
After two days of considering it I am now going to do a very unHellish thing and apologize to Erin, Duchess, Riv, and whoever else I may have attacked on this thread.
Abortion is such a lovely topic.
Couple of things.
1. The raving nutjobs comment was directed towards the OP and my new stalker, not you.
2. Thank you for your apology, and I apologize for the ad hom stuff in my posts, although there are some aspects of your arguments that quite frankly scare the living shit out of me. But that's for another debate.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Nice post, famous rachel. I agree with everything except the "chance to repent after death." But that doesn't change my anti-death-penalty stance.
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
According to Motherisk, cancer complicates 1 out of 1000 pregnancies. Many of those cancers will be dealt with without harm to the mother or child, but some of them lead to situations where terrible choices must be made. The question is whether or not we're going to let Congress make a politically motivated blanket decision about what can and cannot happen in all of these situations or whether we will let those involved make individual decisions in consultation with their doctors.
I agree...but let me ask this. Suppose that a law were passed that made abortion illegal except by clear medical necessity in such hard cases. Now suppose that some women found doctors willing to lie and claim they had a medical necessity for an abortion when, in fact, they didn't. Would you find this circumvention of the law abhorrent, or admirable?
Posted by Mowse Thieyffe (# 953) on
:
Kyralessa: if a law were passed saying that every American had to go to at least one service at an Evangelical church each month, but I found a pastor at an evangelical church who was willing to sign my paper even though I didn't go to his church, would you consider that blameworthy or praiseworthy?
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by E Lisabeth:
I would make an exception for the mother who required cancer treatment; however a c-section would also serve.
How sure are you of that, and have you read the ruling linked to above?
My understanding is that a c-section is more likely to cause complications which mean the mother can't carry children in the future, which would probably be a priority for a mother of a wanted foetus who found herself with cancer during pregnancy.
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mowse Thieyffe:
Kyralessa: if a law were passed saying that every American had to go to at least one service at an Evangelical church each month, but I found a pastor at an evangelical church who was willing to sign my paper even though I didn't go to his church, would you consider that blameworthy or praiseworthy?
I don't know what you're on about, but I'm just curious whether RuthW's support for abortion rights is really because of the "hard cases" she mentions.
[Not to mention that freedom of religion is constitutionally protected, whereas abortion is not.]
[ 17. September 2004, 10:47: Message edited by: Kyralessa ]
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
I'm just curious whether RuthW's support for abortion rights is really because of the "hard cases" she mentions.
Gee, is there something about Ruth's posting history that leads you to believe she doesn't say what she means and mean what she says?
I've always found her to be remarkably upfront.
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Natchtwatch:
Now get back to the OP and take the general abortion discussion to dead horses. Please note I am within an inch of closing this thread.
Nightlamp
Hellhost
Last chance.
The next post discussing general abortion, rather than partial birth, brain sucky out abortion, will get this thread closed.
You have been warned.
Sarkycow, hellhost
Posted by Mowse Thieyffe (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
I don't know what you're on about, but I'm just curious whether RuthW's support for abortion rights is really because of the "hard cases" she mentions.
What I'm on about is that to somebody who doesn't agree with you about abortion, imposing your beliefs on them looks like imposing your beliefs on them. Which is against the Constitution.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Suppose that a law were passed that made abortion illegal except by clear medical necessity in such hard cases. Now suppose that some women found doctors willing to lie and claim they had a medical necessity for an abortion when, in fact, they didn't. Would you find this circumvention of the law abhorrent, or admirable?
Abhorrent. Why do you ask?
Edit: I missed your explanation of why you're asking me this. You really don't know what I believe on abortion, do you?
[ 17. September 2004, 15:43: Message edited by: RuthW ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0