get off my body

[Keller]

So my mom called me after the debate, livid because Kerry defended his vote against partial-birth abortion only to be rebuked again by Bush. She told me a gut-wrenching story about a woman in the church I grew up going to. Two months ago, 2.5 months before her due date, she was told her fetus had died. Unfortunately, because of the ban on partial-birth abortion the doctor could not induce labor forcing her to carry the still-born to term. Could you imagine those two months of that families life?

This is exactly why Kerry said he voted against the blanket ban. It did not provide provisions for examples such as these. This is exactly why doctors and not policians should decide what to do with our bodies. Politicians have agendas other than our best interest. So to them I say get the fuck off my body.

[4a6c1]

Ugh. I've heard horror stories too. The whole issue scares me. That people think human beings shouldnt choose what to do with their own bodies. I'm hoping these times and opinions will pass quickly.

[Keller]

don't worry though. bush wont pick the next justice based on any "litmus-test". ROFL. His main domestic policy, besides limiting the rights of homosexuals, is limiting the rights of women. And he expects us to believe this horseshit?

[4a6c1]

ARE YOU DISSING MY TEXAN PREZ?!?! OMG, YOU MUST BE INTODUCED TO THE HANGIN TREE.

Ok, seriously. Bush sucks when it comes to knowing everyone is equal and crap. I agree.

[Keller]

hey, lycain said I was retarded. there is no capital punishment for retar .... fuck me!

[4a6c1]

:lol:

P.S. Yay for choosers

[Nakiro]

I'm against partial birth abortion, but under such circumstances I would support one.

[HarmNone]

I'm not sure I understand how this is being defined as a partial-birth abortion when the fetus is already dead. Retaining a dead fetus in the uterus raises the chance of infection in the mother by a significant amount. I guess I just don't see how getting a dead fetus out of a mother's body is tantamount to abortion. The death has already occurred. :(

[Ravenstorm]

I'm guessing that's why the courts are striking down the law. It makes absolutely no allowances.

Raven

[HarmNone]

That's almost unbelievable. There is no way the removal of a dead fetus from a woman's uterus can be looked at as an abortion. There is no life to freaking abort! That's not even taking into consideration that the woman's life is placed at extreme risk by having a fetus becoming necrotic in her womb! I must say, I'm completely taken aback by such idiocy.

[longshot]

These people believe in the rapture.

There is no logic involved, only superstition.

Like Kerry said, it's not as easy as the president makes it out to be.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
I'm guessing that's why the courts are striking down the law. It makes absolutely no allowances.

Raven

It does have an allowance, but apparently if situtations like the above are happening, it needs a few more.

[longshot]

Originally posted by Nakiro


It does have an allowance, but apparently if situtations like the above are happening, it needs a few more.

I'm sure there's just fountains of understanding and compassion flowing from the inbred hills of Kentucky...

Please!! Fucking spare me...

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by longshot

Originally posted by Nakiro


It does have an allowance, but apparently if situtations like the above are happening, it needs a few more.

I'm sure there's just fountains of understanding and compassion flowing from the inbred hills of Kentucky...

Please!! Fucking spare me...

I assure you, there is a clause in the law. However, I encourage you to read it yourself.

I can tell you are overflowing with human compassion and understanding as well.

[HarmNone]

I'm aware there is a clause in the law that covers a fetal demise. That's why it seems so outrageous that this kind of thing could happen.

[longshot]

I have only disdain for simple minded rednecks that are blinded by religion.

People that find it their duty to oppress others based on their bullshit religious beliefs that have no scientific basis other than faith are the greatest danger to the human race.

I cry to think that everyday this country moves towards becoming a "Christian Taliban" that is fed by the delusions of an opiated mass of religious fanatics that surrender power based on the assumptions that their leaders have been granted a divine power.

You are one of these people.

When I read peoples posts, I hear them.

Like, when Leloo reads a post, I hear a 5th grade girl's voice that stutters at difficult words and pauses at the wrong times. When Makkah posts, I read it kind of slow, like a big meathead would with zero understanding of the world around him. Hulkein's post are read like a beer drinking sports fan. Harmnone's with a cool, calm and collected mature voice. PB with a Dad's voice. Tayre's with a young and crazy voice. You get the picture, right?

I hear banjos when you post.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by longshot
I have only disdain for simple minded rednecks that are blinded by religion.


Are you trying to insult me or is this your honestly how you view me?

[Drew2]

Originally posted by longshot
When I read peoples posts, I hear them.


Me too.

Same goes for IMs.

[longshot]

Originally posted by Nakiro

Originally posted by longshot
I have only disdain for simple minded rednecks that are blinded by religion.


Are you trying to insult me or is this your honestly how you view me?

That's how I see you.

It's not meant to be an insult... you are who you are.

I think to say that you are a bit unaware of the world as a whole is the nicest way I can state your limitations...

I hear banjos.

[Nakiro]

In which way do you think I am unaware of the world?

[longshot]

In that you're a Kentucky redneck religious fanatic who has remained a virgin until he is married...

I'm sure you're up for that rapture thing too... I bet you feel real comfortable with Jesus coming back and ripping the flesh off the bones of all the non-believers while your fat Jesus loving ass transcends to heaven.

And the banjos play on...

[Nakiro]

Is that all?

[HarmNone]

Let's try to stay on topic here. It's an interesting topic, anyway. Just the thought that something like this could happen is shocking enough. ;)

[longshot]

I think you're a simpleton too, but that wasn't really relevent to the conversation.

It's not meant to insult you, but I think you would have a tough time denying anything that I've said....

[Nakiro]

Please continue to elaborate on how you percieve me.

[HarmNone]

Nakiro, please. Either take this to another thread, or take it to U2U/IM. It's off-topic here.

[Nakiro]

Perhaps you should remove all the offending off-topic posts.

[HarmNone]

Had you U2Ud me to let me know the posts offended you, instead of encouraging more of them, there might have been something I could have done before the situation became what it is, Nakiro. From your posts, I have to assume you want the conversation to continue. Since it's off topic here, I have asked that you either make a thread for it, or take it off the boards. That seems reasonable to me.

[Nakiro]

The posts have not offended me. By offensive, I was refering to whatever board standards you're upheld to enforce.

I'll do as you request.

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by Nakiro]

Woman walking around carrying dead fetus 2+ months and cannot undergo the knife because of some apeshit set of laws is probably wrong, dumb. Wrong and dumb.

[4a6c1]

Just for shits and giggles I did a search on google. Sites like the following do nothing but scare the crap outa me with they're religious fanaticism.

http://www.tidalweb.com/life/
.
.
.

:weirdthread:

Longshot was funny. (HAHAHA, I hear banjos) But then I realized he dosnt know Nakiro IRL so it wasnt funny anymore, just whiny(Nakiro, YOU R TEH UBER ASSHOLE REDNECK, but I'm not insulting you. I'm not, I swear!!!)

[Keller]

This is exactly why Kerry said there needed to be provisions when the mother's health was at stake. He said it wasn't as simple as the president would like to make it. Bush, already out of his chair, was screaming at him, "It's as simple as yes or no! Do you ban partial birth abortion or not!?"

If Kerry heard banjos he woulda bitch-slapped the demons out of Bush that make him so incompetent.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Keller
So my mom called me after the debate, livid because Kerry defended his vote against partial-birth abortion only to be rebuked again by Bush. She told me a gut-wrenching story about a woman in the church I grew up going to. Two months ago, 2.5 months before her due date, she was told her fetus had died. Unfortunately, because of the ban on partial-birth abortion the doctor could not induce labor forcing her to carry the still-born to term. Could you imagine those two months of that families life?

This is exactly why Kerry said he voted against the blanket ban. It did not provide provisions for examples such as these. This is exactly why doctors and not policians should decide what to do with our bodies. Politicians have agendas other than our best interest. So to them I say get the fuck off my body.


I find this hard to believe

[Hulkein]

<<Hulkein's post are read like a beer drinking sports fan>>

Hahaha, pretty accurate there. Funny shit.

PS. I read Leloo's the same way.

[xtc]

There are no instances in which a womans health could be injured. 4 years of medical research was conducted before the ban on partial birth abortions was introduced. And for the record they pull the baby/fetus out of your body to kill it in a partial birth abortion.

"There are no medical circumstances in which a partial-birth abortion is the only safe alternative. We take care of pregnant women who are very sick, and babies who are very sick, and we never perform partial-birth abortions. . . . There are plenty of alternatives. . . . This is clearly a procedure no obstetrician needs to do." F. Boehm, Dr. OB, Vanderbilt U. Med. The Washington Times, May 6, 1966, p. A1

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by xtc]

[Nieninque]

what is a partial birth abortion?

[xtc]

Originally posted by longshot
I have only disdain for simple minded rednecks that are blinded by religion.

People that find it their duty to oppress others based on their bullshit religious beliefs that have no scientific basis other than faith are the greatest danger to the human race.

I cry to think that everyday this country moves towards becoming a "Christian Taliban" that is fed by the delusions of an opiated mass of religious fanatics that surrender power based on the assumptions that their leaders have been granted a divine power.

You are one of these people.

When I read peoples posts, I hear them.

Like, when Leloo reads a post, I hear a 5th grade girl's voice that stutters at difficult words and pauses at the wrong times. When Makkah posts, I read it kind of slow, like a big meathead would with zero understanding of the world around him. Hulkein's post are read like a beer drinking sports fan. Harmnone's with a cool, calm and collected mature voice. PB with a Dad's voice. Tayre's with a young and crazy voice. You get the picture, right?

I hear banjos when you post.

There are many people who are against abortion who aren't the least bit religious. There are many people who see it as the baby's rights that are being oppressed, the weakest and most vulnerable in our society.

[Keller]

sorry, but tell that to the family. as bush said, doctors are practicing preventative medicine. my mother-in-law is an ob/gyn, I will ask her about it and the laws in Indiana that made her carry the still-born to term. all I know is that telling me you don't believe me doesn't do much for that family. telling politicians to let doctors make decisions about my body does.

[Artha]

what is a partial birth abortion?

When the baby's pretty much formed, they pull it out of you and kill it.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Keller
sorry, but tell that to the family. as bush said, doctors are practicing preventative medicine. my mother-in-law is an ob/gyn, I will ask her about it and the laws in Indiana that made her carry the still-born to term. all I know is that telling me you don't believe me doesn't do much for that family. telling politicians to let doctors make decisions about my body does.

like I said earlier I doubt the validity of your story. The ban on partial birth abortions wouldn't apply in the story you wrote

[Keller]

oh, and if you're wondering if Bush will use a justices opinion on roe v wade to alter his opinion and the possibility to nominate him, consider this quote from last night. While on the topic of partial-birth abortion he said, "I will work to a society where every child is protected by law and welcomed into life."


also, hearing him talk about how liberals just spend money is funny. does he know we all know he is the most fiscally irresponsible president since ... well, i guess it's time for a new most-liberal new "most liberal" label.

Thirdly, Bush did claim $84 as a part-owner of a timber company on his last tax statement. Want some more lies? I was semi-neutral before the debates began, Kerry is definately my man. Nov. 2nd.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Artha

what is a partial birth abortion?

When the baby's pretty much formed, they pull it out of you and kill it.

So after 24 weeks?

[Artha]

Third tri-mester.

[Keller]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Keller
sorry, but tell that to the family. as bush said, doctors are practicing preventative medicine. my mother-in-law is an ob/gyn, I will ask her about it and the laws in Indiana that made her carry the still-born to term. all I know is that telling me you don't believe me doesn't do much for that family. telling politicians to let doctors make decisions about my body does.

like I said earlier I doubt the validity of your story. The ban on partial birth abortions wouldn't apply in the story you wrote

Would you like to call her and tell her that yourself? I have a church directory. Her name is Margaret. Her husbands name is Tom. I have no idea what they planned on naming their kid, but you can refer to it as the still-born in your conversation.

Fuck you.

[xtc]

Like I told when you U2u me I would be pleased to call them. The ban on partial birth abortions would have no bearing in the case you outline so as such I doubt the validity of your claim.

[xtc]

[i] Two months ago, 2.5 months before her due date, she was told her fetus had died. Unfortunately, because of the ban on partial-birth abortion the doctor could not induce labor forcing her to carry the still-born to term.

Inducing labor is now illegal? The ban on partial birth abortions stops the induction of labor? So when a child is late it would be illegal to induce labor. Nice story

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by longshot
Like, when Leloo reads a post, I hear a 5th grade girl's voice that stutters at difficult words and pauses at the wrong times. When Makkah posts, I read it kind of slow, like a big meathead would with zero understanding of the world around him. Hulkein's post are read like a beer drinking sports fan. Harmnone's with a cool, calm and collected mature voice. PB with a Dad's voice. Tayre's with a young and crazy voice. You get the picture, right?

I hear banjos when you post. Oo, do me! Do me! Unless you've sobered up.
Originally posted by Keller
Thirdly, Bush did claim $84 as a part-owner of a timber company on his last tax statement. That wasn't the issue. The issue was whether or not he counted himself as an S-class corp, and more importantly if a majority of small businesses were S-class corps.

Having a culture of life would be one of the best things that could happen to the U.S.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Keller
So my mom called me after the debate, livid because Kerry defended his vote against partial-birth abortion only to be rebuked again by Bush. She told me a gut-wrenching story about a woman in the church I grew up going to. Two months ago, 2.5 months before her due date, she was told her fetus had died. Unfortunately, because of the ban on partial-birth abortion the doctor could not induce labor forcing her to carry the still-born to term. Could you imagine those two months of that families life?

This is exactly why Kerry said he voted against the blanket ban. It did not provide provisions for examples such as these. This is exactly why doctors and not policians should decide what to do with our bodies. Politicians have agendas other than our best interest. So to them I say get the fuck off my body.



I haven't read the whole thread here, but this is a lie (or a case of medical malpractice). What is described is in no way affected by the ban and any doctor saying so would be laughed at.

I'm sure everyone here has gotten emails where Microsoft pays you millions of dollars for forwarding an email, or where a friend's brother saw Israeli intelligence agents filming the attack on the two towers. Really people, it just takes a bit of common sense to tell the truth from the hysteria.





Edit: mispelled a word

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by Drew]

[xtc]

Yes an obvious lie. Keller said he/she would give the phone number of this person to me, I am still waiting for it.

[4a6c1]

I have a question. Who's to decide what is more important: a womans right or the rights of a fetus? God, the judicial system, the president??

Which brings up another question that is influenced heavily by my own spiritual views, and you shouldnt even consider answering if you dont believe in 'souls' or 'spirits'. When do you believe a baby has a spirit? At conception? At birth? When?

One more question. Where can you see legislation leading that bans partial-birth abortion. When people start to determine the above questions in reference to they're own opinions and enforce them with law....where can you see this leading? Will we one day lose the right to choose again?

~Robin, honestly wondering

[Arshwikk]

Originally posted by Nakiro
I'm against partial birth abortion, but under such circumstances I would support one.

Yup, I am against abortion period, and am frankly tired of hearing this "My body" bullshit in regards to aborting a live fetus (human being) who's body apparently is not being considered by the aborting parent...However, if the baby has already died, as in the instance referred to, the only body in question IS the mothers, and therefore she should be allowed to remove her dead child.

Blanket laws are dumb. If your going to pass a federal or even a state law that has bearing on an entire populace, you can at least put the time in to allow for appropriate and logical provisions and exceptions.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Arshwikk

Originally posted by Nakiro
I'm against partial birth abortion, but under such circumstances I would support one.

Yup, I am against abortion period, and am frankly tired of hearing this "My body" bullshit in regards to aborting a live fetus (human being) who's body apparently is not being considered by the aborting parent...However, if the baby has already died, as in the instance referred to, the only body in question IS the mothers, and therefore she should be allowed to remove her dead child.

Blanket laws are dumb. If your going to pass a federal or even a state law that has bearing on an entire populace, you can at least put the time in to allow for appropriate and logical provisions and exceptions.

There was four years of medical studies on partial birth abortions before they implemented the ban.

[Chelle]

Originally posted by HarmNone
I'm not sure I understand how this is being defined as a partial-birth abortion when the fetus is already dead. Retaining a dead fetus in the uterus raises the chance of infection in the mother by a significant amount. I guess I just don't see how getting a dead fetus out of a mother's body is tantamount to abortion. The death has already occurred. :(

Thats exactly what I was thinking. How can it be abortion if the poor thing is already dead?!

I am against partial birth abortions *unless*in extreme cases. If there is a health hazard for both the mother and the baby. Like if for some reason the baby is going to die anyway or the mother will die. I am against all other abortions too, unless in extreme cases of potential death to mother or child.

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Arshwikk

Originally posted by Nakiro
I'm against partial birth abortion, but under such circumstances I would support one.

Yup, I am against abortion period, and am frankly tired of hearing this "My body" bullshit in regards to aborting a live fetus (human being) who's body apparently is not being considered by the aborting parent...However, if the baby has already died, as in the instance referred to, the only body in question IS the mothers, and therefore she should be allowed to remove her dead child.



Thus my question concerning spirituality and how you define when a fetus becomes a person. I stand on the opposite side of the spectrum from you. I believe that a fetus becomes a human being within the first moments of birth. First breath. Its just how I feel about the issue.

Depsite how strongly I feel about this, I DO NOT believe people should ever make legislation concerning it, as it would be breaching the rights of all parties involved. Its just not for government to decide. Perhaps God, but then again, maybe not. From both sides and opinions, mine and yours...either way I do not believe people should enforce they're opinions on the masses through legislation. Its wrong and I hope the fanatical craze of mostly religious-inspired legislation passes quickly without doing much harm.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
I have a question. Who's to decide what is more important: a womans right or the rights of a fetus? God, the judicial system, the president??God forever, the judicial system until we die.

edit: To clarify, the judicial system does not supercede the Lord, ever.

I don't know when a baby becomes a baby, as opposed to a random collection of genetic information. I also subscribe to the "better safe than sorry" school, and my stance on baby souls follows from these two points.

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
I have a question. Who's to decide what is more important: a womans right or the rights of a fetus? God, the judicial system, the president??God forever, the judicial system until we die.

edit: To clarify, the judicial system does not supercede the Lord, ever.

I don't know when a baby becomes a baby, as opposed to a random collection of genetic information. I also subscribe to the "better safe than sorry" school, and my stance on baby souls follows from these two points.

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by Latrinsorm]

Any scientist will tell you life begins at conception

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
I have a question. Who's to decide what is more important: a womans right or the rights of a fetus? God, the judicial system, the president??God forever, the judicial system until we die.

edit: To clarify, the judicial system does not supercede the Lord, ever.

I don't know when a baby becomes a baby, as opposed to a random collection of genetic information. I also subscribe to the "better safe than sorry" school, and my stance on baby souls follows from these two points.

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by Latrinsorm]

Ugh. Government making choices for me. God forbid I should ever want to make them myself. Scaaary. Like a bad sci-fi where we are all controlled by law to reproduce and ask no questions. :no:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
Ugh. Government making choices for me. God forbid I should ever want to make them myself. Scaaary. Like a bad sci-fi where we are all controlled by law to reproduce and ask no questions. :no: You can't murder people at random either. Or set fires. :violin: The government's been making choices for you your whole life.

XTC: I've always found scientists are awfully fuzzy on the beginnings and endings of stuf.f, even though they're dynamite for the middle. They very well may say that life begins at conception, but I wouldn't use them as my strong point.

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
I have a question. Who's to decide what is more important: a womans right or the rights of a fetus? God, the judicial system, the president??God forever, the judicial system until we die.

edit: To clarify, the judicial system does not supercede the Lord, ever.

I don't know when a baby becomes a baby, as opposed to a random collection of genetic information. I also subscribe to the "better safe than sorry" school, and my stance on baby souls follows from these two points.

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by Latrinsorm]

Any scientist will tell you life begins at conception

Unfortunately, science more often than not, does not dictate policy. Politicians do. Flesh and Blood, with religions and values, politicians. Faith is a powerful thing but it can be flawed. Wow, do I really wish science created legislation.

I firmly believe that to fix a soceity you should help more and control less, like raising kids.

HOLY CRAP, I'm ranting. I'll stop now. :)

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
Ugh. Government making choices for me. God forbid I should ever want to make them myself. Scaaary. Like a bad sci-fi where we are all controlled by law to reproduce and ask no questions. :no: You can't murder people at random either. Or set fires. :violin: The government's been making choices for you your whole life.

XTC: I've always found scientists are awfully fuzzy on the beginnings and endings of stuf.f, even though they're dynamite for the middle. They very well may say that life begins at conception, but I wouldn't use them as my strong point.

:?:

I wasnt refering to crime, I was refering to the right to choose. Pro-choice. Get it? ;)

Legislation that says, "No, that is not YOUR body, that is MY body, you stupid fucking breeding machine!!!" is bad.

(^my attempt at humor, did it work???????)

:D

[Blazing247]

<When the baby's pretty much formed, they pull it out of you and kill it.>

I am the complete opposite of a religious fanatic, and I still find this to be horrific. Until this thread, I had never heard of such a thing. You are saying that...6+ months into the pregnancy, they rip a developed baby out of a woman, and kill it? How do they go about killing it? I have always considered myself pro-choice, but if this IS happening, it needs to stop.

Also, Longshot that was funny. I picture Leloo the exact same way, except I also picture her stopping mid-thought to express how much she WUVS PUPPIES!

[Artha]

How do they go about killing it?

Following paragraph is graphic. No whining.
They pull the baby partially out, leaving the head in the vagina. They get scissors and then pull it all of the way out. The scissors are used to make a cut in the back of the baby's head, where there isn't a skull. The brains are then vacuumed out and the umbilical chord severed.

[Blazing247]

Okay, but really, how do they kill it?

[Artha]

Vaccuum + brains = not living baby

edit: Look up Brenda Shafer.

[Edited on 10-9-2004 by Artha]

[Blazing247]

:mad:

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Blazing247
Okay, but really, how do they kill it?

This is sarcasm, right? The above post explained it.

[Blazing247]

<This is SARCASM, right? The above post explained it.>

You win a stuffed donkey. Congratulations.

[CrystalTears]

:asshole:

Considering that you added NO indication to know your intent, I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic, or just an idiot, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Pointing it out like that makes me want to retract it now.

To stay on topic, I'm rather pro-choice, however I'm completely against partial births.

[Edited on 10/9/2004 by CrystalTears]

[Blazing247]

If you were giving me the benefit of the doubt, you would've remained quiet completely. I apologize, but the head was ripped off your prize so you'll have to settle for the ass.

On topic, that is a horrible way for anything, let alone a human being, to die.

[HarmNone]

I think most people are against partial-birth abortions, whether the individual supports abortion, or not. There are better ways of handling the situation, even if the abortion is being performed to save the life of the mother. Partial-birth abortion of a living fetus is barbaric, in my opinion.

[CrystalTears]

You're right. I secretly think you're an idiot.

And I agree, HarmNone. There are better ways of handling things. I've been slowly changing my stance on being completely pro-choice after speaking with people, but I still believe in the power of choice. I dangle in the middle, actually.

[HarmNone]

As do I, CT. I realize the necessity, at times, to terminate a pregnancy. At least, I see a necessity in certain cases. However, there are humane ways to do so, and inhumane ways to do so. Partial-birth abortions are unnecessary and inhumane, as I see it.

[Chyrain]

what's considered partial birth? third trimester?

I certainly have experience with abortions on both sides of the fence. And I've come out of those experiences really feeling like an abortion just isn't "right."

I think that if a child can be born at 24 weeks and survive with help from an NICU, then there is absolutely zero reason for it to be killed via an abortion. And since when do we get to choose when our living children are killed? I mean...I have a friend who had to have a amnio test when she was 9 mos. pregnant. The doctor put the needle into her daughter's brain. Her daughter will never have the mental capacity beyond a 3 year old child because of the screw up. Does she get to say "oh, my kid is 'sick' and my life wont be easy so just kill her" ?? No...so why is it that we're making allowances for abortion on children who are sick but *could* live without their mother's womb after 23 weeks of pregnancy? I think it's a cop out in most cases.

I think in matters of rape and incest or serious danger to a mother's health (like her kidneys would fail to function if the pregnancy lasted beyond a reasonable ability to keep the child alive, etc), abortion should be a carefully planned out and there should be counselling given to help the mother through not only one trauma, but two (because i don't care how many people deny it...it's a traumatic experience to remove something that has so much potential in life).

abortion as a form of birth control is fucking disgusting. there is zero reason for it at ALL. you don't want to raise the kid, put it up for adoption and get over yourself. There should be exceptions. But birth control should never be one of them.

[Chelle]

That is horrible, Chyrain. The doctor
screwing up like that. I can't even imagine what I would do if a doctor did that to my baby. It makes my blood boil just reading that. There is no excuse for a doctor to screw up like that, none.

[SpunGirl]

I think all surgical abortions have slight elements of barbaric-ness to them. Even if it's at three weeks, vacuuming out a fetus is just gross. It's nice that there are other ways.

Abortions should not be allowed after the third trimester except in extreme cases, IMO. So I guess I'm with the majority on that one.

Also, to answer someone's question, I've read some literature regarding studies done on children who have spontaneous, waking memories of past lives. In almost every case, the person whose life the child was remembering died after the mother of the child was already pregnant.

-K

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Blazing247
Okay, but really, how do they kill it?

That depends.

If you're pro-choice, you might say nothing died and the freedom to make a choice was preserved.

If you're pro-life you'd say the death probably occured after the fetus stopped twitching long enough after the physician gabbed a pair of scissors into the back of its skull so it could get a vaccum inside to suck out its brain matter.

Either way something without a brain is clearly not alive.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Blazing247

On topic, that is a horrible way for anything, let alone a human being, to die.

Is it human, or just a fetus?

[Keller]

So my mother-in-law is in town today and she also goes to my church. She is also a practiciing obgyn in the state of Indiana and explained to me what had happened. The fetus had 3 sets of 18th chromosones (she had a fancy name for it) and they knew the baby would die. Unfortunately they did not find out until after it was too late to abort the baby. So no, the baby was not dead -- my mom exagerates sometimes, must have been the case. But the agony of carrying a child you knew would not live more than 2 weeks was surely equal to carrying a child you knew was dead.

We then went on to talk about partial-birth abortions and who gets them. Long story short she said there are not a bunch of fluzzies getting pregnant and then being lazy about getting an abortion. Most all patients affected by the ban are people like the woman from my church whose amnio-syntesis(sp?) comes back with some major problems and they have to carry a child who will not live through their special-needs nurcery and is destined to die within the first few months.

That issue poses a lot of questions, along the lines of euthenasia. Should we be able to terminate a living human (fetus for some) if we know they are terminal? Before you answer, think of the justification most people use for capital punishment -- it's a waste of money to keep a criminal alive who has committed a hanous crime. With that said, what do you think that time in hospice or in a special-needs nursery does to health-care premiums? Does that not also affect your wallet? Whose life should be protected and why?

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Keller
So my mother-in-law is in town today and she also goes to my church. She is also a practiciing obgyn in the state of Indiana and explained to me what had happened. The fetus had 3 sets of 18th chromosones (she had a fancy name for it) and they knew the baby would die. Unfortunately they did not find out until after it was too late to abort the baby. So no, the baby was not dead -- my mom exagerates sometimes, must have been the case. But the agony of carrying a child you knew would not live more than 2 weeks was surely equal to carrying a child you knew was dead.


Perhaps, but the health risks are certainly not the same.

The baby could be given a much more humane death post birth.

[SpunGirl]

Wow, Keller, that makes a big difference. I'm all for abortions, for any reason the woman sees fit, in the first trimester.

However.

What you are describing above is a horrific situation, yes. But were it me, I would fight for that child's life. In the beginning of the post, you said it wouldn't live past two weeks, and in the end, you said something about the child not living for longer than a few months. Which is it, and who are we to decide what is "too short" for a child to live? I'm not religious in the least and even I believe miracles occur. Someone says the kid has no chance, and instead the kid makes it. Personally, I think it is a selfish move on the mother's part to say, "my child will not live for longer than a few months, so this isn't worth it."

-K

[Satira]

Unless there's a severe medical condition or something along those lines, partial birth abortions are stupid. You have to be a fucking moron to wait that long and then decide you don't want the baby.

Otherwise, I am pro-choice. Life is more complicated than just yes or no. People talk about putting stipulations on the law. What if a girl gets raped by a family member? Are we going to start DNA testing to make sure that it's really incest? And if not, then anyone can walk in and claim whatever the hell they want to get it done.

And if you say she should still have the baby, I have nothing to say to you.

There has to be a right to choose. There's too many complications and crappy circumstances to deal with to write down a little law book and go with that.

On another note, we need to make a thread where you tell everyone how you "hear" them in their posts. That was interesting.

[Ilvane]

They just don't do those abortions for the women who come in off the street deciding they don't want a baby after 6 months.

This is only done when the life of the mother is threatened or if the fetus has stopped developing and would be born underdeveloped and unable to survive.

President Bush and his friends would like you to think this is an everyday occurance that is something abortion doctors do often.

It's just not true.

-A

[xtc]

Originally posted by Keller
So my mother-in-law is in town today and she also goes to my church. She is also a practiciing obgyn in the state of Indiana and explained to me what had happened. The fetus had 3 sets of 18th chromosones (she had a fancy name for it) and they knew the baby would die. Unfortunately they did not find out until after it was too late to abort the baby. So no, the baby was not dead -- my mom exagerates sometimes, must have been the case. But the agony of carrying a child you knew would not live more than 2 weeks was surely equal to carrying a child you knew was dead.

We then went on to talk about partial-birth abortions and who gets them. Long story short she said there are not a bunch of fluzzies getting pregnant and then being lazy about getting an abortion. Most all patients affected by the ban are people like the woman from my church whose amnio-syntesis(sp?) comes back with some major problems and they have to carry a child who will not live through their special-needs nurcery and is destined to die within the first few months.

That issue poses a lot of questions, along the lines of euthenasia. Should we be able to terminate a living human (fetus for some) if we know they are terminal? Before you answer, think of the justification most people use for capital punishment -- it's a waste of money to keep a criminal alive who has committed a hanous crime. With that said, what do you think that time in hospice or in a special-needs nursery does to health-care premiums? Does that not also affect your wallet? Whose life should be protected and why?

Hmmm the story changes when the flaws of the original are pointed out. Why should we believe that this one is any more the truth then the first one.

Regarding this quote

"Most all patients affected by the ban are people like the woman from my church whose amnio-syntesis(sp?) comes back with some major problems and they have to carry a child who will not live through their special-needs nurcery and is destined to die within the first few months."

Could I see some statitical data that proves this?

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
Also, to answer someone's question, I've read some literature regarding studies done on children who have spontaneous, waking memories of past lives. In almost every case, the person whose life the child was remembering died after the mother of the child was already pregnant.

-K

Spungirl, I am always interested in reading informatives concerning the above issue on past lives. If you have an author's name or a link, I will be very thankful.

[DeV]

Originally posted by HarmNone
I think most people are against partial-birth abortions, whether the individual supports abortion, or not. There are better ways of handling the situation, even if the abortion is being performed to save the life of the mother. Partial-birth abortion of a living fetus is barbaric, in my opinion. 100% Aggred. I'm pro-choice but there is something extremely inhumane about partial birth abortions. Unnecessary or something like that.

[Keller]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
Wow, Keller, that makes a big difference. I'm all for abortions, for any reason the woman sees fit, in the first trimester.

However.

What you are describing above is a horrific situation, yes. But were it me, I would fight for that child's life. In the beginning of the post, you said it wouldn't live past two weeks, and in the end, you said something about the child not living for longer than a few months. Which is it, and who are we to decide what is "too short" for a child to live? I'm not religious in the least and even I believe miracles occur. Someone says the kid has no chance, and instead the kid makes it. Personally, I think it is a selfish move on the mother's part to say, "my child will not live for longer than a few months, so this isn't worth it."

-K

The specific situation I was refering to the baby could live anywhere from 0 minutes (die in birthing process) to 2 weeks. My mother-in-law said 2 weeks is about the max for that condition. However, she said that she sees babies in special needs that everyone knows are terminal but are still there. She had no opinion either way really, I was just picking her brain.

Also, she has been an obgyn for over 20 years now and she told me that no one just waits until the third trimester to have an abortion. She's never had a situation like that in her office. However, she does often have situations like the one I described above, where a severe complication is found too late and there is nothing the doctor can do for the health of the mother because the politicians have already decided what is right and what is not. THAT is why you leave it up to a woman and her doctor.

[Keller]

Originally posted by xtc
[quote]Hmmm the story changes when the flaws of the original are pointed out. Why should we believe that this one is any more the truth then the first one.

Regarding this quote

"Most all patients affected by the ban are people like the woman from my church whose amnio-syntesis(sp?) comes back with some major problems and they have to carry a child who will not live through their special-needs nurcery and is destined to die within the first few months."

Could I see some statitical data that proves this?

You can go post somewhere else if you're not going to take this thread seriously.

Also, my mother-in-law, who has been a practicing obgyn for 20+ years told me that. So, my source is Dr. Mary-Beth Hinkle, MD. Go get your own source. Or, do what I would prefer, and die.

[SpunGirl]

I know this is an emotional topic for a lot of people, but he's just asking for some kind of back-up for the facts that you're using in your argument. Sheesh.

Jihnas, I'll u2u you with the books I've read that I like (and ones I've read that are a load of baloney you should avoid, IMO).

-K

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
I wasnt refering to crime, I was refering to the right to choose. Pro-choice. Get it?I thought you meant choose in a general sense. NM! :)
Originally posted by Keller
Should we be able to terminate a living human (fetus for some) if we know they are terminal? Any time a price tag is attached to a life, we have failed as human beings.
Originally posted by Lady Satira
There has to be a right to choose. There's too many complications and crappy circumstances to deal with to write down a little law book and go with that. I'd say that the extreme examples, by the nature of their extremity, are a small percentage of the total cases. The government can't make law completely comprehensive (which is partially why we should get rid of it, but that's a different topic). Therefore, we have to make the crappy decision of which law would be the most right: the one that forces a small percentage of people to go through the unfair situations you describe, or the one that saves the larger percentage of babies that become abortions of convenience.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by xtc
[quote]Hmmm the story changes when the flaws of the original are pointed out. Why should we believe that this one is any more the truth then the first one.

Regarding this quote

"Most all patients affected by the ban are people like the woman from my church whose amnio-syntesis(sp?) comes back with some major problems and they have to carry a child who will not live through their special-needs nurcery and is destined to die within the first few months."

Could I see some statitical data that proves this?

You can go post somewhere else if you're not going to take this thread seriously.

Also, my mother-in-law, who has been a practicing obgyn for 20+ years told me that. So, my source is Dr. Mary-Beth Hinkle, MD. Go get your own source. Or, do what I would prefer, and die.

I said your first story wasn't true, yet you initially defended it. Obviously I was right because a day later you come here with a different version.....then you make another claim without providing a shred of evidence except to say that your mother-in-law the OBgyn says. I was asking for statistical proof of this claim. Anyone can say my mother-in-law the doctor says.

BTW your mother law who is from out of town, who just happens to be in town today, is the obgyn for the couple in your church that you talked about in your first post. Again this sounds fishy to me, much to much of a conincidence. Why would a couple pick an Obyn from another town and what are the chances the patients go to your church and their obgyn is your mother-in-law[Edited on 10-10-2004 by xtc]

[Edited on 10-10-2004 by xtc]

[xtc]

Before I call her your mother-in-law can you confirm this is her? and who shall I say you are? Like I said I have a good a long distance plan.

AMA Physician Select (Non-Member)

The information contained in the AMA Physician Select report does NOT meet the primary source equivalency requirement as set forth in the credentialing standards of accreditation organizations such as the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) or the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA).


Information on:
Mary Elizabeth Hinkle MD

Physicians -- Update your data
Location:

8240 NAAB RD STE 450
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260

Office Phone:
317-872-9680

Primary Specialty (Self Designated) (note):
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY



Gender:
Female

Medical School:
IN UNIV SCH OF MED, INDIANAPOLIS IN 46202
Residency Training:
ST VINCENT HOSP HLTHCARE CTR, OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY

Major Professional Activity:
OFFICE BASED PRACTICE

American Board of Medical Specialties Certification:
Copyright 2004 American Board of Medical Specialties. All rights reserved.
Obstetrics & Gynecology

[Keller]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by xtc
[quote]Hmmm the story changes when the flaws of the original are pointed out. Why should we believe that this one is any more the truth then the first one.

Regarding this quote

"Most all patients affected by the ban are people like the woman from my church whose amnio-syntesis(sp?) comes back with some major problems and they have to carry a child who will not live through their special-needs nurcery and is destined to die within the first few months."

Could I see some statitical data that proves this?

You can go post somewhere else if you're not going to take this thread seriously.

Also, my mother-in-law, who has been a practicing obgyn for 20+ years told me that. So, my source is Dr. Mary-Beth Hinkle, MD. Go get your own source. Or, do what I would prefer, and die.

I said your first story wasn't true, yet you initially defended it. Obviously I was right because a day later you come here with a different version.....then you make another claim without providing a shred of evidence except to say that your mother-in-law the OBgyn says. I was asking for statistical proof of this claim. Anyone can say my mother-in-law the doctor says.

BTW your mother law who is from out of town, who just happens to be in town today, is the obgyn for the couple in your church that you talked about in your first post. Again this sounds fishy to me, much to much of a conincidence. Why would a couple pick an Obyn from another town and what are the chances the patients go to your church and their obgyn is your mother-in-law[Edited on 10-10-2004 by xtc]

[Edited on 10-10-2004 by xtc]

I am from Indianapolis. I went to St. Lukes United Methodist Church on 86th Street which is about 3 miles from Mary-Beth's practice. She is in LA visiting my wife because it is her birthday and my father-in-law is also a dodgers fan and wanted to go to the games. My story changed when I talked to her, which I said I would, and I did. Anything else you would like to know?

[Keller]

also, she is not their doctor, she just goes to the same church. like I said, get some sort of citation to disprove me, or die. Either one would work.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Keller
also, she is not their doctor, she just goes to the same church. like I said, get some sort of citation to disprove me, or die. Either one would work.

die yourself bullshit artist, if you make a claim be able to back it up or shut the fuck up.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Keller
also, she is not their doctor, she just goes to the same church. like I said, get some sort of citation to disprove me, or die. Either one would work.

For someone who is it not their doctor she knows alot about the case.

She is from another town yet you all attend the same church...hmmmmmm

You mentioned your Mom exagerates.....I would hazzard a guess and say that you have inherited this trait of a being a bullshitter

[Keller]

Wow. Let's try this once more ... ahem! Now, listen.

I am from Indianapolis. My mother-in-law is from Indianapolis. We went to the same church, that is where I met my wife. Does that sufficiently answer your questions about that?

Next, most churches do things like oh, pray for each other? Sometimes you hear things like this brought up. You see, there are also things called church bulletins. They also have prayer requests. Feel a little sheepish yet?

Now, for the stats you requested. It's going to require a little inference, which combined with the testimony of a medical profession who deals with women and their health daily, means a lot more to mean that your lack of any evidence. So ... out of 38451 abortions in 1999, 328 were partial births. Given that there are plenty of health-related causes for abortions, I'd wager to say that more than half of those, if not a high majority (which is the case Dr. Hinkle explained) would not be fluzzy women just waiting till the last minute to have their baby vacuumed out. That was what I said.

Now, again -- please give me any sort of evidence. And no, personal insults against me do not count as evidence, no matter how many times you type them.

Have a wonderful day.

[xtc]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Keller
The fetus had 3 sets of 18th chromosones (she had a fancy name for it) and they knew the baby would die. Unfortunately they did not find out until after it was too late to abort the baby. So no, the baby was not dead -- my mom exagerates sometimes, must have been the case
------------------------------------------------------



It must be one hell of a bullentin board to hold info about chromosones on it. You said your mother-in-law was in town, so she comes from another town to attend your church. I guess there are no churches in her town. Not feeling the slightest bit sheepish in anyway.


Inferences and your guesses and your mother in laws opinions do not constitute statistical data. Like I said put up or shut up.

[Edited on 10-10-2004 by xtc]

[Keller]

WE MOVED TO LA, SHE IS FROM INDIANAPOLIS, WE ARE ORIGINALLY FROM INDIANAPOLIS, MY MOTHER ALSO GOES TO THE SAME CHURCH I WENT TO. THEY READ THE SAME BULLETIN.


Sorry everybody, but he just can't get that through his mind, thought capslock might help.

Also, it's not a bulletin board, it's a church bulletin, you get it when you walk into church, it comes with the program.

I have given you two reputable sources. I can footnote them for you next time, if you really are dense enough to question them.

Thanks!

[Keller]

More stats for you.

95% of abortions are done for birth control purposes
1% due to fetal abnormalities
3% due to the mother's health

Given that fetal abornomalities don't show up until the 18-20th week and Indiana law doesn't allow abortion past week 20 -- it becomes terribly difficult to know what fetal abnormalities there are before you reach that deadline. Also, seeing that .85% of abortions nationwide at Dilate and Extraction (partial-birth) that is below the 1% of abortions that are due to fetal abnormalities, and well below it if you add in risks to the mother's health. I wont, because a lot of the time women know their health risks well before they are reduced to the D and X method of abortion.

[4a6c1]

Whoa. Xtc, man you are getting a bit obsessive and psycho-stalkerish about this whole mother-in-law thing, arent you? Lay off the coffee, maybe?? ;)
.
.
I found a nice informative on the legislation involved in the partial-birth abortion issue, if anyone wants to read it.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bls1692.htm

[xtc]

I simply doubt the story and have asked for statistical proof of his general claims about partial birth abortions. My vehemence may come across because he has been u2u'ng me telling me to die. Again he has posted what he claims are statistics without a source or footnote. My Mom says isn't good enough.

I am vehement because it is am important election issue and people believe the bullshit they read on the internet. Had I not pressed everyone here would still believe this poor church going women was caring a dead fetus in her womb for two months because of the ban on partial birth abortions.

[Edited on 10-11-2004 by xtc]

[SpunGirl]

Here's an idea, how about people have an intense (if necessary) discussion over a controversial topic without telling each other to die? But I agree with xtc to a point, the story is a little weak.

-K

[Keller]

U2U - 10/9 9:14

You want her phone number? You can call her and tell her the story is fake. I have my directory right here. Fuck you. You're an asshole.

U2U - 10/10 16:28

this is obviously pointless. honestly, either give me a shred of evidence proving to me that I am wrong, or I will continue to accept the word of a medical professional. If you refuse to have actual dialogue, then this is pointless.

Ummmmm, where in those two u2us, the only ones I have sent you up until the one I just sent, have I told you to die? I told you to die twice, both in the public forum. Also, we've not been having a conversation. I have been bringing up points, he has been telling me I am lying. This is no where near a conversation. I have already found statistics that help to prove the case xtc would like to make. hint -- go to plannedparenthood.com. However, he has not even begun to find factual evidence to support anything he wants to say. He only acting like an immature asshole.

[Edited on 10-11-2004 by Keller]

[xtc]

Planned Parenthood is a biased organization as they actively council women to consider abortion.

I had a quick look through there site they are very left wing and very pro-abortion. However I found no statistics to prove the medical necessity of partial birth abortions or that the majority of women who have need as a medical option.

[xtc]

p.s I am done with this thread it is becoming tiresome. I have asked numerous times for a source for statistics and received none. Keller please stop u2uing me, thank you.

[Keller]

Read again, planned parenthood has statistics to prove YOUR case. Not mine. I knew better than to get mine from PP. If you wish to stop U2Uing, the way to stop would be to quit messaging me.

On why abortions are performed:

95% for Birth Control
3% Mother's Health
1% Fetal Abnormality

That is from the Illinois Right to Life -- pretty pro-choice, eh?

Next up: Types of abortions.

I claimed that of the 38,451 abortions in 1999, only 328 were D&X, a measely .85%.

Source: Ohio Department of Health

I could not find a national statistic on this one, but I will continue looking.


As to why I have to make inferences vs. finding the exact statistics on the reasons for d and x .. here is a quote from ReligiousTolerance.org

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

[Keller]

Horseshit. After he posted for me to quit u2uing him, we writes a u2u to me asking me a question.

"You've done nothing where are your stats?"

Get a life. Quit acting holier than thou. You don't pull it off well.

Edited to make add quotation marks.

[Edited on 10-11-2004 by Keller]

[Keller]

Found the national statistic for 99. Of 698,136 abortions nationwide, 4923 were D&X. That is .7%.

Source: Centers for Disease Control

Edited for poor math skills once I found a calculator

[Edited on 10-11-2004 by Keller]

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by xtc

I am vehement because it is am important election issue
[Edited on 10-11-2004 by xtc]

No, it's not an important election issue.
Important election issues are things like energy, Iraq, prescription drugs, health care, etc.

For the vast majority of the American public, abortion laws will never affect them, yet it's enough to vote for President over.

[CrystalTears]

Thanks for speaking for the majority of the American public. <smirks>

It's an important election issue for me because it will dictate how other things will be affected in the future. Saying "sure, no problem, abortions are a-okay" when I feel that they are not a-okay says a lot to me about a president and his life values.

If it weren't an important issue, it wouldn't be a question asked all the time in presidential debates.

[Edited on 10/11/2004 by CrystalTears]

[Keller]

I've never heard a single political candidate say abortion is ok. I heard Kerry say that banning dilations and extraction abortions is poor judgment when you don't provide provisions for doctors to provide this procedure to women who face health risks because of their pregnancy.

You also hear women's rights activists screaming that no politician has a right to impose rules on their bodies. Not that those activists want to have abortions, but that they don't believe in allowing people to tell them how to care for themselves.

Abortion is a nasty nasty issue. I don't believe in it's repetative use as a method of birth control (over 95% of abortions are for birth control purposes, and you can find how many of those are repeat abortions on cdc.gov). With that said I think that many 13-18 year old girls who get pregnant with their boyfriends have a serious choice to make about their future. Sure, they didn't think prior to that, but lots of kids do stupid things because they think THEY are immune to the shitty parts of life. Teaching them a lesson by having the child is not a good justification to bring a child who will have a fucked up childhood. I would personally see that baby aborted before it ruins the life of the mother and itself.

It's a lot more in-depth than just saying abortions are a-okay.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Keller
Horseshit. After he posted for me to quit u2uing him, we writes a u2u to me asking me a question.

"You've done nothing where are your stats?"

Get a life. Quit acting holier than thou. You don't pull it off well.

Edited to make add quotation marks.

[Edited on 10-11-2004 by Keller]

I responded to your u2u when you said you had stats. It was done before my post above. And to be honest I don't care anymore. The ban is place.

[Keller]

:sniffle: You banned me :sniffle: And we were getting so far in our conversation. :cry: Oh my god, I think I might go kill myself now. :cry: :cry: :cry:

:bye:

[xtc]

No I haven't banned you keller you can step back from the ledge. I meant the partial birth abortion ban which I am obviously for.

[Keller]

I figured with the "The ban is place" comment it meant you banned me from u2u'ing you.

I am fully aware that you are for the ban, I am just waiting for you give me some reason why.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Thanks for speaking for the majority of the American public. <smirks>

It's an important election issue for me because it will dictate how other things will be affected in the future. Saying "sure, no problem, abortions are a-okay" when I feel that they are not a-okay says a lot to me about a president and his life values.

If it weren't an important issue, it wouldn't be a question asked all the time in presidential debates.

[Edited on 10/11/2004 by CrystalTears]

I'm against abortion, but I'm not going to vote for someone on something so insignificant. Look at the numbers. 40,000 abortions a year? So that's 120,000 people a year directly affected in a country of 295 million.

In case you never noticed, the reason that things like abortion are made an issues is because coporate interest donates tons of money to both parties in order to keep their stances similar on things like healthcare, prescription drugs, energy, etc.

Meanwhile, people are starving on the streets in the US, going broke and dying because of lack of healthcare and we're in the middle of fighting a war.

Forgive me if I regard abortion as not being much of an issue considering abortion laws haven't changed significantly since Roe v Wade and it's simply an emotional plea designed to take focus away from other issues. It works, that's why they use it.

[Latrinsorm]

700,000 a year, according to Keller's info. Even going with your numbers, I don't see how the war (1100 volunteer soldiers dead) can be more important in your mind than 40,000 defenseless infants.

[Keller]

There are actually around 700,000 abortions each year. And the effect spreads much wider than just the immediate family. the couples parents, siblings, and other children are also affected.

I totally agree with you though that there are much bigger issues.

For instance, what about Bush lifting the standards for mercury levels that are now allowed at a 3x greater value than before even though the previous standards already put 1 of 10 child-birthing women at risk of physical and mental retardation of their children because of their toxic levels of mercury. Then you consider on top of that that the same administration, that is allowing women to reproduce with dangerously high levels of mercury is also trying to outlaw the abortion of those babies who they find, in the 18-20th week, to have fetal abnormalities. THAT is a more important issue.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
700,000 a year, according to Keller's info. Even going with your numbers, I don't see how the war (1100 volunteer soldiers dead) can be more important in your mind than 40,000 defenseless infants.

1100 US soldiers dead. Find the numbers that include Iraqi innocents. How exactly can you measure what it has cost the US in terms of new enemies and lost credibility?

The war to this point has cost the US something like $130 billion. Roe v Wade hasn't cost America that.

$130 billion is enough to start some programs that give real options to mothers rather than abortion

It's enough to fund education, food, healthcare and eliminate a number of reasons for people having abortions.

That's not to mention that abortion is a judicial issue, not a legislative one. Even if you vote Bush, hoping he'll be appointing Supreme Court Justices, the court still has to take up the issue again to overturn Roe v Wade. The court may decide to not take the issue up, which is very likely.

Look at it like this.
Bush was anti-aborition: No Significant Changes
Clinton was pro-abortion: No Significant Changes
W is anti-abortion: No Significant Changes

So why is it an issue other than the candidates and media told you it was? Vote for some hardcare right-winger if you feel that strongly about abortion. That's someone who might actually work hard on banning it.

[Keller]

In the election, bush said he was committed to working hard for a society where every child is protected by law and welcomed into life.

I would like to write a sketch-skit about a say, 17 year old mother who has a baby, drops out of high school, works 60 hours a week, doesn't create a relationship with her child, the child has no father, gets into trouble because of the lack of family-structure, the mother dies at 30 of a drug-overdose, the kid then turns to drugs itself, gets pregnant at 16 and when she has the baby, President Bush is there holding a big sign that says, "Welcome to life! Have a wonderful time!"

I'm so glad we simplify everything down to percipitate the absolute "truth."

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Mistomeer
1100 US soldiers dead. Find the numbers that include Iraqi innocents. How exactly can you measure what it has cost the US in terms of new enemies and lost credibility?How can you measure the lost ideas of 40,000 people? We could've had another Bohr, another Planck. You started the numbers game, not me. I don't trust any source of information on the deaths of Iraqi innocents right now. Maybe in a few decades, we'll find out the real number.
That's not to mention that abortion is a judicial issue, not a legislative one. Even if you vote Bush, hoping he'll be appointing Supreme Court Justices, the court still has to take up the issue again to overturn Roe v Wade. The court may decide to not take the issue up, which is very likely.True, the President does not directly command the judicial system. However, I would say the chances of what I want done to abortion happening are a lot higher with a pro-Lifer in the White House than not. They don't call him the most powerful man in the free world for nothing.

There are more important issues than abortion, but is not an issue to be dismissed out of hand.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Keller
In the election, bush said he was committed to working hard for a society where every child is protected by law and welcomed into life.

I would like to write a sketch-skit about a say, 17 year old mother who has a baby, drops out of high school, works 60 hours a week, doesn't create a relationship with her child, the child has no father, gets into trouble because of the lack of family-structure, the mother dies at 30 of a drug-overdose, the kid then turns to drugs itself, gets pregnant at 16 and when she has the baby, President Bush is there holding a big sign that says, "Welcome to life! Have a wonderful time!"

I'm so glad we simplify everything down to percipitate the absolute "truth."

I don't think the issue is with abortion. If you really want to decrease the number of abortions, look at the things that lead to that decision such as education, birth control, childcare and healthcare. Improve those systems and the number of abortions will drop while improving society as a whole.
If someone doesn't want to have a baby, regardless of the law, they can find a Dr. to do it or another method. It's how things were before the Roe v Wade decision.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
How can you measure the lost ideas of 40,000 people? We could've had another Bohr, another Planck.

And who's to say who those people in Iraq could have been, or any number of people who get die or get killed based on US policy decisions. Not even worth arguing about that.

True, the President does not directly command the judicial system. However, I would say the chances of what I want done to abortion happening are a lot higher with a pro-Lifer in the White House than not. They don't call him the most powerful man in the free world for nothing.

And has W made in significant progress in changing the abortion laws in his first 4?
I'd much rather him spend the time and effort working out his No Child Left Behind plan for education which is a fucking joke. Actually, it looks like a test public schools can't possibly pass thus paving the way for subsidizing private education.

[CrystalTears]

You can't assume you'll know the outcome of a child's life because of their parent's lifestyle.

Lots of people with money in their pocket and a roof over their head have led their children to drugs. Lots of people who can't afford bread for themselves have managed to teach their child values and they go on to be an important part of society.

You can't be judge and jury to the life of a child based on assumptions. Want to have sex? Take the responsibility that comes with it. Don't want the child? Give it up to adoption so that someone else can bring up that child.

Okay I think I've turned quite pro-life in the last few months. Heh.

[Keller]

I agree with you. But to say that children need to be raised in a home with good family values and then to turn around and say that women who know they cannot provide that sort of environment can't choose to abort their child is nonsensical. Please refrain from the adoption argument, there are already way to many children who don't have homes and end up in foster care where they are merely a form of income for a foster parent. That is not a good home either. My mentors, a 60 year old couple in Oregon who are from Indianapolis, have been caring for foster kids for 30 years now. They decided to not have any kids of their own and give their lives up to provide those kids with a good home. They complain bitterly about the state of foster care in America today.

It's far too complicated a situation to just say, "If you're going to have sex, be prepared for the responsibilities of having a kid." Everyone on these boards, with the exception of Nakiro, had sex well before they could care for a child. The reason kids are considered immature and unable to make rational decisions is because they are immature and unable to make rational decisions. If they are too irresponsible to get pregnant when they cannot afford to have the kid, do you realistically expect the birthing of a child to shape them up into model citizens? It's just more complicated than that.

Edited because I refuse to proof-read until after I post -- I might learn someday

[Edited on 10-11-2004 by Keller]

[CrystalTears]

I agree that the adoption route isn't always the best one. I do realize that there are lots of children out there still looking for a home. I'm just not in full support of allowing children to be killed at the expense of the mother all because she couldn't handle it.

It's all in the education. The first time I had sex was when I was 18. I always kept in mind that if something happened that landed me pregnant, I'd have to deal with it. Abortion was never an option for me. My life would suck, but hey, you know, it was my decision to have sex, it would be up to me to deal with it if I got pregnant. I'm not saying having the child is a life lesson, but it sure is better than telling them "oh you just abort the life" and be done with it. Even that will be traumatic.

Abortion is a touchy subject. I don't know why I allow myself to get wrapped up in them. I guess I value life a little more each day because I'm nearing that point in my life where I want a child. So hearing about people wanting to just abort it because they can't do it hurts to hear. I'll leave it at that for now and bow out.

[Keller]

I'm not at all feeling bad for the mother -- not in the slightest. Who I am arguing for is the kid. I understand some will argue that it's better to be born into that situation than never be born at all -- but I just don't agree. Life is a series of struggles where the only times you are truly happy is when you have overcome one of those struggles. To be left in a situation where you have never been given the tools to overcome, I think it would be better to have not existed at all.

I am not forcing my opinion on anyone, just offering it as my opinion.

[Chelle]

When I was first married. I was like, I think Ill get my tubes tied because abortion would not be an option for me, and I didn't think I could do motherhood. I feel if you're responsible enough to spread your legs, you're responsible enough to handle the consequences. Especially, if you don't use protection.

Now that I have a child I can't imagine why in the world I even considered getting my tubes tied. It changes your life and it makes you grow up and you realize its not just about you anymore. Being pregnant was an interesting experience, in itself. I would've enjoyed it more if I wasn't so worried about having another miscarriage. I guess for someone who really wants a baby, and has difficulty staying pregnant, a thing like abortion is just unimaginable.

[Keller]

I guess I just don't agree that everyone who spreads their legs is responsible. It's good rhetoric to say they SHOULD be responsible BEFORE they open their legs -- but it's just not the truth. We need to realize that.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Keller
women who know they cannot provide that sort of environment can't choose to abort their child is nonsensical.I have no problem with people sterilizing themselves. I'd much much rather they do so by keeping their pants on then by getting a vasectomy, but beggars can't be choosers. If I had my way, the C in ABC would stand for Chopped up (not that I don't have the highest regard for the dexterity of the surgeons of America).

[Keller]

I agree with you. I argue with my wife all the time about how I believe we should give permits to people to have children. We should perfect vasectomies and reversals and not reverse it until a man and a woman have applied and been granted permission to have a kid. However, she calls me a fascist.

Disclaimer: Though most of my posts that sound like this are sarcastic, this one is not. I seriously believe this.


Unfortunately, this type of system will never happen. Therefore we need to be realistic about who our society is and that they honestly don't think they will get pregna.... oops! That's how it goes. Kids that are that delusional are NOT ready to take care of another life. I wish they would sterilize themselves until they are ready, but they just don't think that far ahead.

[Artha]

Fascist.

[Keller]

post-count raiser

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Keller
Unfortunately, this type of system will never happen.That's what they said about [your choice of unrelated scientific accomplishment here]. To channel Bono, seven hundred thousand dead babies a year isn't a cause, it's an emergency. It's not something we can look at and say "that'll never happen" when a solution presents itself.

p.s: I guess I'm a fascist too, then. :(

[SpunGirl]

I don't think any of us fan say "this is definitely what I would/would not do" in this particular situation unless we've been faced with it ourselves. People can talk theoretically all they want, but being faced with the hard reality is very different.

-K

[Nakiro]

It's far too complicated a situation to just say, "If you're going to have sex, be prepared for the responsibilities of having a kid." Everyone on these boards, with the exception of Nakiro, had sex well before they could care for a child.

What's so complicated about it?

I managed to figure it out.

[Keller]

I respect that. I know people give you shit, but I do. I wish more kids were that smart.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Keller
I guess I just don't agree that everyone who spreads their legs is responsible. It's good rhetoric to say they SHOULD be responsible BEFORE they open their legs -- but it's just not the truth. We need to realize that.

Not everyone who drives a car is responsible, but we do hold them accountable for their actions.

Do you believe that the death of a healthy infant is a proper means of accountability?

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Keller
I respect that. I know people give you shit, but I do. I wish more kids were that smart.

Thank you.

I do too.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Keller

Unfortunately, this type of system will never happen. Therefore we need to be realistic about who our society is and that they honestly don't think they will get pregna.... oops! That's how it goes. Kids that are that delusional are NOT ready to take care of another life. I wish they would sterilize themselves until they are ready, but they just don't think that far ahead.

While this type of system might not be realistic, I do think we should advocate safe sex and abstinence until married OR ready to have a child, as well as make birth control, condoms, and the morning after pill available publically to people under the age of 18 at a discounted price.

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by xtc
Planned Parenthood is a biased organization as they actively council women to consider abortion.



:lol2:

Yes, because since they do not shove religion down your throat they MUST BE EVIL.

:lol2:

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Mistomeer

Originally posted by Keller
In the election, bush said he was committed to working hard for a society where every child is protected by law and welcomed into life.

I would like to write a sketch-skit about a say, 17 year old mother who has a baby, drops out of high school, works 60 hours a week, doesn't create a relationship with her child, the child has no father, gets into trouble because of the lack of family-structure, the mother dies at 30 of a drug-overdose, the kid then turns to drugs itself, gets pregnant at 16 and when she has the baby, President Bush is there holding a big sign that says, "Welcome to life! Have a wonderful time!"

I'm so glad we simplify everything down to percipitate the absolute "truth."

I don't think the issue is with abortion. If you really want to decrease the number of abortions, look at the things that lead to that decision such as education, birth control, childcare and healthcare. Improve those systems and the number of abortions will drop while improving society as a whole.
If someone doesn't want to have a baby, regardless of the law, they can find a Dr. to do it or another method. It's how things were before the Roe v Wade decision.

Taking away peoples rights (the ones that they have gotten used to having) will not improve any society. But thats just one opinion - mine. If someone dosnt want to have a baby, regardless of the law, laws *should not* be passed to make that decision more dangerous for them.

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I agree that the adoption route isn't always the best one. I do realize that there are lots of children out there still looking for a home. I'm just not in full support of allowing children to be killed at the expense of the mother all because she couldn't handle it.

It's all in the education. The first time I had sex was when I was 18. I always kept in mind that if something happened that landed me pregnant, I'd have to deal with it. Abortion was never an option for me. My life would suck, but hey, you know, it was my decision to have sex, it would be up to me to deal with it if I got pregnant. I'm not saying having the child is a life lesson, but it sure is better than telling them "oh you just abort the life" and be done with it. Even that will be traumatic.

Abortion is a touchy subject. I don't know why I allow myself to get wrapped up in them. I guess I value life a little more each day because I'm nearing that point in my life where I want a child. So hearing about people wanting to just abort it because they can't do it hurts to hear. I'll leave it at that for now and bow out.

Having opinions is great. Making laws to justify them is not. That you choose to wish for a child is wonderful. It could make your life a beautiful place.

An incestual rape victim or otherwise worst case scenario might be bringing they're child into a personal hell and therefore disagrees with you. Neither of you should make laws based on your opinions or the way you live, since neither of you could possibly take into account how those laws would affect everyone.

Legislation should not be made based on religious values or someones/many peoples situations in life or opinions about life.

:)

R

[CrystalTears]

Whoa, a rape is a special circumstance that should be allowed for, thus my saying that there should be a right to choose to have the abortion. I'm not so pro-life that I think that even rape victims should have to have the child brought into this world. That's a decision for her to make, but again, that was under extreme circumstances. I'm just saying that there should be factors involved in the abortion other than "I'm not ready".

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Nakiro
I do think we should advocate safe sex and abstinence until married OR ready to have a child, as well as make birth control, condoms, and the morning after pill available publically to people under the age of 18 at a discounted price.

Well there are mixed messages amongst that bunch.

But the main point I wanted to make is that abstinence programs have never worked and never will.

Education and safe sex have to be the key. People wont stop having sex for fun.

[xtc]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
Legislation should not be made based on religious values or someones/many peoples situations in life or opinions about life.

:)

R

We have many laws on the book based on opinion about life, morality.

We legislate the age when you can have sex.

We legislate morality, you can't walk nude in a public place.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
Taking away peoples rights (the ones that they have gotten used to having) will not improve any society.I don't remember the right to kill people being in the Constitution, but then again I always thought Jefferson was a bit of a commie.
Legislation should not be made based on religious values or someones/many peoples situations in life or opinions about life. What else is there?

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
Legislation should not be made based on religious values or someones/many peoples situations in life or opinions about life.

:)

R

We have many laws on the book based on opinion about life, morality.

We legislate the age when you can have sex.

We legislate morality, you can't walk nude in a public place.

I believe inforcing legislation involving the ban of abortion at any term is fanatical and barbaric and linked in same with fanatical ideas and outlandish religious promotions. Legislation on public nudity and intercourse with a minor seem like common sense to me and in no way equal to the government making someone's life changing choices for them with a single law. Still, this is only my opinion, as I am sure your's will differ. :)

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
Taking away peoples rights (the ones that they have gotten used to having) will not improve any society.I don't remember the right to kill people being in the Constitution, but then again I always thought Jefferson was a bit of a commie.
Legislation should not be made based on religious values or someones/many peoples situations in life or opinions about life. What else is there?

I do not believe that terminating an unwanted and/or forced pregnacy is murder. I do believe it is a right we are born with to decide. As I have already stated, I also believe it is wrong to try to control a problem by controlling the people *with* the problem instead of helping them. (Problems such as unwanted pregnancies. Another example...putting druggies in jail. Ugh).

Laws, ideally, are created with the facts at hand and for the benifit of all those affected. As someone mentioned above... I cant see this issue, abortion, ever being given the factual attention it deserves as long as those who have not experienced it firsthand are making the decisions concerning it.

~R, who admits that Jefferson very well might have been a commie. :weird:

[CrystalTears]

I haven't seen anywhere in the constitution that states that it is our right to kill unborn living children. It may not be called murder, but it certainly is the termination of a life and changing the meaning does not it make it better or more acceptable.

You're right, you can't have a set rule to say you can't and don't have a right, however it still needs to be determined if people have the right to terminate a life just because it's in their body. I've come to terms with the notion that the baby is still a separate entity, regardless of whether it is attached to an umbilical cord or an IV. They need to figure out if at that point if that's really something that you can clearly say doesn't deserve to be a part of this world.

I'm still thinking over the rape part, and even my fiance wouldn't want me to abort it if that happened to me (God forbid) because it's STILL a life. A life that didn't do anything to me. The rapiest should suffer, not the child. But again, that would be a moral issue and to be determined if that is something that someone who is that already traumatized should be given freely.

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by CrystalTears

I've come to terms with the notion that the baby is still a separate entity, regardless of whether it is attached to an umbilical cord or an IV.



It is here that we disagree.


Originally posted by CrystalTears

But again, that would be a moral issue and to be determined if that is something that someone who is that already traumatized should be given freely



Here is where I agree with you.

[CrystalTears]

Okay so you don't agree that baby in the womb is a separate entity. Let's say you got assaulted and the bastard stabbed you in the stomach causing the death of the baby, would you want that person to be charged with murder for killing your child? I'm curious of what you think.

[Edited on 10/13/2004 by CrystalTears]

[4a6c1]

I'm not sure where your going with this, but my answer would be no, as you could have predicted. I do not believe a fetus becomes a person until its first breath. I do not believe it becomes seperate from the mother until it can see through its own eyes what the world looks like. Thus murder charges would not apply.

[CrystalTears]

I'm not really going anywhere, I was just curious of how you felt, because I've heard of others saying that they'd want to be able to have an abortion yet want that person charged for killing the baby and I just don't think you can have it both ways. I thank you for your answer.

So you stand for abortion at any stage of the pregnancy? Even the third trimester?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
Laws, ideally, are created with the facts at hand and for the benifit of all those affected.I'd say, in the case of preborns, that not being dead would be a benefit. If we allow these women (95% of abortions in the US) to persist with the idea that their comfort is of greater importance than the lives of others, we aren't helping out society, and laws should be in place to help out society.

Like a lot of things, I think it's very difficult to distinguish exactly when a baby becomes a human. I don't get why first breath would be a good criterion. Don't babies not breathe until the doctor slaps them? Aren't they still attached to the umbilical cord?

Anyway, as I've said before, if you're talking about ending what could be a life, wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution? Sure, it might not be a human, but what if you're wrong?

I'm not really worried about the 5% of abortions that women get because of rape/violence/stillbirth. Those are unsolvably intricate moral puzzles, and I don't have the slightest basis to talk about them. I'm exceedingly confident that the 95% that are for birth control are absolutely wrong and should be stopped immediately. If that means 35,000 women have to go through untold agony, I'm very sorry, but I can't hold them more important than 650,000. :(

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I'm not really going anywhere, I was just curious of how you felt, because I've heard of others saying that they'd want to be able to have an abortion yet want that person charged for killing the baby and I just don't think you can have it both ways. I thank you for your answer.

So you stand for abortion at any stage of the pregnancy? Even the third trimester?

I disagree with any and all laws that are passed to dictate when, how or why a person can have surgery or medical attention that is important to they're physical or mental health.

You know, we're all in stages of learning about this issue. I dont think anyone can ever really *learn* enough about it because going the wrong way with it socially could be really, really bad for our country in the long run. It is not always pertinent to be 'better safe than sorry'. Sometimes its better to listen first and shoot later. I do not believe this legislative system has done the proper listening to be able to decide(nor have many other contigents in the seat to make decisions.)

I havent found anything that makes me believe otherwise than what I do now, but you never know. Its wrong to solidify opinions without considering other options all the time.

[4a6c1]

Latrinstorm, I might be inclined to agree with your comfort vs. taking lives notion if I believed a fetus was a person inside the womb. As it stands, I do not and if I did I would still want to know *every one of the* 650,000 reasons why those woman simply could not go through with it before I passed legislation saying they should have absolutely no choice in the matter. Right now, it is absolutely none of my business what those women do with they're lives. None. Neither is it the anyone elses. Or so I believe.

Also, when I refered to facts, I ment having firsthand knowledge of the experience of making one of those 650,000 choices.

:)

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
If that means 35,000 women have to go through untold agony, I'm very sorry, but I can't hold them more important than 650,000. :( Any decision to abort a fetus and follow through on it, no matter the reason, is an important one. Untold agony is not a sufficient description of what those 35,000 woman may suffer in their lifetime as a result of.