To the pro-choicers: (1 Viewer)

[Rhapsody1447]

How many of you believe partial-birth abortions should be legal?

 

[aps]

How many of you believe partial-birth abortions should be legal?

Only if the woman's life is in danger. Otherwise, I don't.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Considering that the definition of "partial birth" is something that can apply to a fetus of any age, say 12 weeks, this method of abortion is not inherently worse than any other method of abortion. Just consider for a moment that modern incubators didn't exist until less than a century ago. "Viability" as determined by Nature is why humans are usually born at 9 months instead of sooner (and compared to almost all other species, which have newborns capable of self-propulsion within hours or days, we are all born several months premature, even at 9 months!). Thus partial-birth abortion, right up to where Nature sets viability, is a lot like a miscarriage. I might wonder why they don't just go that route, and perform "induced miscarriage" instead of "abortion".

 

[ModerateDem]

Only if the woman's life is in danger. Otherwise, I don't.

I can do nothing more than agree with this statement. However the Republicans that pushed the bill to ban it did not consider this and did not include it as a condition of exception.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

How many of you believe partial-birth abortions should be legal?

I see no reason to ban them. They are medically contra-indicated in almost every possible situation, so most doctors are unwilling to perform them except when absolutely necessary.

In any case, I support infanticide for up to three days after birth for cases of deformity or profound disability-- and think giving birth in a public restroom should be misdemeanor at worst. The idea that an unborn child might theoretically be "born" during the procedure does not bother me in the least.

 

[Tinker]

How many of you believe partial-birth abortions should be legal?

I do not believe it should be legal. It is pretty simple. If the baby is partially born, as the term 'partial birth' implies, traveling another 3 inches the rest of the way out of the birth canal isn't any big deal.

The term, "if the mother's life is in danger', is a crock in this case. The baby is already in the process of being born, what ever danger there may have been is passing as fast as the baby is traveling out of the birth canal. If the mother's life was in danger, the baby could be partially birthed.

 

[mpg]

I can do nothing more than agree with this statement. However the Republicans that pushed the bill to ban it did not consider this and did not include it as a condition of exception.

That's because this procedure never does anything for the life or health of the mother.

 

[FutureIncoming]

How many of you believe partial-birth abortions should be legal?

Only if the woman's life is in danger. Otherwise, I don't.

I can do nothing more than agree with this statement. However the Republicans that pushed the bill to ban it did not consider this and did not include it as a condition of exception.

That's because this procedure never does anything for the life or health of the mother.

Oh? Are you saying there is no situation in which a doctor ever correctly says that a pregnancy is endangering a woman's life, thus warranting abortion to save her?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

In any case, I support infanticide for up to three days after birth for cases of deformity or profound disability--

Please tell me you're not serious, here.

 

[talloulou]

In any case, I support infanticide for up to three days after birth

Chaotic evil!

 

[ngdawg]

I see no reason to ban them. They are medically contra-indicated in almost every possible situation, so most doctors are unwilling to perform them except when absolutely necessary.

In any case, I support infanticide for up to three days after birth for cases of deformity or profound disability-- and think giving birth in a public restroom should be misdemeanor at worst. The idea that an unborn child might theoretically be "born" during the procedure does not bother me in the least.

And what if it takes a week to correct the deformity? Pretty arbitrary and cold, dude...besides the fact that most deformities can be found very early on before the anticipated birth date.

 

[ModerateDem]

That's because this procedure never does anything for the life or health of the mother.

Tell that to the Mother whose life is saved from certain death if she had actually attempted to give birth. Oh wait you cant she died because of the ban.

 

[ModerateDem]

I see no reason to ban them. They are medically contra-indicated in almost every possible situation, so most doctors are unwilling to perform them except when absolutely necessary.

In any case, I support infanticide for up to three days after birth for cases of deformity or profound disability-- and think giving birth in a public restroom should be misdemeanor at worst. The idea that an unborn child might theoretically be "born" during the procedure does not bother me in the least.

Are you sure you are still sane? :damn

 

[Jerry]

How many of you believe partial-birth abortions should be legal?

As of this post, 9 out of 30 voters in my poll would allow partial birth abortions if the mother wished it.

 

[Thelost1]

hmmm. I shall now proceed to divulge my views on this subject.

as to partial-birth abortion, I think it should be illegal. However, I believe that there is a thick line between partial-birth abortion and some fifteen-year-old girl getting raped and having an abortion.

 

[ModerateDem]

hmmm. I shall now proceed to divulge my views on this subject.

as to partial-birth abortion, I think it should be illegal. However, I believe that there is a thick line between partial-birth abortion and some fifteen-year-old girl getting raped and having an abortion.

Ya Think??? :shocked2:

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Please tell me you're not serious, here.

Care to tell me why I shouldn't be? Why should the child's parents-- or the State-- be burdened with the care of a child that will never grow up, never lead a normal life, and never produce anything?

There are better uses for that time and money, like helping children who can do something with their lives... something we don't do nearly enough of in this society.

Chaotic evil!

You know me better than that. Lawful Evil.

And what if it takes a week to correct the deformity?

Why would you be correcting the deformity, unless you had already decided that you were keeping the child? I make no provision for allowing a child to be euthanized against the mother's will, nor for euthanizing any child after they've been named.

Pretty arbitrary and cold, dude...

Only slightly more arbitrary than the difference between three days before delivery and three days afterwards. Or between the twenty-fifth week and the twenty-sixth.

Some deadline needs to be established, just to prevent people raising (and exploiting) unnamed children. Three days is good enough. A week works for me. I'm uncomfortable with much more than that.

... besides the fact that most deformities can be found very early on before the anticipated birth date.

Obviously, I think that abortion should proceed as quickly as possible once deformity is discovered; euthanasia should be an option for when it's not obvious until birth. There's no reason to prolong it, and it only makes it more wasteful and tragic.

 

[PureAmerican]

Only if the woman's life is in danger. Otherwise, I don't.

I can do nothing more than agree with this statement. However the Republicans that pushed the bill to ban it did not consider this and did not include it as a condition of exception.

I believe killing a baby is wrong. When a pregnancy due to rape, though rare, takes place it can be an exception, though it's still not suggested. I think we should be more concerned about the woman, and girls, who can'y accept responsibility for their actions. . .


There are about 100 million women in the United States old enough to be at risk for assault rape. Let’s use a figure of 200,000 forcible rapes every year. The studies available agree that there are no more than two pregnancies per 1,000 assault rapes.

So much for the numbers. Let’s look at it from another angle and see if that figure makes sense.

- Of these 200,000 women who were raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. That leaves 133,000 at risk of pregnancy.

- A woman is capable of being fertilized only three days out of her 30-day month. So divide 133,000 by 10, and 13,300 women remain.

- One-fourth of all women in the United States of child-bearing age have been sterilized. That drops the figure to 10,000.

- Only half of the assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm. Cut it in half again. We are own to 5,000.

- Fifteen percent of men are sterile; that drops the figure to 4,250. Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile. That reduces the number to 3,600.

- Another 15% are on the pill and/or are already pregnant. Now the figure is 3,070. Now factor in something that all adults know. It takes from five to ten months for an average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Using the smaller figure, to be conservative, divide the 3,000 figure by 5, and the number drops to about 600.

In a healthy, peaceful marriage, the miscarriage rate ranges up to about 15%. In this case, we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate is higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If she loses 20% of 600, there are 450 left. Finally, we must factor in one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that is psychic trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get pregnant and stay pregnant, a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain which is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one really knows, but this factor certainly cuts the last figure by at least 50%, and probably more, leaving a final figure of 225 women pregnant each year, a number that closely matches the 200 found in clinical studies.

Source: www.abortionfacts.com

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I believe killing a baby is wrong. When a pregnancy due to rape, though rare, takes place it can be an exception...

Why, exactly, is that? Is the child conceived by rape somehow less human? Does it have less moral value than a child conceived consensually?

And when, if ever, does this moral difference disappear? Why?

 

[PureAmerican]

Why, exactly, is that? ?

The woman has now been unwillingly sexually molested, and could not engage in stopping the sexual activity. Therefore she had no choice in the matter and cannot accept the responsabilities of the repracustions.

Is the child conceived by rape somehow less human??

No

Does it have less moral value than a child conceived consensually?

No

And when, if ever, does this moral difference disappear? Why?

The moral difference does not disappear. I don't agree with any abortion. In a rape case though, the women as I explained earlier had no choice in the matter and should be entitled to the option.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I believe killing a baby is wrong. When a pregnancy due to rape...

Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. Aborting a pregnancy is not the same thing as killing a baby. The word "baby" is only applicable after birth has occurred, and not one minute sooner.

Next, you are missing the most important reason for aborting rape-caused pregnancies. This has nothing to do with the unborn human, and everything to do with the evil of excess selfishness. That is, while Nature might not care about what an organism does in order to reproduce, humans do care. So, whenever rape causes a pregnancy, as far as Nature is concerned, it just makes rape a "successful reproductive strategy". Genes that contributed to the rape-event (either by predisposing the victim to be vulnerable, or the assailant to be a rapist) are passed on to the next generation, to enhance the probability that future rape-caused pregnancies will occur. Human society has no need whatsoever for these genes. And genetics is such, regarding subtle predispositions, that there is no fast way to weed them out. There is, however, a simple way to weed them out, if practiced over the long long term, with no exceptions. That is to sterilize the rapist and to abort the offspring, every time. No exceptions. Rape must never succeed as a "reproductive strategy". Thus in the long long run, only genes that promote alternative reproductive strategies will be selected-for. And some of those could be slowly weeded out by abortion, also, like the "woo-'em-and-run" strategy. I find it amusing how pro-lifers say such things as, "You must accept responsibility for this pregnancy!" -- when not only is that not always a true statement (birth control failed, for example), simply allowing abortion is guaranteed to slowly and over-the-long-term weed out genes that promote irresponsibility.
=================================================

Why would you be correcting the deformity, unless you had already decided that you were keeping the child? ...
{{Euthanasia during first three days after birth is}} Only slightly more arbitrary than the difference between three days before delivery and three days afterwards. Or between the twenty-fifth week and the twenty-sixth.
Some deadline needs to be established, just to prevent people raising (and exploiting) unnamed children. Three days is good enough. A week works for me. I'm uncomfortable with much more than that.

There is a significant problem here, in that some mental defects are both very severe and very subtle; their existence do not become obvious until months have passed, and the child is not exhibiting signs of mental development. So, when this situation becomes identified, then what? This is one reason I've pointed out this article:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000ACE3F-007E-12DC-807E83414B7F0000
which indicates that human minds, the thing that most separates us from ordinary animals, cannot be considered developed until more than two years go by. It is quite possible to consider a one-year-old human to still be rather more animal than person, and that's with normal mental development. If a severe mental defect prevents this, then it should be obvious that that one-year-old is still all animal, and to no degree qualifies as a person. So, now read this:

Do not confuse "human" with "human being". Note that the word "being" is used as an "enhancer" to the word "human"; while the word "being" can mean "exists", that is NOT the definition normally intended in the phrase "human being". And that statement is easily proved by modifying the phrase: How often do we say "worm being" instead of "worm"? Thus, to be a "being" is to be more than just the base animal, whether that animal be human or worm. And so, what do human beings have that worms don't have, that lets us think it fine to say "human beings" but not-fine to say "worm beings"? Minds, of course. Thus, an unborn human is 100% human, but it is also 0% "being", since it is mindless.
Now back to a human in a vegetative state. This human is quite clearly mindless; they didn't coin the phrase "brain dead" for no reason! So, since earlier parts of this Message indicate that the person is the mind, then if the brain is dead and no brainpower exists to generate the mind any more, then why isn't it obvious that the person must be dead, regardless of the state of the human animal body?
The other case, the mentally handicapped human, is trickier. How much handicap are we talking about? I would say that we want to compare this to a normally-developing infant. What age-level is our handicapped human equivalent to? If the handicap is so severe as to be equivalent to a newborn or even an unborn human, then this logically qualifies as mindless enough to be 0% "being", even though still 100% human. A less-severe mental handicap can be associated with an older infant or toddler, and I expect that group to be generally protect-able by something known as a "grandfather clause". (Arbitrary killing of members of that group is traditionally frowned-upon; why should this tradition be changed, even if killing-for-good-reason happened to become allowable?)

I make no provision for allowing a child to be euthanized against the mother's will

I agree, completely. If a mindless human animal is wanted by those who are normally expected to care for it, then why not let them? We might express some concern about allowing that animal to pass its genes on when adulthood is reached, because obviously it doesn't have the mental ability to care for its offspring, which Society expects of parents, in the same way that the animal was originally expected to be cared-for as an infant. Finally, of course, if those having the care of a mindless human animal decide that they want to stop, then having the animal euthanized should be a matter of no more importance than euthanizing any other ordinary animal. That's what a mindless human is, after all --including every fetus unborn-- an ordinary animal.

 

[taxedout]

Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. Aborting a pregnancy is not the same thing as killing a baby. The word "baby" is only applicable after birth has occurred, and not one minute sooner.

Nomenclature. Poor arguement.

Genes that contributed to the rape-event (either by predisposing the victim to be vulnerable, or the assailant to be a rapist) are passed on to the next generation, to enhance the probability that future rape-caused pregnancies will occur. Human society has no need whatsoever for these genes. And genetics is such, regarding subtle predispositions, that there is no fast way to weed them out.

Please show us the rape gene. The genetic arguement is weak because at this point it can't be proven. Behavior=genetic is very far from realilty.

That's what a mindless human is, after all --including every fetus unborn-- an ordinary animal.

as are some adults.

 

[FutureIncoming]

The word "baby" is only applicable after birth has occurred, and not one minute sooner.

Nomenclature. Poor arguement.

To some slight extent, I agree. However, two points:
(1) For a significant time on either side of the birth event, a human organism is still just an animal organism. Calling a born human a "baby" does not truly grant it "person"-status. So far as we know for sure, that designation requires brainpower that takes quite a while to grow, as was also indicated in Msg #21. Traditionally, of course, being born does grant person-status to a human. To which you could have said, "Nomenclature. Poor argument."
(2) To the religion-inclined, there is the issue of "souls". One of the widely known notions is that a soul enters a human shortly after birth. There is some rationale to think that the soul is the real reason to consider a human to be a person. It may not be able to demonstrate traits of person-hood for months or years, possibly due to lack-of-capabilities of the body, but if souls exist and become involved shortly after birth, then what I wrote/quoted at the start of this Message becomes more than mere nomenclature. Before birth, a fetus is 100% the mother's property, to dispose or to keep as she chooses. After birth, the baby acquires a soul that becomes the owner of that property, and that owner is the person....

I've generally ignored the issue of souls in my postings in this Forum. We have no widely-accepted evidence of their existence, although "hypnotic regression" shows some promise of providing such evidence. I'd say that if souls exist, then we badly need a way to tell whether or not one is present in a brain-dead human body on life-support. So that we know for sure it's OK to "pull the plug". Or if one is present in a severely retarded human, the sort that even when fully-grown exhibits no behavior different from that of an ordinary animal. So we know for sure it's OK to euthanize it when unwanted. At the present time, given the lack of hard facts, I base various statements on the assumption that even if souls exist, they wouldn't want to inhabit such bodies as those. (Neither sort has any ability to do anything significant with its life. A soul in such a body might as well be in some boring prison....)

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Therefore she had no choice in the matter and cannot accept the responsabilities of the repercussions.

And thus, we reach the heart of the matter. It has nothing to do with the life of the unborn child, and everything to do with the mother's choices and whether or not you approve of them.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

There is a significant problem here, in that some mental defects are both very severe and very subtle; their existence do not become obvious until months have passed, and the child is not exhibiting signs of mental development. So, when this situation becomes identified, then what?

I think that's a slippery slope, and I can't see a way to draw a line between that and putting down a five-year-old because of moderate brain damage.

I'm not willing to allow society to base personhood and rights upon demonstrable mental functioning-- because there isn't a single human being I would trust to administer an unbiased test of such.

Finally, of course, if those having the care of a mindless human animal decide that they want to stop, then having the animal euthanized should be a matter of no more importance than euthanizing any other ordinary animal.

I can accept this in cases of persistent vegetative state or more severe conditions. In other cases... the parents signing the birth certificate makes a statement, that the child is a member of their family and a member of the overall society. It's an agreement to support that child until that child is capable of supporting itself.

And I do not think that's an agreement society can allow itself to break.