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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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. 

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" 

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?

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.

response 81 of 142:

Oct 7 17:42 UTC 2003

I only weigh in on abortion once in a great while, but here goes.

> I believe that any fetus who's viable after that cut off is "really" a baby.

It is my view that the current "up to the 2nd trimester" limit is a matter of
technology.  I believe that some day technology will have advanced to the 
state where virtually any conceived fetus (zygote etc.) will be viable outside
the womb, growable in an incubator, if you will.  The law will change so that
any conceived "pre-human", "human under construction" will be required to be
given that chance, and that abortion as convenience will be outlawed.

I believe that some time in the future after that people will look back on
these times as an age of butchery, viewed with the same disdain and outrage
as we look back on ignorant "medical" practices of the past.  The notion of
"rights of the woman" will be dismissed out of hand.  Sometimes it is a 
necessity that the law reflect the limitations of current technology, but that
doesn't mean that morality and behavior must similarly be limited.

There, that's my once in a great while opining, I've had my say.

response 83 of 142:

Oct 7 19:17 UTC 2003

re 82:  Hmmm.  That's in direct contrast to a recent case in Britain where
the egg and sperm sources of some frozen embryos were suing each other over
what to do with them.  The woman had been sterilized as a side effect of
cancer treatment after having the embryos created with her then-husband's
sperm; she desperately wanted children and these embryos were her only 
chance for biological children.  Her ex-husband fought to keep them embryos
from being carried to term, and won.  The judge ordered that the embryos
be destroyed.
While not an abortion case, it bears some very interesting parallels. How
much control should we have over allowing our genetic material to be carried
on?

response 85 of 142:

Oct 7 19:46 UTC 2003

The problem with all those "somebody else wants the baby" is that in
real life, this simply isn't true.  The demographics of our society are
such that a lot of those "babies" come out of poor backgrounds [having a
baby *is* a luxury: it's a considerable expense not to mention the time
involved], most of the people who want babies come out of considerably
more affluent backgrounds.  Therefore, blacks and other minorities are
disproportionately represented, and there aren't that many rich people
willing to settle for children with different color skins.