[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Since Bernard Nathanson isn't a statistician, and didn't testify at RvW, his opinion is irrelevant. Pretty much everything he's ever said since switching sides has been completely irrelevant, his ultrasound "evidence" especially.

Is the CDC reliable enough?
Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the number of women who died in 1972 from illegal abortion was thirty-nine (39)

That's not even close to the 5000 to 10000 that was claimed.

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

My experience is only with sub-standard poodles which seem to have been bred for their stupidity.

Ahh... the micro-brain issue.

[besson3c]

Railroader: ignore list. Not hard to do

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Is the CDC reliable enough?
Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's not even close to the 5000 to 10000 that was claimed.

So what? The numbers aren't the issue. Besides, R v W made reference to a study from the 1930s on abortion-related deaths, which was probably pretty accurate for an era without penicillin. The numbers weren't inflated, as you say.

You favor partial-birth abortion up until hours before birth?

Since it never happens, sure why not. I also favour the raping and killing of Martian invaders, and the slaughter of unicorns to make flying potions.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So you feel that the government should be in the business of outlawing morals?

I would say so but only so far as your moral choices infringe upon others. If I were to kill somebody in your family that would obviously infringe upon you, whereas my having an abortion would not.

I still don't understand this whole contradiction between conservatives wanting freedoms but being selective about which freedoms they want and what role the government should play in seeing that this is so.

It seems as though they insist on creating a nanny state.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Jebus, the obvious answer here is "don't have sex."

That's all fine and good, until the woman is raped.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I consider you one of the more intelligent persons here, but I am flummoxed that it has taken you this long to come to this conclusion. He's the reason I only drop by once every week or so, just to see if he's left and the place has a chance to return back to a tolerable site once again. I am getting pretty discouraged and can only keep that hope for so long though.

You're talking about besson3c here, right? He's pretty much the friendliest voice in this place.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Come on now. I would go so far as to say, with complete ignorance of the actual figures, that the majority of Canadians wouldn't agree with full-term abortion. And I would also say - with similar ignorance - that every political party in Canada is not fine with this, but that it's such a hot political topic that "ignore it and it'll either go away or the SCC will make a ruling and save us" is the de facto approach.

Whatever Canadians "wouldn't agree with," they don't seem to care about changing it. And since every political party in Canada has chosen pro-choice leaders, I'd say they are fine with it too. If they won't touch a topic, then they don't really care about it. And no one is expecting the SCC to rule against abortion.

Even the most anti-choice party in Canadian history, the Reform party, didn't directly propose laws against it, but recommended a referendum, which they knew could only pass if it was very liberal. That's nothing compared to the anti-choice lobby in the US and the pointless, harassing laws they draft up to limit access. We'd never see that kind of stupidity in the Great White North.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Since it never happens, sure why not. I also favour the raping and killing of Martian invaders, and the slaughter of unicorns to make flying potions.

Ah, but those and other types of late-term abortions do happen, to the tune of >1000 /year in the USA alone, and being the type who just tries to pass such things off as a joke speaks volumes about you. Anyone who would murder a baby that could be viable outside of a mother's womb, just for the sake of convenience, isn't worth a bucket of cold piss. That also goes for those who endorse and support such things.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That's all fine and good, until the woman is raped.

Morning After pill, IUD, abortion up to 12 weeks, I think that's quite a few safeguards.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You can dig your head into the sand and scream about how the Court "has no jurisdiction to create new policy" all you want, but the fact is, that by applying constitutional review to existing law the Court necessarily expands or narrows the scope of available policy. That's kind of the whole point of the enterprise. Them's the breaks, sorry.

That was never the intention of our founders. They never intended for the courts to "expand" the scope of the Constitution to where it was never intended to go. If it wasn't to be found there in the first place, and wasn't the intention of the founders, it was to be added via amendment or be allowed to be legislated via the state. They made their wishes clear. They didn't intend for judges to decide for themselves to interject law where they could just because they felt it would be a good idea.

Abortion existed at the time our founders created the Constitution, and they allowed it to be regulated without guaranteeing any right to it. This was their choice. Since this right isn't explicitly granted, wasn't something new that they never had an opportunity to consider, and was allowed to be strictly regulated at the time the Constitution was implemented, there is no intellectually honest way to claim that there was any intention by the founders for abortion to be protected as a right granted by our creator. It was legislation created by judges corruptly.

This isn't rocket science, here. Really.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So you feel that the government should be in the business of outlawing morals?

I would say so but only so far as your moral choices infringe upon others. If I were to kill somebody in your family that would obviously infringe upon you, whereas my having an abortion would not.

So it should be okay to kill hobos with no family?

Logical failure.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would draw the line at birth, when the ambiguity as to whether this thing is a "person" or not is clearly gone. Up to that point, it's a personal matter that the government (any government) has no business in being involved with.

I would draw the line at the same consistent scientifically garnered qualifiers we use to determine death in those who are located outside a human host. Discernible heartbeat and/or brainwaves. Nothing ambiguous or arbitrary there. It would be a consistent and non-arguable defense for human life which would be a reasonable "middle ground."

Personally, I'm against all abortion. However, even with this standard I believe most first trimester abortions would still be legal and it should be allowed to be decided by individual states as our Constitution requires.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You're talking about besson3c here, right? He's pretty much the friendliest voice in this place.

Whatever Canadians "wouldn't agree with," they don't seem to care about changing it. And since every political party in Canada has chosen pro-choice leaders, I'd say they are fine with it too. If they won't touch a topic, then they don't really care about it. And no one is expecting the SCC to rule against abortion.

Not abortion. Late-term abortion.

There's a huge difference, and it's the elephant in the Canadian abortion room in my opinion. I doubt you'll find too many Canadians who support month-7 abortions.

You're right - they very rarely happen - but that's not the point. They do happen.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Morning After pill, IUD, abortion up to 12 weeks, I think that's quite a few safeguards.

As long as abortion up to 12 weeks is legal, then I agree with you. But, there are many forces within the anti-abortion crowd that would like to see no abortions at any time during a pregnancy.

Is the Morning After pill legal in the US?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That was never the intention of our founders. They never intended for the courts to "expand" the scope of the Constitution to where it was never intended to go. If it wasn't to be found there in the first place, and wasn't the intention of the founders, it was to be added via amendment or be allowed to be legislated via the state.

Again, stupendousman, that's the whole point. The Court exercises judicial review in order to evaluate "the intention of the founders" (the meaning of the text of the Constitution) as it applies to current law. The Court does not create law, but as a result of determining whether some existing laws are constitutional or not, some policy doors are necessarily opened or closed depending on the Court's interpretation. In the case of Roe v. Wade, policy doors were closed (the Court declared limitations on when state laws could prohibit abortion) based on an interpretation of rights expressed int he 14th Amendment. Are you asserting the invalidity of the Supreme Court's judicial review?

I would say that you are in need of a civics lesson, but something tells me that if we were talking about protections that conservatives hold dear (like the right to bear arms) you would understand all of this implicitly. It is only when the issue (privacy as it relates to abortion) doesn't pass the conservative political test that the Court is suddenly "legislating." The court no more legislated in Roe v. Wade than it did in the District of Columbia v. Heller.

Abortion existed at the time our founders created the Constitution, and they allowed it to be regulated without guaranteeing any right to it. This was their choice. Since this right isn't explicitly granted, wasn't something new that they never had an opportunity to consider, and was allowed to be strictly regulated at the time the Constitution was implemented, there is no intellectually honest way to claim that there was any intention by the founders for abortion to be protected as a right granted by our creator. It was legislation created by judges corruptly.

This is a stupid line of argument, since the operative part of the Constitution here is the 14th Amendment (1868), not the imagined will of your simplified "founders" construct when the Constitution was first created. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to define citizenship in a way that overruled previous decisions that blacks could not be U.S. citizens, but in doing so it defined a much more expansive idea of citizenship and protected rights than was expressed in the original Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

As long as abortion up to 12 weeks is legal, then I agree with you. But, there are many forces within the anti-abortion crowd that would like to see no abortions at any time during a pregnancy.

Is the Morning After pill legal in the US?

I try to be flexible on this. I used to be pro-life, but have tempered my views in light of discussions I've had with OB/GYNs and other experts. Monroe Carell, the head of pediatric neurology at Vanderbilt, told me that partially-connected neural activity can be observed as early as week 14, and that looks like a good place to start.

Plan B is available in the USA without a prescription. Pharmacies have it available behind the counter, all you have to do is ask for it and they'll sell it to women or men.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

based on an interpretation of rights expressed int he 14th Amendment.

Which is somewhat interesting in itself. It specifies that people 'born in the United States' are citizens, and therefore have all the rights and legal protections of US citizens. This would seem to imply that prior to the moment of birth, there is no citizenship and therefore not guarantee of rights. However, I doubt anyone would try and claim that this excludes people delivered by C-section (ah, Caesar and his prophesy), and is further complicated by the fact that 'born' is really just the past participle of 'bear' implying only that that the person was carried by (within) the mother for some period of time ('birthed' being the way to specify that they were not only 'born' but given birth to).

Non-technical language is fun.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Ah, but those and other types of late-term abortions do happen, to the tune of >1000 /year in the USA alone, and being the type who just tries to pass such things off as a joke speaks volumes about you.

There are more than a thousand abortion a year in the States on babies just hours from being born? Because that was your comment that I was responding to. Way to throw those goal posts around.

[Athens]

What are the main reasons not to support abortion after you remove Religion from the equation.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Athens 

What are the main reasons not to support abortion after you remove Religion from the equation.

You think a fetus is a human being.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You think a fetus is a human being.

It progresses into a Human being but does not start out that way. If you compare the early states of a Fetus with most animals they all look the same. Its only during development one fetus becomes a Chicken and another becomes a Human.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Athens 

If you compare the early states of a Fetus with most animals they all look the same.

That's because we're also animals, and mammalian reproduction functions similarly.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

It progresses into a Human being but does not start out that way. If you compare the early states of a Fetus with most animals they all look the same. Its only during development one fetus becomes a Chicken and another becomes a Human.

Genetically, however, it is clearly and completely human. A genetic sample from a human fetus and a genetic sample from some other animalian fetus would demonstrate conclusively that a human fetus is a human being, and an otter fetus is an otter. And they wouldn't be distinguishable from adult genetic samples of the same species either.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

It progresses into a Human being but does not start out that way. If you compare the early states of a Fetus with most animals they all look the same. Its only during development one fetus becomes a Chicken and another becomes a Human.

You don't seem to have read the thread - this is exactly what a lot of people have a problem with. Do you agree with legal abortion at a late stage of development? Say, 7 months, when a fetus probably has a very good chance of living if it was otherwise delivered? 5 months? 3?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You don't seem to have read the thread - this is exactly what a lot of people have a problem with. Do you agree with legal abortion at a late stage of development? Say, 7 months, when a fetus probably has a very good chance of living if it was otherwise delivered? 5 months? 3?

Just for the reason that it has a good chance of living no. But I do take exception to late term abortions because by the late stages the Fetus can feel pain, experience is already shaping its development and its possibly aware already. I personally only support early term abortions. Once the brain is fully formed and a fetus starts wiggling toes and sucking its thumb its to late in my opinion. And the only reason I support abortions at all is because the alternative is worse. Forcing something underground makes it much worse. I don't like the idea of Aborting babies at all. But I cant support making it illegal either.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

There are more than a thousand abortion a year in the States on babies just hours from being born? Because that was your comment that I was responding to. Way to throw those goal posts around.

I was originally commenting on besson's sick and twisted belief that you should be able to legally kill any unborn child, up until the moment of delivery. Specifically his disgusting comment of:

I would draw the line at birth

Then you said:

I guess you should add the entire nation of Canada to your ban list, since that is the law here, and every political party in Canada is fine with this.

Which would imply that you're just fine with the idea too.

I also said:

Anyone who would murder a baby that could be viable outside of a mother's womb, just for the sake of convenience, isn't worth a bucket of cold piss. That also goes for those who endorse and support such things.

So, are you worth more than said bucket of piss? You think it's a "good thing" to be able to kill a fetus that would be viable outside it's mother's womb?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Just for the reason that it has a good chance of living no. But I do take exception to late term abortions because by the late stages the Fetus can feel pain, experience is already shaping its development and its possibly aware already. I personally only support early term abortions. Once the brain is fully formed and a fetus starts wiggling toes and sucking its thumb its to late in my opinion. And the only reason I support abortions at all is because the alternative is worse. Forcing something underground makes it much worse. I don't like the idea of Aborting babies at all. But I cant support making it illegal either.

See? We're on the same page here, the two of us just aren't communicating well.

[andi*pandi]

Shaddim, I wasn't going to post in this thread, but you seem reasonable... And the all or nothing approach is the only defense against the all or nothing offense. There are those who wouldn't allow aborting non-viable pregancies at any point, for any reason. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. They don't care about women. The tests for certain problems aren't even possible until 28 weeks. You tell a woman who wanted her baby, who's learned the baby is beyond brain-scrambled, that she has to carry it to term or "natural ending" because some assh*le legislator wants to take the medical decision away from her doctor. That's torture.

I can't imagine ever wanting or needing an abortion for myself, but I think the law should allow it for everyone's personal private decisions. Personal. Private.

We've had this discussion before, and there isn't a reason to have it again. No, it's not time.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Shaddim, I wasn't going to post in this thread, but you seem reasonable... And the all or nothing approach is the only defense against the all or nothing offense. There are those who wouldn't allow aborting non-viable pregancies at any point, for any reason. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. They don't care about women. The tests for certain problems aren't even possible until 28 weeks. You tell a woman who wanted her baby, who's learned the baby is beyond brain-scrambled, that she has to carry it to term or "natural ending" because some assh*le legislator wants to take the medical decision away from her doctor. That's torture.

I can't imagine ever wanting or needing an abortion for myself, but I think the law should allow it for everyone's personal private decisions. Personal. Private.

We've had this discussion before, and there isn't a reason to have it again. No, it's not time.

Exactly!

Just for the record, and I think I speak for others that are frequently misunderstood, it's not as if we believe in some sort of moral righteousness over the premise of having an abortion, obviously where they can be avoided they ought to be. The reason why we make the "what about rape, what about x y and z" argument is simply to make the point that these are complex issues where a one size fits all approach doesn't work, and therefore it is hard to legislate abortion based on some sort of formula (e.g. abortions up to x months, one free abortion, etc.).

To me it comes down to a simple question of whether these tough choices which I don't think anybody takes lightly should be made by government or us.

As Andi said so well: personal. Private.


Also, like I've said, if you're one of those anti nanny-state conservative types, as far as I'm concerned you have no business also wanting any government to be making these decisions on our behalf. None whatsoever. If you believe otherwise, I believe that either you haven't this through, or are simply a hypocrite.

[ironknee]

no woman wants an abortion. but if they need it, it should be their choice.

for those of you who hate the feds...what if the feds say abortion is up to the states

and all the states say it's legal...would you accept that?

/smirking

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

for those of you who hate the feds...what if the feds say abortion is up to the states

and all the states say it's legal...would you accept that?

/smirking

You'd see a lot of moving vans. And at the very worst, two new countries formed.

Plus, it is a LOT easier to change things on the state level than it is nationally.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Shaddim, I wasn't going to post in this thread, but you seem reasonable... And the all or nothing approach is the only defense against the all or nothing offense. There are those who wouldn't allow aborting non-viable pregancies at any point, for any reason. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. They don't care about women. The tests for certain problems aren't even possible until 28 weeks. You tell a woman who wanted her baby, who's learned the baby is beyond brain-scrambled, that she has to carry it to term or "natural ending" because some assh*le legislator wants to take the medical decision away from her doctor. That's torture.

I can't imagine ever wanting or needing an abortion for myself, but I think the law should allow it for everyone's personal private decisions. Personal. Private.

We've had this discussion before, and there isn't a reason to have it again. No, it's not time.

"Brain-scrambled" isn't human, IMO, just like a person in a permanently vegetative state isn't. The capacity for humanity exists in the conscious mind, and without that there is no person. Thus, it really isn't even an abortion anymore. What a very sad thing to have happen.

Some may not agree with that, but that's my view.

[Athens]

I also think to much time and resources are injected into defective babies. Sometimes something is not meant to live. If I had a kid and knew early on in the pregnancy it would be defective I would absolutely wish to terminate and try again. Why waste energy and resources caring for something that isn't going to have a full quality of life, and contribute and continue the family. Its cruel to the child, the parents and society as it costs us all in money and for those that are able to polluted genetic material if it breeds.

[Shaddim]

"Defective"? Define "defective". I don't buy into the whole "full quality of life" nonsense either. They told a lady in our church that her baby would be born with Down's but the little girl didn't. Granted, I'm not happy that the kid flips little wads of paper at us during services, even if I do provoke it most of the time, but I'm really glad she's with us.

[Athens]

If at no point in your life your able to feed yourself I consider that defective. Defective as in the ability to think. This excludes people with MS, blindness, missing limb and so forth. If you require life long care or machines to keep you alive from birth thats defective. Missing half a brain and having no higher brain functions is defective.

[Athens]

One could argue that a baby and mom should be able to survive on its own for at least a week with no respirators, heart machines and so forth to be considered a candidate for a Life License. A moms valid Birthing License is also required to allow the new born Citizenship. Otherwise discard it and fine the mother for unauthorized baby production.


(Seriously im not being serious)

[Athens]

Now to be serious, one must wonder if we are doing ourselves a dis-service with the medical interventions at birth. Look at really poor countries in Africa. Those that survive to be adults are generally strong people, the best of the best genetically. I wouldn't be here today because my mom wouldn't due to the medical interventions she required as a baby. And im far from a good genetic candidate to reproduce with my ADHD and Dyslexia.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

An early form of abortion is proscribed in the Bible for unfaithful wives...

This is entirely contrived and takes at least twice the creative license you'd claim of the text you're bastardizing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Banning abortion is another one of those laws seeking to restrict the freedoms of others for reasons that are mostly rooted in religion.

The overwhelming majority of the "religious" in America are Chreasters. Your citation is correlative, not causal.

If a state full of pro-lifers bans abortion under all circumstances, its effectively saying that someone with different religious views (or no religious views) is a second class citizen because of the views they hold. If you are against abortion, you are free to not have one under pro-choice legislation, the reverse is not true. Restriction of one groups freedoms (especially on essentially religious grounds) doesn't sound very constitutional to me. If not in terms of its language then in terms of its spirit. Though admittedly I'm no expert, not being american.

With due respect, this is a bizarre argument. Any legislation that curbs activity that doesn't directly affect me is illegitimate?

The Constitution did not opine on this matter and neither has science. The choice is just as easily taking the life of another as it is a woman's right over her own body. The only arguments that muddy these waters are rape, incest, and health of mother.

Its very easy for men to talk about adoption like its a simple thing for a woman to give up her child.

Another bizarre argument. Replace adoption with abortion. You're right BTW; more men support less restrictions on abortions than women and up to 64% of women report outside pressure to have the procedure. Odd for a "woman's rights" issue don't you think?

*As an aside: crime reduction is not a suitable cause for genocide. We'll have to find another way.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

You'd see a lot of moving vans. And at the very worst, two new countries formed.

Plus, it is a LOT easier to change things on the state level than it is nationally.

ha! but i don't get the moving vans part...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Shaddim, I wasn't going to post in this thread, but you seem reasonable... And the all or nothing approach is the only defense against the all or nothing offense. There are those who wouldn't allow aborting non-viable pregancies at any point, for any reason. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. They don't care about women. The tests for certain problems aren't even possible until 28 weeks. You tell a woman who wanted her baby, who's learned the baby is beyond brain-scrambled, that she has to carry it to term or "natural ending" because some assh*le legislator wants to take the medical decision away from her doctor. That's torture.

I can't imagine ever wanting or needing an abortion for myself, but I think the law should allow it for everyone's personal private decisions. Personal. Private.

We've had this discussion before, and there isn't a reason to have it again. No, it's not time.

Does that include babies who will develop a disease after birth like MS, muscular dystrophy, leukemia etc?

[Athens]

Yes, why not. Maybe not MS and leukemia but brain issues that will prevent the baby from ever developing in any way always needing help feeding and washing, going to the bathroom. No higher brain functions or extreme mental retardation.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Does that include babies who will develop a disease after birth like MS, muscular dystrophy, leukemia etc?

None of these were tested for in my pregancies, I assume you're thinking science fiction? When we develop the science to know this for certain, I should hope we'd have also developed the science to fix it in utero.

[Athens]

Any one of you seen the movie Gattaca?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Any one of you seen the movie Gattaca?

In that world, Stephen Hawking would never be born.

[OAW]

^^

Indeed.

OAW

[Athens]

Its a scary prospect but at the same time a desired one. For me if I could tweak my offspring to be the best of the best I would absolutely do it. At the same time I wouldnt think its fare for god childs or faith births to be discriminated against. The scary thing about that movie is we are moving towards that direction for screening some people.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

In that world, Stephen Hawking would never be born.

Uh, Hawking was born perfectly normal.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The overwhelming majority of the "religious" in America are Chreasters. Your citation is correlative, not causal.

I've met many "Chreasters" who are just as eager to enforce religious-inspired laws as other, more regular-attending Christians are. I'm not sure why you think how often a person goes to church is relevant to this discussion.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Uh, Hawking was born perfectly normal.

Dont matter under the movie he would never have been born because his illness would have been discovered as a fetus thus termination.

[lpkmckenna]

I don't think you can screen for ALS. According to Wikipedia, only 5% of ALS patients have familial ALS, and of those, only 20% have a known genetic link. Hence, the only possible genetic screening would catch only 1% of potential ALS sufferers.