The W
Views: 101443444
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.12.07 1214
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Partial Birth Abortions Banned
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next(1248 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (95 total)
The Vile1
Lap cheong
Level: 80

Posts: 360/1694
EXP: 4671194
For next: 111795

Since: 4.9.02
From: California

Since last post: 2070 days
Last activity: 1801 days
#41 Posted on 2.11.03 0139.55
Reposted on: 2.11.10 0140.43
I'm just wondering, how safe and or dangerous is the actual procedure of getting an abortion as well as a partial-birth abortion?
Madame Manga
Kolbasz
Level: 47

Posts: 264/482
EXP: 727042
For next: 39167

Since: 16.1.02
From: Silicon Valley

Since last post: 92 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#42 Posted on 2.11.03 0233.12
Reposted on: 2.11.10 0233.24
    Originally posted by The Vile1
    I'm just wondering, how safe and or dangerous is the actual procedure of getting an abortion as well as a partial-birth abortion?


That is the straight line for "Dangerous to whom?" But that's not your fault.

Statistics on the dangers of abortion are manipulated by everyone with an axe to grind, so it's hard to know who to believe. But I have most often heard that first-trimester abortions are safer than full-term pregnancies by a few percentage points. This of course assumes a situation with the medical resources and prenatal care available to women in wealthy developed countries.

Repeated abortions, such as for primary birth control, can damage a woman's ability to have children when she does want them. The Soviet Union had a epidemic of infertility for this reason; I believe the average Soviet woman had ten or twelve abortions during her lifetime, because she couldn't get any other form of birth control.

In Japan, birth control abortion is also widespread. Japanese culture does not condemn abortion very strongly, although Buddhism frowns on it, and it's legal under many circumstances. Some time ago, I read a WSJ article that alleged that Japanese doctors are used to making money off abortions, and so have openly lobbied against modern birth control. The pill is still not available in Japan despite decades of efforts by birth control activists, and condoms are about the only practical option. Conversely, it took the Japanese government about two seconds to approve Viagra for sale.

Illegal or self-induced abortions are of course very unsafe and used to be a significant cause of death and infertility for American women. Either they bled to death within a few hours or they got massive sepsis from dirty instruments or the proverbial coat hanger.

Edited to add: The San Jose Mercury has a story today about an 18-year-old local woman who died a week after being given an abortion pill at a clinic. The abortion was incomplete, and she got a fatal infection. Apparently she was so set on keeping this a secret from her family, even after she became ill, that when her boyfriend took her to the emergency room she didn't even tell the doctor that she had had an abortion; she was given painkillers and sent home.

MM

(edited by Madame Manga on 2.11.03 1740)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 77/2708
EXP: 9012445
For next: 304913

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#43 Posted on 2.11.03 2332.55
Reposted on: 2.11.10 2333.11
    Originally posted by DMC
    Those who supported slavery and segregationist ideas saw a lot of "shades of gray" on those issues as well. That never stopped our country from imposing a correct moral code into the situation and ending particular social ills. Partial birth abortion is a social ill, or at the very least a social disgrace. It is gone, and this is a GOOD thing, bottom line (and not because Stone Cold said so).

    DMC


DMC, having read a good bit on the history of both subjects, I am confused where the shade of gray was on the proslavery and prosegregation side. They firmly believed in the superiority of whites, the inferiority of blacks, and used twisted logic regarding the Bible to justify and even extol slavery. The reality was slavery made possible an economic system that benefitted a few rich white plantation owners. Those opposed to slavery and segregation risked their lives and were quite fanatic in their belief of the evils of oppression. However, the vast majority of people didn't care much one way or another, especially in the North. That was as evil as those oppressing and the real conundrum with abortion. The reality is most people don't have strongly held beliefs either way.

Partial birth abortion is a procedure that should only be available under cases of extreme need. The real problem with this whole issue is that far too many people see abortion as a quick, easy fix instead of a last resort.

The reality is that this country has indeed often implemented laws and rulings to correct grevious social ills. However, things didn't really change until the people in our country saw fit to redress the wrong and impose the moral code form the bottom up.

"Shades of gray" bother many but it is the reality of much of life. Also if this law passes it will not be gone becasue this law was passed but simply more difficult to get. It will still be performed. We must change as a society and pasing laws alone wont make change. I wish it were that easy.

edit typos

(edited by DrDirt on 2.11.03 2334)
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 1103/1180
EXP: 2787031
For next: 82727

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3532 days
Last activity: 3526 days
#44 Posted on 3.11.03 1651.26
Reposted on: 3.11.10 1654.53
Well you also seem to wish things were as muddled on this issue as you make them appear, but as far as I can tell, a majority of Americans are against the procedure as a barbaric form of infanticide. If this isn't a "bottom up" call on the part of Americans, then what is, in your opinion?

As far as gray area on slavery and segregation, there were those who felt slavery was wrong, but that we should not impose our judgement on those who practiced it. One of the feelings was that blacks truly were inferior in some sense, and without slavery they wouldn't know what to do or how to take care of themselves. These folks believed slavery should be allowed to exist, but should die a slow death. This was in fact similar to Lincoln's early view on slavery and other "Free Soilers". Sure there were others who didn't care one way or another, and there were also those in the south who supported the south and its right to slavery, but really weren't that passionate about slavery on and didn't go out of their way to defend it biblically or otherwise.

Are these not "gray areas"? Did the fact that these gray areas existed stop the right thing from eventually being done?

DMC
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 83/2708
EXP: 9012445
For next: 304913

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#45 Posted on 4.11.03 0842.27
Reposted on: 4.11.10 0844.30
    Originally posted by DMC
    Well you also seem to wish things were as muddled on this issue as you make them appear, but as far as I can tell, a majority of Americans are against the procedure as a barbaric form of infanticide. If this isn't a "bottom up" call on the part of Americans, then what is, in your opinion?

    As far as gray area on slavery and segregation, there were those who felt slavery was wrong, but that we should not impose our judgement on those who practiced it. One of the feelings was that blacks truly were inferior in some sense, and without slavery they wouldn't know what to do or how to take care of themselves. These folks believed slavery should be allowed to exist, but should die a slow death. This was in fact similar to Lincoln's early view on slavery and other "Free Soilers". Sure there were others who didn't care one way or another, and there were also those in the south who supported the south and its right to slavery, but really weren't that passionate about slavery on and didn't go out of their way to defend it biblically or otherwise.

    Are these not "gray areas"? Did the fact that these gray areas existed stop the right thing from eventually being done?

    DMC


DMC, first I want to thank you for discussing this issue with me in a civil, thoughtful manner. I appreciate that this whole thread has not descended into the abyss of name calling and flaming as too often happens with this subject.

Americans are opposed to this issue but not so strongly that they are up in arms about it. A vocal minority makes it appear so. There is not a "bottom up" ground swell on this issue. When polled, and depending on how they are asked, tbey don't like it but are not rabid about the barbarism of partial birth abortion. I think it is a procedure that should be avoided if at possible but I recognize there may be instances where it is necessary. Here is the gray area for myself and others: a mother's life is in jeopardy unless the procedure is performed. You can save the mother or the baby but not both. Depending on your beliefs you may feel it imperative to save the life of the baby or the mother. Both sides have plausible positions based upon a strong moral code. Which side is right? My belief is the mother's life should come first. But if a husband and wife make a different decision, I can understand and respect that.

Brownback, one of my Senators, is already onto the next restriction. This is one time the slippery slope argument may have merit.

As far as slavery goes, the Civil War was fought initially to preserve the Union not to free the slaves. Lincoln was adamant that if he could preserve the Union by maintaining slavey he would do it. The Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until after Antietam, two years into the conflict. What you are describing is correct but not a shade of gray. Many found slavery abhorrent but were not concerned enough to fight it openly. This is not a shade of gray but the lack of beliefs held deeply enough to fight for.

DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 1104/1180
EXP: 2787031
For next: 82727

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3532 days
Last activity: 3526 days
#46 Posted on 4.11.03 1217.54
Reposted on: 4.11.10 1220.27
"Many found slavery abhorrent but were not concerned enough to fight it openly. This is not a shade of gray but the lack of beliefs held deeply enough to fight for."

So do you believe there were *any* people in the North that believed slavery was an embarassment but really wasn't all bad? Why are you so willing to admit there are shades of gray in the abortion debate, but for some reason the debate over 19th century slavery is not offered the same level of complexity by you?

Also, can you give me any concrete situation where PBA is necessary to save the life of the mother? This is from www.humanlife.net:

"Opponents of I-694 state that partial-birth infanticide is necessary when the mother's health is at risk. This is patently absurd and unsubstantiated by any medical literature. There is no patient in my complicated obstetrical practice that could not be delivered by other means presently recognized in obstetrical literature."
- Byron C. Calhoun, MD, FACOG, FACS, Madigan Army Medical Hospital, Tacoma, WA.

"All I deal with are women with medical or obstetrical complications of pregnancy, as well as babies that have fetal disabilities. To my knowledge, and in my experience, this particular procedure is never necessary to preserve the life or the fertility of the mother, and may in fact threaten her health or well-being or future fertility."
- Dr. Curtis Cook, Maternal Fetal Medicine, Butterworth Hospital, Michigan State College of Human Medicine.

The organization PHACT consists of over 500 medical doctors (mostly Ob/Gyns and Perinatologists) who support a ban on partial-birth infanticide. In September of 1996 they published a letter in the Wall Street Journal in which they commented that the procedure, "is never medically indicated to protect a woman's health or her fertility. In fact the opposite is true. The procedure can pose a significant and immediate threat to both the woman's health and her fertility."

"Never, ever in our 30 years of practice, have I or my colleagues seen a situation which warrants the implementation of partial-birth abortion."
- Lewis J. Marola, MD, Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Clare's Hospital, Schenectady, NY.

"[After 23 weeks] I do not think there are any maternal conditions that I'm aware of that mandate ending their pregnancy that also require that the fetus be dead or that the fetal life be terminated."
- Dr. Harlan Giles, a professor of "high-risk" obstetrics and perinatology at the Medical College of Pennsylvania, performs abortions by a variety of procedures up until "viability." Testimony in U.S. Federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, 11/13/95.

"We take care of women who are very sick, and babies who are very sick, and we never perform partial-birth abortion...There are plenty of alternatives. This is clearly a procedure no obstetrician needs to do."
- Dr. Frank Boehm, Director of Obstetrics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville. Washington Times 5/6/96, p. A1.

"[T]he presence of fetal disabilities or fetal anomalies are not a reason to have a termination of pregnancy or to preserve the life of the mother."

Regarding "a genetic abnormality where there is an extra chromosome or a Trisomy...These abnormalities do not pose a risk to the mother per se, do not require early delivery, and can be safely delivered vaginally by methods that we use on a regular basis."

Regarding "hydrocephalus...excessive cerebrospinal fluid...that causes a very large-shaped head in proportion to the rest of the body. ...These patients can be safely delivered by cesarean section. They can even be delivered safely vaginally. We can do that by first decompressing some of the fluid around the baby's head. ...Again, the baby can be delivered safely, without a risk to the mother, and without a risk to her fertility."

Regarding "polyhydramnios...an excessive amount of amniotic fluid around the baby. ...They can be delivered vaginally, safely, and in the need for it in such situations, a cesarean section can be performed."

- Dr. Curtis Cook, Maternal Fetal Medicine, Butterworth Hospital, Michigan State College of Human Medicine.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 88/2708
EXP: 9012445
For next: 304913

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#47 Posted on 4.11.03 1310.16
Reposted on: 4.11.10 1310.46
As to your question regarding slavery, yes there were people thought slavery was wrong but not bad enough to fight over. It didn't effect them. That isn't to me a shde of gray but what I said before, people who weren't fervent enough in their belief to stand up and be counted. Slavery was a very complex issue and yes there were shades of gray in it but I have trouble comparing that debate to this debate. Slavery and the issues that led to the civil war were more about economics ultimately than anything else. That and states rights and the growing schism between a north moving toward an industrial society and the south firmly rooted in an agrarian one.

DMC, I don't disagree with your abhorrence regarding PBA's. There are two women in my family whose haelth became jeopardized in the last trimester and almost died. Their babies were way premature and almost died. Fortunately everything workled out pretty much okay. I also wonder about ancephalic babies and when that determination can be made. I can't think that there are many instances where a PBA is necessary. But if there is one a year and it is unavailable, then that is unacceptable.

I don't want any abortions, but I cannot see how making them illegal solves the real problem. I don't accept anything at face value that is issued from the leads on either side. And no, I hope that fetuses aren't subjected to a PBA because of gentic deformity.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 1105/1180
EXP: 2787031
For next: 82727

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3532 days
Last activity: 3526 days
#48 Posted on 4.11.03 1623.00
Reposted on: 4.11.10 1627.52
Alright DrDirt, please assume for the sake of the argument that there is no medical reason whatsoever why a partial birth abortion would ever be performed, that it is just as unnecessary as giving every pregnant woman a cesarean. Also assume that is does not matter if there is not a *grand majority* of people in this country who are *vehemently* against this practice as disgusting, inhuman infanticide.

Would you be for banning this procedure, yes or no? Why or why not? It's a simple question. As Adlai Stevenson said, *don't wait for the translation, answer me now*.

DMC
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 89/2708
EXP: 9012445
For next: 304913

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#49 Posted on 4.11.03 1727.29
Reposted on: 4.11.10 1727.30
    Originally posted by DMC
    Alright DrDirt, please assume for the sake of the argument that there is no medical reason whatsoever why a partial birth abortion would ever be performed, that it is just as unnecessary as giving every pregnant woman a cesarean. Also assume that is does not matter if there is not a *grand majority* of people in this country who are *vehemently* against this practice as disgusting, inhuman infanticide.

    Would you be for banning this procedure, yes or no? Why or why not? It's a simple question. As Adlai Stevenson said, *don't wait for the translation, answer me now*.

    DMC


Yes DMC, I would be first in line to ban PBA's because then the only reason was birth control and a theraputic abortion could be performed in the first trimester. In that case, if a PBA was performed it should cost the performing doctor his liscense and jail time. The women or couple involved should also be guilty of a felony.

Now a question for you and other wieners against this practice. If there was demonstrated medical proof that a women would die without a PBA would you allow the procedure? I am not trying to bait you or anyone else. This is a hard question. To make it more difficult, what if the baby was doomed anyway? Or what if the mother would die but the baby would be fine? This is my problem with strict bans such as this.

I hate abortions except when there is a real concrete reason. Our world could be losing the next Einstein or Salk or DaVinci. What a terrible waste. I hate them because many women and couples have them and then have to deal with physical and/or emotional repercussions for a very long time. I just don't think making them illegal is the solution to the problem and may create evils just as bad or worse. I also want to keep the government out of the business of controlling women's lives. We must minimize the need for this and if we can, then the argument becomes moot for the nuts on both sides and we can addressing the challenge of creating better lives for our children.

edit typos

(edited by DrDirt on 4.11.03 1730)
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 1106/1180
EXP: 2787031
For next: 82727

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3532 days
Last activity: 3526 days
#50 Posted on 4.11.03 1740.02
Reposted on: 4.11.10 1741.00
That's all well and good, but you are saying you would be against the practice as infanticide if the evidence is against it. I would only ask you now to look at the evidence and make an informed decision. The decency of modern humanity deserves as much.

As far as situations where they might be necessary, sure, I and others would be willing to change our stance on the rightness of the ban. But it's kind of ridiculous to keep asking "What if, what if" as if you are just trying to make some hyper-feminists and abortion marketers happy when all the evidence is weighing against this practice! Situations where a baby is doomed anyway is, once again, a *selective* choice and has nothing to do with the life of the mother being in jeopardy. You don't make the death of a newborn any more palatable by killing them.

DMC
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 92/2708
EXP: 9012445
For next: 304913

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#51 Posted on 4.11.03 1755.14
Reposted on: 4.11.10 1756.57
DMC, I am not sure waht more I can add. I am only in favor of a PBA if there is a demonstrated need. Our views on the status of the fetus differ. I agree that for the good of humanity we must seek to minimize the practice of all types of abortion. To interject my personal religous beliefs, People who have a PBA except under extreme circumstances will answer for what they did.

i am not pandering to any group. i hold my beliefs based on gathering information and making what I believe to be an informed decision. My question was this, The mother will die without a PBA and the baby will die shortly after birth. The death of a newborn or the loss of a potential human life saddens me, even if it necessary. I respect the view of people who hold your position. I am just not intellectually capable as going where you are on the issue. The "what ifs" are not ridiculous but part of what must be dealt with when deciding these issues. The law of unintended consequences demands it.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 139

Posts: 1868/6034
EXP: 32330447
For next: 137080

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#52 Posted on 5.11.03 0050.34
Reposted on: 5.11.10 0051.16
    Originally posted by DMC
    Alright DrDirt, please assume for the sake of the argument that there is no medical reason whatsoever why a partial birth abortion would ever be performed, that it is just as unnecessary as giving every pregnant woman a cesarean. Also assume that is does not matter if there is not a *grand majority* of people in this country who are *vehemently* against this practice as disgusting, inhuman infanticide.

    Would you be for banning this procedure, yes or no? Why or why not? It's a simple question. As Adlai Stevenson said, *don't wait for the translation, answer me now*.

    DMC


Why not just rephrase it as follows...

"Assume for a second that I am right - and there is no possible way that I'm wrong. Assume my morality is correct and everything I think is the gospel. Now, granting that I am correct, do you agree with me? Yes? Then this proves that I am right."

It would be more direct.
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 109

Posts: 509/3421
EXP: 13729186
For next: 230504

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#53 Posted on 5.11.03 0529.08
Reposted on: 5.11.10 0529.34
    Originally posted by Madame Manga
      Originally posted by cranlsn
      How can you be pro-choice but morally opposed to abortion?


    Yes, while a baby is growing in your womb, utterly dependent on your body for nourishment and protection, it *is* part of you, biologically and psychically. There is no closer relationship between humans. A baby remains part of you as long as it is helpless, especially if you are nursing. This unique bond has been recognized for a long time. The idea that an infant is a full human being is a fairly recent one.


So here'smy question for you - and for others who think honestly about this issue. Would you be OK with a right to kill, for any reason at all, a six week old baby? Ok, how about a 5 week and 6 day old baby? Let's drop back to a just born baby? How about that?

Now let's step it back a day at a time. When would you decide it is OK to, for any reason, kill that child? Because that's where the pro-death movement's at. Making a decision to kill a child, who at conception, has his or her complete genetic makeup the same as a 70 year old person. The only difference is the age.

So where's the arbitary point at which you can kill it? And who's to say it's not six weeks after birth instead of six weeks before birth. (at 33 weeks and above, most abortions are partial birth as described above or saline, where salt is injected into the fluid to burn the child to death and expel him or her from the mother)

Infanticide was once common - did that make it right?
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1425/1759
EXP: 4961378
For next: 31492

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1372 days
Last activity: 139 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#54 Posted on 5.11.03 1446.31
Reposted on: 5.11.10 1446.41
This is a perfect example of a shade of grey in my opinion.

In general I am against abortion, but I don't feel that it is something that should be illegal. The black and white argument's of "life is life, from conception" and "a woman's right to choose" just don't hold water with me. The moment that actual life begins for a child is a philosphical debate, and that is something I think the government should have no part in. For me, it comes down to "You can't murder something that cannot live on its own." In the first trimester, a fetus cannot survive on its own, so I don't think the government should have any role in asserting that abortion should be illegal.

On the other hand, a third trimester fetus is viable, and CAN exist outside the mother. I know my own girlfriend was born 3 months premature, and is perfectly healthy today. The point is, those children are alive, and are murdered when aborted. They warrant the protection of the government, and that procedure should be outlawed. This law is a good thing.

The "women's right to chose" argument goes right out the window here, for me. The women exercised that right be chosing to have sex. She chose not to get the abortion at an earlier stage in the pregnancy. She had six months to decide that she did not want to have that baby, and it is not like she could forget that she was pregnant, and have an "oh yeah, I don't want this thing" argument seven months into it. She chose to nurture the growing child to the point where it is a living being, and capable of living on outside her- muderering it just because she does not want to see it though is simply barbaric. We prosecute mothers who murder babies that are hours old for those same reasons, don't we? How is this any different?

As far as "to save the life of the mother" goes.. that argument has just as many holes. Doctors everywhere have weighed in (many quotes above) on the matter, and all seem to say that that instance is just not a real possibility. Even if by some off chance the dilemma should come up in real life... how can you want to make legal a prcedure that murders kids on the off chance that a mother, somewhere, just MIGHT be at risk from a pregnancy? How is that one woman's life more important than the numbers of children that would be killed if the procedure was legal? Pregnancy has ALWAYS been a risky procedure... women have lost their lives throughout history giving birth. It is tragic, but it is a fact of nature. I have to ask you, given the choice between her own life and the life of her child, how many mothers do you know that would say "Kill the kid!" Not many... mothers by nature will usually sacrifice their own lives to save that of their child. It is one of the noble aspects of motherhood. So how is it the government's role to decide otherwise?

No, I don't think abortion should be banned- but this procedure is a step beyond your typical abortion. It is brutal, barbaric, and wrong. As a pro-choice voter, I am GLAD The law passed. I only hope the court does the right thing.
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 327/641
EXP: 1111389
For next: 45737

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3758 days
Last activity: 3417 days
#55 Posted on 5.11.03 1530.08
Reposted on: 5.11.10 1530.51
I think we should all know by now that there is no such thing thing as one rule applying 100% of the time.

Will there be pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother?

Yes.

Will there pregnancies that endanger the life of the child?

Yes.

Will there be people who will abuse a procedure?

Yes.

What the answer? Who knows?

But I don't think banning it is the answer.

DrDirt
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 95/2708
EXP: 9012445
For next: 304913

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#56 Posted on 5.11.03 1604.13
Reposted on: 5.11.10 1605.14
part of the problem is the advance of our technology. Forty years ago, the chances of a baby three months premature surviving were almost nonexistant. Today they have a very reasonable chance of surviving anf thriving.

And not to start a debate within this debate but you can't compare a six week old baby or for that matter a newborn with a fetus in the first two trimesters. Those of us who are pro-choice but anti abortion are not advocating killing babies. Even the Bible doesn't recognize the fetus as a baby. Penalties for causing a woman to lose her baby were no where near those of murder in the Old Testament. Please, please don't say I am using the Bible to condone abortion, I am not.

And PoolBoy there are cases where the preganancy threatens the life of the mother, but usually the condition occurs before the last trimester. I agree that many mothers would forfeit their life to allow the child to live but not all, especially if they have other children who would end up motherless. And you are very correct that the post previous to yours is a great example of the shades of gray.

AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 109

Posts: 510/3421
EXP: 13729186
For next: 230504

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#57 Posted on 6.11.03 0940.56
Reposted on: 6.11.10 0948.59
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    part of the problem is the advance of our technology. Forty years ago, the chances of a baby three months premature surviving were almost nonexistant. Today they have a very reasonable chance of surviving anf thriving.

    And not to start a debate within this debate but you can't compare a six week old baby or for that matter a newborn with a fetus in the first two trimesters. Those of us who are pro-choice but anti abortion are not advocating killing babies. Even the Bible doesn't recognize the fetus as a baby. Penalties for causing a woman to lose her baby were no where near those of murder in the Old Testament. Please, please don't say I am using the Bible to condone abortion, I am not


Regarding the first, I agree. But that sort of thing should change how we do stuff. 40 years ago, if a person had cancer, they gave it up and died. As did their doctors. Not today. The same goes for babies. Babies of less than 22 weeks have survived easily and it can go earlier.

On the second point, I understand your point, but if you are refering to Exodus 21
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [5] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

The word here is not miscarries (in otherwords, the child does not die), but gives birth early. The second passage is refering to its antecedent in the Hebrew grammar to the previous phrase, so the life refered to here is the child's not the mothers (which is covered in other laws). in otherwords, if the child dies (rather than just being born early), the life for life law is in force.

Just for reference.

Regarding abortion and particular abortion techniques and their banning, not banning and the rest. When has a doctor been unable to save the life of a Mother? I'm not a doctor, but I don't think non-elective abortions have ever been illegal, they just had to be a: Required for medical reasons and b: closely monitored for ethical and legal reasons.

Seriously, wouldn't you all agree 95+ percent of the abortions performed in the USA (and likely most other places as well) are for birth control?

I'm pro-choice. Before conception.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 97/2708
EXP: 9012445
For next: 304913

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#58 Posted on 6.11.03 0958.49
Reposted on: 6.11.10 0959.01
First, babies of 22 weeks survive, but i would not use the term easily. There is another spot in the OT referring to this issue, but I don't have my Bible with me but you quotations are part of what I was referring to.

Non-elective abortions were illegal but were medically performed by falsifying records, etc. There are cases with hypertension and diabetes onset associated with pregnancy where the doctor feels an abortion is necessary to protect the mothers life. Normally the condition arises early enough that a PBA is not needed. And with today's medical advances, the conditions are much less life threatening.

I can't agree with the 95% because I don't know the stats. Are most for birth control, yes. And it is a terrible tragedy and waste.

Your last statement is what I have stated in this thread all along. that is where we need to be headed. the trouble is many pro-life advocates consider birth control abortion or wrong. They won't allow anything but the rhythm method, not even condoms.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 1107/1180
EXP: 2787031
For next: 82727

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3532 days
Last activity: 3526 days
#59 Posted on 6.11.03 1140.57
Reposted on: 6.11.10 1141.24
"Your last statement is what I have stated in this thread all along. that is where we need to be headed. the trouble is many pro-life advocates consider birth control abortion or wrong. They won't allow anything but the rhythm method, not even condoms."

You must be referring to Catholics, not Protestants. Two big chunks of the pro-life pie there, and in general they take different stances on birth control.

DMC
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 101/2708
EXP: 9012445
For next: 304913

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#60 Posted on 6.11.03 1415.19
Reposted on: 6.11.10 1416.32
    Originally posted by DMC
    "Your last statement is what I have stated in this thread all along. that is where we need to be headed. the trouble is many pro-life advocates consider birth control abortion or wrong. They won't allow anything but the rhythm method, not even condoms."

    You must be referring to Catholics, not Protestants. Two big chunks of the pro-life pie there, and in general they take different stances on birth control.

    DMC


The Catholic Church does take that stand, however, many Catholics practice a variety of forms of contraception. Many Protestants, not necessarily Protestant denominations, view many forms of birth control as types of abortion. In 1991, Wichita was the fcous of anti-abortion protest with George Tiller's clinic the target. Rrandall Terry and company were in the media everyday. They were adamant in their statements and many were against birth control period.

While abstinence may be preferable, premarital sex not a good idea, and teens should never have sex, the reality is much different, was, is, and will be. We can make inroads in decreasing these situations but birth control of various kinds must be available.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 NextThread ahead: Jessica Lynch Laments Military Portrayal
Next thread: CNN Planted Questions for "Rock the Vote" Debate
Previous thread: New Political Parties?
(1248 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Partial Birth Abortions BannedRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.226 seconds.