|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: "Partial-birth abortion" (misnomer alert) Update
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
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. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Cheers
FF
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
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
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
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!"
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
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
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
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
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Equinas
Shipmate
# 2907
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Linda
Posts: 567 | From: Deep South, USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ilkku
Shipmate
# 8123
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Oh, and PS: It shouldn't be hard to spell my name right. It's on everything I post. (Mousethief)
Posts: 586 | From: Fabulous Finland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
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
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
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).
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
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
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
It is my favorite thing in the entire world when the new people think they understand how it works.
No, really, it is.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
New people being anyone under 10,000 posts.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
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
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
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
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
...I really hate that it even has to be addressed, don't you?
Yes.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
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... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Have a great evening, y'all!
FF
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
I think she may be... gulp... Southern.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
Well, say no more.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ilkku
Shipmate
# 8123
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Oh, and PS: It shouldn't be hard to spell my name right. It's on everything I post. (Mousethief)
Posts: 586 | From: Fabulous Finland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ilkku
Shipmate
# 8123
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Oh, and PS: It shouldn't be hard to spell my name right. It's on everything I post. (Mousethief)
Posts: 586 | From: Fabulous Finland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Equinas
Shipmate
# 2907
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Linda
Posts: 567 | From: Deep South, USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
