|
Grex > Agora47 > #52: House passes ban on "partial birth" abortions | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 142 responses total. |
bru
|
|
response 56 of 142:
| 
Oct 6 02:36 UTC 2003 |
No one is answering my question.
Is there another way to do this, or have they just decided to use this method
because it is the cheapest method?
Yes, there are further difficult questions to be dealt with after a birth,
but if there is a functioning brain, no matter what other problems may exist,
what right do we have to end that existence?
Certainly other cultures have made allowances for dealing with the problem
of the drain on society of unfunctional infants. In ancient cultures, tehy
were left out to die. In some 3rd world cultures, they probably still are.
But we are not third world. The viability of an infant is not going to kill
off our society if we allocate resources to it. But not doing so, asnd taking
the easy way out, will degrade our humanity.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 57 of 142:
|
Oct 6 02:44 UTC 2003 |
"Society" doesn't pay for that child; the family does.
Is there an alternative to IDX? I can think of two: Ceasarean section
and vaginal delivery.
|
gull
|
|
response 58 of 142:
|
Oct 6 02:49 UTC 2003 |
If you're asking if this is being used because it's cheaper than other
abortion methods, bru, I don't think so.
|
gull
|
|
response 59 of 142:
|
Oct 6 02:50 UTC 2003 |
(I don't think it's less expensive, that is.)
|
other
|
|
response 60 of 142:
|
Oct 6 02:59 UTC 2003 |
Pardon me, but in #56, bru is expressly advocating socialized health care,
and I'm wondering if that contravenes earlier opinions he's expressed...
|
russ
|
|
response 61 of 142:
|
Oct 6 03:11 UTC 2003 |
Re #54: Oh, really, Bruce? Tell you what. If you will try to
answer questions about your position fully and completely, I'll
do the same for mine. We'll see who's thinking and who's a parrot.
My first question for you: Given that murder is "the unlawful
killing of a human being with malice aforethought", and there has
not since the Civil War been a precedent that one person has to
serve another in person (involuntary servitude is un-Constitutional
except as punishment for a crime), how can you maintain that
abortion is murder? Don't forget that you have to support every
element of the definition, not just one. Also don't forget that
you have to acknowledge and refute any element of modern medical
or legal practice that would undermine your argument.
Especially, how can you maintain this when late abortions are
almost always:
1.) For severe fetal defects, many of which would kill the
fetus at birth anyway, or
2.) For health reasons of the woman (self-defense)?
|
dah
|
|
response 62 of 142:
|
Oct 6 04:24 UTC 2003 |
Let me ask you a question: How would you've felt to've been scrapped from
a uterean lining? Don't support abortion so much now, fucker, huh, do you?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 63 of 142:
|
Oct 6 04:39 UTC 2003 |
If I'd been scraped from a uterine lining, I'd not be supporting anything at
all.
|
michaela
|
|
response 64 of 142:
|
Oct 6 06:18 UTC 2003 |
Re: Bruce's statement regarding 'if the woman is raped, she would know before
she was six months along'
Not always. My mother didn't know she was pregnant with me until she was
pretty darn close to six months along. She just thought she had a touch of
the flu, and the missed periods weren't noted because she had irregular
cycles.
As Mary stated so well, these are primarily, if not always, used for MEDICAL
reasons. This bill is being passed just to make some people God themselves
over other people. It's ridiculous. This bill will CAUSE deaths since the
doctors won't be able to help the mothers. Anyone who supports it is as much
of a murderous, selfish bastard as you portray the mothers to be.
|
dah
|
|
response 65 of 142:
|
Oct 6 11:23 UTC 2003 |
Exactly, gelinas: Just as thought you were shot in the head with a gun. Same
thing.
|
gull
|
|
response 66 of 142:
|
Oct 6 13:08 UTC 2003 |
I doubt many deaths will result from this bill, though a few are
certainly a possibility. What bothers me more is that many
anti-abortion groups have acknowledged that this is meant to be the thin
end of the wedge and it will help them in eventually getting *all*
abortions banned.
|
bru
|
|
response 67 of 142:
|
Oct 6 14:30 UTC 2003 |
My first question for you: Given that murder is "the unlawful
killing of a human being with malice aforethought"
I cannot argue that position. It will become murder after the law is changed.
It is murder in my mind because I consider abortion in general as murder once
you have passed a certain point in the development of the fetus. For certain
in the last trimester, abortions should be banned.
Abortions in the 1st trimester I do not at this point consider as wrong
because I do not believe substantial nervous system or cranial development
has occurred. But I could be wrong.
The 2nd trimester is where the problem occurs. I do not know when the infant
begins to feel or think, but believe it is somewhere in this stage of
development.
As for the argument about slavery, it is a non sequitur. I do not equate
pregnancy with slavery. Nor do I believe the infant is a parasite. Pregnancy
is a natural biological process resulting from sexual activity. No birth
control program is 100% effective, and as such pregnancies will result. If
an individual is old enough to make a decision that they are ready for sex,
then they are old enough to deal with the consequence.
Rape is an entirely different problem. All individuals should report rape
as soon as it occurs, and action to prevent pregnancy should occur shortly
thereafter. Some individuals are too ashamed to report their rape. This is
not a social stigma, but something deeper, more ingrained in the nature of
humanity. Individuals need to make that decision as soon as they are aware
of the problem, and action taken to protect them and the unborn if required.
That action may be an abortion or requirement that the fetus be carried to
term.
Each case is unique and requires a judicial decision. Only a judge should
be able to decide if a life is to be forfeit for whatever reason.
|
beeswing
|
|
response 68 of 142:
|
Oct 6 16:16 UTC 2003 |
A judicial decision? This has also been an anti-abortion tactic, turning
it over to the judge... often a means to just delay the procedure. Them
silly wimmens can't decide what to do for themselves! Better let a judge
handle that!
First you said the decision was individual. Then you said it was judicial.
I don't think a woman who is raped says "Gee, I'd report it, but I'm
just SO embarrassed!". Try scared, alone, worried no one will believe
her, scared to see it go to trial and she'll have to relive it over and
over again, terrified to even leave her house or go to work. Not all
rapists are strangers in the woods. What if it's a relative, an
employer? What if you're only 9 or 13?
|
lynne
|
|
response 69 of 142:
|
Oct 6 17:02 UTC 2003 |
So we should ignore all scientific/medical data and go with bru's "beliefs"?
Gee, you've got me convinced. I think *all* pregnancies should be terminated
by the 3-month mark, I'm sick of sitting next to crying children on airplanes.
Since I believe this, it must be true. Let's pass a law.
|
bru
|
|
response 70 of 142:
|
Oct 6 18:49 UTC 2003 |
Did I say anything about ignoring medical or scientific data? nope, I did
not. wimmens is just like the men folk. they try to get out from as much
responsibility as they can. Thats why we get babies dimped in trash cans
rather than taken down to the police station and dropped off as covered under
michigan law. prove to me when a baby is capable of feeling, and lets set
the cutoff there.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 71 of 142:
|
Oct 6 19:12 UTC 2003 |
A baby is capable of feeling at the time of birth. A "foetus" on the
other hand...
|
anderyn
|
|
response 72 of 142:
|
Oct 6 19:38 UTC 2003 |
A fetus is certianly capable of feeling things and percieving them before
birth. (I also have an emotional problem with later-term abortions, because
I was born at six months gestation. In the 1950s. Yes, even back then, some
of us lived. And thrived. So I really have problems with abortions after the
second trimester, because I believe that any fetus who's viable after that
cut off is "really" a baby. YMMV. I have a rather pragmatic view of when it
stops being a non-person, and that's when it's viable outside the womb and
will survive. I didn't have a lot of high-tech intervention, btw, so I know
some babies born that early can have normal lives. I do.)
|
anderyn
|
|
response 73 of 142:
|
Oct 6 20:02 UTC 2003 |
I should also say that I have seen the cases that were brought to Congress
such as the woman whose child was developing without a brain, and which would
have had very basic life functions if it could live without a brain, which
were used to say that "partial birth" abortions were sometimes medically
necessary. In those cases, well, yes, it is probably a mercy to the child and
to the mother to abort as soon as it's discovered that the child is so
terribly wrong. My objection is not to something that might be medically
necessary -- but to killing someone who could be viable outside of his or her
mother's womb. It's hard to say what factors made it possible for me to live
without massive brain damage and/or crippling physical problems, but I think
it's wrong to choose death for those who *might* be able to survive as I did.
That's why I have trouble with post-second-trimester abortions in the sense
of "a choice". Pre-then, I feel that it's indeed a choice, because the fetus
isn't remotely viable.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 74 of 142:
|
Oct 6 20:19 UTC 2003 |
So bru and anderyn aren't opposed to abortion, they just want to argue
with the Supreme Court about the cut-off date for abortions. I wouldn't
have understood that from much they have posted here, so it is good to
finally get the point cleared up. They must also not really think abortion
is "murder", since it's OK up to some point they would like to pick.
The only difference, then, between them and me is the cut-off period.
I support that chosen by the Supreme Court (or something like it), while
they have a different idea on this. This doesn't seem to be a basis for
an argument - what we do in this country is ultimately put the question
to the Supreme Court, and then *mostly* accept their decision. But what
we see is an enormous amount of argument and even violence based upon ...
just the selection of a cutoff date?
We should, though clear up the question of termination of pregnancy in the
third trimester when the woman's health is threatened. Do bru and
anderyn accept this as OK too?
|
slynne
|
|
response 75 of 142:
|
Oct 6 20:20 UTC 2003 |
It is my understanding that the only time this particular procedure
(D&X) is routinely used on a live baby is when the baby develops
hydrocephalus in the womb. This is a condition that causes the head the
swell so much a regular vaginal birth is impossible. While there is
some research going on to do surgury in the womb for this condition, it
currently is not available. There is no treatment. Babies with this
condition always die shortly after birth if they are delivered by C-
section. The D&X procedure is less harmful to the health of the woman
and to her future child bearing than a C-section so, since the baby is
going to die anyway, the "partial birth" procedure is considered the
best option.
The problem with the legislation is that it might *require* that women
have C-sections in this case since as long as that option is available
it is only the "health" of the woman that is at stake and not
her "life"
|
anderyn
|
|
response 76 of 142:
|
Oct 6 20:39 UTC 2003 |
Don't lump me with bru. We do not share the same views. I am my own person.
He is his own person. He is more conservative and religious than I am, and
he stands up for that. I am more, ah, waffly, since I try to reconcile what
I think is right/wrong that pull me in different directions. I don't say that
I have the right to tell people what to do, but I can say what I think. And
I think that up to three months, a fetus isn't viable. Therefore, it's a
choice that the mother should have to abort or not. Between three months and
six months, I don't know. On the early end, it's probably still okay. On the
further end, I start feeling like it's a person, it's separate, and to kill
it would be murder. After six months, it's definitely wrong. But of course,
I can't go out and legislate that. I'm not a congresscritter or a judge. So
it's me, private person, saying what I think. You can disagree with me, or
agree with me, but don't push me in with Bruce. I'm not him. I don't always
agree with him. But I do admire that he's standing up for what he believes.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 77 of 142:
|
Oct 6 20:45 UTC 2003 |
Re #75: I mentioned this before, but no one has pursued it: the fetus
could be killed by injection prior to D&X (or ID&X), and apparently
the law would not apply, since it only applies to a procedure following
the delivery of *part* of a live fetus. Is this really the case?
|
slynne
|
|
response 78 of 142:
|
Oct 6 21:06 UTC 2003 |
I was wondering that too, Rane.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 79 of 142:
|
Oct 7 04:54 UTC 2003 |
resp:67 the real deal comes out.
Now, I think if abortions are done, earlier is more ideal... so I
think RU-486 is probably a good thing. Do I think it makes abortions
easier to get? Now, the women are still like scared rabbits because I
think they still have to receive some counseling when they get it.
|
lynne
|
|
response 80 of 142:
|
Oct 7 14:42 UTC 2003 |
re 76: That was an excellent, clearly worded, non-confrontational statement
or what you think. Thank you for clarifying, twila.
|