Do you believe that Partial Birth Abortion should be Legal?

[Fantasea]

This section is also a part of the bill, the link is the same one as provided by Fantasea. The bold emphasis placed here is my own.

You will note, I'm sure, that the word "physical" has been included three times to emphasize that mental, economic, or other reasons as well as simply choice, ordinarily available in elective abortions, cannot be used to justify partial birth abortionsl

 

[Caine]

You will note, I'm sure, that the word "physical" has been included three times to emphasize that mental, economic, or other reasons as well as simply choice, ordinarily available in elective abortions, cannot be used to justify partial birth abortionsl

Hey...... where is this coming from?

I voted partial birth abortion should be allowed only when mother's life is endangered.

I guess you are taking the black and white view on this issue. Your thinking that since I defend abortion rights, I must agree with abortions on all levels.
I don't, Near the begining of this thread I posted my ideas for how we should reform abortion in order to still allow it but put restrictions and guidelines on it as well. I guess you should read more of my posts before assuming something.

If you didn't assume.... Then again... Where is this post of yours comming from, as it has nothing to do with anything I have said in the near past.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
You will note, I'm sure, that the word "physical" has been included three times to emphasize that mental, economic, or other reasons as well as simply choice, ordinarily available in elective abortions, cannot be used to justify partial birth abortions.

Hey...... where is this coming from?

From the section of the Act which you highlighted.

I voted partial birth abortion should be allowed only when mother's life is endangered.

Congress, on the basis of many hearings conducted, states in the opening paragraphs the following:

"...is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives."

Why, in this instance, are you unwilling to take the word of Congress?

I guess you are taking the black and white view on this issue. Your thinking that since I defend abortion rights, I must agree with abortions on all levels.
I don't, Near the begining of this thread I posted my ideas for how we should reform abortion in order to still allow it but put restrictions and guidelines on it as well. I guess you should read more of my posts before assuming something.

I assume nothing. I respond to what you write.

If you didn't assume.... Then again... Where is this post of yours comming from, as it has nothing to do with anything I have said in the near past.

Re-read the post in which you quoted Sec 3 Partial Birth Abortion. That's where I'm coming from.

 

[Caine]

From the section of the Act which you highlighted.Congress, on the basis of many hearings conducted, states in the opening paragraphs the following:

"...is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives."

Why, in this instance, are you unwilling to take the word of Congress?

I assume nothing. I respond to what you write.Re-read the post in which you quoted Sec 3 Partial Birth Abortion. That's where I'm coming from.

Again, did you not read the section I highlighted where the partial birth abortion act, even though it had mentioned its "never medically" necessary, still added the clause that it will still be allowed when it is necessary.

 

[Fantasea]

Again, did you not read the section I highlighted where the partial birth abortion act, even though it had mentioned its "never medically" necessary, still added the clause that it will still be allowed when it is necessary.

You must have missed it in an earlier post.

My comment then was that clause was inserted solely to keep the Act from running afoul of the requirements of Roe v. Wade.

However, the fact that they included the references to "never medically necessary" confirms the true sense of Congress.

 

[The Mark]

You must have missed it in an earlier post.

My comment then was that clause was inserted solely to keep the Act from running afoul of the requirements of Roe v. Wade.

However, the fact that they included the references to "never medically necessary" confirms the true sense of Congress.

An interesting point of view, I tend to agree with you.

Why, in this instance, are you unwilling to take the word of Congress?

Here I felt I needed to mention that everyone is fallible. While I think it likely that in this case Congress is correct, in many other cases I have been disappointed by them.
And on the other side of things, please refer to the first quote in this post and note that I think that, as everyone is fallible, the decision of Roe v. Wade might be also.....or at least partially.

It all depends on your personal views. I, for example, think that PBA is wrong in almost all cases. Therefore, I am more likely to agree with Congress and think that at least part of Roe v. Wade is wrong.
Now, on the other side of things, if someone thinks that PBA should be legal in all cases (or most).....Then they would be inclined towards disagreement with Congress, and of course they would agree Roe v. Wade was a completely (or almost completely) a good thing.

However, If Congress makes a law or rule like this, I think that whether WE think it is correct or not, we need to listen. Because they are congress, if for no other reason. I mean, after all, we did elect them, so.......they must be manifestations of most of our views, right? (logic a bit weak here I must admit)

 

[tryreading]

You cited a woman performing an abortion on herself.

Think about that for a moment. Free will? What must be the mental state of that woman, or girl, for that matter, which would drive her to such an extreme.

After the event, the mental images of what transpired will haunt her for the rest of her life. That will be more punishment than anyone should have to suffer.

I believe she is a victim in every sense of the word. Do you wish to be compassionate? Or to cast the first stone?

I understand what you are saying.

But one adult murders another for two dollars, for instance. The murderer is remorseful, he fells suicidal now because his regret is so painful. The mental images will haunt him for the rest of his life.

We will not say that is more punishment than anyone should have to suffer. We won't call him a victim. We will imprison him for life, and in some states we will execute him.

I have only seen you post on the abortion related threads, so this is obviously a subject you feel very strongly about. So my question for you, again, is what punishment should the state laws against abortion, in the states that choose to enact them, include, if Roe vs Wade is somehow overturned?

This is a serious question. Breaking any law requires some type of consequence, a fine, community service, house arrest, jail time, capital punishment. A law that has no enforcement teeth is a law not worth the paper it is written on. Why enact it?

 

[Fantasea]

I understand what you are saying.

But one adult murders another for two dollars, for instance. The murderer is remorseful, he fells suicidal now because his regret is so painful. The mental images will haunt him for the rest of his life.

We will not say that is more punishment than anyone should have to suffer. We won't call him a victim. We will imprison him for life, and in some states we will execute him.

I have only seen you post on the abortion related threads, so this is obviously a subject you feel very strongly about. So my question for you, again, is what punishment should the state laws against abortion, in the states that choose to enact them, include, if Roe vs Wade is somehow overturned?

This is a serious question. Breaking any law requires some type of consequence, a fine, community service, house arrest, jail time, capital punishment. A law that has no enforcement teeth is a law not worth the paper it is written on. Why enact it?

Prior to Roe v. Wade, the crime was "illegal abortion" and it was the doctor, who was in it for the money, who was charged. Upon conviction, the usual penalty was loss of license and some jail time. The woman or women involved were never charged.

I imagine that the old statutes would be resurrected.

That's enough for me. The women will be miserable enough.

 

[Caine]

Prior to Roe v. Wade, the crime was "illegal abortion" and it was the doctor, who was in it for the money, who was charged. Upon conviction, the usual penalty was loss of license and some jail time. The woman or women involved were never charged.

I imagine that the old statutes would be resurrected.

That's enough for me. The women will be miserable enough.

IF ABORTION WERE DEEMED ILLEGAL ONCE MORE.....

I think the woman should be punished too, since it was her decision to have the abortion..........call it...... conspiracy to perform illegal abortion or some **** like that. The woman made the decision, she should be punished for it. Like tryreading said, some people who kill others feel miserable about it, but thats not reason to let them off easy.

 

[Navy Pride]

I don't think the woman should be punished.......She will have enough grief in her life when she realizes what she has done in most cases.......

If abortion is ruled against the law the I think the Abortion doctor should be charged with murder................The reason being you have to make the penalty for the crime as severe as possible to let other doctors who are considering performing abortions think twice before doing the deed........

 

[tryreading]

Prior to Roe v. Wade, the crime was "illegal abortion" and it was the doctor, who was in it for the money, who was charged. Upon conviction, the usual penalty was loss of license and some jail time. The woman or women involved were never charged.

I imagine that the old statutes would be resurrected.

That's enough for me. The women will be miserable enough.

That's enough for you? This subject, abortion, the only one I have seen you post on at this website, has to be vital to you. I presume that your vote, at all levels, is mostly based on this issue. Correct me if this is not true.

There are centuries of legal precedence in this country wherein a person who takes another person's life is, in most cases excluding self-defense, prosecuted, incarcerated, and sometimes executed. And many of these homicides are committed against those who can defend themselves.

If you don't want to discuss something, say so. It won't hurt my feelings. But this is disingenuous, to say prosecute the doctor, but the person with the intent, the person in control, will be miserable enough because she did something bad.

 

[Fantasea]

IF ABORTION WERE DEEMED ILLEGAL ONCE MORE.....

I think the woman should be punished too, since it was her decision to have the abortion..........call it...... conspiracy to perform illegal abortion or some **** like that. The woman made the decision, she should be punished for it. Like tryreading said, some people who kill others feel miserable about it, but thats not reason to let them off easy.

So, go ahead. Throw the first stone.

PS Please exercise more care when you quote others. You frequently have the wrong name attached to a quote which makes it difficult to determine who is saying what.

 

[tryreading]

I don't think the woman should be punished.......She will have enough grief in her life when she realizes what she has done in most cases.......

If abortion is ruled against the law the I think the Abortion doctor should be charged with murder................The reason being you have to make the penalty for the crime as severe as possible to let other doctors who are considering performing abortions think twice before doing the deed........

If you have to make the penalty for the crime as severe as possible, why is there no penalty for the person who initiated the crime?

Same note I sent to Fantasea applies here:

There are centuries of legal precedence in this country wherein a person who takes another person's life is, in most cases excluding self-defense, prosecuted, incarcerated, and sometimes executed. And many of these homicides are committed against those who can defend themselves.

If you don't want to discuss something, say so. It won't hurt my feelings. But this is disingenuous, to say prosecute the doctor, but the person with the intent, the person in control, will be miserable enough because she did something bad.

 

[tryreading]

So, go ahead. Throw the first stone.

The object is not to throw stones, but to provoke thought. Some questions are very hard to answer. You would throw the first stone at the doctor. Does this phrase only protect women?

 

[Fantasea]

That's enough for you? This subject, abortion, the only one I have seen you post on at this website, has to be vital to you. I presume that your vote, at all levels, is mostly based on this issue. Correct me if this is not true.

There are centuries of legal precedence in this country wherein a person who takes another person's life is, in most cases excluding self-defense, prosecuted, incarcerated, and sometimes executed. And many of these homicides are committed against those who can defend themselves.

If you don't want to discuss something, say so. It won't hurt my feelings. But this is disingenuous, to say prosecute the doctor, but the person with the intent, the person in control, will be miserable enough because she did something bad.

I quoted the law in effect prior to Roe v. Wade and you got bent out of shape because I said it's enough for me.

I guess that you are unable to appreciate the compassionate streak in me. I don't support capital punishment, either. A sentence of life without parole is enough.

I believe that the "correctional" institutions don't correct anything. Calling the prisons and penitentiaries by a politically correct euphemism is akin to painting the outhouse white instead of red. The odor remains the same.

Whenever possible, I'd rather find ways to help people fix their lives.

 

[tryreading]

I quoted the law in effect prior to Roe v. Wade and you got bent out of shape because I said it's enough for me.

I guess that you are unable to appreciate the compassionate streak in me. I don't support capital punishment, either. A sentence of life without parole is enough.

I believe that the "correctional" institutions don't correct anything. Calling the prisons and penitentiaries by a politically correct euphemism is akin to painting the outhouse white instead of red. The odor remains the same.

Whenever possible, I'd rather find ways to help people fix their lives.

The doctor can't fix his life, though.

I'm wasn't bent out of shape. I am now, because you're trying to get in the last word. I'm in Florida, so it may be later here than where you are in the country, and I have to get up early. So you'll probably win.

Correctional facilities don't correct anything, but they punish, and they separate convicted criminals from us. I don't believe in capital punishment either.

I just don't understand why you don't want to answer certain questions, and Navy Pride, who tried, and quite a few other people I've asked these same queries and a few others over the past several years. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to trap you. This is no red herring. Maybe I'm an egotist, but I thought all this was my idea.

Anyway, I'll keep trying.

 

[Navy Pride]

If you have to make the penalty for the crime as severe as possible, why is there no penalty for the person who initiated the crime?

Same note I sent to Fantasea applies here:

There are centuries of legal precedence in this country wherein a person who takes another person's life is, in most cases excluding self-defense, prosecuted, incarcerated, and sometimes executed. And many of these homicides are committed against those who can defend themselves.

If you don't want to discuss something, say so. It won't hurt my feelings. But this is disingenuous, to say prosecute the doctor, but the person with the intent, the person in control, will be miserable enough because she did something bad.

The woman will have to live with her decision to abort for the rest of her life.....To me that is enough punishment........

 

[Caine]

Well then, We shouldn't punish those who conspire to kill others then, because they will have to live with it the rest of thier lives that they had a hand in it.

Sounds like crap right?

The view you all who think this about the woman who initiated, made the decision, and was the sole reason why an abortion is conducted: is only valid if the woman actually DOES feel bad about it. Not everyone feels bad after having an abortion, I know my ex-girlfriend didn't when she had an abortion while I was in basic training with no knowledge of her intent. She never felt bad about it and only spoke about it a few times, never was depressed or anything. (next your going to tell me you know more about how she is really feeling with no more details provided than I do).

Anyways, the fact remains that the woman should be punished. It is similar to if a man hired people to kill his wife, the man is still just as guilty because he was the reason why the wife was killed, the actual killer was the tool, same thing here, the woman is the reason why the abortion is taking place, the doctor is just the tool.

 

[Dogger807]

I'm gonna have to vote for only when the mother's live is in danger for this one. You've gone well past the point of a clump of cells with potential here. Pro-choice doesn't need to be taken to extremes. For that mater neither does Pro-life.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

1. Almost everyone on this thread, even those 100% opposed to any type of abortion in all other cases, will agree to actual partial birth abortion if the mother's life is in danger due to the pregnancy. Her health being in danger means she could die, but could live. But if the abortion is done, the fetus definitely dies.
A. Why is it acceptable to allow the abortion in these cases?

It's not. That's why I voted "under no circumstances".

2. Suppose abortion became completely illegal in this country. A pregnant mother chooses to have one anyway. A doctor performs the procedure.
A. What charge should the woman face when discovered? Would she have
committed premeditated murder? What should the penalty be if she is
found guilty?
B. What charge should the doctor face? What penalty if he is guilty?

Depends on the term of the abortion. If it's after conception, she should probably be charged with conspiracy to commit manslaughter, and manslaughter.

Ditto for the "doctor".

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Not really..Thats good for you, but I was actually not answering the question just for your sake, but my reply was generated at the people who have voted "No, Never" as an answer to the opinion poll. These people obviously do not care about the life of a woman.

Its just my opinion. There may be extreme cases where the woman contributes nothing to society, and thus, is less valuable than the mere probability of how sucessful the fetus inside her will grow to become. But in many cases, the woman value is greater than taking a chance on how valuable the child will come to be, especially without its mother to provide for it and teach it.

Since, if I recall, your conception date is after the Carter presidency, I'll guess that you need experience.

The life of the gestating female is at risk? (can't call it a mother if it's volunteering its child to have it's brain removed by scissors, can we?) Then certainly we should spend two days dilating the cervix, then forcing a breach presentation, the most unnatural and most stressful possible birth position, and then HALT the "delivery" while the doctor jams scissors into the un-anesthetized "fetuses" head and then drains the brain out with a vacuum hose. This is ALWAYS the best path to minimize stress on the female.:roll:

Then again, a ceasarian section takes less than 15 minutes, with about 15 minutes of prep time for a routine procedure, and the event is far less stressful than even a normal delivery, with minimal blood loss. And gee whiz golly, a healthy baby pops out. Head first in each of the two I witnessed personally.

In an emergency a C-section can be done in less than a minute, but that's risky. But clearly anyone contemplating murdering their child before it's first breath in a two day procedure isn't dealing with a life threatening emergency.

No. The procedure should not be allowed, not under any circumstances. It's only purpose is to deliver a dead child.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

And it's curious, don't you think, that Planned Parenthood's website doesn't describe the various abortion procedures they perform? Don't they believe in ensuring women have all the information they need to make a true informed choice?

But perhaps I simply missed the link, such things happen. So can anyone post a Planned Parenthood link to accurate descriptions of their procedures?

 

[Fantasea]

I'm gonna have to vote for only when the mother's live is in danger for this one. You've gone well past the point of a clump of cells with potential here. Pro-choice doesn't need to be taken to extremes. For that mater neither does Pro-life.

Since the only choice is whether an unborn human child lives or dies, what would you consider to be an extreme Pro-Life position?

 

[tryreading]

The woman will have to live with her decision to abort for the rest of her life.....To me that is enough punishment........

But the same woman, if she shot someone in the street for two dollars (sorry, my same tired example, or similar), would be tried, and if convicted, imprisoned and maybe executed.

 

[tryreading]

Depends on the term of the abortion. If it's after conception, she should probably be charged with conspiracy to commit manslaughter, and manslaughter.

Ditto for the "doctor".

Suppose abortion became completely illegal in this country. A pregnant mother chooses to have one anyway. A doctor performs the procedure.
A. What charge should the woman face when discovered? Would she have
committed premeditated murder? What should the penalty be if she is
found guilty?
B. What charge should the doctor face? What penalty if he is guilty?

S.A., why manslaughter? And why should anything depend on the term of the abortion? Thank you.

Fantasea and Navy Pride, this man knows how to satisfy a simple fellow's curiosity.