[Shaddim]

Yes, I also made it a poll, for those not wanting to voice their view.

Personally, I'm pro-choice, with some notable exceptions. The main one being, I think 3 months (first trimester) is plenty of time for a woman to make up her mind about whether she's going to carry a baby to term.

Yes, I do have some experience in this dept. In fact, it's one of the reasons I'm divorced. My wife had an abortion without my knowledge, only telling me in an "off the cuff" fashion after the fact. We could have talked about it, and I would have supported her choice... it was just a shitty way to find out and erroded my trust in her.

Any how, do you think the Gov't is overstepping it's bounds by banning this type of late-term abortion? What are your views on the procedure itself? Thoughts? Rants?

[macvillage.net]

I'm for 2 clauses:

As with all laws regarding medical procedures... clause for health of the patient.

Second. Clause permiting research for alternative methods (something a bit better for all involved). I'd bet something exists.

Don't like the current method. But don't like the alternative either. I think the better middle solution has been ignored by 2 extremist sides.

[MacGorilla]

I'm pro-choice but I am not thrilled with PB abortions. I'm not thrilled with the law either because it leaves little wiggle room for sound medical need.

[thunderous_funker]

I think the law in unecessary. Its a statistically rare procedure that will arguably be relegated to the wastebin of medical history soon enough.

A government rubber stamp is an unnecessary infringement on the liberty of doctors and women to determine the best course of action. Not only that, but the law is clearly intended as a putting a foot in the door of overturning Roe v. Wade. Its purely political and serves no real medical or ethical purpose.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think the law in unecessary. Its a statistically rare procedure that will arguably be relegated to the wastebin of medical history soon enough.

A government rubber stamp is an unnecessary infringement on the liberty of doctors and women to determine the best course of action. Not only that, but the law is clearly intended as a putting a foot in the door of overturning Roe v. Wade. Its purely political and serves no real medical or ethical purpose.

Though "statistically rare" the number of P-B abortions has been on the rise over the last several years, according to a poll conducted by the AMA.

The 2,200 D&X abortions (conducted in the year 2000) account for 0.17 percent of the more than 1.3 million abortions overall, said institute researchers Lawrence B. Finer and Stanley K. Henshaw.

Though "statistically" rare, 2200 of these procedures a year is still rather substantial. In fact, common enough (IMO) to warrant scrutiny. To put it into perspective, if a pesticide were causing 2200 late-term miscarriages a year I'm sure there would be legislation passed regarding it's ban or control.

I think a "foot in the door" regarding certain aspects of abortion legislation may be warranted. The majority of Americans still support pro-choice (55%), however, only 17% support 3rd term abortion procedures. Again IMO, this type of practice, towards a fetus which could easily be viable outside the womb during that time, is disgusting. Is it too much to ask for a person to make up her mind within the first 5 months of pregnancy?

[Zimphire]

Once you are pregnant it's just not HER body that needs protected.

We should ban all forms of abortion used as "birth control" and only keep those that are detrimental the woman's health.

[Spliffdaddy]

Is it too much to ask to not accidentally get pregnant?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Is it too much to ask to not accidentally get pregnant?

No one has sex "on accident"

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No one has sex "on accident"

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The denial in here is thick.

If medical doctors claim she was raped, she was.

Of course I am sure some of you would rather blame the US army of raping her than the Iraqi pig dogs.

Zimphire stating that Jessica Lynch wasn't raped "on accident"

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Is it too much to ask to not accidentally get pregnant?

Not at all, but Rape happens.

Also situations where there are serious complications with a pregency posing serious risk to the mother. While medicine has greatly reduced the risk of a mother dying during childbirth... it still happens on occasion. It's very sad.

Not to mention serious inoperable birth deformaties.

IMHO it may be better to abort a pregency early, rather than let a child suffer for a few weeks post-birth when there are serious issues with the child's health that can't be resolved through medicine. Why an innocent child should suffer all that pain, with no chance. Not everything is curable. I know some people sadistically enjoy such suffering. But still... is it really ethical to put someone through that?

Originally posted by petehammer:
Zimphire stating that Jessica Lynch wasn't raped "on accident"

Great post. Was thinking the same thing.

Now we get to hear a reply about how that's an exception because God wasn't in Iraq... or some sillyness.

[Spliffdaddy]

So abortion is only OK if you were raped or harmed by the pregnancy?

What about the other 99.999999999% of late-term abortion-seekers who were not raped and suffered no ill-effects from pregnancy?

What's their excuse?

It slipped their mind?

They weren't aware they were pregnant for over 5 months?

What about the rights of the father? Does he have no say in the matter? I suggest that fathers can sue for damages if their child is aborted. For those that think a man can't feel the same emotions as a woman when it comes to the well-being of a child - I offer you a personal one-on-one bitchslap.

There's a stigma attached to abortion. And rightly so. Just as there's a stigma attached to anything that reflects poor judgement on the part of any human being.

If a person is so careless in regards to human life - I can only imagine they are careless in most every aspect of their life. Like a convicted felon - never to be completely trusted.

[Troll]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Zimphire stating that Jessica Lynch wasn't raped "on accident"

Uh, with all due respect for Jessica and without getting too graphic, there was very little risk of Lynch getting pregnant given that the medical evidence is supposed to suggest that she was sodomised.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Troll:
Uh, with all due respect for Jessica and without getting too graphic, there was very little risk of Lynch getting pregnant given that the medical evidence is supposed to suggest that she was sodomised.

The point was that Zimphire should not state that no one has sex "on accident" to defend eliminating abortions and then go on a tirade about rape.

Spliffdaddy's post suggests what is always interesting about anti-abortionists: they really want the baby to be born, but once it is, they do not want to provide any assistance to help it grow up. They slash funding for welfare, to single mothers, to school programs. Basically,

Anti-Abortion: "Have that baby!"
Woman: "Okay, I didn't abort it. Thanks, but my child and I need assistance or we'll starve."
AA: "Are you kidding? Take some personal responsibility!"
Woman: "That's why I was going to abort it. It's my body, my personal responsibility."
AA: "Abortion is murder. And welfare is for losers!"

[Troll]

Originally posted by petehammer:
The point was that Zimphire should not state that no one has sex "on accident" to defend eliminating abortions and then go on a tirade about rape.

I got that and agree with you 100%.

[Spliffdaddy]

Funny how these abortion discussions always hilight the eighteen legitimate abortions performed each year while ignoring the other million-and-a-half abortions that were performed for reasons other than rape or 'threatened life of mother'.

Geez. You won't find very many opponents to abortions performed under those 2 scenarios.

What you WILL find is plenty of opposition to the vast majority of abortions that were performed for NO good reason.

The bottom rung on my 'ladder of respect' is reserved for people who are careless with human life. The truly greedy and self-serving. I wonder what reason they find to live for. I wonder what they think life is about. I'll leave 'em on that bottom rung until I die - or even worse - until I understand them.

Would anyone be willing to allow abortions only after proof is shown that the abortion is 'legitimate'? That is, require a police report for cases of rape and a medical evaluation to support claims that the pregnancy would harm the mother.

That way, every woman that needs an abortion can get one. Just like today.

[petehammer]

Also funny how Conservatives want to get the government's hands off their guns, but want strict control of women's bodies.

Or, how so-called right-to-life people have a propensity to support the death penalty.

Many people, myself included, are pro-choice. Meaning, we may not like abortion, but we support a woman's right to choose. Just like how you can support free speech but not the speech itself.

Rape or no rape, a woman has a right to safe, effective medical care.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Funny how these abortion discussions always hilight the eighteen legitimate abortions performed each year while ignoring the other million-and-a-half abortions that were performed for reasons other than rape or 'threatened life of mother'.

Geez. You won't find very many opponents to abortions performed under those 2 scenarios.

What you WILL find is plenty of opposition to the vast majority of abortions that were performed for NO good reason.

The bottom rung on my 'ladder of respect' is reserved for people who are careless with human life. The truly greedy and self-serving. I wonder what reason they find to live for. I wonder what they think life is about. I'll leave 'em on that bottom rung until I die - or even worse - until I understand them.

I think I might be pro-life if there were a law that protected the women by creating streamlined paternity testing, compulsory paternal support in the form not only of money but forced time off work to look after the child, with a state-sponsored safety net of money and administration to help the mother who can't afford the child herself and is having no joy with the father. The law needs to distribute the burden more evenly. If society believes it is in society's interest to force the mother have the child, then society takes on the responsibility for the child.

As things stand, so long as 9 times out of 10 the woman bears the entire responsibility for the child, I think she should be entitled to decide whether she is ready for that responsibility. I don't think it serves any purpose whatsoever to culpabilise women who for whatever reason wind up pregnant and unable to provide properly emotionally or financially the kind of environment a kid needs to become a functioning member of society. I think those women are doing us all a favour by deciding not to bring another life into a world that cannot be provided for. The way society is structured today, the last thing we need is more poor, disliked kids from broken homes.

Another misconception I see is people assuming that abortion is easy. That people use it as birth control. As in they don't bother with contraception and then pop off a few weeks later and have it whipped out. My brief experience in this area is that women who've gone through it once will do almost anything to avoid the situation again. If they wind up back in the clinic, it's because they had no other option. In my experience, abortion is not considered a form of birth control; it's considered a lifeline in the worst case scenario.

[Spliffdaddy]

think about what you're saying, Troll.


Do you value human life or just pretend to?


There is no shortage of food, water, air - or any other other items required to support life.

Your point about preferring humans dead over being poor is way way out there.

Read your post, Troll. Then compare it to your others. Does something look out of place to you?

Where's the repect for human life? Why aren't you vigorously defending the underdog this time?

Where's Troll? What did you do with him?

As long as I live there will never be an 'unwanted child' - so that old dog won't hunt anymore.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Zimphire stating that Jessica Lynch wasn't raped "on accident"

No that isn't having sex, that is being raped.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Also funny how Conservatives want to get the government's hands off their guns, but want strict control of women's bodies.

Or, how so-called right-to-life people have a propensity to support the death penalty.

Many people, myself included, are pro-choice. Meaning, we may not like abortion, but we support a woman's right to choose. Just like how you can support free speech but not the speech itself.

Rape or no rape, a woman has a right to safe, effective medical care.

It's just not the womans body when she is pregnant.

And I am against the DP too.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Also funny how Conservatives want to get the government's hands off their guns, but want strict control of women's bodies.

Or, how so-called right-to-life people have a propensity to support the death penalty.

Many people, myself included, are pro-choice. Meaning, we may not like abortion, but we support a woman's right to choose. Just like how you can support free speech but not the speech itself.

Rape or no rape, a woman has a right to safe, effective medical care.

Strict? How about just using some common sense? A rubber? The pill? IUD? Diaphram? FOAM? Sponge (not available anymore in US)? depo-provera? 99% of the time a person has an abortion because they "oops"ed. Alright, so I don't like it, and I personally find it reprehensible. HOWEVER, I'd be willing to let a person have the first trimester to decide. The fetus isn't capable of much, if any, higher brain function at that time. I think that's a good compromise.

As far as capital punishment, what did an 8 month old fetus ever do to you? They are the definition of "innocent". You detest the death penalty but want people to be able to kill a fetus that's at a stage where it likely would be viable outside the mother's womb?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No one has sex "on accident"

Your parents did. Look at the result.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Funny how these abortion discussions always hilight the eighteen legitimate abortions performed each year while ignoring the other million-and-a-half abortions that were performed for reasons other than rape or 'threatened life of mother'.

Geez. You won't find very many opponents to abortions performed under those 2 scenarios.

What you WILL find is plenty of opposition to the vast majority of abortions that were performed for NO good reason.

The bottom rung on my 'ladder of respect' is reserved for people who are careless with human life. The truly greedy and self-serving. I wonder what reason they find to live for. I wonder what they think life is about. I'll leave 'em on that bottom rung until I die - or even worse - until I understand them.

Would anyone be willing to allow abortions only after proof is shown that the abortion is 'legitimate'? That is, require a police report for cases of rape and a medical evaluation to support claims that the pregnancy would harm the mother.

That way, every woman that needs an abortion can get one. Just like today.

With all the women raped daily (2nd time today):
http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html

Just by playing with basic math, you can add a few zero's after the numberical value '18'.


And based on about a hundred surveys. Most (over 90%) of people who consider themselves "pro-life" (or the politically incorect "slanderious" term "anti-abortion", as 'anti' is a slur in most states).... don't believe in *ANY* exception.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Troll:
Another misconception I see is people assuming that abortion is easy. That people use it as birth control. As in they don't bother with contraception and then pop off a few weeks later and have it whipped out. My brief experience in this area is that women who've gone through it once will do almost anything to avoid the situation again. If they wind up back in the clinic, it's because they had no other option. In my experience, abortion is not considered a form of birth control; it's considered a lifeline in the worst case scenario.

The whole post was spot on, but this part really bears repeating.

There are several reasons why late term abortions happen:

• problems with the fetus may not be noticed until late term
• thousands of women to not seek early pre-natal care, so again anything happening with the pregnancy may not be detected until late term
• the situation of the parents might drastically change effecting the ability or desire of the parent to take on the responsibility of a child

An abortion is not a decision taken lightly by the overwhelming majority of women who undergo the procedure. The anguish and pain of that decision does not lessen late term, rather the opposite. A vast majority of doctors will not perform the procedure banned in this legislation, as there are other options which are less traumatic and invasive.

But just as a discussion of this statistically rare procedure has raged into the traditional debate over abortion in general, this law is purely motivated by politics and an overt attempt to begin chipping away at the liberty of doctors and mothers to make their own choices to suit their specific needs and situations.

Some people simply will not rest until they can use the power of the federal government to impose their will on everyone.

[el chupacabra]

I don't see any problem with abortion at all, regardless of what stage it is. You see it has its purpose in nature. Everything does and everything happens for a reason. Abortion is part of the natural process of evolution and therefore it should be allowed in all circumstances. If for some reason someone has an abortion it is because they were unfit to reproduce and pass on their genetic material. For example if someone is raped they may have an abortion. This is natures way of preventing a rapists genetic material from passing on, or a rapists material combined with a weak minded person's material (this wouldn't be good), and when I say weak minded that's not a bad thing its just a point of relativity, in other words the weakest won't survive even if they are strong (don't make me get into the heavy philosophy as to how nature does make decisions for us, it is how we got this far), maybe some teenager gets pregnant and doesn't think it can handle a kid, then it will probably have an abortion. This is how nature weeds out the weak minded or physically unable people that can't either: say no to sex, use protection, can't handle the stress of a kid etc. In other words nature has helped us so we won't have a kid running around now with the same mental/physical/psychological weaknesses as the parent. There are many exceptions to the rule but ultimately evolution always prevails........ALWAYS. If a rape victim decides not to go through with abortion then it is by nature that she was of a strong enough will so that she was fit to pass on her genetic material. This is how evolution works and it's a beautiful thing because nature in beautiful and nature is of god and god (god to me is a metaphor for good not a deity, I don't believe in deities) is of goodness and goodness is beautiful and therefore evolution's actions of weeding people out of the population is beautiful. Evolution always leads to progression. Unless someone aka the government tries to tell people what to do in its own name and ideals. The government serves it purpose too but sometimes it needs to let nature handle things that are of nature.

Now I must explain myself since you all hate me.

Having said all that you must realize what kind of point of view this is coming from because you probably could bring up an argument like: "what about the rights of the baby?". My answer to that would be the baby has no rights as it is not born. This baby is no more innocent than it is guilty. It is nothing, it only has the sentimental value one places on it. It has not proven itself to nature, society or anything. The only thing that has proven itself in relation to the baby is the parents and that is why they will make the right decision. You might also say: "what about the baby, what about the baby! It's a human being! its ...its murder!". My point of view: I don't give a hoot whether its a human or not. I see nothing special about human life. People are hypocrites, they can kill an animal whether it be for necessity or just out of fun, even put things to extinction, yet when it's a god dam stupid human (one of the most horrible evil creatures on earth) its worth more than anything else. People should look at themselves at being at the bottom not the top. Or at the very least equal. So in the eyes of me if you can condone the killing of an animal like a rabbit, cow, or a fish. You are as much a murderer as if you killed a human. At the same token I won't be having a kid because of my weaknesses. Apparently it is a bad thing to be as smart as me. What evolution does is weed out individuals that aren't fit for their environment. Since I see things from such a simple and purely logical point of view I don't fit in and am unproductive. Ignorance is bliss. It is a good thing for people to believe in emotions and personal make believe deities. It is good for people to be so gullible they believe in a book that some crazy philosophers wrote 2000 years ago about things they decided they liked and therefore called good and called the voice of god in their head. This makes people happy and brings meaning to their pathetic life. For this reason I am a good example of someone who doesn't fit in and won't...probably can't pass on my genetic material.
Abortion is good now you are all enlightened.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Your parents did. Look at the result.

You want to knock the little kid stupidity off please?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Your point about preferring humans dead over being poor is way way out there.

That's not my point. My point is that as long as it's the mother that will bear the consequences of the child being brought into this world, it's she who should take the decision on whether it does or doesn't. If society wants to dictate the decision to her, then society should accept the consequences of the decision and provide for the child.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Any how, do you think the Gov't is overstepping it's bounds by banning this type of late-term abortion? What are your views on the procedure itself? Thoughts? Rants?

Government has no constitutional right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

I'm dismayed that so many senators voted for this bill.

The judge who struck it down did the right thing.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
I don't see any problem with abortion at all, regardless of what stage it is. You see it has its purpose in nature. Everything does and everything happens for a reason. Abortion is part of the natural process of evolution and therefore it should be allowed in all circumstances. If for some reason someone has an abortion it is because they were unfit to reproduce and pass on their genetic material. For example if someone is raped they may have an abortion. This is natures way of preventing a rapists genetic material from passing on, or a rapists material combined with a weak minded person's material (this wouldn't be good), and when I say weak minded that's not a bad thing its just a point of relativity, in other words the weakest won't survive even if they are strong (don't make me get into the heavy philosophy as to how nature does make decisions for us, it is how we got this far), maybe some teenager gets pregnant and doesn't think it can handle a kid, then it will probably have an abortion. This is how nature weeds out the weak minded or physically unable people that can't either: say no to sex, use protection, can't handle the stress of a kid etc. In other words nature has helped us so we won't have a kid running around now with the same mental/physical/psychological weaknesses as the parent. There are many exceptions to the rule but ultimately evolution always prevails........ALWAYS. If a rape victim decides not to go through with abortion then it is by nature that she was of a strong enough will so that she was fit to pass on her genetic material. This is how evolution works and it's a beautiful thing because nature in beautiful and nature is of god and god (god to me is a metaphor for good not a deity, I don't believe in deities) is of goodness and goodness is beautiful and therefore evolution's actions of weeding people out of the population is beautiful. Evolution always leads to progression. Unless someone aka the government tries to tell people what to do in its own name and ideals. The government serves it purpose too but sometimes it needs to let nature handle things that are of nature.

Now I must explain myself since you all hate me.

Having said all that you must realize what kind of point of view this is coming from because you probably could bring up an argument like: "what about the rights of the baby?". My answer to that would be the baby has no rights as it is not born. This baby is no more innocent than it is guilty. It is nothing, it only has the sentimental value one places on it. It has not proven itself to nature, society or anything. The only thing that has proven itself in relation to the baby is the parents and that is why they will make the right decision. You might also say: "what about the baby, what about the baby! It's a human being! its ...its murder!". My point of view: I don't give a hoot whether its a human or not. I see nothing special about human life. People are hypocrites, they can kill an animal whether it be for necessity or just out of fun, even put things to extinction, yet when it's a god dam stupid human (one of the most horrible evil creatures on earth) its worth more than anything else. People should look at themselves at being at the bottom not the top. Or at the very least equal. So in the eyes of me if you can condone the killing of an animal like a rabbit, cow, or a fish. You are as much a murderer as if you killed a human. At the same token I won't be having a kid because of my weaknesses. Apparently it is a bad thing to be as smart as me. What evolution does is weed out individuals that aren't fit for their environment. Since I see things from such a simple and purely logical point of view I don't fit in and am unproductive. Ignorance is bliss. It is a good thing for people to believe in emotions and personal make believe deities. It is good for people to be so gullible they believe in a book that some crazy philosophers wrote 2000 years ago about things they decided they liked and therefore called good and called the voice of god in their head. This makes people happy and brings meaning to their pathetic life. For this reason I am a good example of someone who doesn't fit in and won't...probably can't pass on my genetic material.
Abortion is good now you are all enlightened.

I think you make very valid points

[Meneldil]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Is it too much to ask to not accidentally get pregnant?

You are aware that every form of birth control short of a hysterectomy has a failure rate, aren't you? I'll look for the study, but if I recall correctly, about 5% of people having sex once a week for one year using a condom correctly will get pregnant. Correct use of the pill was something like 0.5% with the same amount of sex. In addition, the same study also found that the majority of people make mistakes when using most methods of birth control. So, I'd say it is too much to ask that people not accidentally get pregnant.

I support the right of women to choose for four main reasons:

I'm gay, and it's really not likely to ever be any of my business.

Condoms break, you miss a pill, **** happens- while I realize that sounds insensitive towards the child, take a look at how well our society deals with unwanted children- work on fixing that before you make it compulsory to carry a pregnancy to term.

While I may support all sorts of big government when it come to money, I don't support government intervention on things like this- what the government should be doing is providing for schools to offer sex ed classes. (and they can be opt out if it's something the parents want to tackle themselves) You'll probably say that sex ed is a parent's job, and shouldn't be paid for by the state, but think about what is costs the state when unwanted children are left to the care of the state.

Finally, there are many ways the pregnancy can endanger the mother's life, as well as many kinds of birth defects such as hydroencephalitis that mean the baby's quality of life will be nonexistent. I don't support aborting mentally handicapped fetuses, but in cases like hydroencephalitis, where the baby has only a brain stem, I don't see much compassion in giving birth to it so it can 'live' for two weeks attached to a bank of machines and then die.

Edited to add:
Whoops, it looks like even hysterectomies have a failure rate.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03289/231420.stm

And here is the FDA site on birth control effectiveness.
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/babytabl.html

Still can't find the study I read before, but this posts rates higher than what I remember for the condom.

[pooka]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Some people simply will not rest until they can use the power of the federal government to impose their will on everyone.

A-****in-men. You just summed up the left, the right and everyone in-between. Folks need to start minding their own business. Be kind to those around you. Kill only those who irritate you.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by pooka:
A-****in-men. You just summed up the left, the right and everyone in-between. Folks need to start minding their own business. Be kind to those around you. Kill only those who irritate you.

IMHO murder should be a crime ONLY if you kill > 1 person. Exception for children and disabled people. Or if it's done under the influence.

If it's only 1, and your sober... you most likely had a good reason.

If it's greater than 1, you pose a serious risk to society... you should be locked up.

I forget where that was instituted at some point in history... remember reading there was a very low crime rate (all crimes, not just murder). It makes sense.

[swrate]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:


IMHO murder should be a crime ONLY if you kill > 1 person. Exception for children and disabled people. Or if it's done under the influence.

If it's only 1, and your sober... you most likely had a good reason.

If it's greater than 1, you pose a serious risk to society... you should be locked up.

I forget where that was instituted at some point in history... remember reading there was a very low crime rate (all crimes, not just murder). It makes sense.

we should know how to control our pulsions.

3 months, does the foetus have a soul?
its important to decide before one month and a half
if an unwanted birth occured.
the line is so fine.
Incarnations.
choices
Its important both parents decide together,
rape, sickeness or material/psychical bad conditions
are imao good reasons

also contraception is not 100% reliable
do those companies pay for the percentage of new births? Or at least do they contribute?
It would be logical since cigarette companies can be sued.

i just hope it doesn't slowly lead to the way of -no abortion's
allowed.
or pleasing the catholic church ( sorry for my scepticism)

i always wondered since when abortion existed,

Woman over the centuries, learned ways of doing it.
Its important to be able to make the choice fast and be in a medical environement.

People find themselves,in extreme situations

What is strange though, is that in times of war, woman seldom have abortions, they give life, as a revenge.

losing one's nerves,,, and killing,
what if then you keep losing your nerves?
-then you are a terrorist.
so better is to stay calm in worse situations.

by "evacuating" a soul,
you loose one of your own incarnations

[Spliffdaddy]

What is strange though, is that in times of war, woman seldom have abortions, they give life, as a revenge.

That falls along the same lines as what happened in the US during the events of 9/11. The women's shelters emptied out. I don't know whether the women felt less threatened by their abusive spouse or more threatened by terrorism and war.

It's amazing to me how the more comfortable we get, the more things we find that annoy us.

By the way, can you provide proof of the decline of abortions during wartime?

[swrate]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
What is strange though, is that in times of war, woman seldom have abortions, they give life, as a revenge.

That falls along the same lines as what happened in the US during the events of 9/11. The women's shelters emptied out. I don't know whether the women felt less threatened by their abusive spouse or more threatened by terrorism and war.

It's amazing to me how the more comfortable we get, the more things we find that annoy us.

By the way, can you provide proof of the decline of abortions during wartime?

i will try and find some.
I recall reading, after WWII
and a documentary on TV, Chechenya,

when a man's tribe is threatened a surviving instinct would be4 to bare life.

[stupendousman]

Could someone document a "medical need" for having a baby delivered, all but the head, and having it's brains sucked out?

I've done some studying on the matter, and I've yet to see any credible reason this would be necessary, considering the baby is all but born. I guess they didn't include allowances for medical necessity for the same reason they didn't include allowances for doing the procedure in case it was deemed the only way to rid the woman of an implanted space creature, which was put into the woman secretly during an abduction.

Though I generally don't have a problem with abortion being legal for those who are raped (women who aren't given a "choice"). Especially by space aliens.

Originally posted by Troll:
That's not my point. My point is that as long as it's the mother that will bear the consequences of the child being brought into this world, it's she who should take the decision on whether it does or doesn't. If society wants to dictate the decision to her, then society should accept the consequences of the decision and provide for the child.

A. A woman can decide and ensure with 100% accuracy (except in the case of rape) that she never is burdened with "consequences" of a child being brought into the world without resulting to killing her offspring. There are choices available to her which will make it so she does not have to take this chance without resutling to killing her offspring.

B. There already are programs in place for society to accept the consequences of the decision of a women who decides not to ensure with 100% accuracy her decision not to have to care for a child. It's called "adoption" and it requires no life to die.

C. If this were really about "choice", then the man would have the same ability to "choose" not to have to take any responsibility for the choices the woman made and what she chooses to do with her body, when notified of a pregnancy prior to birth. At this time, men who get women pregnant are often times forced to take paternity tests and give a women money regardless of their personal choice not to have offspring. Don't get me wrong...I don't think being a deadbeat is a good idea. It's just a prime example as to why the notion of "choice" is utter BS.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
Government has no constitutional right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

I'm dismayed that so many senators voted for this bill.

The judge who struck it down did the right thing.

You obviously have never read Roe.

From Justice Stewart's concurring opinion:

The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential future human life within her. These are legitimate objectives, amply sufficient to permit a State to regulate abortions as it does other surgical procedures, and perhaps sufficient to permit a State to regulate abortions more stringently or even to prohibit them in the late stages of pregnancy.

(my emphasis)

I think Roe was wrongly decided but even it doesn't assert the state has no constitutional right regulating late term abortions.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
You obviously have never read Roe.

From Justice Stewart's concurring opinionmy emphasis)

I think Roe was wrongly decided but even it doesn't assert the state has no constitutional right regulating late term abortions.

That's a valid point. Very well said.

This whole thing seems to be moot. A statement from Rhenquist read on C-Span this morning said that he didn't feel the new law overstepped the bounds of Roe v. Wade and that it would likely "survive the Justices' scrutiny intact".

[Spliffdaddy]

Those last 3 posts are very good ones.

[Meneldil]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Could someone document a "medical need" for having a baby delivered, all but the head, and having it's brains sucked out?

I'm not saying you've got it wrong, but do you know how the procedure actually works? I don't either, but I doubt it's as you describe above, simply because the baby needs to be delivered head first, not head last. The other way round is known as a breech birth, I believe, and is a serious problem, since it's hard to make two legs go down one tube without the baby doing the splits and getting stuck.

Secondly, I've heard a lot of doctors saying things like 'there is no such thing as a partial birth abortion in medical literature' but I've never heard someone identified as a doctor speaking out against the procedure, or even stating that there is a specific procedure like this. I'm going to go look for something now.

By the way, I don't support partial birth abortion either- in my opinion, if the baby can reasonably be expected to survive, it should be carried to term and, if unwanted or the parents are unable to care for it, should be put up for adoption. I do think it is something that a doctor ought to be able to decide on since cases are never exactly the same. I agree if you can give birth to the baby to kill it, you can probably give birth to it alive, and therefore should. However, I'd like to see politicians working on improving the state of sex education, adoption, child abuse monitoring, and foster care in this country as hard as some have worked to ban this procedure.

[Meneldil]

Pro choice, addressing the new ban.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1465

Health dictionary entry on dilation and evacuation.
http://health_info.nmh.org/Library/H...sp?hwid=tw2462

American Association of Pro Life Ob-Gyns addresses a ban proposed during the Clinton Administration.
http://www.aaplog.org/newspba.htm

I still haven't found a site that actually claims to represent the viewpoints of a group of doctors on the procedure described by pro-life sites in which a fetus is partially delivered and has its brain removed. Apparently this is done legs first if the procedure is done earlier in the pregnancy, so I was wrong in my last post.

On the dilation and evacuation or dilation and extraction procedures, the way these are described leads me to believe there are situations where they could save the mother's life. They are used starting in the second trimester, and many complications of pregnancy don't always present themselves that early. Also, in this case and even in the more widely discussed case done later in the pregnancy, removal of the fetus is often not done in 'traditional'
ways, so it is possible that this procedure could save the life of a mother who would be endangered by actually going into labour. They could do a ceasarean (how do we spell that?) section, but any surgery is always a risk, and it may be more of a risk in some women.

Anyway, I'm still against banning abortions in general. I'd like to see better sex education to relieve the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Should third trimester abortions occur? I don't think so, unless getting the baby out alive poses a serious danger to the mother, but I think we can deal with the issue in better ways than banning late second and third trimester abortions.

[Meneldil]

Edited: I pushed the wrong button. Delete me.

[stupendousman]

I don't believe that the ban outlaws any abortion procedure where the fetus is left in the uterus and killed and "removed" there. I believe that the medical term used is "intact D&E" instead of just "dilation and extraction".

Partial birth abortions of the type that are being banned are typically done because the the baby has grown too large to ensure that all portions of it are "safely" removed from the mother during other procedures which simply tears the unborn child apart in the womb (as described on the page you provided). The only reason one would be done is not to ensure the health of the mother (given that the baby is all but born), but rather ensure that her offspring could be killed.

Of course, there are some doctors who would argue that it being the best way to kill her offspring, it's in the interest of her health to have a PBA, effectively making the ban meaningless....which is why pro-abortion supporters demand the "health of the mother" clause be included. They wanted a loophole where no loophole was rationally needed so they could continue doing what they are doing unabated. They did include a clause that it could be done if it was deemed necessary to save the life of the mother. Of course...that's a determination which is much less debatable (the physician should be able to show a life or death senario), and even then it's never likely to occur because of the circumstances.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Also funny how Conservatives want to get the government's hands off their guns, but want strict control of women's bodies.

Or, how so-called right-to-life people have a propensity to support the death penalty.

Many people, myself included, are pro-choice. Meaning, we may not like abortion, but we support a woman's right to choose. Just like how you can support free speech but not the speech itself.

Rape or no rape, a woman has a right to safe, effective medical care.

Yes.
I am pro-choice. But I support partial-term abortion only when the mother's life is in danger. Remember it is often more than the mother who will suffer if she dies or is disabled. What happens to her existing children?

No woman in their right mind would use abortion as a method of birth control. And NO form of birth control is 100% effective.

And yes also to the comment about a man's responsibility.

[Meneldil]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
I don't believe that the ban outlaws any abortion procedure where the fetus is left in the uterus and killed and "removed" there. I believe that the medical term used is "intact D&E" instead of just "dilation and extraction".

I think I agree with you here.

Here is the text of the law itself:
http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s3.html

I don't see how people are that worried about confusion between what the bill calls a partial birth abortion and other procedures. It's long winded, but the essential part is this, I think:

`(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which--

`(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and

`(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and

The only overlap I see is if a late second trimester or early third trimester fetus is being aborted by dilation and extraction and something goes wrong with the procedure.

My research on this was rather hampered by the tendency of pro life sites to appeal to the viewer's sense of revulsion - I admit, I'm a wimp, and can't watch or look at pictures of any sort of surgery without feeling icky.

Still, while I agree it shouldn't be done, I'm think I'm still against a ban for several reasons, though the main one is that I don't think government should interfere in people's lives in this way. I stand by what I said above- if they want to prevent people getting abortions, improve sex education and adoption/foster programs.

On a tangent:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0031105-1.html
Does anyone else find this creepy? They could have done a lot for PR if even _one_ woman was up on the stage taking part in the signing. As it is, it's a bunch of old white men telling woman what they can and can't do. In addition, not a single woman appears to have co-sponsored the bill. Not saying only a woman can come out and speak on this issue, but since they're the ones who do most of the work in a pregnancy, I suspect some women's groups would be more likely to support this bill if it didn't have an aura of old white men all over it.

[Meneldil]

I just remembered one of the pages I came across mentioning something. I'll see if I can find it, but I can see how it would cause confusion.

Apparently there is a point in time in the second trimester where the baby will be born live, and even continue to breathe (or try to, anyway) for up to an hour or so and slowly die of brain damage because it's getting just enough oxygen to last awhile, but not enough to sustain itself since the lungs aren't well developed. What about this situation? The act states that anyone attempting to deliver a fetus and killing it is in violation, but it fails to address (as far as I can tell) the question of what if the fetus would have died soon after, or during delivery because it's skeleton isn't developed enough? Is it more humane to purposefully kill the fetus during delivery, or to let it die by crushing (in the case of an underdeveloped skeleton) or slow suffocation, etc. You could kill the fetus in the uterus, as in a dilation and extraction, but if the abortion is being performed for the safety of the mother, it's concievable that sticking things in her would be riskier for her than waiting for the fetus to come out by inducing labor, depending on the complication.

Also, how to you measure viability? Is it viable if it will survive on its own, or does it count if you can keep it alive with the latest and greatest in medical technology? That's a difference of a few weeks, I believe.

If it's got say a 25% chance of survival by being intubated for several weeks, isn't it possibly a valid choice for the parents to not put their child through this? What if a doctor believes the best way to get a fetus out during the late second trimester is to induce labor instead of grabbing around inside her uterus? If the baby can survive birth but will suffocate, is it more humane to kill the baby or to let it die naturally?