Abortion

[jravnsbo]

Guns topic is splintering to Abortion, so thought I'd open a new forum for that too.  enjoy:)

[jravnsbo]

guess never wondered till now, does GBR abortions?

I don't like abortions... but I don't see why they should be illegal...
Sorry to be glib/warped about this but the only people who would benifit would be people in the wire coat-hanger industry...

[jravnsbo]

I'm sure you know even many democrats were for the partial birth abortion ban.

I will re-affirm my stance I have taken on prior occassions. I believe a woman possesses the fundamental right to end her pregnancy, at all stages of fetal gestation, pursuant to Constitutional rules on liberty, equal protection, and citizenship. I believe that the government, under the same equal protection logic, is obligated to fund elective and therapeutic abortions. I believe the recently passed Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is ill-conceived, because I believe that those procedures should be legal under all circumstances, and they show an inimical bias against womankind. I think that is a fairly comprehensive overview of my view on abortion, and I suppose you all knew all of this before I wrote it down.

[jravnsbo]

thanks, 22 weeks, that is like 4-5 month range then, interesting.  Did th courts do it or legislative processes?

In 1967, Great Britain decriminalized abortions in the first 22 weeks of the pregnancy.

[jravnsbo]

good for him, many pro choice politicans are even aginst partial birth abortion.

I'm sure you know even many democrats were for the partial birth abortion ban.

I will re-affirm my stance I have taken on prior occassions. I believe a woman possesses the fundamental right to end her pregnancy, at all stages of fetal gestation, pursuant to Constitutional rules on liberty, equal protection, and citizenship. I believe that the government, under the same equal protection logic, is obligated to fund elective and therapeutic abortions. I believe the recently passed Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is ill-conceived, because I believe that those procedures should be legal under all circumstances, and they show an inimical bias against womankind. I think that is a fairly comprehensive overview of my view on abortion, and I suppose you all knew all of this before I wrote it down.

Dick Gephardt voted for the ban 7 times.

[jravnsbo]

hum legislative process, an odd concept to apass laws  

While a legal decision issued in 1933 allowed for abortions in certain cases where exigent circumstances existed, the decriminalization of elective abortion was achieved by an act of Parliament. I'm aware of the Democratic support of the ban, but that in no way affects my opposition.

[jravnsbo]

wow courts that don't legislate that would be great!

Yes.
The legislature is far stronger than the courts(which can interpret law but cannot make law)

[jravnsbo]

Well I think Abortion should be decided in the Congress as I do not think Roe was decide on stable legal grounds.

wow courts that don't legislate that would be great!

Yes.
The legislature is far stronger than the courts(which can interpret law but cannot make law)

Don't worry Jravnsbo, with four more years of Bush43 you will be able to push through your pro-life justices and turn the clock back on women's rights 30 years.

[jravnsbo]

YES!  b/c the Griswold decision was a joke, even honest democrat legal minds will acknowledge it was a bunch of made up BS to get the result they wanted and then they used that to decide Roe as their precedent.

The problem is that the Liberals couldn't get the votes to beat abortion so as with many issues they run to the courts.  

Well I think Abortion should be decided in the Congress as I do not think Roe was decide on stable legal grounds.

wow courts that don't legislate that would be great!

Yes.
The legislature is far stronger than the courts(which can interpret law but cannot make law)

Don't worry Jravnsbo, with four more years of Bush43 you will be able to push through your pro-life justices and turn the clock back on women's rights 30 years.

Are you anti Roe v. wade?

[jravnsbo]

pro-choice

choice to have sex

then choice to stop the beating heart of a child

ok pro-choice

[jravnsbo]

I'm not pro-choice as that is a made up political term by the left to sound more friendly than being pro-abortion.  Being for choice sounds friendlier.  If you don't do anything no choice has to be made as it is natural to have a pregnancy.

Abortion, I'm pro-life.  Abortion can be used in my opinion to save the life of the mother as you are still saving life.  I do not believe at all women should use it for birth control.  

Rape and incest are horrible and could result in deformaties in the child which would not only hinder the woman's life but the child might not have much of a life either.  I do think abortion could be available in those instances.  

I am also for parental notification and partial birth abortion ban.  I think restrictions should be placed on it at a minimum.  These safeguards do not stop the abortion but allow the mother to be fully advised of the ramifications.  Many women regret abortions later and some become sterile because of it.  Not a decision to be made in haste.

pro-choice

choice to have sex

then choice to stop the beating heart of a child

ok pro-choice

Are you pro-choice in cases of rape or incest?

[jravnsbo]

first word-- spaces please, to break up your arguments, just helps to read thanks

Next, I'll tackle teh 10 commandments /abortion/death penalty   one even though CM I'm sure will weigh in.

Ok as you said the killing of INNOCENT babies.  The unborn have not lied or done anything sinful, except original sin maybe (not going there for now).  

Murders have broken the commandment by killing.  They had a choice to do that.  They had to have acted premeditately (sp) and usually with aggravating factors to get the death penalty so there was some actions and thoughts behind their actions.

That said the Bible does say an eye for an eye and allows for the punishment of evil men.  God even punished man with death in some instances.  

So the big difference is int he choice.  The killer forfeited his life the moment he killed.  Whereas the baby has done nothing to warrant death, but be an "inconvience" to a mother so she chooses to stop its life.

To dazzleman:
I fail to see the apparent and vested liberty interest in taking aspirin. After all, no one ruled aspirin consumption part of the right to privacy.
To Christopher Michael:
My graces, you have a fetish for these unicellular organisms. I'll have to just address your ideas, one by one, onerous as that task might be. I'd like to contest your idea that a zygote is a viable organism and a person. First of all, a person isn't even technically pregnant at the point because the zygote or blastocyst hasn't implanted itself in the uterine lining. That's why pharmaceuticals like Birth Control Pills and Post-Coitial Contraception are called contraception and not abortives. But getting back to the issue of viability, it cannot be considered viable because if it was removed from the fallopian tube or uterus, it would not survive. As you know, viability is the point at which something can survive independently. Also, you said you would restrict funding to any state that allows abortion. Is it really that important that many states would enter into fiscal crises over arcane debates over the point of the beginning of personhood? Now for your downright scary idea about the allocation of Medicaid funding. I don't see how the death of a fetus, assuming it was alive in the first place with a life to take, would justify the death of another person. As for disallowing private insurance companies from doing that, I daresay that the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee could tell you why that is at odds with free enterprise and a free market. I now have the distinct displeasure of addressing the statement that just won the Nobel Prize for Hypocrisy for this year. You emblazoned upon your post, in bold letters, one of the Ten Commandments, Thou shalt not kill. While in Cambridge we refer to them as the three suggestions, I will accept their validity for the sake of argument because you say you do. If you honestly believe in those words, how can you justify your stand in favor of capital punishment? Someone is being killed, and it does say kill. I know you Christians do try to run circles around the wording of that commandment, by saying it only refers to murder, but that just amounts to second guessing what it says. What I think is that you will bang that commandment over our heads whenever it is convenient to you, but whenever it isn't quite suitable to your reactionary agenda, you disown it like some poor relative. I cannot stand such wishy-washiness, and I'm eager to see you defend it, while you say I am complicit in the murder of innocent babies. Now I'm going to do something I haven't done in a while. I'm going to get down on my knees and pray. My prayer will be that the revealed intentions of God that Christopher Michael will be President, disclosed in His lengthy conversations with him, will never come true, because if it does, we'll be screwed six times over.

[jravnsbo]

I always thought an eye for an eye just applied to murder, but maybe this isn't how it is seen.  That is what I would limit it too.  Well I do approve of the death penalty if Treason is proved also.

To dazzleman:
I fail to see the apparent and vested liberty interest in taking aspirin. After all, no one ruled aspirin consumption part of the right to privacy.
To Christopher Michael:
My graces, you have a fetish for these unicellular organisms. I'll have to just address your ideas, one by one, onerous as that task might be. I'd like to contest your idea that a zygote is a viable organism and a person. First of all, a person isn't even technically pregnant at the point because the zygote or blastocyst hasn't implanted itself in the uterine lining. That's why pharmaceuticals like Birth Control Pills and Post-Coitial Contraception are called contraception and not abortives. But getting back to the issue of viability, it cannot be considered viable because if it was removed from the fallopian tube or uterus, it would not survive. As you know, viability is the point at which something can survive independently. Also, you said you would restrict funding to any state that allows abortion. Is it really that important that many states would enter into fiscal crises over arcane debates over the point of the beginning of personhood? Now for your downright scary idea about the allocation of Medicaid funding. I don't see how the death of a fetus, assuming it was alive in the first place with a life to take, would justify the death of another person. As for disallowing private insurance companies from doing that, I daresay that the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee could tell you why that is at odds with free enterprise and a free market. I now have the distinct displeasure of addressing the statement that just won the Nobel Prize for Hypocrisy for this year. You emblazoned upon your post, in bold letters, one of the Ten Commandments, Thou shalt not kill. While in Cambridge we refer to them as the three suggestions, I will accept their validity for the sake of argument because you say you do. If you honestly believe in those words, how can you justify your stand in favor of capital punishment? Someone is being killed, and it does say kill. I know you Christians do try to run circles around the wording of that commandment, by saying it only refers to murder, but that just amounts to second guessing what it says. What I think is that you will bang that commandment over our heads whenever it is convenient to you, but whenever it isn't quite suitable to your reactionary agenda, you disown it like some poor relative. I cannot stand such wishy-washiness, and I'm eager to see you defend it, while you say I am complicit in the murder of innocent babies. Now I'm going to do something I haven't done in a while. I'm going to get down on my knees and pray. My prayer will be that the revealed intentions of God that Christopher Michael will be President, disclosed in His lengthy conversations with him, will never come true, because if it does, we'll be screwed six times over.

Actually, CM is the only anti-abortionist here being consistent. If you take a stand against abortion it would have to be all the way, since the view that it is a human being would prohibit killing it, even if there is rape or incest involved.

To jravnsbo:

I hope you do not actually believe in "an eye for an eye" as a base for the legal system? (Damn, why didn't I bring that up with jmf? ). Like, if you rape someone you should get raped yourself, or what?  

[jravnsbo]

zYou seem up on this, how then is partial birth abortion even remotely considered legal then?  It happens right near the moment of brth as I understand it in the 9th month?

Please explain.

Well, clearly the fetus is not a viable human being on its own, since it can't survive outside the human body. The record for the earliest that a fetus has ever been born and survived outside the body is at about 6 months, hence the concept of "trimesters" for abortions. The reason that it is ok to regulate abortions in the 3rd trimester is because at that point, the fetus gains the ability to theoretically survive outside the womb (even though at 6 months it would be extremely unlikely, but it has been proven to be possible). So as to the question of whether or not a recently conceived zygote is a viable human being, the answer is clearly no. So why should a zygote have rights? Well, you might say because it is potential human life, but every single cell in your body is potential human life, as well. When you scrach an itch on your skin, you kill thousands of cells that could potentially become a human life. Obviously no one thinks that this should be illegal. Obviously those cells are a part of your body and thus you have the right to do with them as you please, and they have no rights on their own.
Now, one could raise a religious objection to abortion, and argue that when two people have sexual intercourse, God decides whether or not the sperm and egg will come together to form a human being, and thus humans have no right to interfere with that. That's fine, but it creates a problem. If so, then how can there be an exception for rape and incest? Does it say somewhere in the Bible that God only guides the sperm and egg together in consensual, nonincestous sex, but otherwise it's just random? That doesn't make any sense. If one is raising a religious objection to abortion, it would seem that one would also have to oppose it in cases of rape and incest as well. Likewise, even if you believe that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder, you'd have to still oppose it in rape and incest cases for the same reason; it's still murder even then. Only to save the life of the mother (not even the health, just the life) could abortion thus be justified. And even in those instances, one could argue that it is still being guided by God's will, as to who dies and who lives.
So, as I see it, there is no scientific basis for making abortion illegal in the first 6 months of pregnancy, as the fetus would have to be defined as a part of the mother's body and not as its own organism during this time, there are only religious reasons, and thus as I believe there should be a seperation of church and state, I think that abortion should be legal in the first 6 months. During the last trimester, however, once the fetus has achieved theoretical viability, I think that it should be legal to ban abortion except in cases in which the life or health of the mother is at risk. I do believe that at that point the fetus should have some rights, since it could live on its own outside the mother's body, and thus its right to stay alive should supercede the mother's whims.

[jravnsbo]

Go back and read my posts, they are more reasonable and in line with yours, rather than the extreme one you responded to.

ABORTION IS WRONG! IT IS EVIL AND IT IS MURDER! ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS AN ACCOMPLICE MURDERER AND ANYONE WHO PERFORMS IT OR HAS IT DONE IS A MURDERER!

I support it...to a certain degree. So I'm a murderer eh? Well what if the mother's life is in danger? And the doctor's determine in the early stages of pregnancy that she can not have this baby and live, thus ending HER life AND the baby’s life. So you're against saving both of them eh? Wouldn't that make you a DOUBLE murderer then?

I support abortion...under these terms....

The mother's life is in danger

Incest

Rape

If the baby is in the early stages, if it gets to far along, it should NEVER be aborted no matter what the reason of abortion is.

And I think another reason might be, if the baby will have severe problems when it is born, and the doctor can determine this early in the pregnancy (e.g. deformation, etc.) There is no reason to have the baby suffer from severe problems, and then when born the parents can't afford to give the child the medical help it needs. Which would result in the baby either DYING, or going up for abortion and spending the rest of it’s life in a hospital with no one to love it. Again, I am sort of ambivalent about this.

What I HATE about abortion, is when the mother uses abortion as a "birth control". Some stupid little bitch (excuse me for saying that) who has a midnight fling with some boy of her dreams, and has sex without protection resulting in her becoming pregnant. She doesn't wanna have the baby, the parents can afford to get rid of it, and view it as an ABOMINATION that she is going to have the child in the first place at a young age. This makes me sick. If you're old enough to have sex, you're hold enough to face the results of sex, and the responsibilities that come from it (i.e. a child).

Although I times I don't agree with abortion, I think the good out-weighs the bad, therefore, I would ultimately support it.

You’re post, PD, is kinda insulting to me, and I’m sure it is to others. I would normally haul off on your for something like that, but I feel too tired to do that today. But next time.......next time....

If I were you, I’d watch what you say....

[jravnsbo]

Maybe because people should be responsible for the decisions they make.  If you have sex and get pregnant but didn't want to have a baby you shouldn't have had sex.

the politics of pleasure, oh boy!

Perhaps, Demrepdan, the reconceptualization of abortion as a contraceptive method is just part and parcel of the shift in a society's attitudes. Like you said, a girl may have sex because she wishes to attend to her desire. If she becomes pregnant, I don't see why she can't just end the pregnancy. It would allow women both autonomy over their bodily and economic affairs and allow them to just enjoy an affair when they have one. I believe this reflects a positive movement away from the notions of stodgy responsibility that have been the true villains in the debate over the politics of pleasure.

[jravnsbo]

Aborts this conversation to return it to Abortion.

[jravnsbo]

Getting a lot of 2 word posts there miami.  Please don't turn into john.  SUBSTANCE

Aborts this conversation to return it to Abortion.

You wish.

[jravnsbo]

didn't see but can anyone explain how partial birth abortion is legal now anyway as it is at the end of the term and way past 3rd trimester mark.  Thanks.

[jravnsbo]

sounds like the position only a politician could love

I am also pro-choice, but personally I am against Abortion in principle.

[jravnsbo]

Do these same women march for children.  If they are supposed to be pro-choice and not just pro-abortion shouldn't one of the choices be in support of the unborn?

U.S. Abortion rights supporters:

Just wondering, is everyone familiar with the March for Choice/ March for Women's Lives ?

Washington, D.C.  April 25

http://www.marchforwomen.org/

Largest pro-choice rally since '92

[jravnsbo]

bejkuy-we need your support buddy.  We need you to go to the "Atlas fantasy Elections" and then the "Important thread- Registration" and simply post  "I register"  That will allow you to vote in the Atlas elections we are having.  Its kind of fun, you should check it out and our great candidate Supersoulty!  Thanks for your time.

[jravnsbo]

ok still never had anybody explaint o me how late term abortion or partial birth abortion is legal anyway?  What about the trimeste thoughts discussed in Roe?  and Casey?  

It is my understanding that this procedure happens right near full term, if so how can that be justified?