• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do you support Partial Birth Abortion if the mother's life is not endangered?

Do you support partial birth abortion if the mother's life is not endangered?

  • Yes, a mother should have the right to abort anytime during pregnancy.

    Votes: 3 13.0%
  • No, PBA is a barbaric act.

    Votes: 20 87.0%

  • Total voters
    23
steen said:
There is no baby.

There is no more "punishment" involved than their is in your killing bacteria by taking antibiotics or washing your hands. Your post is silly hyperbole.

It isn't. The embryo is not a person, your deceptive revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding.

There is no baby, and the embryo is no more "innocent" than a parasite f.ex. is.

And now we witness the pro-life misogynistic, hate mongering "pro-fault ugly head rising; the push for enslavement and oppression for not living up to the moralistic theocracy that the fundie pro-faulter pro-lifers want to push on everybody else.

When you're done fighting your strawmen, please sweep it up and restuff him for the next time.
 
steen said:
Utter nonsense. There is nothing immoral about abortions. That blows your idea of us all as hypocrites.

You can put your claws away now and remember what side I'm on in this issue.

You can also look at what most politicians say about abortion and realize that I know what I am talking about.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Since you can't define a time when that "child" becomes a human being...

I don't have to. We kill human beings all the time; being human isn't enough to warrant moral or legal protection.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
... you're not actually qualified to discuss morality.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
... And you're trying to discuss what's moral and what's not?

You know, I was just about to go into my usual diatribe about the maddening inconsistencies in most peoples' moral systems, but I'm getting tired of it.

So why don't you post a list of qualifications you believe you possess that justify your ability to discuss morality, or get down off your pedestal and try proving I'm wrong?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I'm sorry, this paragragh is not consistent with your earlier quibbling that maybe sometimes perhaps it's okay to kill a partially birthed child.

My "earlier quibbling" listed the specific conditions under which it was acceptable to kill a partially birthed child, and in this thread I've already posted why.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So you're saying the incubator can deny responsibility for the thing she gave birth to, and that under no circumstance should any penalties be applied to any incubator that leaves her hatchling in a dumpster to die.

I'm willing to entertain the notion that the State could impose some penalty for failing to notify them of the birth, so they'd get their fair shot at claiming it. After all, I've already noted that the State has an interest in claiming healthy but unwanted babies.

Tell me something, though. Do you think it does society any good to punish people for this?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
By your earlier statement, if no one claims the child it's perfectly valied to toss it in the trash compactor.

We treat unwanted dogs better than that. Any such euthanization should be painless and peaceful.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
In fact, "if noone else is willing, I don't think the State should be required to do so" means nothing if not that the baby should be abandoned.

It means what it says. If someone else wants to claim that baby and raise them, I'm sure as Hell not going to try to stop them or tell them that they shouldn't. They should probably get a medal for it.

On the other hand, the kid's got one parent who shouldn't be allowed to have kids and I don't see why anyone else would want to. It's better for the State to focus on either children that are more adoptable, or on children that have lost their parents.

Don't take this to mean that I'm saying anybody with a disability, or anyone whose parents were screwed up, should have been aborted, or that there is justification for killing them now. I'm the disabled son of two abusive parents, and I know plenty of people from similar situations who have something to contribute to society-- and even if we didn't, it's too late. We're already members of society, citizens of the United States, et cetera.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I give you credit for having the guts to say it out loud. You're wrong. You're an amoral SOB, but you do have convictions.

Thanks.

As far as "amoral SOB" goes... I have very strong moral principles, and I do a fair job of upholding them. Most of what people call "moral principles" are just so much stuff and nonsense-- riddled with inconsistencies and generally ignored whenever it's convenient.

The loudest voices against abortion in this country say that it's wrong because it involves killing innocent human children, and then turn around to undermine the ability of single parents to support their children and support wars which involve dropping bombs on countries that are full of innocent human children.

Whatever moral convictions people have, the world would be a hell of a lot better a place if everyone lived up to them.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What does "previously" claimed mean?

It means that once someone has agreed to raise a child-- whether biological parents or adoptive ones-- it can't be taken back. The child is a member of society and deserves the full legal and moral protection thereof, even if his parents die or run off.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Saying "no" and meaning it is very fool proof.

Rape. It's infrequent, but it does occur. That's why most anti-abortionists, who claim that an unborn child is an "innocent human being", make an exception for children conceived by rape.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The user makes a conscious decision to accept the risk when they use the product. That makes them responsible for the consequences.

Responsible for the consequences, yes, which is why she has to make the decision whether to carry the child or abort, and then take the appropriate steps herself. Hell, she even has to pay for it out-of-pocket-- though I think government subsidization would be a lot cheaper in the long run.

It still does not count as consent or an agreement to carry the child, any more than smoking counts as consent to die of cancer or walking down an alley alone at night is consent to robbery.
 
talloulou said:
Partial birth abortions are abortions that take place late, right? Meanwhile babies are surviving even when they are born as early at 21 weeks in some cases. So I think when the mother's health is at risk the labor should be induced and the baby should be given a chance to survive. I definitely don't support the killing of a child that may be able to survive.

I agree, abortion is a very tough issue for me. I have so many mixed feelings about. I usually just refrain from the topic. Although, I don't agree with it, I don't judge someone who does support it. I'm not real sure where I stand on it. I think, like you said, perhaps labor could be induced and both could be saved.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I don't have to. We kill human beings all the time; being human isn't enough to warrant moral or legal protection.

Ummm...humans are killed under other circumstances for legitimate reasons...war, self-defense, punishment for crimes committed. Only the unborn are killed without cause.

Korimyr the Rat said:
You know, I was just about to go into my usual diatribe about the maddening inconsistencies in most peoples' moral systems, but I'm getting tired of it.

So why don't you post a list of qualifications you believe you possess that justify your ability to discuss morality, or get down off your pedestal and try proving I'm wrong?

I already proved you were wrong, why should I have to repeat myself?

No person is born without special rights or powers over any other. That's because there's no God to give them this. That being the case, they can't steal, because they're not special. Killing is merely a specific form of stealing.

Since you can't dispute the fact that humans are human from conception (Steen makes an *** of himself every time he tries), it follows that incubators don't have any special rights to kill humans anywhere, including those she's volunteered to start inside her.

Since she did volunteer to start the child, she's already surrendered her claim for sole control of her body for the whole getstational period. Even in cases where she hasn't volunteered, the act of rape still doesn't give her a special exemption to murder a person that wasn't party to the crime.

I can discuss morality because I'm consistent.

Korimyr the Rat said:
My "earlier quibbling" listed the specific conditions under which it was acceptable to kill a partially birthed child, and in this thread I've already posted why.

Korimyr the Rat said:
I support partial birth abortion conditionally. While I am generally on the extreme end of the pro-choice spectrum-- I think taxpayer funding of abortion saves us money in Welfare and law enforcement-- I do not think that abortion should be elective beyond a certain point, generally the 26th week.

However, I believe that if it is necessary for the mother's health or there is evidence of serious deformity or genetic defect, late term or partial birth abortion should be allowed.

Yes, you said if the incubator decides she doesn't want the child for some reasons, it's okay to murder it.

Korimyr the Rat said:
I'm willing to entertain the notion that the State could impose some penalty for failing to notify them of the birth, so they'd get their fair shot at claiming it. After all, I've already noted that the State has an interest in claiming healthy but unwanted babies.

Tell me something, though. Do you think it does society any good to punish people for this?

In general, punish for criminal acts is intended as a deterrent to others to show them that they shouldn't engage in that behavior. It also serves to remove those individuals from the population that refused to be deterred.

Locking incubators up that have murdered their children is no different than locking up Scott Peterson....who murdered his child as well as his wife.

Personally, I'm opposed to informing the government of any birth, since the government only views children and people as resources to be exploited.

Korimyr the Rat said:
We treat unwanted dogs better than that. Any such euthanization should be painless and peaceful.

People aren't dogs, and shouldn't be euthanized without their permission. The unborn are not legally competent to grant that permission, nor are new-born infants.

Korimyr the Rat said:
It means what it says. If someone else wants to claim that baby and raise them, I'm sure as Hell not going to try to stop them or tell them that they shouldn't. They should probably get a medal for it.

On the other hand, the kid's got one parent who shouldn't be allowed to have kids and I don't see why anyone else would want to. It's better for the State to focus on either children that are more adoptable, or on children that have lost their parents.

Which is no different than throwing the unwanted ones in the dumpster. Do you think the trash kids should get an expensive lethal injection, an inexpensive .22 bullet, or a reusable club to the head, or should someone just be hired to swing them by their ankles and smash their skulls on the nearest tree?

Korimyr the Rat said:
Don't take this to mean that I'm saying anybody with a disability, or anyone whose parents were screwed up, should have been aborted, or that there is justification for killing them now. I'm the disabled son of two abusive parents, and I know plenty of people from similar situations who have something to contribute to society-- and even if we didn't, it's too late. We're already members of society, citizens of the United States, et cetera.

First you say that any "unwanted" child should be murdered, now you're saying that you're not saying that.

Korimyr the Rat said:
The loudest voices against abortion in this country say that it's wrong because it involves killing innocent human children, and then turn around to undermine the ability of single parents to support their children and support wars which involve dropping bombs on countries that are full of innocent human children.

Those are two unconnected issues. I'm not morally conflicted by the assertion that sterilizing the planet outside borders of the United States would secure the safety of my children from terrorist animals, and saying that individual incubators aren't granted special rights to commit murder.

The first case is a matter of self-defense and acts of war. War isn't about innocence. No one understanding war makes the mistake of mixing the two. War is about survival.

The case of voluntary slaughter of a baby by it's incubator is about murder. That is about innocence, and it's not war.

Korimyr the Rat said:
Whatever moral convictions people have, the world would be a hell of a lot better a place if everyone lived up to them.

Yeah, they should all be like me.

Korimyr the Rat said:
It means that once someone has agreed to raise a child-- whether biological parents or adoptive ones-- it can't be taken back. The child is a member of society and deserves the full legal and moral protection thereof, even if his parents die or run off.

Yes, the child is a member of society, even when it's waiting to be born.

Korimyr the Rat said:
Rape. It's infrequent, but it does occur. That's why most anti-abortionists, who claim that an unborn child is an "innocent human being", make an exception for children conceived by rape.

I don't. I understand where the guilt lies, and who's at fault. That some rapes last nine-months doesn't change the fact that the rapist is the criminal, not the child that didn't exist before the rape happened.

Korimyr the Rat said:
Responsible for the consequences, yes, which is why she has to make the decision whether to carry the child or abort, and then take the appropriate steps herself. Hell, she even has to pay for it out-of-pocket-- though I think government subsidization would be a lot cheaper in the long run.

No, abortion is an abdication of responsibility, an avoidance of the consequences. She already accepted the responsibility of incubating the child when she volunteered for the hot beef injection.

Korimyr the Rat said:
It still does not count as consent or an agreement to carry the child, any more than smoking counts as consent to die of cancer or walking down an alley alone at night is consent to robbery.

Yeah, it does, just like one accepts the consequences of jumping out of a flying airplane. There's no going back.
 
steen said:
It is not a baby, and it is not viable.

In my personal opinion, I have a personal opinion.

Putting it aside for a second, I must say I don't know what is legal definition of a living human being, baby, life, or whatever which protected by law and, possibly, by medical ethics.
I don't know when life starts from medical and legal points of view.
It looks like I am the only one who doesn't know, because the discussion shows that all others do. Again, I have to apologize for my ignorance, before I go to my present opinion
(always reserving the right to learn something new and change it at will).

If it is legally found that in a medical procedure a human being is killed, be so. Ban the particular medical procedure.
But I can agree that rich people would be doing it abroad, and if the procedure has to be banned it must include double punishments for those, who does it abroad, - to at least make some sense of equality.

From my religious point of view, I may suppose a woman commits a sin. I did not have a chance to pray for the answer, so it is just an assumption at hand. But even if the answer is ‘’yes’’, I don't feel I can judge the woman or throw stones. It is her grief and her relations with God. She has to carry it through her life. I can talk to her and try to understand her situation, and offer a prayer, but I am not the one to stop her with any kind of force or threats, or intimidation. I also cannot judge, because I have no experience of being a pregnant woman . I just can guess it is not quite easy. But again it’s just a guess.
 
There is no justifiable reason why PBA should be allowed with the exception if the mothers's life is endangered.........For 5 people in this poll to vote otherwise is mind bogglng.......I know about steen...Reading his posts He would vote for and abortion on the 270th day of pregnancy but what about the rest of you.............Why woulkd you ever condone such a barbaric act on a baby that is viable and can live outside the womb?
 
Navy Pride said:
There is no justifiable reason why PBA should be allowed with the exception if the mothers's life is endangered.........For 5 people in this poll to vote otherwise is mind bogglng.......I know about steen...Reading his posts He would vote for and abortion on the 270th day of pregnancy but what about the rest of you.............Why woulkd you ever condone such a barbaric act on a baby that is viable and can live outside the womb?

There is no justifiable reason for partial birth abortions, period.
 
justone said:
Putting it aside for a second, I must say I don't know what is legal definition of a living human being, baby, life, or whatever which protected by law
I am not sure any of those are legally defined. However, "person" very much is.

The problem is the pro-life attempt at using all these terms interchageably.

and, possibly, by medical ethics.
I don't know when life starts from medical and legal points of view.
Medicine goes with science, and science says that "life" began 3.8 bill years ago. It DOES matter what words you use. If you are talking about "life" based on unique DNA, then that begins at conception. If you are talking about "life" as in an individual person, then that begins at birth.

So merely talking about "life" is vastly imprecise.

If it is legally found that in a medical procedure a human being is killed, be so. Ban the particular medical procedure.
Why? How about medical procedures of separating siamese twins? If it kills one twin, does that mean that "a human being" has been killed by the medical procedure?

I really don't see any justification for applying blanket and simplistic claims to anything involving biology or medicine.

But I can agree that rich people would be doing it abroad, and if the procedure has to be banned it must include double punishments for those, who does it abroad, - to at least make some sense of equality.
So you want a pregnancy test of any woman traveling outside the country, both at departure and on return? How will you handle a miscarriage? Would there be a medical inquiry to ensure that it wasn't actually an abortion? How much of a police state are you willing to impose?

From my religious point of view, I may suppose a woman commits a sin. I did not have a chance to pray for the answer, so it is just an assumption at hand.
just like I look at the callous lack of concern for our neighbor as a sin of the conservatives or even of the republicans. "Sin" is a rather selective concept, isn't it? Not a good foundation for making laws.

But even if the answer is ‘’yes’’, I don't feel I can judge the woman or throw stones. It is her grief and her relations with God. She has to carry it through her life. I can talk to her and try to understand her situation, and offer a prayer, but I am not the one to stop her with any kind of force or threats, or intimidation. I also cannot judge, because I have no experience of being a pregnant woman . I just can guess it is not quite easy. But again it’s just a guess.
Hmm, that makes you pro-choice.
 
Navy Pride said:
I know about steen...Reading his posts He would vote for and abortion on the 270th day of pregnancy but what about the rest of you.............
I know about NP...Reading his posts He would lia about abortion on the 1st day of pregnancy but what about the rest of you.............?

Yeah, just because you misrepresent medical procedures and people's views about these procedures......:roll:
 
steen said:
I know about NP...Reading his posts He would lia about abortion on the 1st day of pregnancy but what about the rest of you.............?

Yeah, just because you misrepresent medical procedures and people's views about these procedures......:roll:

This thread is about Partial Birth Abortion.....If you want to start one on abortion be my guest otherwise try and stat on topic...........thanks........
 
Navy Pride said:
This thread is about Partial Birth Abortion.....If you want to start one on abortion be my guest otherwise try and stat on topic...........thanks........
Well, right now, it is about your deceptions and falsehoods about viability and all that lying crap.
 
Description of D&X

"doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. With sufficient force, the doctor inserts scissors into the base of the back of the skull. The doctor spreads the scissors to widen the opening, and then inserts a suction catheter. The brain tissue is removed, killing the fetus, and allowing the rest of the fetus to pass easily." -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

There Steen.......a correct description for you. Personally I don't see how it's any more pleasant or palatable than "Partial Birth Abortion" but whatever. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
There is no justifiable reason why PBA should be allowed with the exception if the mothers's life is endangered.........

In my opinion if you read the description of a D&X there is no justifiable reason for it period. Since the dr. is pulling the fetus out anyway he might as well give the kid a chance to survive. Preemies are doing better and better with all the latest technology. Just skip the part where the scissors are stabbed into the skull! Pull the kid out, warm the kid up, and see if the kid makes it. Either way you are removing the fetus from the womb so I don't see the difference of killing it or not killing it as far as the mom is concerned.

Prochoicers claim D&X aren't done all that much anyway so I say why not outlaw this brutal killing! Since they are inducing labor, pulling the fetus out, and killing it......why not just skip that last killing part?
 
Last edited:
steen said:
Well, right now, it is about your deceptions and falsehoods about viability and all that lying crap.

How do you not get banned I will never know.......
 
talloulou said:
In my opinion if you read the description of a D&X there is no justifiable reason for it period. Since the dr. is pulling the fetus out anyway he might as well give the kid a chance to survive. Preemies are doing better and better with all the latest technology. Just skip the part where the scissors are stabbed into the skull! Pull the kid out, warm the kid up, and see if the kid makes it. Either way you are removing the fetus from the womb so I don't see the difference of killing it or not killing it as far as the mom is concerned.

Prochoicers claim D&X aren't done all that much anyway so I say why not outlaw this brutal killing! Since they are inducing labor, pulling the fetus out, and killing it......why not just skip that last killing part?

exactly, its infanticide........How liberals can defend it I will never understand......
 
talloulou said:
\There Steen.......a correct description for you.
Much better, yes. It still is lacking, but I guess I will have to go and look closer at it some day. But yes, this was accurate, without all the lying claptrap that NP spews into it. Thank you.

Personally I don't see how it's any more pleasant or palatable than "Partial Birth Abortion" but whatever.
It is factual and doesn't contain all the lies. That is MUCH better.
 
steen said:
It is factual and doesn't contain all the lies. That is MUCH better.

Yeah, but it's got that whole scissors forced into the skull thing:eek:

I'd think people in support of not banning D&X's would rather people hear "partial birth abortion" vs we pull the fetus out by the legs and stab it in the head with scissors.....good heavens!
 
steen said:
Much better, yes. It still is lacking, but I guess I will have to go and look closer at it some day. But yes, this was accurate, without all the lying claptrap that NP spews into it. Thank you.

It is factual and doesn't contain all the lies. That is MUCH better.

are you kidding me
you agree with a link that says what NP and the rest have been saying
yet you still call NPs post lies :roll:
 
talloulou said:
In my opinion if you read the description of a D&X there is no justifiable reason for it period.
Why?

Since the dr. is pulling the fetus out anyway he might as well give the kid a chance to survive.
? What "kid"? What "chance to survive"? You were doing so well, posting the accurate description and all, but now you regress into perpetuating the pro-life lies again. This is a second-trimester procedure, the fetus is not viable, it is not sentient, it is not sensate.

Preemies are doing better and better with all the latest technology.
And these fetuses are not preemies.

Just skip the part where the scissors are stabbed into the skull! Pull the kid out, warm the kid up, and see if the kid makes it.
It won't. It is anywhere from 2 months from viability to barely there in the most rare cases.

Either way you are removing the fetus from the womb so I don't see the difference of killing it or not killing it as far as the mom is concerned.
This is where the description you provided from Wikipedia is lacking. It didn't provide enough information. The whole purpose of doing the procedure is to collapse the skull of the non-sensate, non-sentient, non-viable fetus so the woman doesn't need as much cervical dilation as if regular induction or the D&E was used. This is a method for reducing cervical damage in second trimester, and thus also to reduce the risk of what is called "incompetent cervix" in later pregnancies, where the cervix can't hold together enough and thus increases the risk of miscarriage.

THAT is why this procedure is done. The fetus is not viable or sensate or any of that nonsense that pro-life liars have filled your ears with. At that stage, the shoulders etc. of the fetus are so wide that there is nothing gained in cervical dilation from using this procedre, and simple induction is then must easier and safer.

Prochoicers claim D&X aren't done all that much anyway so I say why not outlaw this brutal killing!
Burtal? To who?

Since they are inducing labor,
They are not. You need to go back and read that description again.

pulling the fetus out, and killing it......why not just skip that last killing part?
There is no point in doing this procedure unless it is for the specific purpose of collapsing the skull of the fetus so the cervical dilation is minimized.

That's why this is done. You guys need to stop getting your information from pro-life pro-lie sites so you can instead have a reasonal and educated discussion about this.
 
talloulou said:
Yeah, but it's got that whole scissors forced into the skull thing:eek:

I'd think people in support of not banning D&X's would rather people hear "partial birth abortion" vs we pull the fetus out by the legs and stab it in the head with scissors.....good heavens!

I think i might rent a billboard and have that up on it
nice thing to see everyday during the commute
a baby with scissors in its skull
 
Navy Pride said:
exactly, its infanticide........How liberals can defend it I will never understand......
There are no infants until birth.
 
steen said:
This is where the description you provided from Wikipedia is lacking. It didn't provide enough information. The whole purpose of doing the procedure is to collapse the skull of the non-sensate, non-sentient, non-viable fetus so the woman doesn't need as much cervical dilation as if regular induction or the D&E was used. This is a method for reducing cervical damage in second trimester, and thus also to reduce the risk of what is called "incompetent cervix" in later pregnancies, where the cervix can't hold together enough and thus increases the risk of miscarriage.

and why would anybody want someone to actually suffer while commiting murder:roll:

Save the World, Kill our offspring :roll:
 
talloulou said:
Yeah, but it's got that whole scissors forced into the skull thing:eek:

I'd think people in support of not banning D&X's would rather people hear "partial birth abortion" vs we pull the fetus out by the legs and stab it in the head with scissors.....good heavens!
At this point, it is tissue. We do much worse to tissue removed in tumor surgery. When you strip away the emotional hyperbole that pro-lifers MUSt have in their arguments, that is what you are left with, the removal of tissue.
 
steen said:
At this point, it is tissue. We do much worse to tissue removed in tumor surgery. When you strip away the emotional hyperbole that pro-lifers MUSt have in their arguments, that is what you are left with, the removal of tissue.

you are so brainwashed by the pro-choice scissor to the freaking skull fabrication sites
I hear denial is state of happiness? is it true?
 
Back
Top Bottom