Abortion show going too far?

[Miss X]

Apologies for bringing up the issue of abortion again but my intention isnt to discuss whether abortion itself is right or wrong. We all have different views but I would ask that when discussing the issues we can show respect for each other, I really dont want to cause a flame fest but I thought I would share this with you all;

I was reading a newspaper during my lunch break and I came an article about how one of our main TV channels over here will be screening an abortion and also showing images of aborted babies. The full story is here: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1185399,00.html
if anyone wishes to read it, but basically a show called 'My Foetus' will show a woman having a vacuum pump abortion and display the foetus on a petri dish afterwards, it will also show pictures of foetuses aborted at 10 and 21 weeks.

My personal opinion is that its pushing the boundries too far. I feel it shows lack of respect for the souls of the babies and that really, no one NEEDS to see the dead baby to debate the issues surrounding abortion and although I am Pro-Choice I really think its pretty disgusting to show this.

Of course I have a choice about whether I watch the show or not but I can't help thinking its just media sensationalism and abortion is far to sensitive to be treated in this way.

I'd be interested in hearing other peoples views on this, if anyone has one. :)

[Edited on 5-4-04 by Miss X]

[Artha]

I wouldn't watch it, but I think it's good for everyone to see what they're fighting for or against.

[DeV]

I wouldn't watch it either. Abortion is a really powerful debate and people on each side are pretty vicious. Its just not something I want to have to see on television.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Miss X
no one NEEDS to see the dead baby to debate the issues surrounding abortion Entirely correct.

I can see the motivation behind it, though, the same way I can see the motivation behind (for instance) Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. It's one thing to hear the words "he was crucified" or "vacuum pump abortion", it's quite another to see it. Imagination is an ephemeral thing.

[Fengus]

The only question is who is sponsoring the taping?

My question is: Whats a foetus?

[Artha]

It's the wacky british spelling of fetus.

[Jazuela]

I have a pretty warped imagination and appreciation for medical stuff, so I might watch it out of sheer morbid curiosity. It wouldn't change my views on the subject in any way, shape, or form. But it would be pretty neat to watch.

What -would- offend me (and yeah, even I have my limits) is if they tried to impose their opinion on the procedure - whether they felt it was moral, immoral, good, bad, evil, whatever. Even if their opinion agreed with my own, it would offend me to see it attached to a documentary on the procedure itself.

It would also disturb me to see the late-trimester procedures where the foetus is developed to the point of recognition as a human baby, even if the baby was already dead "in utero" and removed to prevent fatal hemorrhage of the mother.

Watching some surgical procedures gives me the heebiejeebies but they still fascinate me, so sometimes I'll watch TV shows that involve various surgeries. Then again, I also insisted on being awake so I could watch them take the steel plates from my forearm after the bone breaks finally healed. I'm strange like that :)

[Miss X]

Originally posted by Fengus
My question is: Whats a foetus?

Definition:
foetus, U.S. ALSO fetus
noun [C]
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to develop

Taken from the Cambridge English Dictionary. Hope that clears that issue up nicely.

[HarmNone]

Sounds like sensationalism to me. No, thanks!

HarmNone

[Weedmage Princess]

What HN said.

If someone's THAT curious about the procedure and what's done, there are ways they can access that information and see it for themselves. That's what libraries and the Internet are for, correct? You don't need to broadcast this stuff on television. It'll just do more harm than good.

[Vesi]

Wouldn't watch it. TV goes too far sometimes and this is one of those times.

Vesi

[Betheny]

I don't get it.

You can't show people making babies on TV, but you can show people un-making them?

This is not fair! I demand equality! DOWN WITH DOUBLE STANDARDS!

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Artha
I wouldn't watch it, but I think it's good for everyone to see what they're fighting for or against.
Hey, no problem, Artha, as long as they show the consequences of making abortion illegal. How about a bunch of vintage photos of the bodies of women bleeding to death from back alley jobs? Just for starters.

[Hulkein]

Yes.... because people will go en masse to alleys with dull scalpels. If they do that to themselves they're retarded anyway and deserve the infection and subsequent death, easier ways to kill the baby.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Miss X

My personal opinion is that its pushing the boundries too far. I feel it shows lack of respect for the souls of the babies and that really, no one NEEDS to see the dead baby to debate the issues surrounding abortion and although I am Pro-Choice I really think its pretty disgusting to show this.

[Edited on 5-4-04 by Miss X]

You're affected because they show it? I'm affected because they even allow it (abortion).

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Galleazzo

Originally posted by Artha
I wouldn't watch it, but I think it's good for everyone to see what they're fighting for or against.
Hey, no problem, Artha, as long as they show the consequences of making abortion illegal. How about a bunch of vintage photos of the bodies of women bleeding to death from back alley jobs? Just for starters.

Tell them to close their legs.

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Yes.... because people will go en masse to alleys with dull scalpels. If they do that to themselves they're retarded anyway and deserve the infection and subsequent death, easier ways to kill the baby.
Not when it was illegal.

So enlighten us, Nakiro, how does abortion affect you directly?

[Meos]

I remember I was driving though the Loop once (were the highway passes through downtown Chicago) and these abortion protesters had these horrible pictures of an aborted baby with a fucked up head and jaw being held by a pair of tongs... they were holding over these things over the edge of each overpass for everyone goin though the loop to see...

It really did make me sick. It makes ya think twice... I still don't know what side of it I'm on.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Meos]

[Tendarian]

I think its a good thing. As long as it isnt on the network channels(do you have a nbc,abc cbs type thing there? Where it should be censored more than cable tv?)


So enlighten us, Nakiro, how does abortion affect you directly?

Im not Nakiro but how does them showing it on tv affect you directly? Dont like it dont watch it. Id say someone believing a murder is happening to an innocent human would affect them more than something gruesome being on tv.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Galleazzo

Originally posted by Hulkein
Yes.... because people will go en masse to alleys with dull scalpels. If they do that to themselves they're retarded anyway and deserve the infection and subsequent death, easier ways to kill the baby.
Not when it was illegal.

So enlighten us, Nakiro, how does abortion affect you directly?

It doesn't. It does, however, affect someone directly that I believe is incapable of speaking for themself, and as such should be defended.

[Miss X]

Nakiro: I'm not really affected by them showing it, I just think its wrong for them to do it. The babies have no choice and the mother, in my opinion must be pretty twisted.
However, as much as I dislike the idea of abortion I support its legality. I have always lived by the philosophy of "I might not like your choices, but I'll fight to the death for your right to make them" when it comes to issues like abortion.

Tendarian: Its on Channell 4 which is one of our 5 network stations. Its a hugely popular station and shows some of the most controversial programs over here. We have a lot less censorship over here than you do in the US. Basically as long as its shown after 9pm its fine.

[Nakiro]

Legalized murder of another human being doesn't support the choice of a child to live.
EDIT:
Moreoften though, it does support the choice of a woman to live in an irresponsible way.


[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Nakiro]

[Miss X]

Yes, but the point is this; a foetus cannot make any choices or decisions for itself, therefore the women carrying the foetus has "charge" of it. Its inside her body and as a society we have given control of that foetus to her. The concequences of making abortion illegal, I imagine, would only lead to more deaths.

Women will still have abortions, legal or not. If we make them illegal they will find ways, dangerous ways, of aborting their foetuses.

Yes, its upsetting, shows little regard for the creation of life and is often used as contraception BUT it is a necessary evil in my opinion. Although I personally couldnt live with the guilt of abortion I won't judge those that have them because I believe in compassion and understanding. :)

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Nakiro

Moreoften though, it does support the choice of a woman to live in an irresponsible way.


That is such sexist crap.
There are many reasons why women become pregnant. Many of which dont indicate irresponsibility on the part of the woman. Some do, for sure. Some indicate irresponsibility on the part of the man...shit, it takes two...why should women and children have to live with that?

Every mother should be a willing mother and every child should be a wanted child.

[Ambrosia]

Originally posted by Nakiro
Tell them to close their legs.

What about the 13 year old that got pregnant after she was gang raped?Should she be forced to have that child?

How about the 25 year old that was just told that having the child will probably kill her, but the newborn will be okay? Should she be forced to keep the child in hopes that she doesn't die?

What about the person that's been with her boyfriend for 5 years, isn't ready to have a child that accidentally gets pregnant when the condom breaks, or when she becomes one of the 2% that can get pregnant while on birthcontrol? She wasn't whoring around, they just aren't ready to be parents.

At one time I was against abortions, then I opened up my eyes and realized that there are many reasons to be Pro-Choice. I'm not against abortions anymore for some of those reasons listed above, on top of others. Although, this TV show is pretty sickening and I don't think they should air it, they will anyhow. Some things shouldn't be on television, but there are people in it only for the money.

[Nakiro]

[/quote]

That is such sexist crap.
[/quote]

Sorry you feel that way.

Nice PP quote BTW.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Ambrosia

Originally posted by Nakiro
Tell them to close their legs.

What about the 13 year old that got pregnant after she was gang raped?Should she be forced to have that child?

How about the 25 year old that was just told that having the child will probably kill her, but the newborn will be okay? Should she be forced to keep the child in hopes that she doesn't die?

What about the person that's been with her boyfriend for 5 years, isn't ready to have a child that accidentally gets pregnant when the condom breaks, or when she becomes one of the 2% that can get pregnant while on birthcontrol? She wasn't whoring around, they just aren't ready to be parents.



I wish I knew everything there is to know about this subject so I could best answer all your questions.

However, I will say that there do seem to be circumstances in which abortion is necessary because it endangers the life of the mother.

As for the gang rape scenario, yes it sucks, but it doesn't justify the death of a child. That child can be adopted (not many are available for adoption in the US).

[Ambrosia]

Do you realize a 13 year old female is not fully ready to birth a child? Her hips and organs are not ready, it could physically damage her for the rest of her life if not kill her.

There are quite a few reasons to have abortion be legal.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Ambrosia]

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Ambrosia
Do you realize a 13 year old female is not fully ready to birth a child? Her hips and organs are not ready, it could physically damage her for the rest of her life if not kill her.

There are quite a few reasons to have abortion be legal.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Ambrosia]

Depending on the condition of the child, abortion may not be a much better option.

[Ambrosia]

Abortions are actually quite safe now days and I would much rather see someone go into a clinic to have an abortion than to find a baby wrapped in a trashbag near a dumpster.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Ambrosia
Abortions are actually quite safe now days and I would much rather see someone go into a clinic to have an abortion than to find a baby wrapped in a trashbag near a dumpster.

They're both a crime against humanity in the end.

[Satira]

I say we make a reality show out of it.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Lady Satira
I say we make a reality show out of it.

Sounds good.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Nakiro

Tell them to close their legs.

Thanks for saving me some time.

That one incredibly witty post invalidates anything else you might have to say on this subject for me.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Nakiro

Tell them to close their legs.

Thanks for saving me some time.

That one incredibly witty post invalidates anything else you might have to say on this subject for me.

You're welcome.

[TheEschaton]

The question is: If you find the images disturbing, and horrific, and unworthy to be on TV.....


....why do you think it's legal?


That's the part that astounds me. Almost everyone can admit the horrific nature of abortion, especially a late term abortion, almost everyone who has one has immeasurable suffering to deal with....and yet, people support the right to have one.

For example, Chica stated that she thought it was gruesome, but supported the legalese of it. She then stated that since the fetus can't make choices, control of it went to the mother.

Because a person cannot make choices, does not mean they are not afforded rights. You need a DNR, a living will, something, if you don't want to be kept on artificial respirators. If you're in a coma, and don't have one of these things, they are legally obligated, by your right to life, to keep you alive, until they medically determine that there's no use in it, which usually involves a whole hospital ethics board debating it and deciding on it.

Abortion violates the fundamental rights of a child, and should never be practiced, unless a similar situation arises, where a medical ethics board realizes there is no other way. Parents are legally responsible for their kids til they're 18, because they presumably can't make their own decisions, it is not a valid argument for saying the mother has the right to kill their kid.

As for the side effects of abortion being not legal, there are many, and I've written about them before, and how they would be handled, and whatnot. I'm too tired currently to do it again.

-TheE-

[DeV]

I believe a woman should have the right to make her own decision when it comes to abortion when the father is nowhere to be found, or cannot aid in that decision. I also feel that she be held responsible for her choice be it immoral or not based on our own standards, its her body. She will have to deal with the consequences of that decision, and I was growing rather disheartened at seeing baby's being found in trash cans, dumpsters, and left in alley's.

[Miss X]

I guess the point I was trying to make, TheE is that I feel I don't have the right to decide what other women do to their bodies. I personally, would never have an abortion, its against my PERSONAL ethics, however I have no right to force my feelings onto other women. I believe it would be a sin to abort a baby but who am I to tell an athiest that they can't have an abortion because of a God, when they don't even believe one exists?

I understand your point about violating rights of the child but if we were to make abortion illegal we would be violating the rights of women. No woman should be forced to put her body through anything, you know the old mantra; My body, My baby, My choice.

I have always believed that God is the only one with the right to judge others for their actions. The God I relate to preaches understanding, compassion, acceptance and tolerance. I have no right to tell people what they can and can't do in those situations, I would never be arrogant enough to assume otherwise.

[Artha]

What about the 13 year old that got pregnant after she was gang raped?Should she be forced to have that child?

How about the 25 year old that was just told that having the child will probably kill her, but the newborn will be okay? Should she be forced to keep the child in hopes that she doesn't die?

Those are generally the two exceptions pro-lifers make. Rape/Death of mother = Ok for abortion.

[TheEschaton]

A) Society has put into place restrictions on our own bodies. Even cutting, that gets you psychiatric help. People don't look at people who cut themselves and say "Hey, it's their body". Suicide, if you survive it, is a crime which can be prosecuted.


I understand your point about violating rights of the child but if we were to make abortion illegal we would be violating the rights of women. No woman should be forced to put her body through anything, you know the old mantra; My body, My baby, My choice.

There is a primacy of rights, though. And the right to life is superior to all of them, especially freedom of choice. You can't kill someone and say "It's my right to choose what to do" because you violated that person's right to live. Rights, in general, cannot supercede the rights of someone else. If you follow the U.S. Declaration of Independence (which I know has no application to you, Chica), they list them. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." They're listed in a hierarchical order. Your pursuit of happiness cannot fringe on the liberty of another. In the case of abortion, your liberty cannot infringe on the life of another.

Choice is a right, yes. But it does not supercede life.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

As a P.S.: Women do have a choice: to have sex, or not have sex. No matter how you dice it, the first purpose of sex is to conceive life. If, somehow you get pregnant and you didn't want to, you can't call that abnormal - because pregnancy is the normal function of sex.


And yes, I know that puts a lot on the women, but I'm a liberal. I have lots of views concerning men and their roles, but I haven't extrapolated on them because this is a discussion on the act itself, as opposed to society's responsibility (summary: society should be held responsible, including the father, as well).

-TheE-

[DeV]

TheE at the end of the day, when abortion is still legal how do you cope?
I think as a liberal you have some great ideas, unfortunately they dont benefit many as a whole. There is a bigger picture, but your only seeing straight ahead.

[Miss X]

I think you are missing my point. The baby is inside the woman, relying on her for everything. She has a right to decide what she does with her body where as if the baby was outside of her body, and not relying on her existence for its own existence it would be different.

Its a simple enough concept to grasp, while we both know abortion is abhorred by our church and is against our personal ethics, pregnant women deserve that choice while its inside their bodies and I would stand on the front line protesting with Pro-Choice if they didn't.

Having an abortion does not necessarily indicate someone is mentally ill or unbalanced. Self harm and para-suicide does. They are vastly different and not really comparable.

In life sometimes people have to do what they know is right for them at that time, they have to make tough choices. Its hard, it really is and its not always pleasant but its how things are.

My sisters friend has just had her third abortion, am I disgusted by her lack of regard for life? Yes. Have I tried to educate her about contraception and advised her to go to her FP clinic? Yes. Do I treat her with any less compassion and understanding than I would another human being? Hell no, I'm not that kind of person.

[Jazuela]

There's also the medical definition of what constitutes "baby." The whole Roe vs. Wade thing that started this concluded that a baby isn't a baby while it's a fetus. It's a fetus. And since a fetus isn't YET a human being, it has no rights as human beings have.

In my mind, to my own personal set of standards, if it is incapable of lifing outside the womb, then it isn't a person yet. If it is capable of living outside the womb, then it is a person, and should be granted the same rights and responsibilities as all minor persons have.

The definition of a "baby" as "anything after conception" is a religious definition and not a medical definition. And religion has no place in law.

[TheEschaton]

In life sometimes people have to do what they know is right for them at that time, they have to make tough choices. Its hard, it really is and its not always pleasant but its how things are.

And, in reality, my pro-life stance is centered around ensuring that a woman would never HAVE to make that choice for economic/social/what-have-you reasons.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Miss X
Its inside her body and as a society we have given control of that foetus to her. Like hell I have.
Women will still have abortions, legal or not. If we make them illegal they will find ways, dangerous ways, of aborting their foetuses.That's like saying people will murder each other, legal or not. Laws aren't put into place because no one will break them.
I won't judge those that have them because I believe in compassion and understanding.:heart:
No woman should be forced to put her body through anything, you know the old mantra; My body, My baby, My choice. It takes two people to make a baby. It is NOT her baby, it is her and the man's baby. Don't you see how terribly irresponsible that mantra is?
Originally posted by Ambrosia
What about the person that's been with her boyfriend for 5 years, isn't ready to have a child that accidentally gets pregnant when the condom breaks, or when she becomes one of the 2% that can get pregnant while on birthcontrol? She wasn't whoring around, they just aren't ready to be parents. If you don't want to have kids, DON'T HAVE SEX. That's like saying "Ah gee whiz officer I don't know what happened, I had my M16 out for some target practice and somehow this kid got shot in the head. But I shouldn't suffer any consequences, it already makes me feel bad."
Originally posted by Jazuela
The definition of a "baby" as "anything after conception" is a religious definition and not a medical definition. And religion has no place in law.It's more of a philosophical definition, actually, because once conceived, the fetus/zygote/whatever is "capable" of life. And if you really think religion has no place in law, you ought to reread the Declaration of Independence or move.

[DeV]

I think we all agree that if you dont want kids, dont have sex.
I have a friend who was gang-raped by 3 men, got pregnant by either one of the criminals and choose not to have the baby. I dont blame her for the decision she made. I know I wouldnt, couldnt have an abortion no matter what happened to me. But, you will never know why a person does something unless your in her shoes.

Are most pro-choicers men? It appears that way, I could be wrong. Someone prove me wrong.

[Mint]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
Are most pro-choicers men? It appears that way, I could be wrong. Someone prove me wrong.

I am opposed to abortion so I cannot help ya DEV.

[DeV]

Opps, I meant pro-life. Tends to be more men that are pro-life. Or who are more vocal about it.

[TheEschaton]

One topic I want to query: Lots of people say they are PERSONALLY against abortion, yet would never want to push their choice on another.


What's the justification for this? Isn't all of the whole "living in society" deem that that is exactly what all of us do? Push our own thoughts on other people? Our laws are structured like that. If I think murder is wrong, should I not hold other people accountable to my thoughts, if they commit a murder because they think it isn't wrong?

I mean, honestly.

-TheE-

[DeV]

I guess if you consider abortion murder then you would think that way.

[Mint]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
Opps, I meant pro-life. Tends to be more men that are pro-life. Or who are more vocal about it.

Oh then count me in. Pro life. What bothers me about the whole argument about a fetus not being a human until it is viable is that even 50 years ago a fetus taken from the womb at say, 7 months might survive but anything earlier would not. If they used that argument then a fetus at 6 months would be not be human. But now we have fetuses as early as 3 months surviving outside the womb.

I am not sure but there might be cases where an even earlier fetus might have survived but I dont feel like googling.

I am rambling but yeah, prolife here.

edited because I said prochoice instead of prolife, DEV's fault :grin:


[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Mint]

[Hulkein]

If you said 'what if they got raped' then you obviously haven't researched the subject well enough. I think something like less then 1% of rapes result in pregnency.. and even so, I am against abortion, but obviously there are certain exceptions.

[Miss X]

Everyone does things for their own reasons. We have universal laws but they don't tend to take into account human nature. You can't make a bold statment like murder is wrong and leave it as that because as humans we have many reasons behind our actions.

I believe we are responsible for our own choices and I don't think anyone has the right to push their opinions on to me. I am PERSONALLY against abortion, I think it would be the wrong thing for me to do, ever. However, I'm not inside anyone elses head so who am I to tell them what is right and wrong for their life? I'm not God, I'm not without sin and I'm far from perfect so I have no right simple as that.

[Edited on 6-4-04 by Miss X]

[DeV]

If you are against then there should be no exceptions because many who are pro-choice are only that way because of the exceptions. I would be against had I not seen the first hand damaging affects of a rape resulting in pregnancy resulting in abortion. So, I have to honestly say pro-choice but only because of the exceptions.

[imported_Kranar]

Saying that abortion should be legal for all cases because 1 percent of women get raped is like saying homicide should be legal for all cases because 1 percent of homicides are done in self defence.

Also, just because abortions will be comitted even if it were made to be a crime is no justification to not criminalize it. Murder is comitted anyways, even though it is a crime to murder someone. By that logic we should legalize murder.

I mean heck, think of the benefits; instead of murderers having to resort to leaving all dead and bloody bodies in alleyways or hidden in trash bags or cement blocks, we could just have a "Retirement Clinic" where you sign someone up to get murdered, they get their treatment, and then everything is cleaned up all nice and tidy.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Kranar
Saying that abortion should be legal for all cases because 1 percent of women get raped is like saying homicide should be legal for all cases because 1 percent of homicides are done in self defence.

Saying that abortion should be legal for all cases because 1 percent of women get raped is highly unintelligent and not a valid arguement for or against.

[Hulkein]

That's what you said...

<<If you are against then there should be no exceptions because many who are pro-choice are only that way because of the exceptions.>>

Rape is an exception, is it not?

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Hulkein]

[Xcalibur]

People should just mind their own business.

We had to go through an avortement because of reasons. If a friend of mine would had gone and say I was wrong to do so, bla bla bla, I would punch him directly on the nose.

[Hulkein]

<<People should just mind their own business.>>

Just like people should've minded their business in WWII with what the Nazi's were doing.


(Hahaha, sorry, a thread is not complete until a Hitler/Nazi reference get's thrown out.)

[imported_Kranar]

<< Saying that abortion should be legal for all cases because 1 percent of women get raped is highly unintelligent and not a valid arguement for or against. >>

And yet it seems to always come up as one of the strongest arguments for the legalization of abortion. People always seem to fight Pro-Lifers' by saying "Think about the poor woman who was raped! How dare you refuse her the right to choose abortion! Abortion should be legal!"

I wouldn't call it unintelligent but pointing to the minor exception as justification for the whole is, as you said, invalid.

[Betheny]

Abortion should be legal, because unless you can remove the fetus from my body and it can survive on its own (as in breathe, heart beat, et cetera.. not get a job and pay rent), it is a part of my body, and it is my choice what to do with my body.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
That's what you said...

<<If you are against then there should be no exceptions because many who are pro-choice are only that way because of the exceptions.>>

Rape is an exception, is it not?

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Hulkein] No, I believe I was clear in what I said. I also used no percentages to constitute why I was for or against. I am Pro-Choice. I said if you are Pro-Life you should not be including exceptions.
Read carefully Hulkien.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Maimara
Abortion should be legal, because unless you can remove the fetus from my body and it can survive on its own (as in breathe, heart beat, et cetera.. not get a job and pay rent), it is a part of my body, and it is my choice what to do with my body.

No, that argument is false.

You cannot take drugs while being pregnant. As you cannot take alcool.

And so on.

Aborption should be, as it's now, the SOLE decisition of the woman.

[Edited on 6-4-04 by Xcalibur]

[Betheny]

That's what I said... duh.

[Betheny]

And, as far as I know, it isn't against the law to smoke, drink, or participate in any other legal form of drugs -- unless you're endangering the child. But even that's a hard sell.

[Hulkein]

DarkEflVold, You said this -

"So, I have to honestly say pro-choice but only because of the exceptions."


Then you said this -

"Saying that abortion should be legal for all cases because 1 percent of women get raped [Which is an EXCEPTION] is highly unintelligent and not a valid arguement for or against."


Pregnency resulting from rape is an 'exception.' You pretty much said that the reason you are pro-life is because of a 'highly unintelligent and invalid argument'.


[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Hulkein]

[imported_Kranar]

<< I said if you are Pro-Life you should not be including exceptions. >>

And as I pointed out, that's like saying someone has to be either for homicide or against it, no exceptions allowed. So if I'm for homicide in cases of self defence, I have to be for homicide in cases of murder.

Unfortunately most issues aren't so rigid, and exceptions exist that require one to re-evaluate the issue on a case by case basis. In the case of abortions, it is possible to be against abortions in the general sense, but allow it in cases where the pregnant mother's life is in jeopardy. Just like it's possible to be against homicide in the general sense, but support homicide when one's life is in immediate danger.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Kranar]

[Xcalibur]

I'm with you on the fact it should be as it is now.

You'll be probably with me if I say that whenever a girl is given an aborption, they should put her some following help to be sure it will NEVER happen again. For some (I know one), it's a great contraceptive mesure.

I'm against the idea you can do WHATEVER you want with your body while being pregnant, though.

Taking drugs while being pregnant is illegal here, as it should be everywhere.

[Edited on 6-4-04 by Xcalibur]

[Betheny]

Dude, I support homicide, because I think the death penalty is a good idea. /shrug

[Ambrosia]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< Saying that abortion should be legal for all cases because 1 percent of women get raped is highly unintelligent and not a valid arguement for or against. >>

And yet it seems to always come up as one of the strongest arguments for the legalization of abortion. People always seem to fight Pro-Lifers' by saying "Think about the poor woman who was raped! How dare you refuse her the right to choose abortion! Abortion should be legal!"

I wouldn't call it unintelligent but pointing to the minor exception as justification for the whole is, as you said, invalid.

That is because there are many pro-lifers who say she SHOULD have the baby, which I think is shit. You can't be sure that is the percentage of women that get pregnant from rape for two reasons, the first being that most rapes are never reported. The second being that when you have a child in the hospital, they don't ask if you were raped, and many young women go through out the whole pregnancy with no doctors care, hiding it from their loved ones.

If you have never gave birth to a child and have never gave a child up for adoption, then you should go talk to people who do before you make a final decision. Giving a child up for adoption that you have an emotional bond to is one of the hardest things to do. I believe it's harder than abortion.

I help out at an adoption agency and I see these girls and young women go through extreme emotional distress for months and even years after they give the child up for adoption. I've had four of my really good friends have abortions, and none of them seem stressed emotionally by it.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
DarkEflVold, You said this -

"So, I have to honestly say pro-choice but only because of the exceptions."


Then you said this -

"Saying that abortion should be legal for all cases because 1 percent of women get raped [Which is an EXCEPTION] is highly unintelligent and not a valid arguement for or against."


Pregnency resulting from rape is an 'exception.' You pretty much said that the reason you are pro-life is because of a 'highly unintelligent and invalid argument'.


[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Hulkein] Hulkein.. my main arguement is not with people that are pro-choice. Im for abortion given the exceptions which prodded my choice and the example of rape that I posted. Im saying how can you be against abortion and then say, except, or but.... Im fucking pro-choice so if I say but or except im still pro-choice hence no contradiction.

[imported_Kranar]

Forget about the percentage, be it 5 percent, 10 percent, it's an irrelevent technicality. The point is that justifying all abortions because some of them occur as a result of rape is invalid. Just like justifying all homicide just because some homicide is done in self defence is invalid.

Even if 99.9 percent of homicides were done in self defence, murder would still be wrong. Even if 99.9 percent of abortions occur because of rape, using abortion as a form of birth control would still be wrong.

<< Giving a child up for adoption that you have an emotional bond to is one of the hardest things to do. >>

I would argue that if an individual found it more emotionally comforting to kill their baby rather than to put it up for adoption, then the emotions of that individual should be considered irrelevent.

[Hulkein]

How is there no contradiction?!

You said - "Saying that abortion should be legal for all cases because only 1 percent of women who get raped get pregnent is highly unintelligent and not a valid arguement for or against."

As you said, the reason you are pro-choice is because of an EXCEPTION.. An exception is what is quoted above said by you, and this exception is the reason you are pro-choice.

The for or against part contradicts your whole reasoning for being pro-choice.


I don't care if you're pro-choice, but ya just said (paraphrased)

'I am pro-choice because of an example of an exception.' (The girl who got raped and pregnent)

then you said

'Being pro-choice or pro-life because of an exception is not a valid argument either way, and is unintelligent'

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Hulkein]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
How is there no contradiction?!

You said - "Saying that abortion should be legal for all cases because only 1 percent of women who get raped get pregnent is highly unintelligent and not a valid arguement for or against."

As you said, the reason you are pro-choice is because of an EXCEPTION.. And exception is what is quoted above.

The for or against part contradicts your whole reasoning for being pro-choice.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Hulkein] Hulkien, refer back to my post on the RAPE of a FRIEND that changed my PERSPECTIVE. I used to be AGAINST abortion, but because of her RAPE and subsequent ABORTION I had to understand it from a different viewpoint. That is wherein I became PRO-CHOICE. I hope I made it clear for you. Fuck the percentages, I gave a clear cut--real life reason why I changed my views.

[Ambrosia]

Originally posted by Kranar
Forget about the percentage, be it 5 percent, 10 percent, it's an irrelevent technicality. The point is that justifying all abortions because some of them occur as a result of rape is invalid. Just like justifying all homicide just because some homicide is done in self defence is invalid.

Even if 99.9 percent of homicides were done in self defence, murder would still be wrong. Even if 99.9 percent of abortions occur because of rape, using abortion as a form of birth control would still be wrong.

<< Giving a child up for adoption that you have an emotional bond to is one of the hardest things to do. >>

I would argue that if an individual found it more emotionally comforting to kill their baby rather than to put it up for adoption, then the emotions of that individual should be considered irrelevent.

Homicide would be killing a person who can breathe, walk, shit, talk... all on it's own. Abortion would be killing a fetus, when pulled outside the womb, will not be able to live on it's own. Relating the two cases is irrelevant, the variables are extreme differences.

[Hulkein]

Yes DarkElf, I ACCEPT the reason why you changed your views, what I don't understand is why you then followed it up saying that being pro-life or pro-choice BECAUSE OF AN EXCEPTION is stupid and invalid, WHEN THAT IS WHAT CHANGED YOUR VIEWS.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Hulkein]

[DeV]

The rape is the reason my views changed. It is what some people use as an exception when they are Pro-life. I said if its gonna be an exception you may as well be Pro-Choice because you cannot be against and for at the same time. What about that don't you understand. Im getting dizzy trying to explain this simplicity to you Hulkien.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Yes DarkElf, I ACCEPT the reason why you changed your views, what I don't understand is why you then followed it up saying that being pro-life or pro-choice BECAUSE OF AN EXCEPTION is stupid and invalid, WHEN THAT IS WHAT CHANGED YOUR VIEWS.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Hulkein] LOL.. that was in reply to Kranar, and it wasnt to be taken at face value as I didn't think his post was seriously stating any fact. It appeared to be sarcastic and so I added my bit.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by DarkelfVold]

[imported_Kranar]

The contradiction you made is the following:

"Saying that abortion should be legal for all cases because 1 percent of women get raped is highly unintelligent "

You argued that abortion should be legal because ONE of your friends got raped, and needed to have an abortion performed.

In other words what you said is equivalent to the following statement:

"Abortions should be legal for all cases because my friend got raped and had an abortion."

Now take that argument, which you yourself made, and apply it to the other statement you made, and you end up with this final conclusion:

Saying that abortion should be legal for all cases because my friend got raped is highly unintelligent and not a valid arguement for or against.

That is where the contradiction exists.

[Hulkein]

And it's dizzying to me how you can say certain things and not even understand how it effects your argument.

"highly unintelligent and not a valid arguement for or against."

Notice the FOR part. That is what YOU said. I fall under the AGAINST part, you fall under the FOR part.


Now, on to what else you said.. I don't see it as being for and against something at the same time. If a women is raped and this kid is going to harm her mentally to a point where she will never recover, then obviously I will opt for the health of the woman. The same goes for a baby that has a good chance to cause the women death in labor. The woman has more reason to live.. the woman has more invested in life and is needed more in the world. However, if the women is pregnent because of her OWN doing, and the baby poses no health risk to her, then it is her responsibility to nurture the life inside her.

PS. Thanks for elaborating on what I was saying Kranar, for some reason I was not having any success getting through to her.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Hulkein]

[DeV]

Looks guys, I never argued that abortion should be legal. Who's posts are you reading? I said what my opinion was and stated why I had that opinion. I am not arguing for it to be legal, or illegal. That is not my expertise. I will not argue something with you that I have no control over changing.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
If you said 'what if they got raped' then you obviously haven't researched the subject well enough. I think something like less then 1% of rapes result in pregnency.. and even so, I am against abortion, but obviously there are certain exceptions.

[DeV]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
If you are against then there should be no exceptions because many who are pro-choice are only that way because of the exceptions. I would be against had I not seen the first hand damaging affects of a rape resulting in pregnancy resulting in abortion. So, I have to honestly say pro-choice but only because of the exceptions. Then I proceeded to say why I felt pro-choice. The rape of a friend. If I were to say pro-life but with exceptions would that have made it better?

[imported_Kranar]

<< If I were to say pro-life but with exceptions would that have made it better? >>

Yes it does, I understand better what you mean now.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Kranar]

[Jazuela]

When men become capable of getting pregnant, going through 9 months of pregnancy, giving birth, and breastfeeding long-term, I'll accept their opinion as valid with regards to abortion.

Til then, no man will dictate what I do - or don't do - with my *reproductive organs*. Not even my husband. Fortunately he shares my opinion, but I wouldn't have married him in the first place if he didn't.

Edited to change body into reproductive organs, because if I ever tried to kill myself I would HOPE someone - even a man - would lock my ass up somewhere.


[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Jazuela]

[HarmNone]

Hmm. I find it quite possible to be FOR the right to personal CHOICE with regard to the abortion issue, while remaining AGAINST abortion as an option for myself. :)

HarmNone

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Jazuela
When men become capable of getting pregnant, going through 9 months of pregnancy, giving birth, and breastfeeding long-term, I'll accept their opinion as valid with regards to abortion.

Til then, no man will dictate what I do - or don't do - with my *reproductive organs*. Not even my husband. Fortunately he shares my opinion, but I wouldn't have married him in the first place if he didn't.

Edited to change body into reproductive organs, because if I ever tried to kill myself I would HOPE someone - even a man - would lock my ass up somewhere.

You realize there are many women Pro-Life right? Including every one of my Aunts and my sister and mother? It's not a matter of being a woman, it's a matter of saying 'since this baby is covered by an inch of my own flesh, I am allowed to kill it'

[imported_Kranar]

<< I find it quite possible to be FOR the right to personal CHOICE with regard to the abortion issue, while remaining AGAINST abortion as an option for myself. >>

This view may be hypocritical however.

Not saying it is hypocritical for you, but if someone were to state something as being okay to do, while that individual holds themselves to a higher standard, then that individual is being hypocritical.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Homicide would be killing a person who can breathe, walk, shit, talk... all on it's own. >>

Not at all, if I killed Stephen Hawking, or some other individual who can't take care of themselves, I go to jail for homicide.

It's not because someone needs help to live that it's okay to kill them.

[HarmNone]

If I held, for myself, the right to make decisions for others as inalienable, then to take a stance of "for" for others and "against" for myself would be hypocritical, I agree. :)

HarmNone

[TheEschaton]

When men become capable of getting pregnant, going through 9 months of pregnancy, giving birth, and breastfeeding long-term, I'll accept their opinion as valid with regards to abortion.

This is a bullshit argument, and I'm sick of hearing it, mainly because women then berate men for being men. Well, you're not a man, so fucking lay the fuck off. The idea that one cannot debate a topic until they experience the thing is so fucking ridiculous its not worthy of consideration. I'm not white, nor am I black, can I not talk about race relations? Fuck.

As for fetuses surviving on their own by themselves, again, the point is irrelevant. A person can't survive on its own til 18, legally in this country. But they're still afforded rights. A mother beats her children, leaves them locked up in cars, they can't survive on their own, and the mother is charged with neglect.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Jazuela
Til then, no man will dictate what I do - or don't do - with my *reproductive organs*. Not even my husband. Fortunately he shares my opinion, but I wouldn't have married him in the first place if he didn't.Life boat theology (or philosophy, or something like that): You can't drill a hole in your seat just because it's your seat. It's OUR boat, and you'll sink us all.

You can't take a knife to your reproductive organs (in this case, the womb) just because they're your organs. It's OUR baby.

note: I am in no way suggesting that Jazuela and I have a baby. It's just easier to use those pronouns and possessors and stuff.

[TheEschaton]

The problem, I think, exists in "movements" which seek to separate, divide, and find the minority better than the oppressive majority.


I am Indian, and thus, a minority. However, I didn't think, in college, and now, that it was in my best interest to go to desi parties only, and only eat with other Indians, etc, etc, etc. Nor do I think it is healthy for the Indian American's subculture to be separate from the American culture in general? Where does this go? One of my best friends in college was this girl Yesi - we were talking about working out, and she said, "Oh, tonight's there's a 'woman's only' night in the gym. I guess you can't come."

Since we're both social activist types, I said, "Isn't that some sort of discrimination? What if a guy wanted to use the gym?"

At this point she got defensive, and it got into a huge debate about how women felt uncomfortable working out in front of other guys. "You don't understand, you don't have breasts!" But shit, I get uncomfortable working out in front of other people too, do I get my own night? The point is, I have to deal with it, and it makes me stronger as a person.

40 years after "separate but equal" was shot down, the modern "equality" movements want to say that they are separate and equal. It makes no sense.

And from it, comes this idea that men have no say in abortion. It's ludicrous.

-TheE-

[Edaarin]

When you decide to have that baby, you should forfeit the right to demand that the father pay child support if he doesn't want the baby.

[Jazuela]

If you feel so strongly about it, then go ahead and get pregnant. Oh and don't forget to sign up for adopting abandoned children. Without prejudice - black infants, white infants, crackbabies, mutants born of alcoholics with FAS, etc. etc.

I'd like to see the whole of the entire Pro-Life movement put their money where their mouth is. You don't want people to have abortions? Great. You wanna dictate your morality on other people? Terrific. Walk the walk. Open your homes to abandoned dumpster babies. I'd LOVE to see it. Really. I would. The entire Pro-Life movement doing it. Any of you who refuse or make excuses and are merely "armchair politicians" invalidate the entire arguement.

[Jazuela]

Originally posted by Edaarin
When you decide to have that baby, you should forfeit the right to demand that the father pay child support if he doesn't want the baby.

Ah, so now, not only is the woman -required- to carry an unwanted baby to term, but she's not -allowed- to receive financial assistance from the guy who spawned her whelp?

That's fair. So - the man's only responsibility in any of this ends when sperm meets egg? This is why I say, men, get the hell away from my womb.

And yeah if you're trying to argue against my opinion and not adding to your own - if I decided to have a baby and the man didn't want it, I wouldn't make him pay for it unless he raped me. Then he'd pay with every cent he had and every cent he ever hoped to earn in the future. IF he recovered from the castration.

[Edaarin]

Where did I say she was required to carry an unwanted baby? If she wants to have an abortion, fine. If she wants to keep it, and the man doesn't, time to get a job or federal aid.

[DeV]

Good points... where do we hold the men responsible Pro-lifers, when they are the ones wanting the woman to have an abortion?

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
I guess if you consider abortion murder then you would think that way.

I don't know. If I can be punished by the law for killing your dog, but can't be punished for repeatedly socking you in the uterus, killing your child something would seem wrong to me.

Yes I realize I could be charged for hurting the mother, but not the baby?

[Ambrosia]

Originally posted by Nakiro

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
I guess if you consider abortion murder then you would think that way.

I don't know. If I can be punished by the law for killing your dog, but can't be punished for repeatedly socking you in the uterus, killing your child something would seem wrong to me.

Yes I realize I could be charged for hurting the mother, but not the baby?

Actually, depending on the age of the fetus, you can be charged with murder.

[Hulkein]

Thanks to the new law put in place :D

One step closer towards making it illegal.

[Nakiro]

What's the huge stretch from being fincially responsible to being biologically responsible? An two month old baby is no less depedent on her mother/parents than it was seven months ago.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Ambrosia

Originally posted by Nakiro

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
I guess if you consider abortion murder then you would think that way.

I don't know. If I can be punished by the law for killing your dog, but can't be punished for repeatedly socking you in the uterus, killing your child something would seem wrong to me.

Yes I realize I could be charged for hurting the mother, but not the baby?

Actually, depending on the age of the fetus, you can be charged with murder.

Not if its done by the consent of the mother.

[Ambrosia]

Originally posted by Nakiro

Not if its done by the consent of the mother.

The police can charge you with murder without someone pressing charges.

[TheEschaton]

I'd like to see the whole of the entire Pro-Life movement put their money where their mouth is. You don't want people to have abortions? Great. You wanna dictate your morality on other people? Terrific. Walk the walk. Open your homes to abandoned dumpster babies. I'd LOVE to see it. Really. I would. The entire Pro-Life movement doing it. Any of you who refuse or make excuses and are merely "armchair politicians" invalidate the entire arguement.

I'm all for it.

You must keep in mind, there are Pro-Lifers who aren't rabid conservatives who care about children in the womb and don't give a fuck once they're out.

Any comprehensive pro-life standpoint has to realize, and deal with the fact, that there'd be...what? 3 million?....extra babies to deal with in a country which already has a problem with kids living below the poverty line. Which is why, and I've said this before (you're just too random a poster, Jazuela, to have ever READ that thread), you have to be working for social change in terms of single mother benefits, etc, etc, etc, etc (ad infinitum), to have a real Pro-Life stance.

I also mentioned how I hate the labels pro-life and pro-choice in that post...but oh well.

-TheE-

[Jazuela]

Originally posted by Nakiro
What's the huge stretch from being fincially responsible to being biologically responsible? An two month old baby is no less depedent on her mother/parents than it was seven months ago.

A fetus below a certain stage of development is incapable of existing independent of its host, or womb. A 2 month old baby most certainly can live, and even thrive, without its birth-mother.

Once the fetus has attached to the walls of the uturus, it cannot be removed until it has developed a brain, working heart, and at least some lung function. This doesn't occur at conception. It happens well after the first trimester. If it is removed prior to this, the fetus dies. A 2 month old baby removed from its mother will do just as fine as if it was never removed - or better, if the birth-mother was a lousy mother.

I have a question to all you pro-lifers: All of you folks insisting that you impose your morality and philosophical beliefs on the rest of us in the form of a law - how many of you will be opening your homes to unwanted children if such a law is ever put into effect? How many of you will take in whatever dumpster babies are sent to your house? How many of you will take in crack-babies, children born with FAS, kids with horrible deformities caused by malnutrition and ill health of the mother during pregnancy?

And what about kids born with major deformities, such as brain-stem trauma, who will spend the rest of their *maybe* ten years of life stuck to a machine in a completely vegetative state, because the law says that these "children" must be born even when detected as such in the womb?

How many of you pro-life taxpayers are gonna be happy to foot the medical costs of these babies? Because I can tell you right now, I'm not one of them. I don't want one cent of my money going to pay for unwanted babies.

[TheEschaton]

I have a question to all you pro-lifers: All of you folks insisting that you impose your morality and philosophical beliefs on the rest of us in the form of a law - how many of you will be opening your homes to unwanted children if such a law is ever put into effect? How many of you will take in whatever dumpster babies are sent to your house? How many of you will take in crack-babies, children born with FAS, kids with horrible deformities caused by malnutrition and ill health of the mother during pregnancy?


Didn't I already say sure?

As for the taxes bit: I've picked up from previous posts that you're a bit of a liberal. What liberal isn't willing to foot the costs of society's so-called "undesirables"?

-TheE-

[Jazuela]

Esch, my post never got posted, the one you responded to. I keep putting in my old Bestatte password by mistake and it kicks my post back to an empty buffer. How you managed to read it when it never posted is beyond me, but my other post (read above) says pretty much the same thing and asks pretty much the same question.

Edited to add: Also Esch, I say awesome for you, that you would take on the unwanted babies of the world. I applaud your willingness to walk the walk and can certainly respect this. Now, get all the rest of the people who are anti-abortion to join you, and my complaints against pro-life opinions will be greatly reduced.

It's the hypocracy I hear - I used to work down the street from a woman's health service that performs abortions -in addition to other womens' health issues and reproductive options. Outside on Thurdsays there's this minister with a bull-horn and pictures of photo-shopped babies with 3 heads and half-arms and all kinds of monstrosities ripped out of the old Ripley's Believe It Or Not books..telling women who walk in that they are evil murderers who will rot in hell.

And yet, when I walked up to him and -politely- asked him how many babies he's adopted from women who would otherwise have aborted them, he said none.

He has no right to tell women to do something he isn't willing to do himself - and that is, to be a parent to an unwanted child.


[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Jazuela]

[TheEschaton]

It's right on page 4, silly. You think I made up that quote in the post right above the one you asked the question on?

-TheE-

[Jazuela]

Weird. It refused to send me back to the forum and when I back-tabbed it gave me a blank buffer as if I hadn't posted.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Jazuela
Open your homes to abandoned dumpster babies. I'd LOVE to see it. Really. I would. The entire Pro-Life movement doing it. Any of you who refuse or make excuses and are merely "armchair politicians" invalidate the entire arguement.Right, I can't afford to adopt a baby, therefore nobody anywhere can ever, therefore there should be abortion. :?:
He has no right to tell women to do something he isn't willing to do himself - and that is, to be a parent to an unwanted child.Ever been in the military?

[Hulkein]

I love how because the baby will have a hard life, the solution is to murder it. Doesn't fly with me. Keep telling yourself whatever you need to just so long as you can sleep alright at night.

[Jazuela]

I don't give a rat's ass about the baby. I care about the mother. I got my tubes tied so that I could -never- have a baby. This means, I am intentionally allowing millions of spermatazoa die, with absolutely no possible chance that one of them will ever get close enough to one of my eggs to impregnate me.

I am - a murderer of sperm. Glad of it too. I am also intentionally neglecting the primary reproductive function of my gender - which is to be pregnant. Glad of that as well. I am also FAR from liberal, by the way Esch. I believe that women who -choose- to have children should stay at home and raise those whelps until they are old enough for full-time school, OR be prepared to home-school the children. I believe that women should NOT breastfeed in public. I believe in capital punishment and the death sentence. I believe that convicted rapists should be castrated. I also believe that the mother's needs take precidence over an unborn child's needs, UNLESS that unborn child can survive outside the womb, AND unless the mother's life -or future fertility- is not endangered by giving birth.

I also find the idea of third-trimester abortions horrific, although in cases of brain-stem injury and risk to the mother's life, I can understand and acknowledge the need for it. I would prefer to see live-birth in 3rd trimester but sometimes that isn't possible without killing the mother, or delivering birth to a baby who is missing half their brain or part of their brain stem.

I'd say that makes me kinda conservative about some things, ultra-conservative about others, and relatively liberal about others. Oh and I do -not- believe in equal rights for women and men, because women and men are -not- equal. I believe, however, in equal opportunities. I also believe that the whole bra-burning thing of the 60s was probably the worst thing that ever happened to women. I'm all for the man bringing home the bacon while I wash a dish and clean a floor.

[Hulkein]

<<I don't give a rat's ass about the baby. I care about the mother.>>

That's been blatently obvious. And the whole sperm killing thing.. Ok, that's not a kid, I don't care. I also don't have a big problem with the day after pill. I just read that you're against third-trimester abortion.. well OK, because that's mainly what I am disgusted by. There is always compromise.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Hulkein]

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Ambrosia

Originally posted by Nakiro

Not if its done by the consent of the mother.

The police can charge you with murder without someone pressing charges.

Doesn't it have to be a person to be murder?
Wouldn't that make the corpse of the fetus a person?

[Edaarin]

Much like women, fetuses aren't people like us. It's not murder.



Yes, I'm kidding. A little.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I love how because the baby will have a hard life, the solution is to murder it. Doesn't fly with me. Keep telling yourself whatever you need to just so long as you can sleep alright at night.

Most women don't. Increased risk to cervical cancer, infertility, sucide, breat cancer, and other things.

[i remember halloween]

Originally posted by Miss X
Apologies for bringing up the issue of abortion again but my intention isnt to discuss whether abortion itself is right or wrong. We all have different views but I would ask that when discussing the issues we can show respect for each other, I really dont want to cause a flame fest but I thought I would share this with you all;

I was reading a newspaper during my lunch break and I came an article about how one of our main TV channels over here will be screening an abortion and also showing images of aborted babies. The full story is here: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1185399,00.html
if anyone wishes to read it, but basically a show called 'My Foetus' will show a woman having a vacuum pump abortion and display the foetus on a petri dish afterwards, it will also show pictures of foetuses aborted at 10 and 21 weeks.

My personal opinion is that its pushing the boundries too far. I feel it shows lack of respect for the souls of the babies and that really, no one NEEDS to see the dead baby to debate the issues surrounding abortion and although I am Pro-Choice I really think its pretty disgusting to show this.

Of course I have a choice about whether I watch the show or not but I can't help thinking its just media sensationalism and abortion is far to sensitive to be treated in this way.

I'd be interested in hearing other peoples views on this, if anyone has one. :)

[Edited on 5-4-04 by Miss X]

lol prochoice and against this? spin much? fuck that, they should make you have dead fetus wall paper. besides, what does it matter, its not a person right?

[Ambrosia]

Originally posted by Nakiro

Originally posted by Ambrosia

Originally posted by Nakiro

Not if its done by the consent of the mother.

The police can charge you with murder without someone pressing charges.

Doesn't it have to be a person to be murder?
Wouldn't that make the corpse of the fetus a person?

If you would quit reading only what you want to read then you'd understand what I said. After a specific amount of weeks you can be charged with murder, yes. After a specific amount of weeks, you can no longer have an abortion, why? BECAUSE **drum roll please** the fetus inside the womb is considered a baby and no longer just a fetus. Which is why there are abortion laws.


Read here if you'd like to learn more:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/facts/abotaft1st_010600.html

[Jazuela]

Nakiro, Ambrosia is referring specifically to late-trimester pregnancies, where it is already proven that the baby CAN survive outside the womb. In this case, yes, that baby absolutely positively IS a baby, and therefore a person, and therefore killing it -could- be considered murder. I happen to agree with that ruling.

However, I also believe in euthenasia - mercy killing, and if that baby has brain-stem or traumatic brain injury and would -not- be capable of surviving outside the mother, I would not feel any remorse in knowing that ending its life before it was born was legal and proper. I would also be glad if it was legal and proper to kill the baby if NOT doing so would kill the mother.

There is a religious precidence in this, even though I don't particularly adhere to the religion of my birth. However, the Rabbinical book of law states that abortion would be -preferred- over giving birth, if the birth would cause injury or risk of fertility to the mother. The reason for this is simple:

The mother has already proven herself to be fertile and capable of having other babies, thus keeping the Jewish people growing. The unborn baby hasn't proven that it is fertile, and in the case of a boy, would not be capable of having its own baby anyway. So you risk the unborn to save what you already know can reproduce.

This is only in the case of saving the mother, it doesn't apply to what the mother "wants" or the circumstances surrounding her impregnation.

I happen to also agree with that, but I extend it to saving the mother if she was a stupid child who was foolish enough to succomb to peer pressure, or if her parents were too ignorant to teach their child that yes, Virginia, you CAN get pregnant the first time. A 13 year old child should not be forced to go through pregnancy just because she was 13, ignorant, and allowed her very natural childhood instincts to make herself follow the peer pressure. However, that 13 year old girl should -definitely- be required to go to parenting classes, and the parents of the girl should be put under a microscope to make SURE that they actually bothered to teach her the fundamentals of sex.

I'd also have a few words for the parents regarding where they were while their daughter was getting laid, and what -other- things the girl is up to that their parents are either oblivious to, or don't care about. But no, I would not force a girl to go through pregnancy. Childbirth should never be a punishment. It's that attitude that destroys more young minds than I care to think about.

[Satira]

Dead fetus wallpaper wouldn't change my mind very much one way or another. I've looked at plenty of unborn fetuses and babies and I've stuck by my opinion.

I just wanted to share that. I'm really not engaging in this debate.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Ambrosia

If you would quit reading only what you want to read then you'd understand what I said. After a specific amount of weeks you can be charged with murder, yes. After a specific amount of weeks, you can no longer have an abortion, why? BECAUSE **drum roll please** the fetus inside the womb is considered a baby and no longer just a fetus. Which is why there are abortion laws.


Read here if you'd like to learn more:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/facts/abotaft1st_010600.html

I am aware.

How is a zygot not a human? Yes, it is a signle celled organism, but that organism is still human in every way you are.

No, it can not survive on its own. But, is that really what makes us human? Should we be allowed to kill any human that is dependent on another person for life?

Edit because I'm too retarded to write coherent sentences.

[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Nakiro]

[Warriorbird]

There was a big plane with a huge sign behind it that flew over my workplace and much of Chapel Hill today. It featured an abstract depiction of a ten week old fetus, the statement, "Ten Week Abortion" and a phone number.

It circled the town quite a few times during the day, generally interrupting the lives of anyone who was outside or doing business outside.

Most of the folks at work were pretty pissed, whether they were for or against abortion. Stuff like that is just tasteless.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Hulkein
If you said 'what if they got raped' then you obviously haven't researched the subject well enough. I think something like less then 1% of rapes result in pregnency..

You have a study to back that up?

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Artha
Those are generally the two exceptions pro-lifers make. Rape/Death of mother = Ok for abortion.

No they dont.
Pro-lifers expect the pregnancy to go to term.

[Tendarian]

I consider myself pro life and i make that exception. Are you saying people who do make that exception are really pro choice?

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< I find it quite possible to be FOR the right to personal CHOICE with regard to the abortion issue, while remaining AGAINST abortion as an option for myself. >>

This view may be hypocritical however.

Not saying it is hypocritical for you, but if someone were to state something as being okay to do, while that individual holds themselves to a higher standard, then that individual is being hypocritical.
That's kind of dumb. It isn't thinking of a higher standard. It's thinking of CHOICE. I can disagree with the choices you make but think you have the right to make them. Morality don't mean shit without free will.

[Galleazzo]

The whole "exception" garbage.Now I'm pro-choice, 'cause I don't think there's a human until birth. But that exception deal is moral bullshit. Excuse me, life is precious and sacred except when it's a rapist's baby? Fuck that. Someone tell me how that's so-called "pro-life."

Hey, tell me about how so many "pro-lifers" are in favor of capital punishment and owning guns?

This ain't morality. It's politics.

[Souzy]

Too lazy to read the rest of the thread. The majority of you have already said this and so am I. I wouldn't watch it, cos it's just too gorey for me, but it is nice to know what others are fighting for.

[Miss X]

Originally posted by i remember halloween lol prochoice and against this? spin much? fuck that, they should make you have dead fetus wall paper. besides, what does it matter, its not a person right?

Yes, me having dead Foetus wallpaper will change my opinion. Not.

I am pro-choice, yes. That doesn't mean I think its ok to show a dead foetus on TV. One opinion is not necessarily indicative of another. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

[Warriorbird]

Yep. We had a customer at work get irate at one of my very pro-life coworkers who complained about the plane and the sign. He responded nearly a mirror opposite, "Just because I don't support abortion doesn't mean I want to see a dead fetus flying through the air over my job."

Either side can be tasteless. They shouldn't stoop to that level.

[Jazuela]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Hulkein
If you said 'what if they got raped' then you obviously haven't researched the subject well enough. I think something like less then 1% of rapes result in pregnency..

You have a study to back that up?

from http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php


1 - 5% become pregnant as a result of the rape. There are an estimated 32,000 rape related pregnancies in the United States annually. (Holmes, 1996)

from
http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm


The FBI estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police. U.S. Justice Department statistics are even lower, with only 26% of all rapes or attempted rapes being reported to law enforcement officials.

and


The adult pregnancy rate associated with rape is estimated to be 4.7%. This information, in conjunction with estimates based on the U.S. Census, suggest that there may be 32,101 annual rape-related pregnancies among American women over the age of 18.17

So that's around 32,000 -reported- rape-related pregnancies every year. Are there 32,000 families ready, willing, and prepared to raise every single one of those babies, and take responsibility for the trauma the victim will endure for the rest of her life as a result of being forced to carry her torturer's spawn to term?

In addition, rape doesn't always involve sexual intercourse, plus some women who are raped are already married or involved with a boyfriend, and already have some form of contraceptive being used. So the statistics only show actual -reported- numbers and don't take this into account.

Further, children under the age of 12 do -not- get counted in the statistics of rape-related pregnancy, even though some 11 and 12 year old girls CAN get pregnant.

[TheEschaton]

So that's around 32,000 -reported- rape-related pregnancies every year. Are there 32,000 families ready, willing, and prepared to raise every single one of those babies, and take responsibility for the trauma the victim will endure for the rest of her life as a result of being forced to carry her torturer's spawn to term?

I know a girl who was raped, had the kid, and the kid is the joy of her life. Absolutely adorable little girl, she's 6 now.

Not everyone is traumatized forever. For some, the baby can be a silver lining to a bad situation. It definately was for Sue.

-TheE-
Edited to add: P.S. I like how you demonized the kid, just through who his father was. Maybe we should just write off Bush's girls now.

[Edited on 4-7-2004 by TheEschaton]

[Jazuela]

I demonize ALL kids. That's why I don't have any :)

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

So that's around 32,000 -reported- rape-related pregnancies every year. Are there 32,000 families ready, willing, and prepared to raise every single one of those babies, and take responsibility for the trauma the victim will endure for the rest of her life as a result of being forced to carry her torturer's spawn to term?

I know a girl who was raped, had the kid, and the kid is the joy of her life. Absolutely adorable little girl, she's 6 now.

Not everyone is traumatized forever. For some, the baby can be a silver lining to a bad situation. It definately was for Sue.

-TheE-
Edited to add: P.S. I like how you demonized the kid, just through who his father was. Maybe we should just write off Bush's girls now.

[Edited on 4-7-2004 by TheEschaton]

Sadly most people think of the rape concieved child as a monster that will haunt the parent for the rest of their lives.

Unfortunately it is more often the case of the abortion being a regret for women.

[TheEschaton]

Now I'm pro-choice, 'cause I don't think there's a human until birth. But that exception deal is moral bullshit. Excuse me, life is precious and sacred except when it's a rapist's baby? Fuck that. Someone tell me how that's so-called "pro-life."

And secretly, Galleazo, I'm pro-life in these cases. However, I realize abortion in these cases would be a choice to make - whereas I would hope society would reach a point one day where a woman would choose the life, no matter the circumstances.

However, that's not a very popular view, so flame away. I don't express it often. ;)


-TheE-

[Tendarian]

Originally posted by Galleazzo

The whole "exception" garbage.Now I'm pro-choice, 'cause I don't think there's a human until birth. But that exception deal is moral bullshit. Excuse me, life is precious and sacred except when it's a rapist's baby? Fuck that. Someone tell me how that's so-called "pro-life."

Hey, tell me about how so many "pro-lifers" are in favor of capital punishment and owning guns?

This ain't morality. It's politics.

I dont like abortion ever,but in the case of rape i can see the torment a woman would go through if she had to see the likeness of the man that raped her. Theres exceptions to everything in life get used to it. Is shoplifting bad? Yep,but what if they were stealing rice to feed their children,that makes it a little better. Murder bad? What if they were defending themselves?

Im in favor of capital punishment too. To me the bigger difference is that pro choicers are against it most times. I prefer the innocent live and the guilty fry instead of the other way around.

Im pretty sure a very large percentage of people are for being allowed to own guns. Its the kind of guns some folk argue over. Btw i dont own any guns at all and have never hunted in my life. I have children in the house and i live in a small town in MN and crime is pretty low and i dont hunt so theres no need for me.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Tendarian
I prefer the innocent live and the guilty fry instead of the other way around.


Yet you would support a women's right (one who is capable of carrying a pregnancy to term) to abort (read: end) the life of a child?

Edit To Fix Some Bad Wording

[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Nakiro]

[Tendarian]

In the case of rape,incest or life of the mother,yes i would. Else nope i wouldnt.

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Jazuela
When men become capable of getting pregnant, going through 9 months of pregnancy, giving birth, and breastfeeding long-term, I'll accept their opinion as valid with regards to abortion.

Til then, no man will dictate what I do - or don't do - with my *reproductive organs*. Not even my husband. Fortunately he shares my opinion, but I wouldn't have married him in the first place if he didn't.

Edited to change body into reproductive organs, because if I ever tried to kill myself I would HOPE someone - even a man - would lock my ass up somewhere.


[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Jazuela]

Hear hear.

The decision affects a guy, but I can guarantee you th at 90% of the guys involved in relationships where someone would even consider an abortion are utterly unreliable and could care less either way.

I honestly think that if the consequences were just as severe for both parties as they were for the female, abortion wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately, our society really could care less about the guys that knock women up and run away, whereas the women are left sitting at home, alone, with their kids.

Yeah, you shouldn't have sex if you don't accept the consequences, but that's the hard truth.

In a stable, caring relationship, if I were to get pregnant, it really wouldn't even be a question for me.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Jazuela
Childbirth should never be a punishment.Neither should death.
Originally posted by Maimara
our society really could care less about the guys that knock women up and run awaySpeaking for me, my immediate family, and every guy I've ever met (save 2), we care plenty.
Originally posted by Galleazzo
Hey, tell me about how so many "pro-lifers" are in favor of capital punishmentI'm not.
and owning guns?I'll get back to you. <cough>

[Warriorbird]

Pro choice. In favor of capital punishment.

Everybody hates me.

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
And secretly, Galleazo, I'm pro-life in these cases. However, I realize abortion in these cases would be a choice to make - whereas I would hope society would reach a point one day where a woman would choose the life, no matter the circumstances.

However, that's not a very popular view, so flame away. I don't express it often. ;)Flame away? What at, dude? Doncha think there's a difference between "This is what I believe and what I hope you decide" and "We need to change the laws to force everyone to do what I think they ought to do?"

I sure do. Your stance is moral, it ain't coercive.




I dont like abortion ever,but in the case of rape i can see the torment a woman would go through if she had to see the likeness of the man that raped her. Theres exceptions to everything in life get used to it. Is shoplifting bad? Yep,but what if they were stealing rice to feed their children,that makes it a little better. Murder bad? What if they were defending themselves?
Sorry, guy, but that's bullshit, pure bullshit. The ONLY reason to think that abortion's wrong is you think it's a human being in there. If it's wrong to kill a human being, it's just plain wrong period. You start making exceptions, you open the door for ALL exceptions. Okay to abort a rapist's baby? Okay. Okay then to abort a baby just from sex you didn't really like? Okay to abort a Down's syndrome kid? How about just a bit retarded or deformed?

See? You're making choices. So why should your choice be put into law any more than my choice?

And that's what you're doing with your other stances. You don't really believe that killing's wrong, you just believe that the right wing party line is right. There ain't any morality in there, just politics.

[Nakiro]

Its not just because its a human being. Its because its an innocent human being. One that has done nothing to diserve death.

[Tendarian]

Sorry, guy, but that's bullshit, pure bullshit. The ONLY reason to think that abortion's wrong is you think it's a human being in there. If it's wrong to kill a human being, it's just plain wrong period. You start making exceptions, you open the door for ALL exceptions. Okay to abort a rapist's baby? Okay. Okay then to abort a baby just from sex you didn't really like? Okay to abort a Down's syndrome kid? How about just a bit retarded or deformed?

Ahh i see what your saying. If something is wrong it is 100% wrong no matter what. Everything is black and white,there is no gray. There cant be exceptions at all. If you believe the death penalty is ok for murderers than you have to believe its ok for even the lowly shoplifter. You cant take things by a case to case basis ever. That makes sense now.

Sorry but thats crazy. You can make exceptions and people and the law do it all the time when they make judgements.

[Galleazzo]

Hah!! In which case you're saying it's okay to choose, and morality doesn't have much to do with it. It's just a "judgment." And you just shot yourself right in the foot.

Because if you take things on a case by case basis the way you want, then a woman can decide on a case by case basis whether she ought to take the pregnancy to term. She can decide if her parents will freak out too much, or that there isn't enough money, or that the father's gonna bail on her, or that the burden is just too much. If you let it slide because you think a woman shouldn't have to deal with the nastiness of raising a rapist's baby, why is that pain that much worse than her knowing her parents'll kick her out, or that she'll have to drop out of school and never get that degree, or that it'll drive her man away?

It's her life, her embryo, she got as much right to make a "judgment" or have an "exception" as you do.

You can't have it both ways, that you can make a judgment about the things you find convenient when you find them convenient but no one else can themselves.

[Tendarian]

So what about all the things we as a country make "exceptions" for? Does that mean no murder should be taken to court? Because hey if defending yourself is alright, why isnt just because they smell bad? Why isnt cause they had $10 and i wanted it justified? Thats your argument right there.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
It's her life, her embryoOnly half hers. Though I suppose possession is nine tenths of the law and all that.

[Jazuela]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Galleazzo
It's her life, her embryoOnly half hers. Though I suppose possession is nine tenths of the law and all that.

See this is where I find the logic failing.

If it is -not- mine to do with what I feel appropriate, given my circumstances...

Then I should be given the power to give it to whoever else wants it.

I don't want this 3-month-old fetus in my belly. You want it? You got it. Now just summon the doctor to remove it from my uterus, and it's all yours.

What the anti-abortion laws are doing, is saying I don't have the right to do that. I do not have the right to remove something that I don't want, that is attached to my body and cannot be removed without outside interference of one sort or another.

I'm allowed to remove a breast, I'm allowed to get rid of the cellulite on my thighs. I'm allowed to put a hole in my ear, removing a piece of the flesh, to make way for a metallic prong (earring). I am allowed to have part of my nose removed, but I am not allowed to remove this one part of my body.

I am allowed to remove a cancer, which is a multi-celled organism that continues to grow and feed on my body. I am not allowed to remove a fetus, which is -also- a multi-celled organism that continues to grow and feed on my body.

I don't see the logic in that. If it is not mine to remove, then I would recommend someone come up with a way to allow me to give it to someone else. Because if it isn't mine, I don't want it.

If it is mine, then leave me the fuck alone and let me decide if I want to keep it or not.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Jazuela
What the anti-abortion laws are doing, is saying I don't have the right to do that.Maybe (probably) I'm not totally familiar with anti-abortion laws, but I doubt they'd have a problem if the baby can survive in some way. The (idea of) removal isn't the problem, it's what happens because of or the method of the removal.
I don't see the logic in that.I, likewise, fail to see the logic equating a piece of your ear with a child.
If it is not mine to remove, then I would recommend someone come up with a way to allow me to give it to someone else. Because if it isn't mine, I don't want it.

If it is mine, then leave me the fuck alone and let me decide if I want to keep it or not. The problem is you're working with extremes. The situation is it's not entirely yours. Even if it was entirely yours, society will rarely if ever "leave you the fuck alone" because it's yours.

[Hulkein]

<<Excuse me, life is precious and sacred except when it's a rapist's baby? Fuck that. Someone tell me how that's so-called "pro-life.">>

Because ultimately the womans life is more important. A baby conceived through rape will do uncalculatable harm to the psyche of the woman (if the woman doesn't think so, she can have the baby). Same reason there is exception if having the baby has a good chance of killing the woman.

<<Hey, tell me about how so many "pro-lifers" are in favor of capital punishment and owning guns?

This ain't morality. It's politics. >>

People convicted of the death penalty are, say it with me now, G-U-I-L-T-Y. They're not INNOCENT. Big difference there.

[Edited on 4-8-2004 by Hulkein]

[DeV]

Off topic: Can we say that most people convicted to die are guilty... yes. There are some innocent people sitting on death row as well. I think many who oppose include this as a reason why.

[Hulkein]

With forensic science the way it is now, and me being pretty young, I think that is a big contributer to why I am for the death-penalty. 50 years ago (even 20-30 years ago) getting wronfully convicted was a much larger possibility.. In todays day and age, I doubt it happens very often.

[Edited on 4-8-2004 by Hulkein]

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Tendarian
So what about all the things we as a country make "exceptions" for? Does that mean no murder should be taken to court? Because hey if defending yourself is alright, why isnt just because they smell bad? Why isnt cause they had $10 and i wanted it justified? Thats your argument right there.
You're missing the point, guy.

The anti-abortion side doesn't THINK there should be exceptions. That's their whole position. Mother's too poor? Doesn't matter, it's human from conception. Parents will kill her? Doesn't matter, it's human from conception. Boyfriend will walk? Doesn't matter, it's human from conception. Life trainwrecked? Doesn't matter, it's human from conception. Their whole mantra is "It's murder, murder is wrong."

You talk to your own side about those exceptions before you talk to me, 'kay?

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Hulkein
With forensic science the way it is now, and me being pretty young, I think that is a big contributer to why I am for the death-penalty. 50 years ago (even 20-30 years ago) getting wronfully convicted was a much larger possibility.. In todays day and age, I doubt it happens very often.

This is why I'm NOT for the death penalty. I was a long while, but they let 37 people go from death row the last few years on account of new DNA evidence.

37 innocent people who would've been fried.

Fuck. That.

[Tendarian]

I dont have to think exactly as everyone on my "side". Thats whats great about this country. I can have similar ideas of other people or exactly opposite. I dont have to choose one extreme or the other. Comparing growing up poor to the horrible fate of being raped is a tad silly though.

Do you personally agree that the women who use abortion as contraception is a great way to handle things? If i argued like you id have to say you have to think its great.

[Hulkein]

<<This is why I'm NOT for the death penalty. I was a long while, but they let 37 people go from death row the last few years on account of new DNA evidence.

37 innocent people who would've been fried.

Fuck. That.>>

Yeah, I agree... But you also said why I am for it now, forensic science has advanced to a very accurate position, accurate enough to free people who were convicted 20 years ago.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Yeah, I agree... But you also said why I am for it now, forensic science has advanced to a very accurate position, accurate enough to free people who were convicted 20 years ago. Unless it's 100% accurate (it's not) there's no way you can say "yeah, they're all guilty, throw the switch already". Putting aside my (many) other reasons against the death penalty, of course.

Galleazzo, most people are willing to compromise. Evidently not the pro-lifers you talk to, but most people are.

[Ravenstorm]

if I recall correctly, the recent bill that Bush signed into law banning all partial birth abortions makes absolutely no exceptions even for the mother's health.

Compromise?

Raven

[imported_Kranar]

<< I dont have to think exactly as everyone on my "side". Thats whats great about this country. I can have similar ideas of other people or exactly opposite. I dont have to choose one extreme or the other. Comparing growing up poor to the horrible fate of being raped is a tad silly though. >>

It's a strawman arguement.

Instead of debating against the points being presented in this very thread, Galleazo is creating his own strawman to debate against. Namely he wants to debate against his vision of what a Pro-Lifer should be instead of what some Pro-Lifers in this very thread are trying to communicate.

In the same way, I could just invent my own strawman of what I think a Pro-Choicer should be like, and debate against it paying no regard to the actual points being presented by those who are Pro-Choice.

If all we're going to debate in this thread is our own imaginary counter-arguements, we may as well just keep the debate in our own heads, because it's only taking place in there. Instead, I'd recommend we debate against the actual points being presented instead of saying "Well you're Pro-X, so you MUST take the stance that I'm forcing upon you even if you say otherwise."

Case in point: Many of us think exceptions can be made, and ignoring the technicalities of being part of some Pro/Anti This or That organization, we feel our points and arguments to be sufficient to justify our position. Abortion as a form of birth control, wrong. Abortion to save a life in jeopardy, justified.

Call us whatever category you want, but we're out there.

[Edited on 4-9-2004 by Kranar]

[HarmNone]

Actually, if one makes the effort to bring into play as many extremes as possible, what will eventually be proven is that nearly everyone makes an exception for some specific set of circumstances. It does not matter whether one stands to the left, or to the right, of center; most people are not truly polarized.

HarmNone

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
if I recall correctly, the recent bill that Bush signed into law banning all partial birth abortions makes absolutely no exceptions even for the mother's health.

Compromise?

Raven

I'm glad they signed that. Partial birth meant as long as it's in your stomach you can kill it.. as in the day you're due pretty much.

And that's not true, if the mother will die they'll do whatever it takes to save her.. no they won't do it in an abortion clinic, but the mothers life in a hospital is always first priority, ask any nurse or doctor.

[Jazuela]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
if I recall correctly, the recent bill that Bush signed into law banning all partial birth abortions makes absolutely no exceptions even for the mother's health.

Compromise?

Raven

I'm glad they signed that. Partial birth meant as long as it's in your stomach you can kill it.. as in the day you're due pretty much.

And that's not true, if the mother will die they'll do whatever it takes to save her.. no they won't do it in an abortion clinic, but the mothers life in a hospital is always first priority, ask any nurse or doctor.

The new bill wouldn't apply only to abortion clinics, Hulkein. And as far as I know, partial-birth third-trimester abortions -cannot- be performed anyone legally other than a hospital.

No exceptions means no exceptions. Even if the mother's life is at risk. To violate this bill, would be to risk liability and endanger the license of the hospital.

Conversely, in late-stage 3rd trimester pregnancy, I can't see any need for abortion, since the baby can be born through induced labor or c-section in emergency. Maybe there is some medical precidence for it, but I don't know of one. Anyone wanna take a walk through google and peek?

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
And that's not true, if the mother will die they'll do whatever it takes to save her.. no they won't do it in an abortion clinic, but the mothers life in a hospital is always first priority, ask any nurse or doctor.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/abortion.ap/


The law, approved by the House and Senate late last month, prohibits doctors from committing an "overt act" designed to kill a partially delivered fetus and allows no exception if the woman's health is at risk, or if the child would be born with ailments. The procedure, which usually involves puncturing the fetus' skull, is generally performed in the second or third trimester.

There's the CNN report I remembered from when Bush signed it. The doctors and nurses are now legally prohibited from making the mother's life the priority.

You might like to interpret it differently to make the law more palatable to your sensibilities but you'd be wrong. If you're supporting this law you're supporting letting the mother die in order to save the baby if that procedure could have saved her.

Raven

edited to add:

Clinton vetoed this twice. Yet they never changed the wording to allow for the possibility that it might be necessary to save the mother's life. They don't care.

[Edited on 4-9-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Tendarian]

If its partially delivered already,what would killing it do to save the womens health? I mean either way the rest of the baby is coming out not?

[Tendarian]

Conversely, in late-stage 3rd trimester pregnancy, I can't see any need for abortion, since the baby can be born through induced labor or c-section in emergency. Maybe there is some medical precidence for it, but I don't know of one.

Err didnt read her post before replying. What she said is what i meant too.

[Hulkein]

I understand what the law says, but if a woman is in the hospital and at risk of dying, they will force delivery.. While this isn't 'abortion' it will either allow the women to live, at the expense of the kid, or both will live.

Edited to clarify- It's not an 'abortion' because they do try to keep the kid alive unlike in an abortion where they will just kill the kid a minute before it comes out by removing it's brain.


[Edited on 4-9-2004 by Hulkein]

[Ravenstorm]

Here. Read up on it for yourselves.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

It's not very technical nor involved and should answer many of your questions. Minus the 'spin'.

Raven

[Tendarian]

I dont know how "spinless" that site is. It sure is trying to look that way though. If you look at the gay marriage rebuttals all the ones for it are extremely long. All the ones against it are about ten words and have the word religious christian in it. At a glance they look to be "Fair and Balanced" to me.

[Galleazzo]

Yeah, Kranar, waving hoity-toity phrases like "strawman argument" sure means a lot. Easier to say that than answer the question, yeppers.

What I'm saying is the rape&incest exception crowd is morally bankrupt, and I said why I think that. Couple of guys been happy to rebut. No one said you had to agree or else.

Now that I'm not debating what you want me to debate, tough shit.

You don't want to debate what *I* want to debate, no one forces you, you go and talk about what you feel like. I ain't stopping you.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Yeah, Kranar, waving hoity-toity phrases like "strawman argument" sure means a lot. Easier to say that than answer the question, yeppers. >>

My post was in response to your strawman argument. A prime example of you using this argument is in this post.



The anti-abortion side doesn't THINK there should be exceptions. That's their whole position. Mother's too poor? Doesn't matter, it's human from conception. Parents will kill her? Doesn't matter, it's human from conception. Boyfriend will walk? Doesn't matter, it's human from conception. Life trainwrecked? Doesn't matter, it's human from conception. Their whole mantra is "It's murder, murder is wrong."

You talk to your own side about those exceptions before you talk to me, 'kay?


I don't care what your vision of being an anti-abortionist is. I am not here as part of an organization, where I have to talk to others on my side of the organization before I can debate with you.

I am here to present MY side of the argument, and if in your mind you have some other vision of what my side of the argument is, you are best to simply keep it to yourself and respond to actual arguments being made.

Thus far you have done a lot of debating against what your version of being Pro-Life is, and very little debating against the points being made. You can't force a position on someone and then debate against that fictitious position.

It happens a lot when discussing abortion in particular. Everyone who is Pro-Life is simply forced into a category of Christian extremists who have no sense of reason or fairness even if those who are Pro-Life state otherwise.

My recommendation to you, and to everyone regardless of their stance, is to set aside such a prejudice.

[Edited on 4-9-2004 by Kranar]

[imported_Kranar]

The exception of rape is justified in that the woman had no choice in the matter and thus is not responsible for seeing the pregnancy through. In such a case the rapist should be held responsible for the pregnancy and if an abortion were to occur, it would be considered murder on the part of the rapist.

The justification is based on the legal principle of the link of causality. By impregnating a victim, if that victim decides to terminate the pregnancy, she should not be held responsible for having done so since she was not responsible for getting pregnant in the first place, the rapist is the one responsible. Thus by causality, the rapist is the one responsible for the abortion of the unborn child, and so it is the rapist who should be charged with murder, not the victim of rape.

This does not mean that abortion is alright, what this means is that the impregnated woman is not the one who would be held responsible for the abortion. The aborted child still deserves justice, only in such a case justice will be served against the rapist and not the victim of the rape.

With respect to abortion in cases of saving ones own life, this is a fairly simple exception to justify. Never has the law advocated that someone be required to sacrifice their own life for another. In such a case, a woman would have the right to choose whether or not she is willing to make that sacrifice. The law must never force someone to kill themselves for any reason whatsoever, infact the law must always allow individuals to protect their own life by any means nessecary. It is one of the most fundamental rights an individual has. It is why an individual is allowed to kill another to save themselves. The same principle applies for a woman whose life is at risk due to their pregnancy.

[Edited on 4-9-2004 by Kranar]

[imported_Kranar]

Oh, and one last point:

On the issue of whether aborting a child who suffers from some sort of illness is justified... this is not a question of abortion, but primarily a question of euthanasia. Debating such an issue specifically in the context of abortions would be inconsistent. One could be for euthanasia, in which case they would argue that it is alright to abort a child with a severe illness because it would be no different than assisting in the death of a fully grown individual who is a vegetable or in severe pain.

That doesn't mean that the person is in support of abortion, what it means is that the person is in support of euthanasia and doesn't differentiate between euthanizing a fully grown human or euthanizing a human who is still in the embryonic stage. At any rate, the point is that such an exception has very little to do with abortion and a lot to do with euthanasia.

That... is my position on abortion, independent of any Pro-Life organization, independent of any preconceived notion anyone of you may have about how extreme and inflexible Pro-Lifers are.

[Edited on 4-9-2004 by Kranar]

[Galleazzo]

It doesn't hold water and this is why.

WHY do you figure abortion's wrong? Just think on that a moment.

Most antis say because human life begins at conception and you're killing a baby.

So how do you figure that fetus stops being a human baby and it's suddenly okay to kill just because it's a rapist's?

(I won't touch the saving the life of the mother deal, that's reasonable all around)

That's where my whole list came from. If you're saying "This is a situation where it's okay to kill an innocent baby" then you're saying it's okay to make exceptions and kill innocent babies and that opens the flood gates.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
It doesn't hold water and this is why.

WHY do you figure abortion's wrong? Just think on that a moment.

Most antis say because human life begins at conception and you're killing a baby.

So how do you figure that fetus stops being a human baby and it's suddenly okay to kill just because it's a rapist's?

(I won't touch the saving the life of the mother deal, that's reasonable all around)

That's where my whole list came from. If you're saying "This is a situation where it's okay to kill an innocent baby" then you're saying it's okay to make exceptions and kill innocent babies and that opens the flood gates.

He answered your question pretty thouroughly, it's up to you to accept it.

[Galleazzo]

Sure, no problem. I accept his morality's cracked, that's his business, not mine. As long as he got no problem with ladies aborting what he thinks are innocent babies, when he's okay with aborting innocent babies.

[Tendarian]

If it makes you feel any better we think yours is also. Im through discussing this with this.... being :)

[Betheny]

I guess the difference is because if a woman is raped she really had no ch oice but to conceive a child. But if she just has casual sex, she chose to take t hat risk.

Personally, I think that's a fucked up way of thinking, but whatever. Were something like that to be put into law, alls a woman would have to do is say she was raped and it wouldn't be an issue.

Unless you're suggesting you make the woman wait until an investigation is launched and a person is convicted for the rape. By then, the child she gave birth do will be at least a few months old.

See, it all makes sense now?

No, I'm sorry. This is not an issue that should be drawn in shades of grey. Black, or white. Either you can, or you can't. Because doing anything other than that is creating more bullshit people have to deal with.

The day the government takes away my right to choose is the day I find a better government to swear my allegiance too. I am a citizen, just like any of you, and I deserve the right to do what I want with my own body. Until the day comes that birth control pills don't cost 80 dollars a month, becaues I can't seem to get insurance, I should have the right to terminate a pregnancy.

Edited to add: It's so socially acceptable to get boob jobs and liposuction. If you ask me, this isn't any different. Except one is more necessary than the other. And I guarantee you, the necessary one isn't shoving bags of saline into your tits to impress guys.

[Edited on 4-9-2004 by Maimara]

[Tendarian]

Until the day comes that birth control pills don't cost 80 dollars a month, becaues I can't seem to get insurance, I should have the right to terminate a pregnancy.

Financially speaking only wouldnt it be cheaper to buy birth control at $80/month than get an abortion that has to cost at least $300(i dont actually know,im guessing it has to be though not?) every third month or whatever it comes down to?

[imported_Kranar]

So how do you figure that fetus stops being a human baby and it's suddenly okay to kill just because it's a rapist's?


As Tendarian pointed out, I answered it, and never once did I say that abortion is alright or that the fetus isn't human.

The fetus doesn't stop being a human just because it belongs to a rapist. What happens is that instead of the woman being responsible for the abortion, the rapist is the one held responsible. The rapist is responsible because of the legal principle of the link of causality.

Since the rapist is responsible for having raped the victim, the rapist is also responsible for all the consequences that result from his action, that is what the legal principle states.

If one such consequence happens to be impregnation, then that responsibility falls solely on the rapist, not on the victim of the rape since she had no choice to get pregnant. As such, if the victim of the rape has an abortion, it is the fault of the rapist, not the victim.

Thus, abortion is still wrong, but the fault of the abortion falls on the rapist, not the victim, and so it's the rapist who should be charged with murder, not the victim.

[Edited on 4-9-2004 by Kranar]

[imported_Kranar]

Unless you're suggesting you make the woman wait until an investigation is launched and a person is convicted for the rape. By then, the child she gave birth do will be at least a few months old.


Nope, I'm suggesting that you go ahead and have the abortion if you so choose. But if you weren't raped, you need to accept that the responsibility for that abortion is yours, and not the rapists.

You don't have to wait for the investigation to be over, you go ahead and you do it, and then when the time comes for the rape trial, the rape trial will determine not only whether or not you were raped, but also whether or not you, or the rapist, were responsible for the abortion.

[Hulkein]

If a rape is reported immediatly then they take the day after pill and problem solved. I'm pretty sure hospitals will give you that during a rape check.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Maimara
I am a citizen, just like any of you, and I deserve the right to do what I want with my own body.If you could make babies on your own, that would make sense.

[TheEschaton]

Thus, abortion is still wrong, but the fault of the abortion falls on the rapist, not the victim, and so it's the rapist who should be charged with murder, not the victim.

That would violate due process, though, if the woman could commit a crime by proxy. Since the rapist, effectively, has no choice on the abortion, he can't be charged with murder, because one could argue that had he had his say re: the abortion of the child, he would not abort, to save his own ass. Morally, sure, he's responsible. Criminally, we'd like it to be, but the rapist would be charged with murder every time practically. While we might like that, the theory of law would shudder in disgust at legislation like that.


-TheE-

[imported_Kranar]

<< Since the rapist, effectively, has no choice on the abortion, he can't be charged with murder, because one could argue that had he had his say re: the abortion of the child, he would not abort, to save his own ass. >>

He made the choice when he comitted the rape. Once he did that, he is responsible for everything that happens thereafter as a result of the rape. If the woman gets an abortion, it's not her responsibility for having done so, the woman is not comitting a crime by proxy, infact she is not comitting any crime period.

The crime was already comitted the moment the rapist attacked the victim.

[TheEschaton]

Then how can you say that the rapist can be charged with murder, if the woman commits no crime?

You can't charge him with murder, because the outcome of the pregnancy is, theoretically, variable, and, the crime of murder charged to the rapist can be easily avoided.

-TheE-

[imported_Kranar]

<< You can't charge him with murder, because the outcome of the pregnancy is, theoretically, variable, and, the crime of murder charged to the rapist can be easily avoided. >>

No, if the woman aborts the child, then the child dies in virtually all exceptions. It's INCREDIBLY rare that a child actually survives an abortion, infact nowadays when abortions are performed they make sure the child dies by suffocating it once it comes out.

So in that sense, there is no variable. Abortion leads to a dead child. Who is to bare responsibility for that abortion is the issue.

The woman isn't to bear responsibility, because the pregnancy was never her responsibility to begin with. If she choses to accept responsibility for that pregnancy, then yes that is a very brave thing for her to do; but the law should never require her to accept responbility for something that she was forced into.

The person ultimately responsible for the pregnancy is the rapist, and so the rapist is responsible for the outcome of that pregnancy. Should that outcome be abortion, then the rapist should be charged with murder.

It's just like if you were to come to me and poke me with a needle very gently on my fingertip. I start to bleed a little, and refuse to go to the hospital or put a bandaid on my finger to stop the bleeding, for whatever reason I'm dumb and choose to watch myself bleed. It also just so happens that I have that disease where if I start bleeding my body can't stop the bleeding, so eventually I bleed to death... guess what?

You get charged with 2nd degree murder. Yes, I chose not to go the hospital. Yes, I could have prevented my death by doing something so simple as putting a bandaid on my finger. But since you're the one who comitted the initial act of cutting my finger, you're the one responsible for the outcome of that act.

So trying to argue that the abortion could have easily been prevented by the woman to avoid having to charge the rapist with murder is not infact consistent with the law. Just like arguing that I could have prevented my death to avoid charging you with 2nd degree murder is not consistent with the law.

That's the link of causality. Once you commit the crime, you are responsible for all actions that result from the crime, regardless of whether or not it could have been prevented.

[Warriorbird]

Or you could just be playing rationalization tango just as hard as Galleazo, Kranar.

[Xcalibur]

That's true about the responsability. Saw that in a law course, it's even weirder!

Kranar got a strange condition that make his skull fragile and easy to break.

You have an argument with him and because of that argument, he fell weak and fall to the ground, hitting his skull on the ground and breaking it.

YOU'D BE RESPONSABLE!

Women that got rape should never be force to keep the child.

[Miss X]

Wow, birth control pills aren't free there? Thats so bad, over here all birth control and morning after pills are free and condoms are free from any family planning clinic.

Regarding this rape related abortion thing, I see your point Kranar but I think its a bit of a cop out. For example, I have sex with a condom (clearly NO intention to get pregnant) but I do, can I blame the company that made the condoms for that, and make them responsible for the abortion I have? Of course people will say no, because I was fully aware that it COULD happen.

Women are fully aware that they COULD be raped at some point too so I could say that any women who walks alone at night is responsible for the consequences. (Just using this as an example, I don't actually believe it.)

Its easy to blame other people for things but I believe some things have to be black and white. The Foetus is inside the women, no matter how it got there, its relying on here so she is therefore responsible for it. If she chooses to have an abortion the decision is made by HER, she is the one that will have to live with the guilt or whatever the consequences of abortion are, emotionally, not the rapist, not the company that made faulty condoms, and most of the time not the guy that impregnated her.

I hear the argument about it taking two to make a baby all the time, yeah of course it does but it only takes one to grow and nurture that baby, it only takes one to keep it alive and until its possible for a baby to be born outside of a women's body the choice is ENTIRELY hers to make, I firmly believe that.

[Xcalibur]

I think until it's 100% to give birth, no one can force a woman to give birth, raped or not (until a certain time of pregnancy).

You cannot force someone to do something that can kill her.

I think that argument alone is the reason why i'm pro-avortement.

[TheEschaton]

The woman isn't to bear responsibility, because the pregnancy was never her responsibility to begin with. If she choses to accept responsibility for that pregnancy, then yes that is a very brave thing for her to do; but the law should never require her to accept responbility for something that she was forced into.

The person ultimately responsible for the pregnancy is the rapist, and so the rapist is responsible for the outcome of that pregnancy. Should that outcome be abortion, then the rapist should be charged with murder.

Then the rapist should have a say in whether the fetus is aborted, since he's the one taking responsibility, eh? You can't simply say, "Alright ma'am, if you abort this baby, we'll charge him with murder as well" because it gives the rapist no chance. Causality is based on committing a violent crime against a person (IE, poking them with a needle), and, while rape is a violent crime (for which he's held accountable), the actual impregnation is NOT a crime, thus a "crime" resulting from it cannot be considered the crime of the impregnator.


-TheE-

[imported_Kranar]

<< That's true about the responsability. Saw that in a law course, it's even weirder!

Kranar got a strange condition that make his skull fragile and easy to break.

You have an argument with him and because of that argument, he fell weak and fall to the ground, hitting his skull on the ground and breaking it.

YOU'D BE RESPONSABLE! >>

Hah! The actual legal precedent behind the link of causality actually wasn't that far off from the example you stated. I remember it having to do with something so stupid like some guy just tapping another guy on the head, and the other guy had a really fragile head, refused to go to the hospital or seek any treatment, and died as a result.

Anyways, good to know you remember that stuff.

<< Then the rapist should have a say in whether the fetus is aborted, since he's the one taking responsibility, eh? >>

The rapist has absolutely no say whatsoever in deciding whether or not the fetus is aborted. Just like you have absolutely no say whether or not I should go to the hospital after poking me with a needle.

Once you comit the crime, you have no say in what happens as a result of that crime. You pay the consequences for not only what you did, but everything that results from what you did, whether you like it or not. The principle is that you should have thought of all those factors BEFORE you decided to comit the crime, not afterwards.

Some bastard wants to comit rape, he better be prepared that the victim of that rape will abort a pregnancy that she had no say in, is not responsible for, and was forced into.

[imported_Kranar]

<< the actual impregnation is NOT a crime, thus a "crime" resulting from it cannot be considered the crime of the impregnator. >>

The actual impregnation IS a crime.

It is a crime in both Canada, and the United States, to impregnate someone against their will. Be it through rape, be it through artificial insemination, be it by any means, if you impregnate someone against their will someway, somehow, you are comitting a crime.

All I'm saying, is that the impregnated woman should not be held responsible for that unwanted pregnancy since she was forced into it. Therefore, since she isn't responsible, the law should not punish her for refusing the pregnancy, thus having an abortion. The law should punish the impregnator.

[TheEschaton]

There's also laws on the books (at least in the United States) saying that if a party can easily and reasonably prevent a crime, they must do their best.


That throws a wrench into things, eh? A rape victim can reasonably prevent said crime of murder.

-TheE-

[imported_Kranar]

<< A rape victim can reasonably prevent said crime of murder. >>

You think it's easy and reasonable for a woman to have to be impregnated with a child that was forced on her for 9 months and then potentially have to take care of it for 18 years?

Perhaps that's where we disagree then.

[TheEschaton]

You think it's easy and reasonable for a woman to have to be impregnated with a child that was forced on her for 9 months and then potentially have to take care of it for 18 years?

Yet you would have a woman who the condom broke on and was walked out on, go through the 9 months plus 18 years. I don't see the difference, both are impregnated with a child that she doesn't want, and had it forced upon her, yet one can do what she will with it, and the other has to live with it? The only difference is the traumatic, unexpected nature of rape, and the idea that the "experience" one goes through is sufficient to justify an abortion is a morally bankrupt argument, as morality is based on action regardless of circumstance.

Your argument is treading on thin ground.

[imported_Kranar]

<< it only takes one to keep it alive and until its possible for a baby to be born outside of a women's body the choice is ENTIRELY hers to make >>

And hence why I think abortion is wrong.

If something depends on me to live, I think it is an act of unmeasurable cruelty for me to turn by back on it and let it die.

The reason abortion is a crime, in my eyes, is because not only am I turning my back on something that depends on me to live, but I'm the reason why it depends on me in the first place.

The fact that it depends on me to live is the my OWN fault!

It just seems to me to be a complete lack of respect to create human life that is dependent on you, only to decide to kill it afterwards.

[imported_Kranar]

<< I don't see the difference, both are impregnated with a child that she doesn't want, and had it forced upon her, yet one can do what she will with it, and the other has to live with it? >>

Do tell how the woman with the broken condom was forced into having sex. I don't see how a broken condom means a woman is forced into sex.

Being forced into sex, is by definition, rape.

[TheEschaton]

Forced into pregnancy against their will, is what I was talking about, Kranar.


-TheE-

[imported_Kranar]

Who forced her into the pregnancy? It's a crime to force a pregnancy on someone, that point has already been established and I never debated against it.

Infact my position clearly supports it.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Here. Read up on it for yourselves.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

It's not very technical nor involved and should answer many of your questions. Minus the 'spin'.

Raven

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

If you did this to a baby after it was remove from the womb (about another two inches), it'd be murder.

[Edited on 4-11-2004 by Nakiro]

[Ravenstorm]

So? The point is it hasn't been born and a five month old fetus is not a human baby by law.

And why did you ignore all the listed reasons why the procedure is usually performed? Like the fetus being dead or not having any brain to speak of or that the mother will die? Also conveniently being ignored is that performing the procedure when it is not medically necessary might violate their state medical association's regulations. That's usually illegal by itself, I'd think.

But ignoring all that is exactly how the law got passed in the first place. It uses a purely emotionally charged argument to shock and horrify the listener into wanting it banned despite how medically necessary it might be or that it's relatively rarely used. In addition to making up a name for it just to make it all the more horrific.

An argument that needs to distort facts and appeal not to reason but emotion shouldn't make it into law.

Raven

[Hulkein]

So you're telling me that every partial birth abortion done is because the mother will die, or the kid is retarded?

[HarmNone]

He did not say anything like that, Hulkein. The word "usually" cannot be ignored.

HarmNone

[Hulkein]

I'm making a point. He's acting as if someone is distorting facts when he is the one doing it himself. Sure it is used SOMETIMES for kids who are heavily retarded or SOMETIMES because the woman will be harmed, but how does that make it OK for the other times when it is used for no reason other then the mother decided she doesn't want the kid in her stomach?

[Edited on 4-11-2004 by Hulkein]

[Ravenstorm]

How does banning it completely make it OK to play craps with the mother's life when the MAJORITY of times it's used is because it's medically necessary? Especially when using it as an elective procedure might already be illegal?

If you're against abortion, fine. That's your right. But don't go around shouting 'OMFG they suck out the brains with a straw!!!!1111oneoneone' and try to use that as a reason to ban a procedure that has legitimate medical uses in the majority of cases.

It's fairly obvious that the ones who want this law don't give a shit about the mother's life. A provision for that could have been written into the bill any time over the last ten years. What they do want is an inroad to banning abortion entirely and they don't care how many women die as a result.

That's a nice emotional argument don't you think? Personally though, I think it's one the facts support.

Raven

[HarmNone]

That was MY point, hon. He is not saying that. He is not saying anything about ALL cases. When we start dealing in ALL and EVERY, we get into arguing the impossible, ya know? Raven has not stumbled into that particular morass. :)

HarmNone

[Hulkein]

<<How does banning it completely make it OK to play craps with the mother's life when the MAJORITY of times it's used is because it's medically necessary? Especially when using it as an elective procedure might already be illegal? >>

One, I don't believe in killing a baby because it is retarded.

Two, the mother's life is always first priority in a hospital, whether or not it is an 'abortion' or not. I already said that.

[Ravenstorm]

Harmnone: don't bother. There's some people it's not worth debating with. Though this last time I'll bother...

1) You need to look up the definition of retarded. Then realize that in fact NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT RETARDED.

2) Unless you are an OB/GYN or specialize in emergency medicine, you should probably stop talking about what doctors will do now that there's a LAW telling them specifically they are NOT ALLOWED to perform that procedure EVAR!!!111

Jesus fucking Christ.

Raven

[Nakiro]

The point is, usually isn't good enough.

Hulkein is right. The majority of children who die during childbirth do so because a situtation arose where the baby could not be removed quickly enough without jeopardizing the safety of the mother.

Hospitals will still put the mother first. Also, this operation is NOT the only way to remove a fetus in situtations where the health of the mother is in danger, nor is it the safest.

[Hulkein]

<<NOT ALLOWED to perform that procedure EVAR!!!111>>

I know, I said that. I also said that the doctors CAN REMOVE THE BABY WITH THE INTENTION OF KEEPING IT ALIVE (EVEN THOUGH WE ALL KNOW IT WILL DIE) IF IT MEANS THE WOMAN WILL LIVE.

[HarmNone]

Nakiro, Hulkein...I hate to ask this, but I keep seeing statements about what doctors will and will not do, can and cannot do, and what might be the safest procedure. Are either of you a medical doctor?

HarmNone

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Nakiro
Hospitals will still put the mother first. Also, this operation is NOT the only way to remove a fetus in situtations where the health of the mother is in danger, nor is it the safest.

Since I am not an OB/GYN nor a doctor specializing in emergency medicine, I will cease arguing the point and just say whatever. It's a point that can't be proven. As for whether or not it is the only way or the safest, I seriously doubt it is ever peformed just because the doctor feels like trying somehting new. So there must be some reason to do so that makes it necessary and preferable over other procedures in the doctor's opinion.

An opinion that is far more informed than mine or that of a senator. In any case, my point still stands... If they gave a damn about the mothers' safety, they'd have written in an exception. And that is why I am totally against the law.

Your mileage may vary.

Raven

[Hulkein]

Is Ravenstorm? He seems to think because a law forbids the suctioning of a fucking brain that every woman who comes into a hospital who is pregnent will be left to die because of this law. That isn't TRUE.

If a woman arrives at a hospital and the doctors say 'she will die if we don't get the baby out', they will force delivery.. the difference here is that the baby's brain will not be removed, and an attempt will be made to save it's life. It is no longer an abortion.

You're in the medical field HarmNone, you can answer this question.. If a woman arrives and will die if they don't remove the baby, what will they do? A) Nothing, they'll show her the law while she dies a painful death. B) Perform a partial birth abortion even though it is illegal, or C) Will force delivery and attempt to save the kid, no matter how futile, thus making this something other then an abortion.

[HarmNone]

I am not involved in that end of things, Hulkein. I am the first to admit I know nothing about it. I am involved in hospice care for the dying, not in childbirth. That is why I will not voice an opinion on this particular issue. I do not know enough.

HarmNone

[TheEschaton]

As for whether or not it is the only way or the safest, I seriously doubt it is ever peformed just because the doctor feels like trying somehting new. So there must be some reason to do so that makes it necessary and preferable over other procedures in the doctor's opinion.

Actually, partial birth abortion is the best (?) way to get immature stem cells for stem cell research (another hotly debated subject). I was once a biology major, and we had a whole week dedicated to stem cells. I heard that story and was very disconcerted.

I can see no medical reason for a partial birth abortion. Information of missing brains and all that are discernable well before the third trimester, and, as Hulkein said, if a woman is in medical danger of dying from pregnancy, they'll usually do a Caesarean as quick as possible. There's usually no reason not to do a partial birth abortion over a C-Section, unless the woman has anemic problems, and surgery is a no-no. A breach birth is much harder than a natural birth, and a natural birth is much harder than a C-section.

-TheE-

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I can see no medical reason for a partial birth abortion.

Ok, one more response to a different person... Become an OB/GYN then give your opinion as to whether or not there are reasons.


Information of missing brains and all that are discernable well before the third trimester

Does anyone read any more? You know, that part of the page that showed pretty clearly that the procedure is also done during the second trimester? And that many serious genetic defects are often only detectable late in the second trimester.

And as for 'forcing delivery', did anyone bother to read this part:


About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. ... However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid."

Do you really think that has any chance of entering the birth canal? Not going to happen. C-section? Cutting open the mother is not a better option. The fetus is going to die in any event. That's exactly what I mean about emotional arguments. It's a doctor's call what is the best for the patient not some politician and not some layman.

And if you don't believe the facts given there, verify them for yourselves elsewhere. In fact, please do. But ignoring them outright is ridiculous.

Raven

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Nakiro, Hulkein...I hate to ask this, but I keep seeing statements about what doctors will and will not do, can and cannot do, and what might be the safest procedure. Are either of you a medical doctor?

HarmNone

The answer to your question is no.

However, my mother is the District Health Director for Disease State Management for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield. She is pro-choice and we have had this discuession many times before (always on civil terms). What I say I say from my experiences with her and what she has told me.

Yes, she knows what she is talking about. She has to rate hospitals on their effectiveness in treating various diseases/procedures, asertaining risk management for different things to determine what is the approperiate course of action for the patient, making sure clients are provided with approperiate health care information, and a shit load of other things.

[HarmNone]

While I am aware of the complexities associated with your mother's position, Nakiro, she is not the one posting here. You are. My mother is a nurse, and has worked in Labor and Delivery. That does not make ME an expert on the subject. Hence, my reticence with regard to this issue.

HarmNone

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
In any case, my point still stands... If they gave a damn about the mothers' safety, they'd have written in an exception. And that is why I am totally against the law.

Your mileage may vary.

Raven

So I have to ask, how would you feel if they did write an exception?

[Ravenstorm]

I'd still regard it as an attempt to get a foot in the door to ban abortion, trying to do an end run around the Supreme Court. But I'd just snort in disgust and not make much of an issue about it.

Right now, it's little more than a political ploy at the potential expense of the mother's health. Political ploys that don't sacrifice anyone are at least tolerable.

Raven

[Nakiro]

Have you ever read the bill?


Originally posted by Ravenstorm But I'd just snort in disgust and not make much of an issue about it.

Raven

And what does this mean exactly?

[Edited on 4-11-2004 by Nakiro]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Political ploys that don't sacrifice anyone are at least tolerable.

Raven

How about the millions of babies killed every year? They're sacrificed, you don't seem to have much of a snort for them.

[Nakiro]

Anyway, since I haven't been able to get you to reply to this thread, I'll go ahead and follow up. YOU SHOULD READ THE FUCKING BILL BEFORE YOU SAY THERE AREN'T EXCEPTIONS.

`(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. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s3.html

Know your law a bit better

[imported_Kranar]

Well there you have it.

Can't get any more straight forward than that.

[Ravenstorm]

Actually, you can. Considering the court cases challenging the law because they risk the mother's health are still ongoing:

http://tinyurl.com/2setw

I suspect the legalese doesn't say what it seems to when taken in context with the entire document. And note the quote by the Rep:


"Congress determined that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to protect the health of the mother," said King, a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Doesn't sound particularly clear cut to me at all. The mother's health should be the priority. Not just her life but her health. And no, they aren't the same which - I suspect - is the focus of the legal challenges.

Raven

edited to add:

Rereading my prior comments, I see I did indeed fall into using 'the mother's life' as an objection. It is easier than saying the mother's physical health and well being. Feel free to substitute the latter for the former if it pleases you.

If instead you wish to argue that 'Ha ha, you are wrong cause it does make exception for the mother's life and that's what you said', I freely conceed the point. That is indeed what I said at least part of the time.

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Nakiro]

Congress doesn't make the ultimate judgement when it comes time to decide if the procedure should be done or not. They believe it should never be necessary, HOWEVER, if the doctor taking care of the mother finds it necessary, he can perform the operation legally.

The point is that despite that congress desagrees with the necessity of partial birth abortion, they are still allowing doctors to perform it when they believe the health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.

Which, again, reitteraites my point that doctors will always look out for the best interests of the mother, whether it be her health or, if she deems it so, the health of the baby.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Nakiro
The point is that despite that congress desagrees with the necessity of partial birth abortion, they are still allowing doctors to perform it when they believe the health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.


The life of the mother. There is a significant if subtle difference. Fortunately, not being a doctor, I will never have to make such a decision. But that is the crux of the court battles from the sound of it.

Raven

[Nakiro]

Serious jeopardy = signifigant chance of death = >1/1000

[Ravenstorm]

Update (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/01/national/01CND-ABORT.html?ex=1086753600&en=fd1ffe1974d558e3&ei=50 62&partner=GOOGLE)

Raven

[Bobmuhthol]

THE OPPOSITE OF CONGRESS IS PROGRESS. HA HA HA HA HA.

Note: The thread still sucks.

[Hulkein]

Another San Francisco judge.. Surprise.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Miss X
no one NEEDS to see the dead baby to debate the issues surrounding abortion Entirely correct.

I can see the motivation behind it, though, the same way I can see the motivation behind (for instance) Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. It's one thing to hear the words "he was crucified" or "vacuum pump abortion", it's quite another to see it. Imagination is an ephemeral thing.

I disagree. It was easy for me to argue that a fetus wasn't a person until I saw an abortion. After seeing an aborted fetus, it's alot harder to sit there and argue that it's not human.

Regardless, abortion isn't the issue here. It's essentially about free speech. If free speech applies to nudity, violence, language, etc. Why shouldn't it apply to abortion? If you don't want to see it, don't watch it. There's not much difference, from the standpoint of what is revealed, between showing an abortion and showing birth. No one bitches about birth on TV, why should they bitch about abortion? It's not pornographic, it may be considered violent, and unless the doctor swears like a sailor, I don't see why people should be offended by the airing of a very common medical procedure.