AppleOutsider Abortion Thread v1

pro-life...

humans are irresponsible selfish creatures...

E PLURIBUS UNIX
----------
http://homepage.mac.com/oxygon1/.Public/sigpicsmall.jpeg

Pro choice, not saying it's the right choice but it should be a choice.

Pro life, but, of course, with exceptions (the usual stuff you've all heard before).
But it's not really my place, I feel.

What I'd LIKE to happen would be a shift in the culture, regarding responsibility, morality, etc. that would make questions like these irrelevent.

But seeing how that's never going to happen...

I suppose if I was a young woman, with no partner, no money, etc. and found myself pregnant, I'd probably see the situation quite a bit differently.

I don't like the idea of it, that's for sure. But everyone has their life and everything's a situation.

I do my best to live in a way (through precaution, responsibility, careful consideration, planning, keeping my head, not engaging in foolish, dangerous behavior, etc.) that I hope I'm never in a situation where I truly have to step up and have a real-life opinion on it where it counts.

Not to say I don't have a good time...but I take having fun seriously.

:D

Pro-Choice

[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>Pro-choice. People need to stop arguing over the morality issues, and start concentrating on educating people so it's an issue that has to be dealt with less often.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, but if you attack the source of the problem and not the symptoms you won't get results as quickly which will look bad politically. And, as if that weren't enough you would not longer have a problem to dedicate yourself to solving, nor would you have a moral issue to throw yourself behind, both of which would look even worse politically.

[quote]Originally posted by nonhuman:
<strong>

Yes, but if you attack the source of the problem and not the symptoms you won't get results as quickly which will look bad politically. And, as if that weren't enough you would not longer have a problem to dedicate yourself to solving, nor would you have a moral issue to throw yourself behind, both of which would look even worse politically.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So true, nonhuman. Many politicians, activists and religious leaders would be out of a job. Sometimes, you seem... well... almost human!

I can't form much of an opinion on that. If it came down to it right now, I suppose I'd go with pro-choice.

Pro Life in every case other than rape or incest. No woman should be made to carry a child that was forced upon her in a violent or otherwise dispicable act...

...otherwise I have to say I don't pity most teenage girls and others who get themselves pregnant because they were careless. People need to learn to take responsibility for their actions, and I can think of none greater than caring for your own child (even if it means finding another home for that child via adoption).

You want to be an adult, act like one when things get tough, not just when it's convenient for you. So many children are eliminated simply because their parent(s) don't want to "deal with the hassle" of a child. Tough shit. Should've thought about that when you were in the sack.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs :
<strong>...otherwise I have to say I don't pity most teenage girls and others who get themselves pregnant because they were careless.</strong><hr></blockquote>I've seen some of these studies lately that the majority of "teen pregnancies" are really where the mother is a young girl, but the father is an older man. If it's a 15-year old girl and a 25-year old man, does that change your view at all?

Hmmm, an idea: Maybe they could artificially implant the child into the father.
:)

Oops...I quoted and disagreed with MYSELF!
Haha...

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>

Moogs, that's quite a cop-out. The whole "only in rape or incest cases" argument doesn't make sense.

Now I'm no bleeding heart, but...

[quote]Not really B. There are a lot of promiscuous girls in high school (or of that age), who go around looking for older men (fake ID's at the local bar, whatever)...

...is the man a scumbag for jumping in the sack with a teenage girl? Depends on the circumstance, but most likely - yes. Does that mean the girl somehow bears no responsibility for her actions and by extension her pregnancy?<hr></blockquote>

... this is dripping with sexism. "Depending on the circumstance.." my fat white ass. That guy is shit 10 times out of 10 and is just as responsible for any subsequent child. Even MORESO if that girl is a young/mid-teenager.

Then you say:

[quote]some people seem to imply that 16 year old girls are mature enough to understand ... but not mature enough to understand and handle her own body in a mature way? Sorry. Not buyin' it.<hr></blockquote>

So it's her responsibility 100%?
Not only is it her responsibility, but she can't even make a decision whether to kill the child?

Where's the man in your scenario? No obligations there, eh?

There are 15 year old girls out there who look like they could be in their 20s, easily. So if such a girl gets into a bar/club with a fake id and ends up going home with some older man who has no reason to suspect she's actually underage is the guy at fault? I sure can't see why he would be.

[quote]Originally posted by: groverat
<strong>The whole "only in rape or incest cases" argument doesn't make sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree that it isn't fair to take an innocent life even in this situation, but is it any less fair to force a woman or young girl to carry a child to term, give birth to it, and then have to either raise it or go through giving it away after having already been raped? It seems like punishment for the victim! Until a better solution arises I'll continue to think that abortion is less atrocious under these circumstances.

[quote]Originally posted by: Belle
<strong>So true, nonhuman. Many politicians, activists and religious leaders would be out of a job. Sometimes, you seem... well... almost human!</strong><hr></blockquote>
:D

Pro-Life. Except for when the mother's life is seriously in danger. I can't even begin to imagine the mental torment those mothers must go through. I haven't even decided if I should form an opinion for that circumstance.

[quote]Originally posted by beer:
<strong>And something I've never understood: how can you be pro-choice and anti-death penalty? It's cool to kill them before they've had a chance to prove their worth has human beings, but it's wrong to kill them once they've proved they have no humanity? Bizarre.</strong><hr></blockquote>I would think a true small-government libertarian would also be in this position.

[quote]I do support a woman's choice to abort and kill an unborn child. I have no problem with this distinction because my view is based upon social and economic ideas, not moral ones.

But I think those who do abort another's life should admit to the reality of the situation rather than hide behind the denial of euphemisms. It's often an emotionally painful experience. I wonder why! (see first sentence in this paragraph).<hr></blockquote>So killing "an unborn child" is not a matter of morality to you? I just cannot accept this kind of thinking... So should people only be allowed to live if it is economically convenient for them to do so? What is it about an *unborn* child that makes it so different from a born child that it's life is at the mercy of its parent's convenience?

I really don't mean to misrepresent your stance on this, zonetuke, I'm just trying to flesh out its implications and foundation. Maybe you'ld like to clarify what makes abortion an a-moral decision, while murder clearly is a moral decision... (if you believe that)

Other than the very rare case of that resulting from forced intercourse, pregnancy is a choice. Unfortunately it's often made without the parents being in possession of all the facts. There are countless thousands of people who don't understand that unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy. It's time for the campaigning groups - whether pro or anti - to stop bickering over morality issues and invest the millions of dollars they plough into furthering their moral crusade into educating people.

As for the pro-life or pro-choice debate, I fall into pro-choice by default. I don't presume to tell parents how to deal with the issues in their lives, just as I don't feel it's my place to argue whether someone should have transplant surgery, wear a condom, worship a particular deity, whatever.

Pro-life. Wow your the first group I have ever seen that can disscuss this maturely. Thanks you for doing so.

Strider

An ex-girlfriend had an abortion (before I met her). It seriously messed her up in the head. That's another thing people should consider when "championing" this so-called right.

I'm okay with sexual and moral education to reduce the risk of an unwanted pregnancy but if there are going to be abortions there should also be abortion education.

Talk about abortion without euphemism. I remember listening to a woman describe the abortion she had without even once using the word abortion. Talk about the mental trauma many women feel after having had an abortion.

So, groverat, your definition of viable is that it can feel pain, breathe and maintain a heartbeat? Am I correct? Is this what makes a human "viable"?

the FACTS are we don't really know when "life" is formed. We can however GUESS. That doesn't mean we are RIGHT. Saying otherwise makes you look foolish.

Pro-choice...

Too many babies anyway and, like seinfeld said, "I hate them, they are so immature!"

(My real feelings aren't so black and white guys...)

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:

I'm not following the "logic". We're talking about abortion, not statutory rape.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, but what I was disputing was someone's (I don't remember who) statement that any older man who impregnated a teenager was scum (or something to that effect.



[quote]Say an older teen is manipulated by an older man (happens everywhere everyday) and is cast out by her family as a whore?
Is it ok then since she's been through mental duress and severe emotional trauma.<hr></blockquote>

I don't think it's ok in any circumstances, but in situations such as these I think that it's less condemnable.



[quote]Pregnancy is punishment?<hr></blockquote>

If you've been forced into it against your will, don't want to be pregnant, don't want to have a baby, don't feel that you're ready to raise a child, and/or aren't capable of supporting a child: yes. Also, there's more to it that just "being pregnant". You have to deal with restricted abilities, hormonal imbalance, all sorts of other symptoms of pregnancy, then the pain of childbirth (sometimes described as forcing something the size of a basketball through a hole the size of a golfball) or of surgery. After that, even if you opt for adoption and don't have to go through the hardships of raising a child before you're ready you still have to deal with the mental and emotional anguish of giving your child away. That I would say is punishment, especially when forced on an undeserving, innocent young girl.

[quote]There are degrees of atrociousness in regards to a dead baby?<hr></blockquote>

Yes. Babies die all the time. If a baby dies of some childhood disease, or a birth defect, would you consider that an atrocity on the level of murdering another human being? Are SIDS and abortion on the same level?

[quote]Since it's about morality, wouldn't it be the moral thing for a rape victim to give birth to the child and give it a chance at life?<hr></blockquote>

The moral thing is to make a rape victim suffer further?

pro choice but...

Only in the first trimester;
Pro government funding of contraceptives;
Pro free contraceptives distributed by the government to those who have a certain net anual income;
Pro more active distribution of knowledge on matters like contraceptives, safe sex and STDs.

That goes for any government. Except for maybe the Dutch, they seem to have it sorted out perfectly.

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>the FACTS are we don't really know when "life" is formed. We can however GUESS. That doesn't mean we are RIGHT. Saying otherwise makes you look foolish.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Of course we know when life begins - conception. And please don't tell me this is just my personal belief. This is an existential fact. The only reason why we are debating the matter is because we are talking about human life here and we are trying to determine whether or not there are circumstances in which we can choose to not protect individual human lives. The guesswork people are engaging in is where to draw the line. But that line isn't about when life begins. It's about when we all will agree human life should be legally protected.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

[quote]Yes, far different from a fetus. But why is it wrong to kill her?<hr></blockquote>

It's wrong to kill her because she's a human being. Just like it's morally wrong to abort a fetus.

[quote]She's probably less of a human than this fetus will be.<hr></blockquote>

Howso?
I'm not following what you're trying to say.

[quote]On the topic of rape and incest, why would it be so horrible to have the woman bring the baby to term and then put it up for adoption? I never see anyone mention this option. I would think that having a baby and giving it to loving parents that can't conceive would be quite a rewarding experience. Making good out of a bad situation.<hr></blockquote>

Should she be legally obligated to bring to term a pregnancy that was forced on her?

[quote]My biggest problem with abortion (besides the whole murdering a baby thing) is the fact that it cheapens respect for life. Face the facts.<hr></blockquote>

So does the death penalty. So does shooting someone who is stealing your car stereo. Those aren't illegal, though.

[quote]So now that we have sunk to this low, how much of a stretch will it be to start allowing other forms of murder, like the situation I describe above with my grandmother. Dr Kevorkian started it, where will it end? (Don't hijack this thread into a "right to die" argument please. I was just making a point.)<hr></blockquote>

Mercy killings are asked for, so there's really no moral or ethical problems with that, in my mind.
You don't have to deal with your sick grandmother if you don't want, you can wash your hands and feet of her situation and the government will take care of her.

double post

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>

pro choice.

It always amuses me when complete strangers
believe they have some right to tell others
how to live their lives.

It doesn't matter if it is euthanasia, or abortion, it is a personal decision, and you
have no say in it, unless you are the partner.

[quote]Originally posted by zonetuke:
[QB] First of all, we are not talking about people, rather unborn infants. [QB]<hr></blockquote>

Let me first statte that this is directed at no one person, but at the pro-abortion mentality in general.

The first step to making killing a particular class of someone or something OK is to strip the humanity from it. That is how it is always done. Nazi's, KKK, Slave Owners, whatever. Babies are humans, and therefore killing them is killing people. Just because they are not born yet does not make them less of a person. Where does that mentality of it's just an unborn fetus change when you have a partial-birth abortion?

[quote]Originally posted by: groverat
<strong>Yeah that was me.
Men who sleep with women and get them pregnant and then split are scum. They are scum if they get them pregnant and are not 100% supportive. Scum. Pieces of shit. They are very responsible for that pregnancy, yet someone will tell a woman that she can't have an abortion while telling the man that he doesn't have to worry about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmm, I guess I misunderstood you then, and there's no reason for us to be arguing because we're in agreement here.

[quote]<strong>You sure you're not pro-choice?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am pro-choice (check my first post in this thread). :p

As an interesting, related side note: I'm also pro-death penalty, but I still think killing is wrong. And, as if that weren't enough I'm morally opposed to the idea of keeping animals in captivity for the sole purpose of killing them. Hell, I'm even morally opposed to keeping animals as pets (I think it's despicable what we do to horses), but I still eat meat because I like it too much to give up (and yes, I actually did try to go vegan once).

[quote]<strong>Let me rephrase, there are degrees of atrociousness to ending a baby's life through abortion?</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's not that the act itself becomes any less of a bad thing, but that the circumstances can sometimes make it somewhatnot completely unless the mother's life is at statejustified (in the same way that I would consider myself justified in killing someone who posed a threat to my life, although obviously not at the same level).

Pro-choice, given that the options are not really "Abortion or Child", but, tragically often, "Legal Abortion or Back-Street Abortionist".

I have never found the lumping together of abortion and the death penalty as a single argument to be valid. My opposition to the DP is based around accepting the fallibility of the judicial process, and therefore avoiding irrevocable decisions. I don't like the idea that my government would have the right to kill me in error. However, I would have no objection to any convict choosing to be put to death, over lifetime incarceration.

Interestingly, here in the UK, you are most likely to be murdered by your mother, on the day you are born. That is the reality of the "choice" that many young women face; would you sentence these girls to death?

[quote]Originally posted by Whisper:
<strong>That's like saying that we shouldn't have speed limits because people will drive as fast as they want to anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>That's not the argument Jelly was making, I don't believe. I think what Jelly was saying was that if abortion is illegal, more women will die or be injured. He wasn't saying "we shouldn't have laws because people will break them anyway."

It's a subtle difference, maybe, but an important one. I think it would be hard to show that making stricter speed limit laws increases traffic deaths. If it did, the arguments about that issue would be very different.

Sorry to butt in, Jelly.

[quote]Originally posted by Whisper:
<strong>You meant to say, "I think it would be hard to show that making stricter speed limit laws decreases traffic deaths," right?</strong><hr></blockquote>No, I did mean what I said, I was just making a convoluted point.

Jelly was arguing that making the abortion law stricter would lead to pregnant women's deaths or injuries. In that way, it's unusual. Hopefully, most laws don't lead to increased deaths or injuries.

That's all I was saying about the speed limit laws - that your analogy fails because that's a law that decreases deaths and injuries, unlike abortion laws, which would have the effect of increasing the deaths and injuries of pregnant women.

I don't like the way this thread is going.
It's too civilized. Let's fix that right now.

groverat, you're Hitler!!!! You nazi scum!

Thank you.

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>No, I did mean what I said, I was just making a convoluted point.

Jelly was arguing that making the abortion law stricter would lead to pregnant women's deaths or injuries. In that way, it's unusual. Hopefully, most laws don't lead to increased deaths or injuries.

That's all I was saying about the speed limit laws - that your analogy fails because that's a law that decreases deaths and injuries, unlike abortion laws, which would have the effect of increasing the deaths and injuries of pregnant women.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh, I get it. I don't agree with you, but at least I know what you're saying now.

Here's why I don't agree. I believe that unborn children are just that -- children that haven't been born yet. All this stuff about fetuses and embryos and whatnot are nice for describing what stage of development it's at, but when you get to down to what it fundamentally is, it's just a kid that hasn't been born yet. By making abortion illegal, you save the lives of however many kids it is that would get aborted. True, some women may decide to get an illegal abortion, and some of those women may die in the process. But I'd be *very* surprised if the number of women who die from illegal abortions would be anywhere near the number of abortions that wouldn't happen due to abortion's newfound illegality. Does that make sense?

In any case, it's a bit of a moot point. If something is wrong, it's still wrong whether or not people get hurt and/or killed doing it.

Whisper, try keeping your argument within context.

Who are you to tell anyone they cannot have an abortion, if that is their choice?

Are you really that arrogant?

It is not your call. You have no say in it.
None. Zero.

When will people learn to keep their faces out of other peoples private lives?

What next? Banning porn, because you don't like the idea of adults looking at naked people in the privacy of their own homes?

Censoring the internet because, shock, horror, some kid might see a naked person, or read adult themes?

I find i funny that if a man punches a women that is pregnant and kills the baby he goes to jail. But a woman can do that and it's legal.

Nice the way they contradict each other ;)

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>15 year old girls don't walk around thinking, "I'm going to be a whore today." They are manipulated by older men 99 times out of 100. No one is saying they bear no responsibility.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Um, actually...

Thinking back to my high school years (a whole 1 1/3 years ago) 15 and 16 year old girls do make a conscious decision to be a whore a lot of the time. They want to be "fashionable" and everyone says it's "fashionable" to sleep around. Sure, sometimes they are manipulated into having sex by older men, or even boys in their own age group. Then again there are the girls who brag about how many guys they blew at the party over the weekend (yes, I did heard claims such as this in highschool).

These threads are a lot better when you've been in them from the start...I'll sit this one out. I'm sure there'll be another one.

I do have a tiny question though but it could be that I misread something...or didn't read it at all...

The opinion on the board seems to be that if a young girl, let's say a 15 year old, goes around looking for sex in a bar that means she is a whore? slut? pick one...

I also seem to get the impression that an abortion is seen as avoiding responsibility for her actions (so I guess I have two questions...). Isn't having an abortion the same as taking the responsibility to have an abortion? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[quote]Originally posted by xenu:
<strong>Who are you to tell anyone they cannot have an abortion, if that is their choice?

Are you really that arrogant?

It is not your call. You have no say in it.
None. Zero.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who are you to tell me that I cannot tell anyone else that they cannot have an abortion, if that is my choice? Are you really that arrogant? It is not your call. You have no say in it. None. Zero.

By your logic I shouldn't be able to tell a theif not to steal my stuff.
[quote]<strong>When will people learn to keep their faces out of other peoples private lives?

What next? Banning porn, because you don't like the idea of adults looking at naked people in the privacy of their own homes?

Censoring the internet because, shock, horror, some kid might see a naked person, or read adult themes?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Porn doesn't kill. Abortion does.

[quote]Originally posted by xenu:
<strong> A theif stealing your stuff affects you, personally.

A complete stranger deciding to have an abortion doesn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure I agree that there's a distinction -- wrong is wrong no matter who's involved -- but if it's important to you, for now we can say there is a distinction.

Your logic says that I can't tell a thief that he can't steal a complete stranger's stuff.
<strong> [quote]Since we are being polite about this, I will not use the actual words I am thinking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for staying polite. The general lack of flame wars is one reason I like coming here. :)

Whisper, your reply actually made me laugh out loud.

What does a thief stealing property, that doesn't belong to him/her, have anything to do with having control over your body?

What is wrong is completely subjective, and a sign of the times. It is not a universal law. Abortion is only wrong in your opinion. That's fine.

Plenty disagree with you. I am one of them.

It's called freedom to choose. You choose against it. That's fine. You don't want to have an abortion? Don't have one. You don't want to look at naked people? Don't. However, you may not make that call for another person.

Actually, you cannot tell a thief not to steal. You can point out that it is illegal, and will probably annoy the person he/she is stealing from, but you cannot stop them. Again, it's their call.

BRussell, I'm not sure I understand whay you are saying.

A choice is just that. If a woman wants an abortion, for what ever reason, that's her choice.

It should be a choice because of something called freedom.

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

Of course we know when life begins - conception.

OK, but I think most people are talking about what you might call personhood, and when people say life they often really mean personhood.<hr></blockquote>

Which is why there was more to my post: "... The only reason why we are debating the matter is because we are talking about human life here and we are trying to determine whether or not there are circumstances in which we can choose to not protect individual human lives. The guesswork people are engaging in is where to draw the line. But that line isn't about when life begins. It's about when we all will agree human life should be legally protected."

[quote]And even if we determine personhood, we still don't know the answer to the abortion question. It's not simply a question of determining the legal rights of one individual, but of balancing two that are intertwined...<hr></blockquote>

Right, if all we were talking about was the right of a woman to control her own body then there would be no argument from me. But we are also talking about another human life. Current law doesn't "balance" the two. It simply decides in favor of the strong against the weak.

While I think abortions should be legal (it's going to happen anyhow) It's the feel good tactics that upset me. The trying to put a rosy picture on the whole situation that "Oh it's not a real person!" :rolleyes: To justify the actions. It's putting a end to a life. Plain and simple.

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>Give me a beak. Partial birth abortions aren't even illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>You'll get no breaks from me - partial birth abortion is illegal in the majority of states. It would have been illegal in the entire country if the Congress had allowed an exception for the "death or very serious, long-term, potentially disabling injury" to the mother, as Clinton wanted when he vetoed the bill.

Almost all of these procedures, which are less then a tenth of 1% of all abortions, are used in cases where the child has hydrocephalus and could not be delivered without killing or maiming the mother without first reducing the size of the fetus' skull. So who doesn't want to balance rights of individuals?

In the 1999 bill, Dems proposed an amendment which would have distinguished the "health" clause from the broad one used in Roe, and limited it to very serious disabling injury to the woman. Santorum and the Republicans defeated that amendment.

Even the pro-life groups <a href="http://www.missionariestopreborn.com/mtpupdate2_98.htm" target="_blank"> say that this procedure is used in less than 1% of all abortions.</a> That infamous 1000 in NJ was not from a randomly selected state. One doctor was found who was using this procedure when it shouldn't have been used, and he was doing it in NJ. The scumbag should be sanctioned, disbarred or whatever it's called (maybe he was?). Again, the bill that Clinton would have signed would have stopped that doctor, but Santorum et al. didn't want that bill signed. And of course NJ could make it illegal at any time without the US Congress.

Why are so many people concerned with the moral and ethical load of total strangers? If a woman decides to have her fetus aborted, then what business is that of anyone except the woman, her doctor and the father? Why should the nation's hard-pressed police force and court system get involved with turning someone's personal tragedies, dysfunctions and moral dilemmas into another class of manufactured crime?

Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. Making drink illegal did not stop drinking. Same with drugs, or gambling, or prostitution or any other artificial "sin". Prohibition (of drugs, alcohol, abortion etc) generates more problems than the "sin" that the law was intended to stamp out. If Roe vs Wade is overturned, and abortion providers are outlawed, then those who can afford to travel to a clinic outside the country will do just that, within the law, out of US jurisdiction. Those who cannot afford it will use whatever other methods are available, going outside of the law. Abortions will continue, legal or otherwise.

Passing laws against abortion is just one more instance of big, intrusive government invading the private life of Americans. Since illegitimizing abortion will never prevent abortions from happening, then perhaps the purpose of such a law is not to stop abortions! Similarly, the laws against drugs do not stop drug abuse, and generate huge profits for traffickers, and generate a $50 billion annual windfall for "correction" corporations.

Myself, I would never, in a bazillion years, have an abortion. But that is *my* business, and absolutely *not* the US Government's. Or anyone's on this board. Many folk think it is wrong to have an abortion. That is very fair: morally and philosophically there are some very snaggly issues. But it *must* in the final outcome, be down to the personal decision of the woman. When officialdom and bureaucracy gets involved with making such personal and intimate decisions regarding people's very own bodies, then this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which in my view is fundamentally anti or un-American in character.

Finally, if any such laws are passed, then it would be primarily *men* who would be involved with the drafting and passage of the act; a bunch of mainly *old men*, many of whom are supremely out of touch with women's issues and think that females should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

In the war on terror, I hope that President Bush is true to his word, and those terrorists who bomb and set fire to women's clinics, or who shoot doctors are "brought to the swiftest justice.

Against abortion services? Then get a vasectomy. Period.

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>In the war on terror, I hope that President Bush is true to his word, and those terrorists who bomb and set fire to women's clinics, or who shoot doctors are "brought to the swiftest justice.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If there isn't a standing ovation smiley it should be invented for this comment alone.

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

You wanted to start questioning motives, but what Clinton did was unpopular according to the polls, and the Dems didn't use mass-mailings saying they were in favor of killing babies with their big toes in their mother's vagina.<hr></blockquote>

Hmmm. You think that maybe, just maybe, Clinton couldn't afford to bail on NARAL? As to the charge of bad faith here's a newsflash: the partial birth abortion ban itself represented a dramatic retreat from the pro-life position throughout the '80's. Just who is doing the compromising here and who is digging in their heels? (BTW, by your description you don't seem to even know what this procedure entails.)

Leaving aside the politics of the issue, as I've already pointed out, the AMA says this procedure is bad medicine. You can amend all you want but you still can't this into an appropriate procedure. <a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/special/womh/library/readroom/vol_280a/cv80000x.htm" target="_blank">This</a> is from the JAMA Women's Health Information Center.

[quote]There exist no credible studies on intact D&X that evaluate or attest to its safety. The procedure is not recognized in medical textbooks nor is it taught in medical schools or in obstetrics and gynecology residencies. Intact D&X poses serious medical risks to the mother. Patients who undergo an intact D&X are at risk for the potential complications associated with any surgical midtrimester termination, including hemorrhage, infection, and uterine perforation. However, intact D&X places these patients at increased risk of 2 additional complications. First, the risk of uterine rupture may be increased. An integral part of the D&X procedure is an internal podalic version, during which the physician instrumentally reaches into the uterus, grasps the fetus' feet, and pulls the feet down into the cervix, thus converting the lie to a footling breech. The internal version carries risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus...

None of these risks are medically necessary because other procedures are available to physicians who deem it necessary to perform an abortion late in pregnancy. As ACOG policy states clearly, intact D&X is never the only procedure available. Some clinicians have considered intact D&X necessary when hydrocephalus is present. However, a hydrocephalic fetus could be aborted by first draining the excess fluid from the fetal skull through ultrasound-guided cephalocentesis. Some physicians who perform abortions have been concerned that a ban on late abortions would affect their ability to provide other abortion services. Because of the proposed changes in federal legislation, it is clear that only intact D&X would be banned...<hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:

STENBERG v. CARHART

BRussell's reply:

And why was that law overturned? It was worded too vaguely and could have included any abortions (i.e., D&E vs. D&X), and because it had no provision at all for the health of the mother. The court left it crystal clear what type of bill would be acceptable. Why didn't Nebraska immediately turn around and pass such a law?<hr></blockquote>

Nebraska is one of the most Republican states in the nation. You think that maybe they weren't thinking too much about wedge issues when most of them have safe seats anyway?

<a href="http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0010/articles/symposium-smolin.html" target="_blank">The Supreme Court 2000</a>:
A Symposium

Copyright (c) 2000 First Things 106 (October 2000).

[quote]David M. Smolin

(David M. Smolin is Professor of Law at Cumberland Law School of Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, and Fellow of the Southern Center for Law and Ethics. He was primary author of a medical facts brief in Stenberg that was cited in both majority and dissenting opinions.)

Stenberg is historic because it constitutionally validates and protects an extreme and horrific form of abortion bordering on infanticide, while placing this validation in the context of explicitly gruesome descriptions of the various forms of lateterm abortion. The legal issues and factual background of Stenberg forced each Justice to confront the raw facts of precisely how abortion brings about the destruction of the human fetus...

Stenberg represented a significant hardening of the abortion rights position of Justice O'Connor. The Stenberg dissenters repeatedly cited and quoted Justice O'Connor's abortion opinions from the 1980s, in which she had criticized the Court for operating as "the nation's ex officio medical board with powers to approve or disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States." She had then emphasized the superior position of legislatures over courts to make such factual medical judgments, argued for the right of states to regulate abortion despite the views of medical organizations on "the physical safety of a particular procedure," and complained of "an unprecedented canon of construction under which in cases involving abortion a permissible [constitutional] reading of a statute is to be avoided at all costs." But Justice O'Connor's prior abortion opinions did not prevent her from adhering in Stenberg to all that she had previously criticized, and now in a context far more explicit as to the underlying horror of lateterm abortion.

In 1992, Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, and David Souter had banded together to issue a joint opinion reaffirming the essentials of Roe on the grounds of adhering to precedent, while claiming to create a more moderate standard of judicial review for abortion regulations that would allow room for significant legislative activity on behalf of the unborn. Any one of the three could have provided the fifth vote at that time to overrule Roe, but they chose instead to band together and reaffirm it. Justice Kennedy strove mightily to show that Stenberg was a betrayal, rather than a logical consequence, of their infamous Casey joint opinion, and he has good cause to believe that Nebraska's prohibition of partialbirth abortion should have been constitutional under Casey's approach to interpreting and reviewing abortion regulations.

Justice Kennedy argued that partialbirth abortion could rationally be viewed as worse than D&E abortion because it was closer to infanticide and subverted obstetrical childbirth techniques to kill the fetus delivered partially outside of the mother, thereby particularly endangering the reputation and ethical integrity of the medical profession. Yet, despite his prior vote to protect D&E abortion, Justice Kennedy conceded that "those who oppose abortion" would subject both partialbirth abortion and D&E abortion "to the most severe moral condemnation, condemnation reserved for the most repulsive human conduct." It is difficult to know whether Justice Kennedy is having pangs of conscience for his role in preserving elective abortion. It is clear enough, however, that now that Justice Kennedy is no longer needed as the fifth vote to uphold Roe, Justices O'Connor and Souter no longer feel bound to accord even minimalistic abortion regulations the more moderate level of review promised in their Casey opinion... <hr></blockquote>

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>