|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: "Partial-birth abortion" (misnomer alert) Update
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
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]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 15. September 2004, 15:13: Message edited by: .Mad Geo ]
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11713 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ilkku
Shipmate
# 8123
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Equinas
Shipmate
# 2907
|
Posted
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]
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Unfortunately, the screaming and condemning is deemed more press-worthy.
--------------------
Linda
Posts: 566 | From: Deep South, USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MadFarmer
Shipmate
# 2940
|
Posted
quote:
The whole concept is to make abortion an undesirable and unnecessary alternative.
Yes.
--------------------
Where have I been? Busy, busy.
Posts: 537 | From: Yellow Springs, OH, USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7210 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Laura
Admin without portfolio
# 10
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Myöhäistä itkeä kun on kakat housuissa. Finnish proverb. (There's no use crying when you've already sh*t your pants)
Posts: 16861 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5244 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Equinas
Shipmate
# 2907
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Linda
Posts: 566 | From: Deep South, USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ilkku
Shipmate
# 8123
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
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 )
--------------------
"If Jedi walk around our stores with their hoods on, they’ll miss lots of special offers. One take on religious freedoms....
Posts: 2357 | From: Somewhere warm and dry | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6840 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8378 | From: Returning to Inglewood | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elisabeth Scott
Shipmate
# 7290
|
Posted
I don't know if it's constitutional or not, but abortions when the fetus is viable are JUST WRONG.
--------------------
A merry heart maketh a cheerful medicine
Posts: 95 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
What if the foetus is viable, but the mother needs cancer treatment or she'll die before delivering?
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6840 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Laura
Admin without portfolio
# 10
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
Myöhäistä itkeä kun on kakat housuissa. Finnish proverb. (There's no use crying when you've already sh*t your pants)
Posts: 16861 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2727 | From: Southerly | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
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...
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.
Posts: 790 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
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!! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 16. September 2004, 13:46: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7210 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2859 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elisabeth Scott
Shipmate
# 7290
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
A merry heart maketh a cheerful medicine
Posts: 95 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
Admin without portfolio
# 10
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Myöhäistä itkeä kun on kakat housuissa. Finnish proverb. (There's no use crying when you've already sh*t your pants)
Posts: 16861 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2727 | From: Southerly | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 22277 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
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.
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.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Dunstan of Canterbury
-- Saint of the Day (19 May) on The Onion Dome
The Story of Boyling and Girlchen: A Fairy Tale
Posts: 53045 | From: ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6840 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
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
--------------------
“It is a curious fact that people are never so trivial as when they take themselves seriously.”
Posts: 10598 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Dunstan of Canterbury
-- Saint of the Day (19 May) on The Onion Dome
The Story of Boyling and Girlchen: A Fairy Tale
Posts: 53045 | From: ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 22277 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
