Sane conversation about abortion

1159 posts / 0 new

Comments

While DRC likes to claim that it is 'I' that is approaching this issue in a manner that doesn't represent a 'sane and civil' discussion, I believe that much of what is passed off as a 'discussion' on this issue--especially by the tag-team--seems to perhaps inadvertently--or perhaps intentionally--disregard much of what I've said that they offer no direct comment on (even to refute it if they can).

Quote D_NATURED:

Jesus, you're thick. The point is, pregnancy CAN be fatal and becomes MORE potentially fatal as the pregnancy nears term.

And, the point that you are missing--or ignoring--D_NATURED is that abortions done near the time of delivery are just as potentially fatal. And, that is supplemented by two things that all of you keep ignoring: one, it's not the presence of the fetus, itself, that is usually risking the mother's life but more the hemodynamic complications of the pregnancy; and, two, killing the fetus at this time before deliverying it doesn't make the risks of the delivery any less. If you can address those points (even to refute them if you can find a resource anywhere that does), then I want feel compelled to respond to your accusation on my 'thickness' with a like response...because, only to me, DRC seems to say that, when I say it, it's not 'sane and civil'....but, of course, when you say it, that's just part of the 'tag team'--that, of course, DRC is part of 'collectively'....with the same willingness to ignore in friends what one accuses in enemies.....but, of course, that has nothing to do with 'saneness and civility'.....and, sometimes, it is really hard to be 'civil':

Quote D_NATURED:

. So, while I'm sure you're reassurance to women that they could die either way is very comforting, I believe becasuse it is THEY who bear the risk, it is THEY who should be able to decide which risk they desire to take.You thinking they are the same risk is meaningless until you have your own fetus infection.

Now, let's see if I can reassert this point in a way that you will recognize it, D_NATURED. Follow this for a bit and tell me where you have a problem with this assessment. First off, whether you kill the fetus or not in late stage abortions does nothing to affect the risks of the pregnancy that may be present at that time. Not a thing. In other words, whether you kill the fetus or not, the risks that are present and the complications that can occur will not change. Is that understandable to you? Do you see that point? Now, I don't mind you looking--and even finding--a resource that refutes that point but I really do mind you ignoring it. And, I'm not even sure how it's 'civil and sane' for you to do so in a respectful conversation--but, then, according to DRC, that seems to be only my problem, not yours. But, I doubt that DRC is making that assessment in as 'civil and sane' a manner as DRC accuses in me--and allows in you.

But, let that point sink in just a little bit, D_NATURED. I know it seems to be a hard one for you to acknowledge but sit there for a bit and realize something here. There is no reason to kill the fetus at the time of birth for 'the threat to the mother'--because, once again, killing the fetus does not change that threat at the time of birth. Understand that? So, the only reason to qualify killing the fetus is only if the mother desires that--not if the fetus 'threatens the life of the mother'. Understand that? And, the only contention to have to consider here as someone thinking about any poliitcal implications of this action is whether or not you are going to give that fetus any right to live at that point. We are to agree that that fetus has the right to live right after birth, is that correct? I mean, once the fetus is out alive, that fetus offers no more threat to the 'mother's life', does it? However, and to further qualify my point in this as the pregnancy being the primary risk to the mother regardless of the fetus, that does NOT mean that the mother is completely out of the woods even when the fetus is out. She may still have complications related to the pregnancy--especially with an eclamptic condition that will not magically 'disappear' the instant the fetus is born. So, at least at the point of birth, we are to agree that the choice of the mother to kill it is no longer valid. Is that correct? Now, their are some of us (in fact, many) who would say that that choice of the mother to kill that fetus isn't valid right before birth--especially since it is really the point that killing that fetus at that time does nothing to change the direct physical risks of the pregnancy that that mother may face....in other words, as I have been trying to say all along, the choice to kill the fetus in late stage abortions has nothing to do with how that can affect the direct risks of the pregnancy the mother may face.

And, once again, most elective abortions have nothing to do with the direct physical risks of the pregnancy to the mother--they have only to do with the mother not wanting to be pregnancy. Offering 'direct threats to the mother's life' as representing elective abortions neither represents the free choice involved in elective abortions nor any consideration to be made on that behalf. DRC wants to 'leave this alone'--perhaps in a way to justify DRC's idea on what represents a 'sane and civil course' for elective abortions--but, that has never been how this issue has been addressed in a 'sane and civil society'. In fact, I suspect that there are more people in this society to claim that 'crushing a fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' represents an insane and uncivil society than those that do--and I also suspect that there are more people willing to say that 'cutting the dick off, cramming it down the throat, shoving a hot rod up the ass, and slowly exsanguinating a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer' is more in line with the rational judgment of a 'sane and civil society' intent on protecting its most innocent members than the fetal skull crushing and brain sucking manuevers of D_NATURED offered here--but, rational (ie. comparative) methods to assess any course of action isn't apparently what this 'liberal tag team' wants to relate to as being 'sane and civil'.....

Now, once again, that's not to mean that 'I' disagree with a mother having a choice to end an unwanted pregnancy. I agree with it being offered when that fetus is totally dependent upon that mother's uterus to be alive--I disagree with it being offered when that fetus could come out alive. Who has the more 'sane and civil' position here on elective abortions?

Quote D_NATURED:

If I were a pregnant woman who feared for my life and decided a fetus in pieces would pose less of a risk, in its extrication, to my person, the medical community having no data, apparently, to asuage my concerns better get chopin'. It is MY body and if I don't want that little killer inside me, you as a doctor have an obligation to assist me in re-establishing health. Surgeries are ALL elective except when they are done on the unconscious. Abortion is a surgical procedure.

You see, with regards to the 'life-threatening' risks to the late term pregnant mother, and with regards to whatever affect the life or death of the fetus at that stage has to such risks, the 'medical community' has a whole lot of data--and, moreover, a valid reason and theory behind it. Killing the fetus doesn't affect those risks becuase, if there is a threat, it's the hemodynamics of the pregnancy that is what is creating the risks--not the fetus, itself. Now, to be sure, getting the fetus out--and ending the pregnancy--may certainly eventually get rid of those risks--but, KILILNG THE FETUS to do so doesn't improve those risks. So, in late stage pregnancies, this continued barrage of 'the fetus killing the mother' as an argument to justify late stage abortions is invalid on any ground that killing the fetus improves the risks. It does not. That appears to be something you continue to ignore....how that represents a 'sane and civil' conversation--or, as I would like to have, a 'rational conversation', I have no idea....

Once again, 'killing the fetus' in late stage abortions does nothing to 're-establish health' if any potential life-threatening condition that the mother may have with that pregnancy exists. And, I am certain that any doctor that claims that as a reason to perform a late-stage abortion can face significant professional scrutiny and sanctioning if that were to occur. At this stage in the pregnancy, the ONLY reason to kill the fetus is because the mother doesn't want the pregnancy. If the doctor doesn't want the pregnancy for 'medical reasons', it better be because it can be shown that that fetus has a condition that is not conducive its own life (not the mother's life)--and that doctor better be able to justify that in court as any 'due process' removing rights would do....Do you understand that?

Quote D_NATURED:

If a woman was diagnosed with breast cancer in the second trimester, would you make chemotherapy illegal because it could hurt the fetus?

OK, I'm trying to stay 'sane and civil' here, D_NATURED--but, is it really that hard for you to follow my position here? If there is something that is causing a decision to be made to end a pregnancy, if, at the point that that decision is being made, the fetus could come out alive, the fetus should come out alive. There may be many times when, even if attempted, that isn't what ends up. But, that's not the point, if, at the time the decision is being made to prematurely end the mother's pregnancy for 'medical reasons' (realize that this is still NOT the point behind 'elective abortions'), if the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive.....and if a woman with cancer has carried that fetus to a viable stage before this decision occurs, I am almost certain that every one of them would attempt to have that fetus delivered alive--not KILL IT before getting it out. I know how the real world seems to not matter with your intent here, but I think that it does. So much so as to recognize that if a mother is going all the way to term before even deciding to end this fetus's life, there must be something wrong with how that mother faces 'personal responsibility'. In that case, don't blame the fetus--if the mother can't take care of that child because of her inability to be personally responsible for that child, delivery it--and adopt it out....

Quote D_NATURED:

What is it with Texans that they think everyone's reality is subject to their interpretation.

All of this requires 'interpretation', D_NATURED. Despite how you liberals want to package this as 'concern for the mother's health because the fetus might be killing her', that doesn't actually ever happen. Making that a justification for elective abortions is disingenuous at best--and a lying affront intent on not really having to address the hard questions involved in elective abortions at worst. And, the hard questions are when does a mother have the RIGHT to abort that fetus as a free choice regardless of any consideration of the fetus. It's OK if you say 'at birth'--but do NOT try to use 'medical emergencies' as the excuse--it's really not a rational and adult position to take on this. What's rational and adult is to understand this isn't about 'medical emergencies'--this is about the mother's free choice--and when is that appropriate. If you can't approach it in that manner, don't be too surprised when others that think they are taking a 'caring and concerning' position--even 'community and/or collectively centered'--do so more for the fetus--not the mother. And, that manner is not medical--it's political--and legal....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

You missed the point of my hypothetical, although for you to say I'm reaching reveals your evident lack of imagination......

No, you're missing the point that your 'hypothetical' as being a 20-week eclamptic patient is extremely unlikely--so unlikely as to use its 'possibility' as a reason to allow elective abortions as being mute and inappropriate. I did ask you a question and I don't see the answer directly. Are you wanting 'medical emergencies' to define 'elective abortions'? Can you directly address that question, Zenzoe?

Quote Zenzoe:

....In fact, an infinite number of potential realities exist for pregnant women, involving personal and family economics, family dynamics and politics, medical conditions and more, so much so that for you to depend on simple possibility to back your position tells us a great deal about how the unenlightened mind works.

Aw, Zenzoe, are you going to have to accuse me now of having an 'unenlightened mind'? Is that really 'sane and civil' for you to do so--or, that's right, according to DRC, it is only 'me' that is not 'sane and civil'. Of course, it is also 'me' that recognizes that, even among the 'enlightened', they are still willing to accept in friends what they accuse in enemies....and, that's 'enlightened'?

Now, as 'enlightened' as you say you are, you, Zenzoe, suddenly, are changing the argument, aren't you? All those 'personal, economic, family dynamic, political' potentials to allow elective abortions have nothing to do with the 'medical emergencies' that has previously been offered to justify elective abortions, do they? Now, your throwing in just about any other 'motive' that you say 'the enlightened' have in mind when considering elective abortions. Well, let me ask the question in a different manner so I can be as 'enlightened' as you all are: Do you want elective abortions to have an excuse that others can agree on (instead of just the mother)--or the mother's free choice? Do you believe in the mother, at any point in the pregnancy, of having a choice in the outcome of this pregnancy that is 'free' in the sense that the mother has to offer no reason to anyone else to end it? If so, why are you offering so many excuses? If not, how does any excuse change how others may be able to judge this mother's actions differently--including not allowing the 'reason' she offers to abort the child? Following that? After all, any of those in such 'dynamics' may decide to be 'more concerned about the fetus than the mother'.....

So, I'm having a hard time determining how my position is the 'convoluted' one here--when actually, I think its simplicity is the only way to address this fairly and justly--just like it was done in the deliberations of Roe vs. Wade--and it's your position that is convoluted. The point is that, when the fetus is totally dependent upon the mother's uterus to live, the mother has absolutely free and clear choice on what to do with that pregnancy. No reasons needed. However, when the fetus has obtained the ability to live outside of the uterus at that point in time, more reasons have to be given--up to the point that the fetus may gain a 'right to life' that now requires a due process to remove (read above)--just like when it is born regardless of the choice of the mother to end it at that point. Now, if you want this all to be about 'a concerned community choice', as I've said, don't be too surprised if such a 'concerned community' chooses for the fetus--not the mother. Especially if you are going to hold up 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' as being something that such a 'community' is to see as 'sane and civil'....

Quote Zenzoe:

The main point: You and the State have no business deciding what families should do in these complex situations. You simply do not know enough to play god.

You really want to use that line of argument, Zenzoe? What do you say when someone responds that 'deciding to kill the fetus when there is no risk to you' is YOU 'playing God'? You see, I know how 'enlightened' you claim to be, but if you don't see that, particularly in this issue, turnabout is fair play when 'the choice' isn't 'free', you are going to, then, have to justify it some other way--and, believe me, when it comes to the issue of 'rights' as being 'individual', a 'concerned community' can only go so far....and, such a 'concerned community' may contradict the very excuses you try to offer on their behalf against securing 'rights to the individual'....

Quote Zenzoe:

Two other points: (1) In my hypothetical, or that of hypertension complicating a pregnancy, the pregnancy itself poses the risk. (2) And the fetus has been compromised by hypertension, so much so that there's a high risk the fetus, if forced to live, will live a life damaged by disability, which will also create a terrible financial and emotional stress on the family.

Well, from an eclamptic perspective, the damage to the fetus will occur only of the eclampsia compromises the fetal circulatory competency (easily assessed by the beat to beat variability to the fetal heart rate using a fetal moniter)--once that appears present, then the fetus should come out quickly. In fact, if the mother is having seizures due to the eclampsia (which the presence of seizures is what distinguishes 'eclampsia' from 'pre-eclampsia'), then it is urgent for the fetus to come out. However, the whole point behind my position is that it never requires KILLING THE FETUS prior to deliverying it to 'save' the mother--in fact, in your eclampsia example, if you take the time to KILL THE FETUS before emergently delivering the child, you're more likely to further compromise the mother's condition, not 'make it better'....

Quote Zenzoe:

In your mind, life, as a state defined by the mere ability to take in air, matters above all other considerations. As long as a child can breathe, who cares if every breath brings misery?

Well, if that is the case, Zenzoe, I do think that some people--'civilly and sanely' inclined--might ask 'Why get pregnant to begin with?'--and, if you have decided to end this pregnancy, 'Why not do so when you found out you were pregnant?'. Otherwise, what is it you are really trying to say about handicapped children? Should we kill them? Or, are you going to use this excuse of 'handicapped children' as, once again, 'justifying' any elective abortion? Is that your 'enlightened' position here?

As I've said, there are some pertinent issues with respect to handicapped children just born--but, that's not in a discussion on elective abortions. If that fetus's condition is not conducive to life for that fetus, that can pass off as a due process removal of any of that fetus's 'right to life'. But, that has no place in a discussion on elective abortions that, in a great majority of cases, have nothing to do with fetal handicaps or risks of the pregnancy to the mother....

Quote Zenzoe:

Regardless, again, you and the State have no business deciding for families whether to deliver a fetus live or dead.

Again, I don't think this is an appropriate excuse for elective abortions. But, in following your line of thought against 'state influence', do you think that families should have the ability to decide whether a spina bifida case is born--or killed just before birth if it can come out alive and live without extraordinary technical support? If so, why let any spina bifida case live? Or, why not let the family decide that right after birth--after all, maybe they didn't know about it until it was 'too late' to do anything about....

Quote Zenzoe:

You need to drop your fantasy that women choose elective abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimester in significant numbers...

Well, I know how this tag team likes to accept in its friends what it accuses in its enemies as being 'sane and civil', but it's not me that is using the example of 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants to'--that's D_NATURED. And, I fully recognize how neither you nor DRC have come in to comment directly on that description as to whether you accept it as a 'free choice' for the mother or not. You have only peripherally stated something to do with 'exaggerations to make a point'--but, what is that point, Zenzoe? That those who claim to be for 'empowering women'--those who claim to be for elective abortions in early gestations--have to accept 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' before being considered 'enlightened' enough on this issue of elective abortions regardless of any concerns otherwise?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

My Late-Term Abortion
President Bush's attempt to ban partial-birth abortions threatens all late-term procedures. But in my case, everyone said it was the right thing to do - even my Catholic father and Republican father-in-law.

By Gretchen Voss | January 25, 2004

Way too excited to sleep on that frigid April morning, I snuggled my bloated belly up to my husband, Dave. Eighteen weeks pregnant, today we would finally have our full-fetal ultrasound and find out whether our baby was a boy or a girl. I had no reason to be nervous, I thought. I was young (if 31 is the new 21), healthy, and had not had so much as a twinge of nausea. Well into my second trimester, I was past the point of worrying about a miscarriage.

The past 3 1/2 months had been a time of pure bliss -- dreaming about our future family, squirreling away any extra money that we could, and cleaning out a room for a nursery in our cozy, suburban home, then borrowing unholy amounts of stuff to fill it back up. From the day that we found out we were expecting a baby -- on New Year's Eve 2002 -- we thought of ourselves as parents, and finding out whether the "it" was a he or she would cap the months of scattershot emotions and frenetic information-gathering. I just couldn't sleep. I invited our 105-pound yellow Labrador "puppy" into bed with us and snuggled even closer to Dave.

Later that morning, at quarter past 9, Dave held my hand as I lay on the cushy examining table at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center office in Lexington. As images of our baby filled the black screen, we oohed and aahed like the goofy expectant parents that we were. "Can you tell if it's a boy or a girl?" I must have asked a million stupid times. The technician was noncommittal, stoic, and I started feeling uncomfortable. Where I was all bubbly chitchat, she was all furrow-browed concentration. She told us that she had a child with Down syndrome, and that none of her prenatal tests had picked it up. I thought that was odd.

Then, using an excuse about finishing something on her previous ultrasound, she left the room. Seconds passed into minutes while we waited for her to return. Staring at the pictures of fuzzy kittens and kissing dolphins on the ceiling, I knew something was wrong. Dave tried to reassure me, but when the ultrasound technician told us that our doctor wanted to see us, I started to shake. "But she doesn't even know we're here," I said to her, and then to Dave, over and over. That's when I started crying. I could barely get my clothes back on.

The waiting room upstairs, usually full of happy pregnant women devouring parenting magazines, was empty. Our doctor, who usually wears a smile below her chestnut hair, met us at the front desk. She was not smiling that day as she led us back to her cramped office, full of framed photos of her own children.

As we sat there, she said that the ultrasound indicated that the fetus had an open neural tube defect, meaning that the spinal column had not closed properly. It was a term I remembered skipping right over in my pregnancy book, along with all the other fetal anomalies and birth defects that I thought referred to other people's babies, not mine. She couldn't tell us much more. We would have to go to the main hospital in Boston, which had a more high-tech machine and a more highly trained technician. She tried to be hopeful -- there was a wide range of severity with these defects, she said. And then she left us to cry.

We drove into Boston in near silence, tears rolling down my cheeks. There was no joking or chatting at the hospital in Boston. No fuzzy kittens and kissing dolphins on the ceiling of that chilly, clinical room. Dave held my hand more tightly than before. I couldn't bear to look at this screen. Instead, I studied the technician's face, like a nervous flier taking her cues from the expression a stewardess wears. Her face revealed nothing.

She squirted cold jelly on my belly and then slid an even colder probe back and forth around my belly button, punching it down every so often to make the baby move for a better view. She didn't say one word in 45 minutes. When she finished, she looked at us and confirmed our worst fears.

Instead of cinnamon and spice, our child came with technical terms like hydrocephalus and spina bifida. The spine, she said, had not closed properly, and because of the location of the opening, it was as bad as it got. What they knew -- that the baby would certainly be paralyzed and incontinent, that the baby's brain was being tugged against the opening in the base of the skull and the cranium was full of fluid -- was awful. What they didn't know -- whether the baby would live at all, and if so, with what sort of mental and developmental defects -- was devastating. Countless surgeries would be required if the baby did live. None of them would repair the damage that was already done.

I collapsed into Dave. It sounds so utterly naive now, but nobody told me that pregnancy was a gamble, not a guarantee. Nobody told me that what was rooting around inside me was a hope, not a promise. I remember thinking what a cruel joke those last months had been.

We met with a genetic counselor, but given the known as well as the unknown, we both knew what we needed to do. Though the baby might live, it was not a life that we would choose for our child, a child that we already loved. We decided to terminate the pregnancy. It was our last parental decision.

So this is our story -- mine, my husband's, and our baby's. It's not a story I ever thought I'd share with a mass audience, because, frankly, it's nobody's business. But now it is.

n November 5, George W. Bush signed the first federal ban on any abortion procedure in the 30 years since Roe v. Wade, and the first ban of a surgical technique in the history of this country.

"I'm pleased that all of you have joined us as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 becomes the law of the land," Bush said. After singling out 11 political supporters of the bill -- all of them men -- the president whipped the 400-strong, antiabortion crowd into a frenzy. "For years a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth, while the law looked the other way," he said to cheers and whoops and hollers.

The signing ceremony staged by the White House was part evangelical tent revival, part good ol' boy pep rally, ending with the audience muttering "Amen." The president stoked the crowd's moral indignation with emotional platitudes like "affirming a basic standard of humanity" and "compassion and the power of conscience" and "defending the life of the innocent."

But on that Wednesday afternoon, President Bush never addressed what, exactly, the ramifications of the bill would be. His administration portrayed it as a bill aimed solely at stopping a "gruesome and barbaric" procedure used by healthy mothers to kill healthy babies. That portrayal served to spark a national, emotional knee-jerk reaction, which precluded any understanding of the practical outcome of the legislation. But it was those very real practicalities that immediately prompted three lawsuits and got three federal courts to prevent the bill from actually becoming law, starting a fight that will probably drag on for years.

At the heart of the debate is a term that legislators concocted. They created a nonexistent procedure -- partial-birth abortion -- and then banned it. They then gave it such a purposely vague definition that, according to abortion providers as well as the Supreme Court, which ruled a similar law in Nebraska unconstitutional, it could apply to all abortions after the first trimester.

Though some proponents of the bill say that they merely want to ban a specific medical procedure -- properly called intact dilation and extraction, which accounts for fewer than one-fifth of 1 percent of all abortions in this country, according to a 2000 survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute -- they never specifically called it that. Instead, the bill is written in such a way that the much more common procedure -- dilation and evacuation, which accounts for 96 percent of second-trimester abortions, including my own -- would also be banned.

Supporters of the ban have argued that this procedure is used on babies that are "inches from life." But in the bill, there is no mention of fetal viability (the point at which a fetus could live independently of its mother for a sustained period of time). Nor is there any mention of gestational age. Thus, the ban would cover terminations at any point during pregnancy. (In fact, Roe v. Wade already protects the rights of a fetus after the point of viability, which occurs sometime after the 24th week of gestation, in the third trimester of pregnancy. Massachusetts bans all abortions at and beyond the 24th week, except to protect the life or health of the mother. Indeed, according to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, in 2001 there were only 24 abortions after the 24th week, out of a total of 26,293 abortions.) By not mentioning viability, critics say, this ban would overturn Roe v. Wade, which clearly states that women have the right to abortion before fetal viability.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

WRONG ARGUMENTS. This is not a moral issue, it's financial, disguised as morality.

Abortion will never be banned. It can only be made illegal. That will not stop abortions, only legal abortions. More women will die just like before 1973. More babies will be abandoned. Midwives again will be banned and treated like criminals. Wealthy women can have all the abortions they desire.

Abortion and birth control were made widely illegal in the US in the 19th century to give doctors [men] more $$$$$$. Since money wasn't the first thing that could sway church leaders [men], they cherry picked the Bible to have excuses to put midwives out of business, giving doctors more money, and scaring people into the churches.

It's all about MONEY!!

Barney Frank is right - conservative anti-choice misogynists believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth. They're not pro-life, only anti-choice, anti-women [including brainwashed anti-choice women] otherwise they wouldn't be beating drums to invade Iran, ironically killing more babies and children, and innocent civilians. Pro-life? Not hardly!

zenie's picture
zenie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

This from prison planet-

What will the history books say about a nation that murdered 50 million of its own babies?

The following are 19 facts about abortion in America that should make you very sick….

#1 There have been more than 53 million abortions performed in the United States since Roe v. Wade was decided back in 1973.

#2 When you total up all forms of abortion, including those caused by the abortion drug RU 486, the grand total comes to more than a million abortionsperformed in the United States every single year.

#3 The number of American babies killed by abortion each year is roughly equal to the number of U.S. military deaths that have occurred in all of the wars that the United States has ever been involved in combined.

#4 Approximately 3,000 Americans lost their lives as a result of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. Every single day, more than 3,000 American babies are killed by abortion.

#5 It has been reported that a staggering 41 percent of all New York City pregnancies end in abortion.

#6 According to Pastor Clenard Childress, approximately 52 percent of all African-American pregnancies now end in abortion.

#7 One very shocking study found that 86 percent of all abortions are done for the sake of convenience.

#8 According to the Guttmacher Institute, the average cost of a first trimester abortion at the ten week mark is $451.

#9 The average cost of a vaginal birth with no complications in the United Statesis now over $9,000.

#10 A Department of Homeland Security report that was released in January 2012 says that if you are “anti-abortion”, you are a potential terrorist. Unfortunately, there have also been other government reports that have also identified “anti-abortion” protesters as potential threats.

#11 A while back one Philadelphia abortionist was charged with killing seven babies that were born alive, but witnesses claim that he actually slaughtered hundreds “of living, breathing newborn children by severing their spinal cords or slitting their necks.”

#12 Some abortion clinics have been caught selling aborted baby parts to medical researchers.

#13 Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger once said the following….

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

#14 In a 1922 book entitled “Woman, Morality, and Birth Control”, Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger wrote the following….

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

#15 Planned Parenthood performs more than 300,000 abortions every single year.

#16 Planned Parenthood specifically targets the poor. A staggering 72 percentof Planned Parenthood’s “customers” have incomes that are either equal to or beneath 150 percent of the federal poverty level.

#17 There are 30 Planned Parenthood executives that make more than $200,000 a year. A few of them make more than $300,000 a year.

#18 Planned Parenthood received more than 487 million dollars from the federal government during 2010.

#19 The following is one description of the five steps of a partial birth abortion….

1) Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby’s legs with forceps.

2) The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

3) The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head.

4) The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull.

5) The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

How can we murder our own children?

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 1:31 pm

A couple of points here, Zenzoe, this woman says she is in her 'second trimester'--something 'past 3 and 1/2 months'--where does that make her with respect to this pregnancy at the time she and her family decided to abort? It doesn't quite say, does it? Even though it claims to be against what George W. Bush offered as an excuse against 'partial birth abortions' being done 'just minutes before birth'. Second point, this child isn't normal, is it? It started out as Down's--then went to hydrocephalus--then added spina bifida. And, it does say this:

The spine, she said, had not closed properly, and because of the location of the opening, it was as bad as it got. What they knew -- that the baby would certainly be paralyzed and incontinent, that the baby's brain was being tugged against the opening in the base of the skull and the cranium was full of fluid -- was awful. What they didn't know -- whether the baby would live at all, and if so, with what sort of mental and developmental defects -- was devastating. Countless surgeries would be required if the baby did live. None of them would repair the damage that was already done.

So, Zenzoe, am I to infer from this description that, as a justification to abort any child in late term pregnancies, you are using this example of a child that 'may or may not live on its own' as representing the real issues used behind most elective abortions? If the child's condition is such that it cannot 'sustain life', that can be a due process removal of that life just like any person that cannot speak for themselves that may have conditions not conducive to 'sustain life'. Those decisions happen in medicine all the time. But, using this as a reason to abort any fetus at any time--normal or not--able to live on its own or not--is, again, quite disingenuous of you and your clan.

I know how my questions appear to some as 'unanswerable'--but, I tend to disagree. I think that you are avoiding the answer--and not because you are as 'enlightened' in this issue as much as you want to 'ignore' addressing its difficult circimstances and consequences. But, I don't see 'ignoring the issue' the same thing as being 'enlightened in the issue'. So, here they are again:

1) Do you want 'medical emergencies' to define 'elective abortions'?

And, along the same lines:

2) Do you want elective abortions to have an excuse that others can agree on (instead of just the mother)--or the mother's free choice?

And, if you believe in 'free choice':

3) In pregnancies, do you see that as being an absolute right (or are 'all rights to be conditioned') at some points in the pregnancy--but, then, conditioned against any fetal rights later on--even to the point of removing its 'free choice' altogether in late stage pregnancies?

You see, again, Roe vs. Wade never allowed 'free choice abortions to term' despite all the distractions from the right--and, now, the left. It allowed it in the first trimester--and, then, allowed the state to intervene on the fetus's behalf either partially (as in 'gaining rights')--or completely (as in 'having rights'--especially the 'right to life')--the further the fetus developed. So, here's another question:

4) Do you think that a position that 'empowers women' with respect to pregnancy can only be confirmed if one is willing to accept 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it'? For no other reason. With a child that has no problem--and with a mother that has no risks--except for the displeasure of being in a uterus that (for some reason) allowed the pregnancy to go on until right before delivery.

Can you address any of these questions, Zenzoe?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote zenie:

WRONG ARGUMENTS. This is not a moral issue, it's financial, disguised as morality.

Then, according to you, zenie, how should a society address all elective abortions? All being 'acceptable' despite any stage of pregnancy and any condition of normal viability of the fetus?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Well, bullwinkle, I don't hold quite so much of a disdain towards all elective abortions as your connection implies--I do still give the mother such a free and absolute right to choose the direction of her pregnancy in a stage where the fetus is totally and completely dependent upon the uterus to survive.

However, in that same light, I do have a problem with how these 'enlightened' people position themselves when they can be so implicitly 'accepting' of 'crushing a fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it'--yet, so condescendingly judgmental as not being 'civilized' or 'balanced' enough when they claim that 'cutting the dick off, cramming it down the throat, shoving a hot rod up the ass, and allowing a slow exsanguination to death of a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer' is 'barbaric'...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

When it comes to elective abortions, I do not necessarily agree with the article. My point was that if those statistics are accurate , and I have no reason to bellieve otherwise, we do not resrtrict womens rights to choose the direction of their pregnancy.

It just so happen to include a description of a late term abortion.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 1:31 pm
Quote Kerry:

While DRC likes to claim that it is 'I' that is approaching this issue in a manner that doesn't represent a 'sane and civil' discussion, I believe that much of what is passed off as a 'discussion' on this issue--especially by the tag-team--seems to perhaps inadvertently--or perhaps intentionally--disregard much of what I've said that they offer no direct comment on (even to refute it if they can).

Quote D_NATURED:

Jesus, you're thick. The point is, pregnancy CAN be fatal and becomes MORE potentially fatal as the pregnancy nears term.

And, the point that you are missing--or ignoring--D_NATURED is that abortions done near the time of delivery are just as potentially fatal. And, that is supplemented by two things that all of you keep ignoring: one, it's not the presence of the fetus, itself, that is usually risking the mother's life but more the hemodynamic complications of the pregnancy; and, two, killing the fetus at this time before deliverying it doesn't make the risks of the delivery any less. If you can address those points (even to refute them if you can find a resource anywhere that does), then I want feel compelled to respond to your accusation on my 'thickness' with a like response...because, only to me, DRC seems to say that, when I say it, it's not 'sane and civil'....but, of course, when you say it, that's just part of the 'tag team'--that, of course, DRC is part of 'collectively'....with the same willingness to ignore in friends what one accuses in enemies.....but, of course, that has nothing to do with 'saneness and civility'.....and, sometimes, it is really hard to be 'civil':

Quote D_NATURED:

. So, while I'm sure you're reassurance to women that they could die either way is very comforting, I believe becasuse it is THEY who bear the risk, it is THEY who should be able to decide which risk they desire to take.You thinking they are the same risk is meaningless until you have your own fetus infection.

Now, let's see if I can reassert this point in a way that you will recognize it, D_NATURED. Follow this for a bit and tell me where you have a problem with this assessment. First off, whether you kill the fetus or not in late stage abortions does nothing to affect the risks of the pregnancy that may be present at that time. Not a thing. In other words, whether you kill the fetus or not, the risks that are present and the complications that can occur will not change. Is that understandable to you? Do you see that point? Now, I don't mind you looking--and even finding--a resource that refutes that point but I really do mind you ignoring it. And, I'm not even sure how it's 'civil and sane' for you to do so in a respectful conversation--but, then, according to DRC, that seems to be only my problem, not yours. But, I doubt that DRC is making that assessment in as 'civil and sane' a manner as DRC accuses in me--and allows in you.

But, let that point sink in just a little bit, D_NATURED. I know it seems to be a hard one for you to acknowledge but sit there for a bit and realize something here. There is no reason to kill the fetus at the time of birth for 'the threat to the mother'--because, once again, killing the fetus does not change that threat at the time of birth. Understand that? So, the only reason to qualify killing the fetus is only if the mother desires that--not if the fetus 'threatens the life of the mother'. Understand that? And, the only contention to have to consider here as someone thinking about any poliitcal implications of this action is whether or not you are going to give that fetus any right to live at that point. We are to agree that that fetus has the right to live right after birth, is that correct? I mean, once the fetus is out alive, that fetus offers no more threat to the 'mother's life', does it? However, and to further qualify my point in this as the pregnancy being the primary risk to the mother regardless of the fetus, that does NOT mean that the mother is completely out of the woods even when the fetus is out. She may still have complications related to the pregnancy--especially with an eclamptic condition that will not magically 'disappear' the instant the fetus is born. So, at least at the point of birth, we are to agree that the choice of the mother to kill it is no longer valid. Is that correct? Now, their are some of us (in fact, many) who would say that that choice of the mother to kill that fetus isn't valid right before birth--especially since it is really the point that killing that fetus at that time does nothing to change the direct physical risks of the pregnancy that that mother may face....in other words, as I have been trying to say all along, the choice to kill the fetus in late stage abortions has nothing to do with how that can affect the direct risks of the pregnancy the mother may face.

And, once again, most elective abortions have nothing to do with the direct physical risks of the pregnancy to the mother--they have only to do with the mother not wanting to be pregnancy. Offering 'direct threats to the mother's life' as representing elective abortions neither represents the free choice involved in elective abortions nor any consideration to be made on that behalf. DRC wants to 'leave this alone'--perhaps in a way to justify DRC's idea on what represents a 'sane and civil course' for elective abortions--but, that has never been how this issue has been addressed in a 'sane and civil society'. In fact, I suspect that there are more people in this society to claim that 'crushing a fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' represents an insane and uncivil society than those that do--and I also suspect that there are more people willing to say that 'cutting the dick off, cramming it down the throat, shoving a hot rod up the ass, and slowly exsanguinating a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer' is more in line with the rational judgment of a 'sane and civil society' intent on protecting its most innocent members than the fetal skull crushing and brain sucking manuevers of D_NATURED offered here--but, rational (ie. comparative) methods to assess any course of action isn't apparently what this 'liberal tag team' wants to relate to as being 'sane and civil'.....

Now, once again, that's not to mean that 'I' disagree with a mother having a choice to end an unwanted pregnancy. I agree with it being offered when that fetus is totally dependent upon that mother's uterus to be alive--I disagree with it being offered when that fetus could come out alive. Who has the more 'sane and civil' position here on elective abortions?

Quote D_NATURED:

If I were a pregnant woman who feared for my life and decided a fetus in pieces would pose less of a risk, in its extrication, to my person, the medical community having no data, apparently, to asuage my concerns better get chopin'. It is MY body and if I don't want that little killer inside me, you as a doctor have an obligation to assist me in re-establishing health. Surgeries are ALL elective except when they are done on the unconscious. Abortion is a surgical procedure.

You see, with regards to the 'life-threatening' risks to the late term pregnant mother, and with regards to whatever affect the life or death of the fetus at that stage has to such risks, the 'medical community' has a whole lot of data--and, moreover, a valid reason and theory behind it. Killing the fetus doesn't affect those risks becuase, if there is a threat, it's the hemodynamics of the pregnancy that is what is creating the risks--not the fetus, itself. Now, to be sure, getting the fetus out--and ending the pregnancy--may certainly eventually get rid of those risks--but, KILILNG THE FETUS to do so doesn't improve those risks. So, in late stage pregnancies, this continued barrage of 'the fetus killing the mother' as an argument to justify late stage abortions is invalid on any ground that killing the fetus improves the risks. It does not. That appears to be something you continue to ignore....how that represents a 'sane and civil' conversation--or, as I would like to have, a 'rational conversation', I have no idea....

Once again, 'killing the fetus' in late stage abortions does nothing to 're-establish health' if any potential life-threatening condition that the mother may have with that pregnancy exists. And, I am certain that any doctor that claims that as a reason to perform a late-stage abortion can face significant professional scrutiny and sanctioning if that were to occur. At this stage in the pregnancy, the ONLY reason to kill the fetus is because the mother doesn't want the pregnancy. If the doctor doesn't want the pregnancy for 'medical reasons', it better be because it can be shown that that fetus has a condition that is not conducive its own life (not the mother's life)--and that doctor better be able to justify that in court as any 'due process' removing rights would do....Do you understand that?

Quote D_NATURED:

If a woman was diagnosed with breast cancer in the second trimester, would you make chemotherapy illegal because it could hurt the fetus?

OK, I'm trying to stay 'sane and civil' here, D_NATURED--but, is it really that hard for you to follow my position here? If there is something that is causing a decision to be made to end a pregnancy, if, at the point that that decision is being made, the fetus could come out alive, the fetus should come out alive. There may be many times when, even if attempted, that isn't what ends up. But, that's not the point, if, at the time the decision is being made to prematurely end the mother's pregnancy for 'medical reasons' (realize that this is still NOT the point behind 'elective abortions'), if the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive.....and if a woman with cancer has carried that fetus to a viable stage before this decision occurs, I am almost certain that every one of them would attempt to have that fetus delivered alive--not KILL IT before getting it out. I know how the real world seems to not matter with your intent here, but I think that it does. So much so as to recognize that if a mother is going all the way to term before even deciding to end this fetus's life, there must be something wrong with how that mother faces 'personal responsibility'. In that case, don't blame the fetus--if the mother can't take care of that child because of her inability to be personally responsible for that child, delivery it--and adopt it out....

Quote D_NATURED:

What is it with Texans that they think everyone's reality is subject to their interpretation.

All of this requires 'interpretation', D_NATURED. Despite how you liberals want to package this as 'concern for the mother's health because the fetus might be killing her', that doesn't actually ever happen. Making that a justification for elective abortions is disingenuous at best--and a lying affront intent on not really having to address the hard questions involved in elective abortions at worst. And, the hard questions are when does a mother have the RIGHT to abort that fetus as a free choice regardless of any consideration of the fetus. It's OK if you say 'at birth'--but do NOT try to use 'medical emergencies' as the excuse--it's really not a rational and adult position to take on this. What's rational and adult is to understand this isn't about 'medical emergencies'--this is about the mother's free choice--and when is that appropriate. If you can't approach it in that manner, don't be too surprised when others that think they are taking a 'caring and concerning' position--even 'community and/or collectively centered'--do so more for the fetus--not the mother. And, that manner is not medical--it's political--and legal....

Kerry, I will not make you read anywhere near what you have imposed upon me. My simple and quick response is:

You do not only advocate against late term abortions, you advocate against abortions after an arbitrary "viability" date. The day after your viability argument begins, are you saying abortion is no safer then than at full term? The reason I ask is that I haven't heard anyone define what a "late term" abortion is. You have an arbitrary viability date, so what's your arbitrary definition of late term? If you're trying to tell me there is no difference in the threat of aborting a 21 week fetus as opposed to a full term fetus, I find that hard to believe.

Secondly, I have never argued exclusively that the threat to a woman's life is the ONLY reason to give her a choice up until term. It is just one of the reasons that I believe justify her deciding. And, it is a reason that puts the power where the responsibility lies. It makes perfect sense.

Thirdly, you continue to ignore my point about future technology enabling a safer late term abortion. What will be your defense then?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm
Quote bullwinkle:

This from prison planet-

What will the history books say about a nation that murdered 50 million of its own babies?

The following are 19 facts about abortion in America that should make you very sick….

#1 There have been more than 53 million abortions performed in the United States since Roe v. Wade was decided back in 1973.

Good!

#2 When you total up all forms of abortion, including those caused by the abortion drug RU 486, the grand total comes to more than a million abortionsperformed in the United States every single year.

#3 The number of American babies killed by abortion each year is roughly equal to the number of U.S. military deaths that have occurred in all of the wars that the United States has ever been involved in combined.

Fetuses aren't babies, genius. That's why the medical community uses a whole seperate word to describe them.

#4 Approximately 3,000 Americans lost their lives as a result of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. Every single day, more than 3,000 American babies are killed by abortion.

Again, they're NOT babies.

[qutoe]#5 It has been reported that a staggering 41 percent of all New York City pregnancies end in abortion.[/quote]

So what? Isn't that better than a statistic stating that 41 percent of all babies born are unwanted?

#6 According to Pastor Clenard Childress, approximately 52 percent of all African-American pregnancies now end in abortion.

So what? We have a problem with black women being responsible now to their families and their selves? Stupid!

#7 One very shocking study found that 86 percent of all abortions are done for the sake of convenience.

As opposed to what? Fitting into your jeans again?

#8 According to the Guttmacher Institute, the average cost of a first trimester abortion at the ten week mark is $451.

I think we can get that price down with a little work.

#9 The average cost of a vaginal birth with no complications in the United Statesis now over $9,000.

How is this an abortion statistic?

#10 A Department of Homeland Security report that was released in January 2012 says that if you are “anti-abortion”, you are a potential terrorist. Unfortunately, there have also been other government reports that have also identified “anti-abortion” protesters as potential threats.

Only because pro-lifers tend to kill people.

#11 A while back one Philadelphia abortionist was charged with killing seven babies that were born alive, but witnesses claim that he actually slaughtered hundreds “of living, breathing newborn children by severing their spinal cords or slitting their necks.”

How is that an abortion statistic?

#12 Some abortion clinics have been caught selling aborted baby parts to medical researchers.

OK. Does the need for research stop when an abortion happens?

#13 Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger once said the following….

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”


How is this an abortion statistic?



#14 In a 1922 book entitled “Woman, Morality, and Birth Control”, Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger wrote the following….

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”


How is this an abortion statistic?

#15 Planned Parenthood performs more than 300,000 abortions every single year.

Redundant.

#16 Planned Parenthood specifically targets the poor. A staggering 72 percentof Planned Parenthood’s “customers” have incomes that are either equal to or beneath 150 percent of the federal poverty level.

Ah, and the Tea-publicans don't target the poor? What a joke. The reason the poor are "targeted" is that they are most likely to not have good health care in the first place, which would include birth control. Blame the Tea-publicans for that too.

#17 There are 30 Planned Parenthood executives that make more than $200,000 a year. A few of them make more than $300,000 a year.

Gasp! That's almost enough for John McCain to consider them middle class. NOT AN ABORTION STATISTIC!

#18 Planned Parenthood received more than 487 million dollars from the federal government during 2010.

Good. They do a hell of a lot more than just abortions, Bull.

#19 The following is one description of the five steps of a partial birth abortion….

1) Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby’s legs with forceps.

2) The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

3) The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head.

4) The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull.

5) The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

How can we murder our own children?

Aparently, the existing procedure works pretty well. Don't you think that's a stupid question given that you've just described an effective method? LOL.

A better question is, is it murder to decide the fate of a being that could kill you at any moment without ANYBODY being willing to hold it accountable? Maybe what you should ask is, how can we defend ourselves from these little killers in the future.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

You do not only advocate against late term abortions, you advocate against abortions after an arbitrary "viability" date

Well, D_NATURED, as I've said before, and I know how my position is claimed to be 'unsane and uncivil', it's not arbitrary. If the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive. That's as 'natural' as it gets....

Quote D_NATURED:

The day after your viability argument begins, are you saying abortion is no safer then than at full term?

I am saying, unequivocally, that, in any prospect that I can imagine or have ever heard or read about, in any pregnancy risks involved, there is no added advantage with respect to the risks of the pregnancy to the mother in KILLING THE FETUS before getting it out. Zenzoe has wanted to challenge that position and apparently has been looking for a source to refute it--but I know better. There is no condition of pregnancy where KILLING THE FETUS improves the risks for the mother. There are other reasons to have 'therapeutic abortions', to be sure, but that's not one of them. Now, that's not to mean that early abortions aren't safer than term deliveries. They are. But, it is to mean that, when it comes to any stage of viability to the fetus, when there is a risk in pregnancy for the mother, KILLING THE FETUS does not improve those risks. None whatsoever....

Quit using it as an excuse. Your own examples included. If the mother had a risk and waited until a viable age for the fetus to address that risk, there is no risk in the pregnancy of the mother that is going to be improved by KILLING THE FETUS.....while DRC seems to claim that is 'insane and uncivil', I suspect your 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' as being 'insane and uncivil'....so, who's right?

Quote D_NATURED:

It is just one of the reasons that I believe justify her deciding.

If you have to give the mother reasons for her to 'justify her deciding', it's not a free choice, is it? Maybe you should answer the questions that I've posed to Zenzoe. And, this is a fair offer because, when it has been addressed to me 'to answer it', as Zenzoe should remember, I did....

Quote D_NATURED:

And, it is a reason that puts the power where the responsibility lies. It makes perfect sense.

It doesn't make quite as much sense as you presume. If the mother waited until term to, for instance, 'crush the fetal skull and suck out its brains right before birth' and did so for no other reason than 'she wanted to', how has the mother been addressing her personal responsibility to this pregnancy up until that point--and why did she wait until that point to address it? And, if this is really a 'free will choice', what real difference between the 'free will choice' to kill the offspring right before birth would it be to kill the offspring right after birth? Only because it was 'illegal'? That, indeed, may be the law's distinction, but what is the mother's distinction? And, how 'personally responsible' is that at this point?

Quote D_NATURED:

Thirdly, you continue to ignore my point about future technology enabling a safer late term abortion. What will be your defense then?

First off, that does no good for your 'two examples', does it? Secondly, it will not make pregnancies any safer--the fetus is the least likely thing in the pregnancy to create a risk. So, what is your 'future technology' going to do for that--even if it 'kills the fetus quicker and cleaner'? And, of course, the whole problem with dismembering a fetus in this late a stage of pregnancy is that doing that actually increases the risks involved--it doesn't reduce them. So, your proposal has no basis in reality....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

A couple of points here, Zenzoe, this woman says she is in her 'second trimester'--something 'past 3 and 1/2 months'--where does that make her with respect to this pregnancy at the time she and her family decided to abort? ... Second point, this child isn't normal, is it? It started out as Down's--then went to hydrocephalus--then added spina bifida.

No, look again—she was 18 weeks along. That's 4.5 months. 2nd trimester.

Yes, the child wasn't normal. That's exactly my point, as it was my point earlier. And that's exactly the sort of situation parents face in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, situations that justify NOT delivering the baby live.

I have no problem whatsoever with delivering babies live, where the baby has a chance at a normal life and the mother desires a live birth, as most probably do. However, I'm different from you in that I can imagine scenarios where a mother, faced with a medical emergency caused by her pregnancy, might not desire a live birth, and she might have highly moral, sensible reasons for her decision. Regardless of what you or I can imagine, however, it would not up to us to decide for her.

I can also imagine situations where a pregnancy has reached the point of viability, but the choice of delivering a live birth would be unethical or just plain crazy, and the prospect horrifying to those involved. Again, however, it's not for me to make decisions about highly personal, medical situations for other people.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

D- Do you know who Margaret Snager was? Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger in 1916 for one primary purpose: " to stop the multiplication of the unfit"- as she clearly stated in her autobiography. This would be “the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” The "unfit" She was refering to was not those with birth defects or those being mentally retarded. I don't think they had the medical technology to make that assesement. It was called "The Negro Project".

SHE WAS A RACIST! She is quoted as saying she ,"wanted to prevent them from multiplying like human weeds. Sanger,""We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

A 2011 Planned Parenthood annual report proved that 97.6% of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood were sold abortions while less than 2.4% of them received non-abortion services – including adoption referral counseling and prenatal care. Margaret Sanger would be proud.

In case you’re wondering, not only has today’s Planned Parenthood failed to disavow the views of its founder, the organization’s “highest honor” aptly bears her name:

Is it, or is it not ironic that America's first black President would champion the cause of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger?

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 1:31 pm
Quote Kerry:

Quote zenie:

WRONG ARGUMENTS. This is not a moral issue, it's financial, disguised as morality.

Then, according to you, zenie, how should a society address all elective abortions? All being 'acceptable' despite any stage of pregnancy and any condition of normal viability of the fetus?

"Zenie?" "Zenie?" Is the alleged doctor now so chummy with Zenzoe that he uses the diminutive familiar?

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Quote bullwinkle:

This from prison planet-

What will the history books say about a nation that murdered 50 million of its own babies?

The following are 19 facts about abortion in America that should make you very sick….

#1 There have been more than 53 million abortions performed in the United States since Roe v. Wade was decided back in 1973.

Good!

#2 When you total up all forms of abortion, including those caused by the abortion drug RU 486, the grand total comes to more than a million abortionsperformed in the United States every single year.

#3 The number of American babies killed by abortion each year is roughly equal to the number of U.S. military deaths that have occurred in all of the wars that the United States has ever been involved in combined.

Fetuses aren't babies, genius. That's why the medical community uses a whole seperate word to describe them.

#4 Approximately 3,000 Americans lost their lives as a result of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. Every single day, more than 3,000 American babies are killed by abortion.

Again, they're NOT babies.

[qutoe]#5 It has been reported that a staggering 41 percent of all New York City pregnancies end in abortion.

So what? Isn't that better than a statistic stating that 41 percent of all babies born are unwanted?

#6 According to Pastor Clenard Childress, approximately 52 percent of all African-American pregnancies now end in abortion.

So what? We have a problem with black women being responsible now to their families and their selves? Stupid!

#7 One very shocking study found that 86 percent of all abortions are done for the sake of convenience.

As opposed to what? Fitting into your jeans again?

#8 According to the Guttmacher Institute, the average cost of a first trimester abortion at the ten week mark is $451.

I think we can get that price down with a little work.

#9 The average cost of a vaginal birth with no complications in the United Statesis now over $9,000.

How is this an abortion statistic?

#10 A Department of Homeland Security report that was released in January 2012 says that if you are “anti-abortion”, you are a potential terrorist. Unfortunately, there have also been other government reports that have also identified “anti-abortion” protesters as potential threats.

Only because pro-lifers tend to kill people.

#11 A while back one Philadelphia abortionist was charged with killing seven babies that were born alive, but witnesses claim that he actually slaughtered hundreds “of living, breathing newborn children by severing their spinal cords or slitting their necks.”

How is that an abortion statistic?

#12 Some abortion clinics have been caught selling aborted baby parts to medical researchers.

OK. Does the need for research stop when an abortion happens?

#13 Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger once said the following….

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”


How is this an abortion statistic?



#14 In a 1922 book entitled “Woman, Morality, and Birth Control”, Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger wrote the following….

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”


How is this an abortion statistic?

#15 Planned Parenthood performs more than 300,000 abortions every single year.

Redundant.

#16 Planned Parenthood specifically targets the poor. A staggering 72 percentof Planned Parenthood’s “customers” have incomes that are either equal to or beneath 150 percent of the federal poverty level.

Ah, and the Tea-publicans don't target the poor? What a joke. The reason the poor are "targeted" is that they are most likely to not have good health care in the first place, which would include birth control. Blame the Tea-publicans for that too.

#17 There are 30 Planned Parenthood executives that make more than $200,000 a year. A few of them make more than $300,000 a year.

Gasp! That's almost enough for John McCain to consider them middle class. NOT AN ABORTION STATISTIC!

#18 Planned Parenthood received more than 487 million dollars from the federal government during 2010.

Good. They do a hell of a lot more than just abortions, Bull.

#19 The following is one description of the five steps of a partial birth abortion….

1) Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby’s legs with forceps.

2) The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

3) The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head.

4) The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull.

5) The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

How can we murder our own children?

Aparently, the existing procedure works pretty well. Don't you think that's a stupid question given that you've just described an effective method? LOL.

A better question is, is it murder to decide the fate of a being that could kill you at any moment without ANYBODY being willing to hold it accountable? Maybe what you should ask is, how can we defend ourselves from these little killers in the future.

[/quote]

Yup. Bullshittle stepped in lots of his own moosedroppings with that one!

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

U-"A better question is, is it murder to decide the fate of a being that could kill you at any moment without ANYBODY being willing to hold it accountable? Maybe what you should ask is, how can we defend ourselves from these little killers in the future."

You apparently have not comprehended one fucking thing on this thread. I have not commented much on this thread , but you sure show your ingnorance and arrogance aplenty.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 1:31 pm
Quote Kerry:

While DRC likes to claim that it is 'I' that is approaching this issue in a manner that doesn't represent a 'sane and civil' discussion, I believe that much of what is passed off as a 'discussion' on this issue--especially by the tag-team--

ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO!

Yeah, sure, sure. "The tag team." I love it!

The D's ren, Zenzoe and I comprise this board's analog of old school World Championship Wrestling's dreaded Four Horsemen and their manager. We're led down the aisle to the debating ring by our manageress, Zenzoe, much to the disapproval and "Boos!" of Bobby the Brain Heenan's (Ron Paul's) "Humanoids" (The Tea Party), who all think we're the villains. They're busy Keeping the Faith that pro wrestling (Con/Lib doctrine) is genuine and that ain't easy with villains like us to fight!

I love the sound of "Boos!" in the morning. Kind of sounds like -- victory. Yeah.

ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO!

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote bullwinkle:

U-"A better question is, is it murder to decide the fate of a being that could kill you at any moment without ANYBODY being willing to hold it accountable? Maybe what you should ask is, how can we defend ourselves from these little killers in the future."

You apparently have not comprehended one fucking thing on this thread. I have not commented much on this thread , but you sure show your ingnorance and arrogance aplenty.

And if you weren't so goddam stupid that you can't read a post and reply correctly, you'd have seen that I didn't post the rhetorical question to which you sent me a response, and that I only posted to show approval at the bottom of it.

As to not comprehending, I've been posting in this thread long before you decided to give everybody the non-benefit of your reactionary non-wisdom. From what I've seen of your general knowledge, perceptiveness, and factual accuracy, you could stick your brain in a jaybird's ass and make it fly backwards.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

U- You make an unborn innocent fetus/child guilty with absolutely no proof and yet are willing to let a DNA proven murderer off. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense , coming from a leftwing idealogue that most of the time doesn't know of what he speaks, only blather.

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 1:31 pm

bullwinkle, in order to stay 'civil', I have learned to ignore most of what Ulysses says. However, if I miss something pertinent to any point in this issue, I'm not against that being pointed out...8^).....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

No, look again—she was 18 weeks along. That's 4.5 months. 2nd trimester.

Well, Zenzoe, that's even still legal in the 'misogynist and repressive state of Texas' for any reason without having to justify it under this rather preposterous assumption that KILLING THE FETUS 'SAVES' THE MOTHER. Furthermore, since it was just '18 weeks', what did that very situation have to do with Bush's idea of 'killing fetuses just moments before birth'? Do you not at least believe that a discussion on an issue that is as charged as abortion at least have some consistency in your presentation--even if you all don't like it being 'rational'....

By the way, do you think that professionals of any type should approach this 'irrationally'? Legal or medical...or, in this case, and only in this case, is 'compassion' enough 'cause to kill'? Even 'crush the fetal skull and suck out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' as a 'compassionate cause'....of course, to 'empower women'...but, lacking any credence to personal responsibility, 'empower women' to what? 'Collectively conscious motives' like the liberal's mantra implies? And, you call something like that 'enlightened'?

Quote Zenzoe:

Yes, the child wasn't normal. That's exactly my point, as it was my point earlier. And that's exactly the sort of situation parents face in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, situations that justify NOT delivering the baby live.

The situation that you give here has not a thing to do with elective abortions--unless your premise is to define them as being 'medical emergencies'. And, as I've asked here on more than one occasion, is that what you want? That situation as even your author describes has to do with a child that may not be able to live on its own--and certainly not without some extraordinary 'medical implementations'. I don't see that as being consistent with the spirit or the letter of 'elective abortions'--nor how you think it consistent with a discussion on elective abortions. But, then, as I have come to realize, none of you here are for a 'consistent position'--or even a 'consistent understanding'--of what it is that you are proposing. So far, it really just looks like you are here to claim against the very legal premise this has been decided upon--rights to humans--and, in a related sense, there being any semblance to the idea that there are contentions involved in this subject that require hard answers--not just 'conditions'. And, when it comes to elective abortions, those hard answers have not a thing to do with 'medical emergencies'....

Quote Zenzoe:

However, I'm different from you in that I can imagine scenarios where a mother, faced with a medical emergency caused by her pregnancy, might not desire a live birth, and she might have highly moral, sensible reasons for her decision.

Well, since that medical emergency on her pregnancy is not affected one way or the other whether the fetus is delivered alive or not, what 'highly moral and sensible reason' are you offering that is conducive to 'morally and reasonably' KILLING THE FETUS before the delivery? There is no 'medically emergent' condition that the fetus causes in the pregnancy to do that--especially one that requires KILLING THE FETUS before getting it out in a stage in pregnancy where it could be naturally viable....I know that is a hard description for all you feel-good liberals that appear to want to find the fetus guilty before any 'cause' to such guilt is made--but, that is exactly what you all seem to be doing. And, this is coming from some of you that want to claim that my description of how to handle a guilty DNA-proven child rapist-murderer as KILLING HIM is 'uncivilized' and 'barbaric'. You make the unborn guilty--and the guilty not responsible for their actions--a typically irrational posture (as I think this discussion proves) coming from today's 'collectively conscious liberals'....without one iota of personal responsibility to deal with.....and you call that 'fair and just'?

Quote Zenzoe:

Regardless of what you or I can imagine, however, it would not up to us to decide for her.

Then why do you and your clan make so many excuses for her? Can you actually explain that? I know how 'enlightened' you all claim to be in your 'collective consciousness'--but, are you? If it's up to her to decide, then, why can't you call that 'free choice'--and the right to have it? Or, if it's not 'free choice', since you say it is 'up to her to decide' but you keep putting forth excuses for her 'to make that decision', what is it that your 'enlightened view' is actually offering instead? 'Community interest support'? Watch out there, when you disregard the right to choose, 'community interest support' has a 'turnabout possibility' that can counter that 'choice'. After all, even in 'community interest's sake', you haven't offered how that 'community interest' is going to be more for the mother who is choosing--and less for the life of the fetus that she is 'choosing against'?

Quote Zenzoe:

I can also imagine situations where a pregnancy has reached the point of viability, but the choice of delivering a live birth would be unethical or just plain crazy, and the prospect horrifying to those involved

In what way? A medical emergency way? A grossly disfigured and can't live on its own way? Which excuse are you going to offer now?

You see, what really needs to be 'imagined' in this situaiton is quite simple. Can you 'imagine' any situation that you can be involved in that would end up with you being pregnant but still not want the child. If you can do so, then you have just--from a 'politically ethical' manner (in lines with 'judge not unless you yourself are judged')--justified elective abortions. But, does such a justification include 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it'? Most of us that see some justifications personally for elective abortions socially see that option as an insult to our humanity. And, the most pertinent point against that option is that, like Roe vs. Wade's use of the 'right to privacy' in deciding this issue, the further along in the pregnancy that the woman goes, the less likely such a decision will be able to be 'private' between 'her and her doctor'--many of the late term abortions have to be done in suites that others are involved in--are their considerations in this to be ignored for the sake of 'professional conduct'--if so, that 'professional conduct' would be more like a soldier killing in war disregarding all other 'human thoughts'--especially not what most people would, otherwise, see pertinent in 'medical professionals'. And, when a delivery does involve more than 'the professional you hired', don't be too surprised when even people intending on 'empowering women' see that procedure as 'barbaric'--in fact, more so than what I describe in killing a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer that, at least, has gone through due process to have their right to life removed appropriately in many people's minds--except, of course, you liberals that want that killer 'rehabilitated' as you want the fetus--who does not kill--'killed on the spot'....for, of course, what you say are 'compassionate causes'....

I noticed that you ignored my questions, Zenzoe. Can you explain why?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:

The D's ren, Zenzoe and I comprise this board's analog of old school World Championship Wrestling's dreaded Four Horsemen and their manager. We're led down the aisle to the debating ring by our manageress, Zenzoe, much to the disapproval and "Boos!" of Bobby the Brain Heenan's (Ron Paul's) "Humanoids" (The Tea Party), who all think we're the villains. They're busy Keeping the Faith that pro wrestling (Con/Lib doctrine) is genuine and that ain't easy with villains like us to fight!

I love the sound of "Boos!" in the morning. Kind of sounds like -- victory. Yeah.

ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO!

Hey, I don't wanna be the "manageress!" As I see it, we're an Intergender Tag Team, and I'm wearing something along these lines (center pic): http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kQ2ul5-0TpI/TtsIq8aj5bI/AAAAAAAADTE/kAu1An_ejO... —that's because I'd just as soon scalp one of those Humanoids, especially the one with the slack jaw and the single, bushy eyebrow above his eyes. I mean, where'd he come from? Outta nowhere flys this ape-man with that ineffectual and foul club in his paw, thinking all women deserve to be dragged unconscious into a cave. So I'm just gonna dance around him, 'cause I don't think he could survive my moonsault.

The question is, how to pin you-know-who down? Squirmy little guy, eh?

;-)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Hi Squirmy.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Zenzoe:

1) Do you want 'medical emergencies' to define 'elective abortions'?

And, along the same lines:

2) Do you want elective abortions to have an excuse that others can agree on (instead of just the mother)--or the mother's free choice?

And, if you believe in 'free choice':

3) In pregnancies, do you see that as being an absolute right (or are 'all rights to be conditioned') at some points in the pregnancy--but, then, conditioned against any fetal rights later on--even to the point of removing its 'free choice' altogether in late stage pregnancies?

You see, again, Roe vs. Wade never allowed 'free choice abortions to term' despite all the distractions from the right--and, now, the left. It allowed it in the first trimester--and, then, allowed the state to intervene on the fetus's behalf either partially (as in 'gaining rights')--or completely (as in 'having rights'--especially the 'right to life')--the further the fetus developed. So, here's another question:

4) Do you think that a position that 'empowers women' with respect to pregnancy can only be confirmed if one is willing to accept 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it'? For no other reason. With a child that has no problem--and with a mother that has no risks--except for the displeasure of being in a uterus that (for some reason) allowed the pregnancy to go on until right before delivery.

Can you address any of these questions, Zenzoe?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The time for refuting repetitive posts has come and gone. I refuted them, but you keep singing the same song with the same refrain. Zenzoe and I have both asked that the law not intrude in this decision and that the woman who has to live with the consequences be trusted to be the decider, but not left alone without help or support. Help and support does not mean a bunch of people preaching at her, by the way. It means people who take her seriously and recognize that she has a lot more on the line than they do.

What this means is that the fetus is not an innocent person, but becomes a moral player in a relationship with the woman whose womb it is in. We can disagree on the importance of bringing these lives into a world where they will be a burden or be burdened instead of welcomed. When the critics of abortion love the child as much or more as they care about the fetus, the conditions of the choice will be altered as well. I still don't think that makes the law the tool for society to use.

When I think about "right to life" and the issue of socially accepted killing, I continue to find the fetus the most protected and cared for of all the victims of our various forms of killing. Is it ok for kids to have to live with pesticides and unsafe water? And so forth. Then there is war. But short of war, all the corporate decisions that safety is too expensive and paying off the claims gives a better bottom line. Medicine is rife with these considerations around pharms, etc.

So, I just want to say for the last time Kerry, keep the law out of the woman's life and trust her to make this decision. Stop with the polemics about how medical procedures are done as if that were the issue here. Within your profession, you can debate all this with doctors, but do not make the rest of us responsible for deciding which of you docs is better informed, more caring or more moral.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Can you address any of these questions, Zenzoe?

That's not a list of questions, Kerry. That's a log ride down the vortex of your mania.

Read what DRC wrote at 677, then, if you still can't let it go, you can go back and search all my comments for the answers to your "questions." I'm not repeating myself.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Ulysses:

The D's ren, Zenzoe and I comprise this board's analog of old school World Championship Wrestling's dreaded Four Horsemen and their manager. We're led down the aisle to the debating ring by our manageress, Zenzoe, much to the disapproval and "Boos!" of Bobby the Brain Heenan's (Ron Paul's) "Humanoids" (The Tea Party), who all think we're the villains. They're busy Keeping the Faith that pro wrestling (Con/Lib doctrine) is genuine and that ain't easy with villains like us to fight!

I love the sound of "Boos!" in the morning. Kind of sounds like -- victory. Yeah.

ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO!

Hey, I don't wanna be the "manageress!" As I see it, we're an Intergender Tag Team, and I'm wearing something along these lines (center pic): http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kQ2ul5-0TpI/TtsIq8aj5bI/AAAAAAAADTE/kAu1An_ejO... —that's because I'd just as soon scalp one of those Humanoids, especially the one with the slack jaw and the single, bushy eyebrow above his eyes. I mean, where'd he come from? Outta nowhere flys this ape-man with that ineffectual and foul club in his paw, thinking all women deserve to be dragged unconscious into a cave. So I'm just gonna dance around him, 'cause I don't think he could survive my moonsault.

The question is, how to pin you-know-who down? Squirmy little guy, eh?

;-)

OK. Well, then do clap him into a polemical sleeper hold or a painful rhetorical half-Nelson! But be careful. I think he's one of those who harbors foreign objects in his tights, which he will produce at will and use on you while the ref's not looking.

Squirmy? Affirmative; an inchworm of mythological proportions!

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote bullwinkle:

U- You make an unborn innocent fetus/child guilty with absolutely no proof and yet are willing to let a DNA proven murderer off.

Do I? Did you divine my position on that by using your crystal ball, halfwit? (And when did I stop beating my wife?) Whoo, Boy! Talk about PROJECTION! I challenge you to find any detailed remarks, pro or con, from me, on that tangential red herring. I refused to even get into it because I consider it ridiculous and not completely germane to the main issue of this thread. It's also a purposive distraction which has been worn to shreds by the alleged doctor.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense , coming from a leftwing idealogue that most of the time doesn't know of what he speaks, only blather.

Well, at least I do understand what I'm ignorant about and what I'm not ignorant about, and I know how to spell "ideologue" and everything else you've misspelled in your recent dull screeds. The way I figure it, that puts me a minimum of three up on ya.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Bull, I find it ironic that conserv-itarians are always bringing up racism with regard to Planned Parenthood. As if there's nothing racist when they label Obama the food stamp president. As if there's nothing racist in their strict constitutionalism. As if the whole fucking country wasn't founded in racism.

What matters is what Planned Parenthood and this nation have become...what they offer to people's lives NOW. I see reproductive freedom as a big part of making human life better. Obviously, you don't.

Either way, Sanger's opinions no more discredit PP or abortion any more than owning a Volkswagon makes you a NAZI...or an anti-semite.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 7:47 pm
Quote DRC:

The time for refuting repetitive posts has come and gone. I refuted them, but you keep singing the same song with the same refrain. Zenzoe and I have both asked that the law not intrude in this decision and that the woman who has to live with the consequences be trusted to be the decider, but not left alone without help or support.

So, DRC, let me see if I can understand the gist of your condemnation of this 'repetitiveness'. In saying that 'the law' should be 'left out of this', are you saying that Roe vs. Wade should be removed? I'm not sure what 'realistic perspective' you are speaking from when you say this should 'only' be left 'between the woman and her doctor'--that is not realistically possible when the abortion has to be performed in a surgery suite--like most late stage abortions would have to be. So, at the risk of sounding repetitive, what do you say should be those who are not the woman or are not the woman's doctor to do if they are forced to witness 'crushing a fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth'. Be silent? Overlook the assault on their own sense of humanity because, according to what you seem to assume, that 'proves it empowers women' to do so?

I won't repeat all the arguments that I have given against that. However, I will, once again, register my vehement disagreement in that assessment. Need I go to 'cutting the dick off, cramming it down the throat, shoving a hot rod up the ass, and slowly exsanguinating to death a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer' to show why?

Quote DRC:

What this means is that the fetus is not an innocent person, but becomes a moral player in a relationship with the woman whose womb it is in.

Yes, you say that as if with a straight face when you look down on your perch as to how 'ending the fetus's life' can 'answer' its abusive impregnation as if 'that guilt' is, also, the fetus's. Not once saying what you would do to the father that molested her. Or, what 'rehabilitation' you would offer to the one who murders the late-stage abortionist for that matter. I know you don't like 'things to be repeated'--but, I repeat them for a purpose. And, I don't see that purpose being met. No matter how 'enlightened' you claim 'your position' to be....

Quote DRC:

When the critics of abortion love the child as much or more as they care about the fetus, the conditions of the choice will be altered as well. I still don't think that makes the law the tool for society to use.

So, realistically to you, does that mean Roe vs. Wade be damned? And, especially, whatever 'rights' that decision may represent in this case? And, especially, considering the very point that 'elective abortions' have nothing to do with 'medical emergencies' as in any sense having 'the risks of pregnancy of the mother' answered by 'killing the fetus'. But, then, I repeat myself again....

And, do you not at least have an inkling of an idea that the personal responsibility this takes is the mother (and whoever she can muster in that regard) caring for the child--not 'the community'? And, if not, see to it that such a person with its own rights to life be taken care of by someone? Or, is that, also, an anachronistic way to 'see humanity' in your 'enlightened collective consciousness'? But, again, I repeat myself...

Quote DRC:

When I think about "right to life" and the issue of socially accepted killing, I continue to find the fetus the most protected and cared for of all the victims of our various forms of killing.

I'm sorry, DRC. You lost me on that one. How do you 'protect' something that you kill? No matter, by the way, how, or why, you kill it? Does the fetus that is killed really make sense to you that it is 'more protected and cared for'? I think you are the one going off the edge here, DRC.....

Quote DRC:

But short of war, all the corporate decisions that safety is too expensive and paying off the claims gives a better bottom line.

I don't mind corporations being held 'personally responsible'--especially if they are going to be granted 'personhood rights'...what gave you the idea that I thought otherwise?

Quote DRC:

So, I just want to say for the last time Kerry, keep the law out of the woman's life and trust her to make this decision. Stop with the polemics about how medical procedures are done as if that were the issue here.

Yeah, you do keep saying that, also--but, of course, typical to your posturing that 'you tolerate in your friends what you condemn in your enemies', you don't see it that way, do you? And, what does you statement say--or even mean--about Roe vs. Wade? You see, I know that there is nothing in killing the fetus that is going to make any difference to the risks of the mother. It's not a medical prerequisite to have the fetus killed in any way to 'save the life of the mother'. And, that's therapeutic abortions. So, if this all has to do with 'the health of the mother', what medical purpose to that effect that 'the doctor' is to take in elective abortions, I have no earthly--or realistic--idea. And, as a great majority of all induced abortions indicate, this isn't for 'the health of the mother'--and, especially with regard to elective abortions, this is for 'the choice of the mother'. And, it's not a 'medical answer' to the question: Does that mother have the right to do that? That is a political--and legal--one. There is no 'medical answer' in aborting a normal fetus by choice. But, again, I repeat myself...

Quote DRC:

Within your profession, you can debate all this with doctors, but do not make the rest of us responsible for deciding which of you docs is better informed, more caring or more moral.

It's you who likes to use the word 'compassion' to the issue of 'abortion', DRC. But, if you really think that that word has any role in elective abortions, the problem becomes one of 'what compassion' and 'to whom'? That, you never seem to acknowledge.....and 'the doctor' won't 'answer it' for you, either. But, if you think that there is a source that says that elective abortions are to be done 'for the physical risks of life of the mother'--and that realistically represents such an issue--and, the 'compassion of the doctor' to that end is what 'guides this'--bring it forth.....but, I am here to tell you outright, DRC, it doesn't exist.....prove me wrong....otherwise, accept the point that this is NOT a 'medical issue'.....it is a legal and political one--and, realistically and rightfully, one that takes into account 'rights to humans'......

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Read what DRC wrote at 677, then, if you still can't let it go, you can go back and search all my comments for the answers to your "questions." I'm not repeating myself.

Repeating yourself? I am pretty sure that you never answered them once, Zenzoe. Nor did any of your compadres. But, just for the record, I'll 'repeat myself':

Zenzoe:

1) Do you want 'medical emergencies' to define 'elective abortions'?

And, along the same lines:

2) Do you want elective abortions to have an excuse that others can agree on (instead of just the mother)--or the mother's free choice?

And, if you believe in 'free choice':

3) In pregnancies, do you see that as being an absolute right (or are 'all rights to be conditioned') at some points in the pregnancy--but, then, conditioned against any fetal rights later on--even to the point of removing its 'free choice' altogether in late stage pregnancies?

You see, again, Roe vs. Wade never allowed 'free choice abortions to term' despite all the distractions from the right--and, now, the left. It allowed it in the first trimester--and, then, allowed the state to intervene on the fetus's behalf either partially (as in 'gaining rights')--or completely (as in 'having rights'--especially the 'right to life')--the further the fetus developed. So, here's another question:

4) Do you think that a position that 'empowers women' with respect to pregnancy can only be confirmed if one is willing to accept 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it'? For no other reason. With a child that has no problem--and with a mother that has no risks--except for the displeasure of being in a uterus that (for some reason) allowed the pregnancy to go on until right before delivery.

Can you address any of these questions, Zenzoe?

And, if your tag team wants to address them instead of you, I'm OK with that. But, don't try to fool me into thinking that you have really 'answered them'--you haven't once addressed them. Much like DRC does with 'rehabilitating the child rapist-murderer' (as DRC is for killing the fetus)--but not saying what to do with one who murders a late stage abortionist--how to 'rehabilitate' them--or 'understand their motives'--like DRC offered is 'proper' to do in the instance of the child rapist-murderer....but, then, again, I repeat myself. But, there is a reason that I do so--you really never address what I'm saying....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote DRC:

The time for refuting repetitive posts has come and gone. I refuted them, but you keep singing the same song with the same refrain. Zenzoe and I have both asked that the law not intrude in this decision and that the woman who has to live with the consequences be trusted to be the decider, but not left alone without help or support.

So, DRC, let me see if I can understand the gist of your condemnation of this 'repetitiveness'. In saying that 'the law' should be 'left out of this', are you saying that Roe vs. Wade should be removed?

This is totally disingenuous, and lends credence to ren's notion that he just enjoys bickering, because it's evident to anybody who isn't a halfwit that given all previous context in this thread, he wouldn't have meant that. DRC can answer for himself, but there's no way I was going to let that go without pointing it out.

So, at the risk of sounding repetitive,

The RISK?! THE RISK?! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!.....................................................................

I won't repeat all the arguments that I have given against that.

Oh, Be Joyful! Thanks to the Great God of Lib Selfishness for that! WHEW!...

However, I will, once again, register my vehement disagreement in that assessment.

I knew it was too good to be true.

Need I go to 'cutting the dick off, cramming it down the throat, shoving a hot rod up the ass, and slowly exsanguinating to death a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer' to show why?

Why did he ask? He just did it by asking, didn't he?

Quote DRC:

What this means is that the fetus is not an innocent person, but becomes a moral player in a relationship with the woman whose womb it is in.

I know you don't like 'things to be repeated'--but, I repeat them for a purpose. And, I don't see that purpose being met. No matter how 'enlightened' you claim 'your position' to be....

By stating that he doesn't see the purpose being met, he means he doesn't get the answers he wants to hear.

Quote DRC:

When the critics of abortion love the child as much or more as they care about the fetus, the conditions of the choice will be altered as well. I still don't think that makes the law the tool for society to use.

So, realistically to you, does that mean Roe vs. Wade be damned?

More rhetorical disingenuousness.

But, then, I repeat myself again....

How surprising.

Or, is that, also, an anachronistic way to 'see humanity' in your 'enlightened collective consciousness'? But, again, I repeat myself...

Again, he repeats himself. He does, you know. He just said so. Then he did it. He repeated himself. Again. Get it?

Quote DRC:

When I think about "right to life" and the issue of socially accepted killing, I continue to find the fetus the most protected and cared for of all the victims of our various forms of killing.

I'm sorry, DRC. You lost me on that one. How do you 'protect' something that you kill? No matter, by the way, how, or why, you kill it? Does the fetus that is killed really make sense to you that it is 'more protected and cared for'? I think you are the one going off the edge here, DRC.....

"I'm rubber and you're glue. Anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you. Neener, neener, neener!"

Quote DRC:

But short of war, all the corporate decisions that safety is too expensive and paying off the claims gives a better bottom line.

Quote DRC:

So, I just want to say for the last time Kerry, keep the law out of the woman's life and trust her to make this decision. Stop with the polemics about how medical procedures are done as if that were the issue here.

Yeah, you do keep saying that, also--but, of course, typical to your posturing that 'you tolerate in your friends what you condemn in your enemies', you don't see it that way, do you?

He repeats himself. Again, you know.

I have no earthly--or realistic--idea.

Why, hell powerhouse, that applies to just about everything you say.

But, again, I repeat myself...

Well, there's nothing new under the sun -- that's for sure.

Quote DRC:

Within your profession, you can debate all this with doctors, but do not make the rest of us responsible for deciding which of you docs is better informed, more caring or more moral.

.....but, I am here to tell you outright, DRC,

Quicker than AMSLAN, I guess.

it doesn't exist.....prove me wrong....otherwise, accept the point that this is NOT a 'medical issue'.....it is a legal and political one--and, realistically and rightfully, one that takes into account 'rights to humans'......

And this was CERTAINLY a political answer: it was an answer which did not address the point which precursed it. George W. Bush couldn't have said it any better. Again. Once more. To repeat myself. I'm here to tell you that, as opposed to being here for some other reason. Get it?

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

And, if your tag team wants to address them instead of you, I'm OK with that. But, don't try to fool me into thinking that you have really 'answered them'--you haven't once addressed them.

"CAW! CAW! CAW!................................................................."

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

In a follow-up on DRC's proposal that 'the law' stay out of this issue when almost all induced abortions have no medical indication (ie. 'real physical risks to the mother'--or fetus for that matter) to be done--I am wondering what 'authoritative advice' DRC expects the doctor to give the mother with an unwanted pregnancy in this set-up that should be 'only between the doctor and the mother' as a 'medical advice and process'. The only 'advice' that doctor can give is right along the line of 'advice' that this issue politically and legally contains--it's 'your body' and 'you should have the choice to do with it as you will'--ie. unlike the naysayers here in liberal--'enlightenment means collective consciousness'--land, 'free choice'--and the right to have it. And, as also should be obvious to the naysayers, this 'free choice right' is NOT a given that, somehow, the presence of the doctor (in this case, 'hired' to kill the fetus--or is there going to be a 'second opinion' here, DRC?) magically 'authorizes' just from his or her presence. It's not. And, once again, it's not because most induced abortions have a medical (ie. 'therapeutic') indication to abort--the indication to abort is only because the mother wants it. And, the mother gains that ability not from 'the advice' of the doctor (whom she is 'hiring')--but, from the political and legal allowance for her to do so as a 'right'. And, as E.M. Halliday pointed out in his book, Understanding Thomas Jefferson, rights don't 'exist in a vacuum'--or by 'decision by an authority'--in fact, the very government that recognizes them (as a 'natural right') secures them (of course, that's only a government intent on 'securing and guaranteeing individual rights'). As Halliday put it (emphases will be mine):

This is not to deny that Jefferson was forever suspicious of the tendency for power to feed upon itself and corruptly violate its responsibility. His whole career as secretary of state and vice president was a struggle to prevent the American ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence from being subverted by an opposing force, represented by Federalist leaders like Alexander Hamilton and (to some extent) John Adams, which encouraged the idea that common people were not to be trusted: that what they needed was a strong ruling class, consisting of the wealthy and cultivated, to run the country and tell them how to behave. Jefferson's lifelong opposition to any such unbalanced "consolidation" of governmental power against the ultimate control of the people has been misinterpreted by some historians as resting on a fundamental "hostility to government," a "conviction that government is at best a necessary evil." But, as the Declaration of Independence makes abundantly clear, Jefferson understood very well that the "inalienable rights" it proclaims are not self-protecting. Indeed, it is the primary obligation of government to "secure" those rights, and to exercise its power toward the "safety & happiness" of its citizens.

Not a medical decision--a legal and political one. So, in that light, especially with the issue of 'rights to humans' that this issue really does involve (Roe vs. Wade and all), the contention does then become when does a human life with rights begin. That, also, is not a 'medical decision' because, as Roe vs. Wade figured out, the definition of 'human life' is hard to pin down in the process of the developing fetus--especially if a natural definition were to be used (and its not 'made natural' by killing a fetus just before everyone else would know it could be born alive 'moments later'). Again, with respect to rights, it becomes a political--and legal--determination. But, make no mistake about it, if those here in liberal-'enlightenment means collective consciousness'-land think that 'crushing a fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' is a more acceptable procedure to most humans whose socializing processes include human feelings than, say, 'cutting the dick off, cramming it down the throat, shoving a hot rod up the ass, and slowly exsanguinating to death the DNA-proven child rapist-murderer', I think the liberal-'enlightment means collective consciousness'-land gang has a little more to consider here than just what 'a doctor (hired to perform the procedure) and the mother can decide'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Listen, Kerry, I understand what gives you your sense of absolute certitude about this subject. I get that your view of a viable, unborn fetus grants it equal status with any other living person. I get that. In your mind, once a fetus reaches that stage of viability, to kill it becomes as morally and ethically abhorrent as killing a month-old baby would be. And I get how you might feel driven to defend such "innocent life" and feel righteous, even heroic, about your advocacy on behalf of such "children." In fact, I would even grant you your pride in this, given the logic of your approach to the subject. That's why I've mostly given up on you, because I know it's a matter of conscience for you. If I saw the subject through the same lens, I would feel as committed to my position as you do. Your position has a certain logic to it, and there's probably nothing I can say to change your mind.

I'm a rather independent-minded person, as you may have noticed. If I thought you were right, I would join you against the "tag team," regardless. But to take your position would require that I ignore some highly important facts, and require that I disregard all other realities, including the fact that a fetus does not actually have true viability. A fetus lives embedded in the flesh of its mother, a fully-formed, whole person, and it has no ability to survive on its own without her, or without technological intervention; that is, its existence has no equivalency with a born baby. To imagine it does would be to disappear a whole person, her body and her mind, as if her existence counted for nothing. And I cannot engage in such a delusion, such a sentimental fantasy, such an ignorant lie.

If you don't believe late-term abortions have any justifications, then don't perform them. Leave that to doctors who look at women and see human beings, not incubators.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Zenzoe, while I have given up on you commenting directly to my questioning--something that, by the way, I did do for you when you numbered the questions to me quite awhile back--and while I get this idea that 'my position' is what you think is due to 'my logic' (and where's 'reality' in this, Zenzoe?)--I was wondering if you could comment on anything that I specifically said in the post right above yours. More to my point that 'our discussion' has contended with all along here, Zenzoe--should 'the law' be left out of this? And, please, in responding to that (if you do), can you add in the very recognition that, in most induced abortions, there is absolutely no medical (ie. 'therapeutic') indication for them to be done. I want to understand how you have 'determined' this issue other than by some reflex action that 'community consciousness' (however 'enlightened' you think it is) or 'the decision between the doctor and the mother' somehow 'answer this'....

And, for the record once again, I am not against elective abortions. And, as far as the 'woman only as an incubator', I thought that I had made my position clear. If the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive--and killing it before having it come out does not, in any way, 'improve' the risks the mother may be taking with her pregnancy.

Also, for the record, while I don't do elective abortions, there have been women in my immediate family that have had them. And, while not doing elective abortions, I bet I have seen more dead fetuses by the way of spontaneous abortions (ie. 'miscarriages') than any of you have. Their frequency has, indeed, had me question the sanctity that some do give with 'life at conception'--but, as I've 'reasoned', this is not about 'life' as much as it is about the 'right' of the mother to decide what to do with an unwanted pregnancy. I just think that such a mother needs to make a responsible decision at the outset of her pregnancy--and stick with that decision. Certainly before the fetus could come out on its own--alive.....

You see, if you are wanting to contend with my position because it has a 'moral conscience' to it, I will concede to that point. But, the part to my position on this that I think is 'morally conscience' has to do with what I believe should be involved in any and every pregnancy--personal responsibility to it, one way or the other. Do you think all 'morally conscience' issues are to be disregarded in this issue of a mother being pregnant? What does a 'enlightened collective consciousness' put in its place? Or, is there no need under your banner to have personal responsibility in this issue?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The original reason for banning abortions and outlawing midwives was financial. Churches were brought into the fray to invent a moral reason for this. It is NOT Biblical.

There may be many moral reasons for objecting to abortions, however religion is not one of them. It must be entirely up to a pregnant woman to continue her pregnancy or not. Forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy is no different than slavery. Slavery is both immoral and illegal.

The same people who "care" about the viability of the fetus in many cases also don't want to provide for prenatal care to those women who can't afford it, are fighting to ban contraception, are against medicaid, universal health insurance, public education, are pro-war, etc., etc. If you aren't one of them, keep out of women's decisions anyway. It's a matter of triage where women must be the ones to decide.

Women must be the only ones who decide about their own pregnancies. Pregnancy is hard work, labor is harder; true immorality is forcing women to go through pregnancy and labor against their will. Governments have no business making decisions that turn women into slaves for the self-proclaimed morality police. Slavery was outlawed after the civil war. That includes women too.

Did you support the Iraq war? Afghanistan war? Invading Iran?

zenie's picture
zenie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Kerry, as I have told you a number of times before —arrgghhh!— I do not entirely disagree with Roe's direction concerning the "compelling interest" of a State in protecting potential human life after viability; I also agree with Roe's opinion as to the equally compelling interest, after viability, in the life and health of the mother, which includes her mental and emotional health, as well as her right of privacy. That is, the decision advocated for balance.

I do not think, however, that Roe —the law— has sufficiently considered all the factors that might come into play, where a decision to terminate a pregnancy and even "kill" the fetus may be necessary, and ethically correct.

That is why, from a practical point of view, I believe these decisions need to be made by the woman and her licensed physician alone —a doctor whose best interest, presumably, would be to counsel any woman against having an elective abortion (non-therapeutic) at nine months, since he could face legal difficulties himself; and that's the reason I think it's rarely done, aside from the fact of maternal compassion— without over-burdensome interference by State officials, or second and third-opinion requirements, or "live birth" requirements. Otherwise, the entire atmosphere surrounding pregnancy, birth and the relationship between pregnant patients and their doctors becomes a Kafkaesque nightmare.

The concurring Justices in Roe v. Wade avoided any notion of the absolute nature of any right, as far as I can tell. Life, yes, a right. Privacy, yes, a right. Freedom, yes, a right. But no right can be unconditional, or can have overriding dominance over other rights. I know you have trouble with this concept, but, that's life... ;-)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote zenie:

The same people who "care" about the viability of the fetus in many cases also don't want to provide for prenatal care to those women who can't afford it, are fighting to ban contraception, are against medicaid, universal health insurance, public education, are pro-war, etc., etc. If you aren't one of them, keep out of women's decisions anyway. It's a matter of triage where women must be the ones to decide.

You are making a whole lot of assumptions there on what 'people who "care" about fetal viability' do or do not do--do you have anything other than your assumptions to back that up? Why, even the 'misogynist and repressive state of Texas' (that only allows legal elective abortions to 20 weeks vs., as Zenzoe reports, California's 24 week legality limit) offers a whole lot of prenatal care and state-supported children's medical benefits.

I understand this is a 'women's choice' issue and I hope to God that the women take that responsibility to heart and choose. I do not think (nor, apparently, do many states offer) that that 'choice' be delayed until fetal viability can have that child now come out alive with little to no medical intervention--to me, that's a 'natural definition' of life with pregnancy. When the fetus is totally dependent upon the woman's uterus to survive, the woman, to me, has complete and absolute and totally free choice. And, this issue has nothing to do with 'therapeutic abortions'--if the woman's pregnancy is at risk in the late stages of pregnancy, there is absolutely no reason to kill the fetus before getting it out from a medical viewpoint. In a facility that can handle it, an experienced physician can get a fetus out of the uterus by C-section within 5 minutes. I bet it would take longer than that just to kill the fetus.

Did you support the Iraq war? Afghanistan war? Invading Iran?

If you are speaking to me, no.

But, there is another thing to this line of 'reasoning' that I doubt you have considered. Just like your argument that 'why would those who don't mind killing children in war want to save every fetus in pregnancy', the same thing can be asked to those like you 'why would those who don't mind killing fetuses in any stage in pregnancy mind killing anyone else'? Including DNA-proven child-rapist murderers.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I think you might find that we are not in favor of killing per se. We could simply agree to disagree were it not for the hyperbole and your sense of being wounded because others, who do not conspire together even if you feel we do, disagree with you about bringing the law into this decision. You presume that it is impossible for a woman not to know she is pregnant at the point of labor. I know this to be false. It can, and does happen. The law is too blunt an instrument to solve all the moral instances involved. I prefer to keep it out and rely on the woman, informed and supported. This has nothing to do with wanting child rapists tortured.

I also am on record in favor of haning Dick Cheney for his elective wars and abuse of power. We do need some public examples about misusing power and going to war. Money cannot be allowed to trump peace, no matter how honest Dubya was in saying it did.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

There is only one sane conversation about abortion....it is held in private by a pregnant Woman and her choosen confidants. Any public discussion of my soul as a woman is nothing more than putting me up on the slavers block! It's about time people begin to understand Women are not sheep being led to the slaughter house of Male Opinion. As a woman, I don't look to just anyone for wisdom and would never consider a stranger worthy of my trust for myself and my future! When people start pushing their circumstantial morality on others in any form, we must protest! Women today need to be educated as to how bad we really can have it if we continue to allow men to sell us for political gain! Abortion was legalized by the time my pregnancy threatened my life, but it is still just that, barely legal and a devisive issue used for evil against Women.

jdadam's picture
jdadam
Joined:
Jun. 3, 2011 11:53 am
Quote Zenzoe:

Kerry, as I have told you a number of times before —arrgghhh!— I do not entirely disagree with Roe's direction concerning the "compelling interest" of a State in protecting potential human life after viability; I also agree with Roe's opinion as to the equally compelling interest, after viability, in the life and health of the mother, which includes her mental and emotional health, as well as her right of privacy. That is, the decision advocated for balance.

So, am I to take it that you are for, or maybe even recognize the need, for the law in elective abortions being involved? Especially those forms of elective abortions that are done when there is no physical risk to the mother's life at the time she decides to abort--which is, by far, most induced abortions? And, what 'balance' are you saying is possible in adding 'mental and emotional health' to this issue of elective abortions in late stage pregnancies? Do you think that there is something that an elective abortion can solve to a mother's 'mental and emotional health' if she carries the pregnancy all the way to term before deciding to abort the fetus? I don't....no more than going ahead and having the child adopted out....

Quote Zenzoe:

I do not think, however, that Roe —the law— has sufficiently considered all the factors that might come into play, where a decision to terminate a pregnancy and even "kill" the fetus may be necessary, and ethically correct.

How many times are you going to offer this excuse, Zenzoe? An excuse that has absolutely no relevance to what really happens in how late stage pregnancies are always handled--and that being that there is absolutely no advantage to killing the fetus with respect to any risks a mother may have in late stage abortions. None whatsoever. Now, I'm sure you have been looking and if you can find a source that claims otherwise, bring it forth.....I KNOW differently.....and I know the reality as to how all risky late-stage pregnancies are dealt with....that is, of course, why states like Texas and California offer legal abortion only into the second trimester--in Texas' case, as the youngest gestation that any child has ever come out of the uterus and survived.

There is no medical reason to kill the fetus before getting it out in late stage pregnancies. 'Therapeutic abortions'--especially in late stage pregnancies--have always involved fetuses that, otherwise, could not survive on their own--just like any due process consideration of a human life that could not survive on their own and could not speak for themself....and, 'therapeutic abortions' have nothing to do with 'elective abortions'--even the 'misogynist and repressive state of Texas' (as the deliberations of Roe vs. Wade noted) allowed 'therapeutic abortions' when it allowed no other type....

Quote Zenzoe:

That is why, from a practical point of view, I believe these decisions need to be made by the woman and her licensed physician alone....

But, there's a problem with that assessment. In true elective abortions, the only indication to abort is that the mother wants it--not because there is a 'medical necessity' in doing it. As such, just like I asked DRC, what 'advice' do you think is appropriate for the doctor to give? In elective abortions, the doctor is only their to do what the mother wants. And, Roe vs. Wade's offer of this being a 'right to privacy' issue works well when the procedure is completed in a spot that can involve only the doctor and that mother. That can happen in early abortions at the doctor's 'abortion clinic'--it cannot happen in late stage abortions as well because of the added complications possible in late stage pregnancies. When it has to happen in a hospital's surgery suite, there may be people present that don't agree with the procedure. What do think is the right thing to do then? Make them be quiet?

Quote Zenzoe:

The concurring Justices in Roe v. Wade avoided any notion of the absolute nature of any right, as far as I can tell. Life, yes, a right. Privacy, yes, a right. Freedom, yes, a right. But no right can be unconditional, or can have overriding dominance over other rights. I know you have trouble with this concept, but, that's life... ;-)

So, am I to take by your description above that you think that elective abortions have nothing to do with free choice--nor the woman's right to have that in her pregnancy? Roe vs. Wade did decide the issue of rights as absolute and universal--the woman had the free choice right to abort elective up until the 12th week of pregnancy all across the nation. And, while Roe vs. Wade did not offer the fetus the absolute right to life until birth (which does exist absolutely, by the way, Zenzoe), Roe vs. Wade did offer each state the right to restrict elective abortions after that--up to the point, as Texas and California confirm, forbidding elective abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy altogether. That is the legal reality of elective abortions. What you are vowing for--and the reasons that you 'condition all rights' to do it--I have no earthly idea. Do you? Really.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

You presume that it is impossible for a woman not to know she is pregnant at the point of labor. I know this to be false. It can, and does happen.

You've made that presumption before, DRC. Do you think aborting this child right before birth will answer any of the problems that woman may now face with 'suddenly' realizing she's pregnant?

Quote DRC:

The law is too blunt an instrument to solve all the moral instances involved.

Well, you're being a little disingenuous in that assessment. What the law--and all of us in the society that this law is supposed to protect--does have to do is decide when it is appropriate for a woman to have an elective abortion for any reason--and when it becomes a compelling interest of the state to consider any fetal rights such an act may be intruding on. And, none of that consideration in an elective abortion is medical because there is no medical reason to abort a normal pregnancy. There may be all sorts of social, family, economic, etc., reasons to do so--but, despite your insistence that that is all it takes 'a woman and her doctor', there is no medical reason to abort a normal pregnancy--which is, by far, most of the induced abortions. And, as I've said before (but you fail to even respond to it), Roe vs. Wade--in the very legal mechanism that this takes to decide--did realize that the fetus has been offered social rights before--and recognized that a fetus can be named as a recipient to benefits in wills and trusts--something that, of course, the fetus cannot obtain without being born. How is a doctor to decide that, DRC? And, what is that to say about a woman who decides to abort that fetus, say, to benefit herself or one of her other children? Is that something that 'she and her doctor' can agree to?

Quote DRC:

This has nothing to do with wanting child rapists tortured.

It does have to do with how you can accept the death of a child right before birth as being a socially appropriate act--yet, claim that a child rapist-murderer deserves rehabilitation. Even claim that killing the fetus answers any abuse that may have occured in the impregnation. All being ways in which you thwart personal responsibility for something you say involves a 'we consciousness'...and you claim that position to be 'civil'.....I suspect many good people would disagree with you--even those who want to 'empower women'--but, also realize the very social need to maintain personal responsibility.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote jdadam:

As a woman, I don't look to just anyone for wisdom and would never consider a stranger worthy of my trust for myself and my future! When people start pushing their circumstantial morality on others in any form, we must protest!

So, am I to gather from your position that 'crushing a fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' is a rendition of this issue that you accept as being something that 'empowers women' and 'promotes social coherence'? I'm not real sure that I understand that form of 'we consciousness'.....

Apparently just like the state of Texas and California, I am for elective abortions up the point of viability. However, if the fetus can come out alive, otherwise, I am for the fetus coming out alive. I am against killing the fetus in late stages of pregnancy just to affect an elective abortion. Are you saying that my position doesn't go 'far enough'?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Practice according to your conscience, but do not interfere with others as if you had the right. Your opinion would be universal if other medical professionals agreed with you or if it covered every instance. Stop insulting others. I think I can respect your opinion and your sense of principle if you do not mess with others and insult us.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Roe vs. Wade did decide the issue of rights as absolute and universal--the woman had the free choice right to abort elective up until the 12th week of pregnancy all across the nation. And, while Roe vs. Wade did not offer the fetus the absolute right to life until birth (which does exist absolutely, by the way, Zenzoe), Roe vs. Wade did offer each state the right to restrict elective abortions after that--up to the point, as Texas and California confirm, forbidding elective abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy altogether.

When I said, "The concurring Justices in Roe v. Wade avoided any notion of the absolute nature of any right, as far as I can tell. Life, yes, a right. Privacy, yes, a right. Freedom, yes, a right. But no right can be unconditional, or can have overriding dominance over other rights," I referred, mostly, to rights to be balanced in the third trimester, as the Justices discussed those. And, the decision did not "forbid" elective abortions in the third trimester, it only granted to states the ability to proscribe or regulate elective abortions in the third trimester; that is, it said that to do so would not be an unconstitutional violation of the privacy rights of women. The decision distinguished between the first two trimesters and the third, in a way that tried to balance all the rights of all involved. This is what I mean by balance, and what you refer to as "conditioning," your odd way of dismissing such weighing of interests and rights, as communities must do to be civilized.

I do wish you would stop working so hard at misunderstanding my position.

What is it you wish me to say—"Yes, fetuses in the third trimester should always be extracted live, in any medical emergency, no matter what?" Well, I cannot say that. Too many realities exist to allow me to say such a thing absolutely. And besides, it's not up to me. I'm willing to trust women and their doctors to make that decision, and so should any enlightened State; it's one thing to pass laws proscribing elective abortions in the third trimester; it's quite another to enforce those laws. I mean, do you really want State officials marching into clinics, bent on interfering with surgeries in progress? Do you really want yet more reasons for doctors to be sued, to have their licenses taken away? (Btw, I think legal requirements that terminations of pregnancy in the third trimester must take place in a hospital are wrong; thus, your question about hospital staff squeamishness over late term abortion is moot. I don't care.)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Your opinion would be universal if other medical professionals agreed with you or if it covered every instance.

DRC, I would like you to find a medical professional that says that there is a medical indication to perform an abortion on a normal pregnancy--which is, as I've stated, a great majority of all induced abortions. There is rationally NO medical indication to do that--and that rational assessment should be obvious without you having to resort to this constant posturing that 'other medical professionals don't agree'. So, if you do find that medical professional that says that there is a medical indication to abort a normal pregnancy, bring it forth and I, for one, would like to hear what they say that 'medical indication' to abort a normal pregnancy is.

Face it, DRC. When you are offering a woman the right to abort, you are confirming that woman's selfish drive to do something against her offspring. I hope that sinks into your self-righteous head because that is exactly what is going on. A great majority of induced abortions do not occur because of 'the risks of the pregnancy to the mother'--certainly nothing that is threatening her life with her death. By far, a great majority of all induced abortions are done solely for the reason that the mother wants it. Very selfish of her, isn't it, DRC? Can you handle that in your 'both/and' analogy? Where's the 'both/and' here, DRC? Maybe the fetus is just an 'if'.....

You see, DRC, unlike you, I don't mind 'selfish motives'. The only time that I mind 'selfish motives' is when they unfairly and unjustly impose on some other 'self'. Is the fetus a 'self'? Is that a medical--or legal--question, DRC? Well, I don't think the fetus is a 'self' unless the fetus can come out on its own alive. I think that is quite a natural position to have. Absent that, the 'self' involved here is the mother and what she thinks she wants to do for 'herself'. And, as long as she's really doing it for 'herself', I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with all you 'we consciousness' promoters claiming that a reason for her to choose has to have some sort of 'victimhood posture' that you can feel good about in your 'triumph of victimhood', lack of personal responsibility (that's too 'selfish' for you, isn't it?), 'we consciousness' posturers that think this issue shouldn't be 'selfish'. I think it should be. It is 'selfish' of the mother to decide against her fetus. However, it is also 'selfish' of the mother to decide for her fetus as a child she loves apart from any other child. And, I allow her to make such 'selfish' decisions--for herself. However, I will expect her to act accordingly in accordance with that decision. The 'rights of conscience' do carry 'an obligation of personal responsibility'. But, you are against personal responsibility, aren't you, DRC? You imply that the doctor has the 'guiding authority' in this decision. And, I am not sure how any self-respecting woman doesn't see through that when it comes to elective abortions--something that has to be decided by law as a right for her to have since there is no medical indication to abort a normal pregnancy.....

Your 'we consciousness' in this issue is insulting, DRC....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

. And, the decision (of Roe vs. Wade) did not "forbid" elective abortions in the third trimester, it only granted to states the ability to proscribe or regulate elective abortions in the third trimester; that is, it said that to do so would not be an unconstitutional violation of the privacy rights of women.

Point is that it allowed the states to forbid it--but, it did offer women the right to abort for any (or no) reason anywhere in the nation up to 12 weeks gestation--and, as unalienable rights go, that's pretty absolute, isn't it? And, since there is no medical indication to abort a normal pregnancy, I'm not sure about DRC but maybe you can see why 'the law' has to be involved in this--to determine the rights involved here and who has them....and, despite your problem with them, this realistically is about rights....

Plus, I think that you are misconstruing the 'right to privacy' as the only thing that Roe vs. Wade considered in elective abortions. True, they did claim the 'right to privacy' as a means of not having just the state--but anyone--involved in the decision making of elective abortions when they considered that to be a right. But, that wasn't 'all the way to term'. And, as I've pointed out, they recognized that the fetus did start gaining rights--legally, as a recipient to wills or trusts. With respect to the 'right to privacy', I don't think that Roe vs. Wade realized what form of reaction in the community could occur when that procedure between the woman and the doctor weren't kept private--as oftentimes is the case in late stage pregnancies. And, despite D_NATURED's rather macho posturing on this issue (that you seem to respect as a 'chivalrous act'), most people (including females) don't want to witness 'crushing a fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth'--and, most people (including females) would have a hard time rationalizing (I know, there's that word, again) with that being done solely because 'the mother wanted it'.....so, when this issue gets out of the realm of a 'private act', you should expect some backlash. I would be like sexual intercourse being an intimate act in private--but, oftentimes, pornographic and offensive when done in public....

Quote Zenzoe:

This is what I mean by balance, and what you refer to as "conditioning," your odd way of dismissing such weighing of interests and rights, as communities must do to be civilized.

You are the one that wanted to 'condition all rights' from the onset of this discussion, Zenzoe--to the point to where no right were absolute. The point is--as the consideration of rights in Roe vs. Wade indicates--it was understood that this was a legal issue related to rights--and that those rights had to be determined in order for this to how a legal bearing. And, like any consideration of rights in a legal basis, there had to be a determination as to when that person had that right under any condition (ie. 'absolutely')--and when it had to be conditioned and, from a legal perspective, that 'conditioning' was to be considered against another's rights--and when that right was present under any condition (ie, 'absolute'),. And, also, as I've stated on more than one occasion, Roe vs. Wade decided the two 'absolutes' to be the mother having the absolute right to an elective abortion (for any, or no, reason) up to 12 weeks gestation and the fetus with the absolute right to life at birth--but, then, gave each state the right to intervene as it saw fit between those two absolutes. And, again, it is proper for the law to be involved in this because there is no medical indication to abort a normal pregnancy, otherwise....and, certainly, as most induced abortions indicate, nothing to do with 'threatening the life of the mother with death'....

Quote Zenzoe:

I do wish you would stop working so hard at misunderstanding my position.

Well, DRC says that part of 'your position' is, as DRC's, to leave the law out of it--all elective abortions are just 'between the mother and her doctor'. And, you have stated your position as 'conditioning all rights'. So, perhaps, you can see some reasons why I 'misunderstand it'....

Quote Zenzoe:

What is it you wish me to say—"Yes, fetuses in the third trimester should always be extracted live, in any medical emergency, no matter what?" Well, I cannot say that. Too many realities exist to allow me to say such a thing absolutely.

Yeah, but you are missing my point--and, therefore, misunderstanding me. The reality is that there is no medical indication to kill the fetus in order to save the mother's life. Everything else that you offer as a 'reality' is false when it comes to what really happens in late stage pregnancy risks and complications--and how they are handled everytime.....this isn't an 'either/or' condition at this point (as in 'either the fetus's life' or 'the mother's life'), this is a 'both/and' condition--DRC should appreciate that but DRC hasn't acknowledged that point--and not because of its real presense but just because it goes against what DRC (and you) want to believe is involved in most elective abortions--and what is really involved is that the mother chooses to abort a normal pregnancy that is no physical--or medical--risk to herself....no 'both/and' there at all.....

Quote Zenzoe:

I'm willing to trust women and their doctors to make that decision, and so should any enlightened State

As in accordance with Roe vs. Wade, every state does without conditions up to 12 weeks. Is that 'enlightened' enough for you? What are you describing here that is 'more enlightened'? Should every state allow 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' as an indication of 'being enlightened'?

Quote Zenzoe:

...it's one thing to pass laws proscribing elective abortions in the third trimester; it's quite another to enforce those laws. I mean, do you really want State officials marching into clinics, bent on interfering with surgeries in progress?

They don't have to do that. All that is needed is one person in that surgery suite to complain to the state and, if the law exists forbidding third trimester abortions, that practitioner loses their license to practice. You think that a practitioner will be willing to do that for the 'compassion to the mother' that DRC says this issue involves? You both are naive if you do. DRC has a problem with 'selfish concerns'--but there are all sorts of reasons to have 'selfish interests' in this--with respect to personal responsibility and even with respect to what can be state imposed against someone....you know, like 'punishment' because, of course, 'rehabilitation' doesn't address all infractions of the law....

Quote Zenzoe:

Do you really want yet more reasons for doctors to be sued, to have their licenses taken away? (Btw, I think legal requirements that terminations of pregnancy in the third trimester must take place in a hospital are wrong; thus, your question about hospital staff squeamishness over late term abortion is moot. I don't care.)

As far as the license being able to be taken away, read above. In fact, now that you are mentioning, if, for instance, this child being aborted in the third trimester against what the law allows is, also, say, a recipient of some will or trust, any immediate member of that family could, then, sue the doctor for infringing on that offer--perhaps, in some states, even sue for the 'pain and suffering' it caused to have their little young-un killed (against the law) against their desires (they may be able to even sue the mother), and, of course, the doctor (and the mother) might even be able to be charged with manslaughter and/or murder. Welcome to the real world, Zenzoe....all sorts of 'personal responsibility' involved. I know how you 'we consciousness' people don't like it--but, it's there, nonetheless...and, for all practical matters, it should be there.....

As far as having a late stage abortion be done 'in private' between the mother and her doctor (and outside of the hospital), I guess that would be fine as long as no serious complications occur. But, if complications happen, then that woman could be just as dead as the two mothers D_NATURED keeps talking about--and, if that type of third trimester abortion is unlawful in that state, the practitioner could still be sued and/or charged criminally with manslaughter or murder--perhaps, as Texas did at one time, for 'two deaths'....again, welcome to the real world, Zenzoe....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

First, Kerry, before we go any further, please show me where I used the expression, "condition all rights," where I was not quoting you. As I recall, you began using the word "condition" first, with regard to rights, not me. But I could be wrong, I suppose, though "condition all rights" sounds quite odd to me. So, show me, please.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The Death of the Middle Class was by Design...

Even in the face of the so-called Recovery, poverty and inequality are getting worse in our country, and more wealth and power is flowing straight to the top. According to Paul Buchheit over at Alternet, this is the end result of winner-take-all capitalism, and this destruction of the working class has all been by design.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system