Abortion (again)

[admtaylor]

I know the truth. My post was the truth, and I don't think it is a bit funny.

I don't think it's funny how we could have had good sensible legislation on PBAs, if not for the pro-life people in congress who have stonewalled the issue with unreasonable demands.

What was the legislation?

 

[TScott]

Sensible????

Have a swell day.

 

[admtaylor]

Sorry TScott, for some reason the first time I read your post I got something else out of it. I was completely mistaken. I'm not really as knowledgable as I should be on that particular incident to really comment. So I retract my comment and will now change it. :o

 

[TScott]

Sorry TScott, for some reason the first time I read your post I got something else out of it. I was completely mistaken. I'm not really as knowledgable as I should be on that particular incident to really comment. So I retract my comment and will now change it. :o

edited to adjust tone.

 

[tcampen]

The term "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term, but a political term invented to inflame the passions of people. The fact that such late term abortions are so incredibly rare illustrates how this federal legislation is more politically motivated than anything else.

I don't advocate late term abortions one bit, but this legislation is so transparently a political attempt to get a foot in the door to the eventual outlawing of all abortions, that I have to oppose it. There is really no evidence (except maybe some anecdotal stories) that these types of abortions are being performed under circumstances other than those with legitimate medical reasons. These aren't whimsical abortions being performed for women who just don't really feel like being pregnant, and love sleeping around.

Furthermore, the Roe, Casey line of cases do no restrict the States' right to legislate late term abortions right now. It is fascinating how the very same people who advocate states rights and less federal intervention so quickly abandon this ideal when it suits their needs.

Again, let me repeat, I do not advocate the use of late term abortions for those who who do not have a legitimate medical reason for it. It is the political use of this legislation that I oppose.

 

[Blindfaith]

How many partial birth abortions are there? I saw something in the range of 1%.

How many are they?

1 is 1 too many. It's sick.

 

[admtaylor]

What exactly does killing the baby when it is partially born do to benefit the mother or baby? For example if it's a difficult birth how does changing the baby from alive to dead facilitate an easier birth?

 

[TScott]

What exactly does killing the baby when it is partially born do to benefit the mother or baby? For example if it's a difficult birth how does changing the baby from alive to dead facilitate an easier birth?

No one is killing babies here.

 

[TScott]

How many partial birth abortions are there? I saw something in the range of 1%.

How many are they?

1 is 1 too many. It's sick.

 

[admtaylor]

That was quite an emotionaly charged response. If you feel there is a reason for this procedure in certain cases it would behoove you to make your points calmly. Unfortunately for you right now I assume that you don't have an answer to my question so my stance on this doesn't change or even get consideration. Could you maybe come back with a more tempered response?

 

[admtaylor]

And to add more creedance to my involvement in this discussion, my wife had two difficult births. We were blessed to be able to still have those two children. We lost 3 others to miscarriage. I understand the emotions surrounding difficulties in pregnancy. I'm not pointing fingers right now. I just want some sort of logic behind this stance.

 

[TScott]

That was quite an emotionaly charged response. If you feel there is a reason for this procedure in certain cases it would behoove you to make your points calmly. Unfortunately for you right now I assume that you don't have an answer to my question so my stance on this doesn't change or even get consideration. Could you maybe come back with a more tempered response?

I've already answered your question as clearly as I can.

 

[Jerome]

No one is killing babies here. I refuse to discuss this with you if you insist on making those disgusting and completely erroneous allegations. I thought I had explained to you that in VIRTUALLY ALL OF THESE CASES SOMETHING HAS GONE TERRIBLY WRONG WITH THE PREGNANCY! Is that clear to you? What exactly about that do you not understand? The people want to have the baby, but the unborn baby will most likely not survive anyway, if it hasn't already died. It is a tragedy, get it? Do you not understand the callousness of your allegations that these people are "KILLING THE BABY?"

Why don't you try doing some reading on the subject instead of just reacting to political soundbytes?

I guess the more fundamental questions are (1) whether the fetus is a human person and (2) whether it is ever permissible to kill one innocent human person to save another innocent human person?

If one takes the view that the fetus is a human person and that it is never permissible to kill one innocent human person to save another, then no abortion is ever acceptable.

The question of what is human life is incredibly complex. Is someone who is brain dead a human person? Someone in an iron lung? A fetus part way out of the womb? Barely out of the womb? Still in the womb? If a human person is a being with a soul, then when do humans receive their soul? At conception? At birth? How one answers these questions will have a profound effect on one's response to partial birth abortion.

In the end, it is a deeply philosophical question. Is the proper ethical position to maximize good in society at the cost of some bad? Or is the proper ethical position to never do evil so that good may come from it.

With partial birth abortion, I think you have people who take the position that a deformed fetus or endangered mother is bad, but the purposeful destruction of a human life is even worse. To accuse these people of insensitivity to tragedy is to minimize the discussion.

 

[TScott]

I guess the more fundamental questions are (1) whether the fetus is a human person and (2) whether it is ever permissible to kill one innocent human person to save another innocent human person?

No.

 

[Jerome]

No. That is not the fundamental question here at all. The question is will the unborn survive birth or will it not. If the answer is no, then the question becomes will it endanger the mother if she continues her pregnancy to it's full term, or will it be safer for her to end it now?

It becomes almost a matter of triage.


I disagree. If someone believes that the fetus is a human person that will not survive to birth, then it doesn't follow that the second question I posed is no longer the fundamental question. Indeed, the question is even more poignant: Is it morally acceptable to kill an innocent human life that will die anyway in order to save another innocent human life. It's the same ethical choice of whether it's ever acceptable to commit a bad act so that a greater good can come from it.

If one takes the view that the fetus is a human person and that it is never permissible to kill one innocent human person even if that person's condition is completely hopeless, to save another, then no abortion is ever acceptable. This would be more to the point.



It seems to me that this is a question for the person who's life or health is in jeaprody.

But if one takes the position that the fetus is also a human person, then its life and health is also in jeapardy. Only, unlike the mother, the fetus is completely unprotected by the law and society.


Again, this is a question for the person who's life or health is in jeaprody. Nothing philosophical about it.

Except, you're assuming that the fetus isn't a person so the only life in jeapardy is that of the mother. But, if you assume that the fetus is a human person, then the fetus life and health are placed in jeapardy by the abortion.


If they are not the ones facing the dilema, and they insist on judging those that are, then they are being insensitive, period.

The problem is that a fetus, if it is a human person, is faced with this dilemma. The fetus, however, assuming it is a human person, is helpless to protect itself. It's not a matter of judging anyone. It's a matter of making sure that everyone gets a voice and that everyone is protected, including the unborn.

 

[Jerome]

I'm sorry. You'll have to read through the entire part I quoted because some of my reply got incorporated into your quote on the last response.

 

[Blindfaith]

I don't like the tone of voice that is happening in this thread. If the insults and sarcastic barbs don't stop, I'm going to trash this entire thread.

Clear?

 

[Vylo]

I thought I had explained to you that in VIRTUALLY ALL OF THESE CASES SOMETHING HAS GONE TERRIBLY WRONG WITH THE PREGNANCY!

Actually this is false:

Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)




1. Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%

2. Wants no (more) children: 7.9%

3. Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%

4. Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%

5. Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%

6. Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%

7. Risk to maternal health: 2.8%

8. Risk to fetal health: 3.3%

9. Other: 2.1%



Source:Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 24(3):117–127 & 152 As reported by: The Alan Guttmacher Institute Online

 

[TScott]

Actually this is false:

Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)




1. Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%

2. Wants no (more) children: 7.9%

3. Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%

4. Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%

5. Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%

6. Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%

7. Risk to maternal health: 2.8%

8. Risk to fetal health: 3.3%

9. Other: 2.1%



Source:Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 24(3):117–127 & 152 As reported by: The Alan Guttmacher Institute Online

Thanks for your response!

Yes, I'm sure that you are correct. Although I was actually only refering to third trimester abortions, but that is ok because it really doesn't matter.

 

[Ben johnson]

but I extended a courtesy to you in assuming that you are indeed NOT an extremist...do proabortionists the same courtesy, please!

The problem, is that only a tiny MINORITY of "pro-lifers" endorse bombings and assasination. But how many "pro-choicers" support the ending of a life? By definition, all --- don't they? (doesn't matter if they consider it a person; it is undeniably ALIVE, and uncombined gametes are NOT....)

There are pregnancies from rape and failed contraceptives

In the case of a rape (or incest) or contraceptive-fail, there are adoptions. There was a time when I thought abortion would be OK in the case of rape or incest. But I was forced to deal with the FACT that it was a PERSON; and I find NO difference between aborting at 10 weeks and aborting at 12 months.

I LOVED Dr. Laura's response, once, to a woman who's 20-yr-old-college-student-daughter was pregnant.
Dr. Laura: "So you are afraid that the baby will interfere with her education?"
Mother: "Yes!"
Dr. Laura: "And you think the best, fastest, and easiest thing would be just to end the pregnancy."
Mother: "Yes!"
Dr. Laura: "I'm not understanding something; your daughter is carrying your GRANDCHILD; and you find it far more DESIREABLE, to have that GRANDBABY sucked into a sink in PIECES, than to KNOW that it is out there, somewhere, being raised and loved and happy by adoptive parents! You prefer to KILL your grandbaby than to let it be raised as another Human Being. Frankly, I find your attitude DISGUSTING and SICK; and I just don't want to talk to you any more."

<-click->

Ben Johnson, something called rape does happen once in a while..

Rape and incest constitute FAR LESS than 1% of American abortions. And I saw a testimony of a beautiful young lady, product of a rape; serious Christian, excelled in social work and charities, a severe blessing to the world and to God.

I loved Sister Theresa's response once, when a reporter asked if she thought cancer would ever be cured. She said: "There WAS a man who HAD the cure for cancer; but they aborted him."

Vylo, I am very proud of you! I can't imagine what's going through the heads of those who say, "Come on, you don't buy a SHOE before you TRY IT ON!" Virginity before marriage is HIGHLY conducive to marital success. No ghosts, no past, nothing to prove; some paths are best learned together. (And I bet you, like I, laugh at the "herpes medicine commercials" --- we don't need no stinkin' meds..

BTW, I do not think anyone has the RIGHT to COMMENT on "pro-choice", unless he or she has SEEN an abortion. I most certainly HAVE. Only a film on TV, but it was REAL. First the dialation; then the fluid. Then the dissection: a tiny arm was removed, and another; hands, fingers, nails. Then a leg; shall I go on? Do you want to hear about the FACE? I doubt you do --- it's far easier to be "PRO-CHOICE" when you don't hafta deal with the REALITY, isn't it?!?! I saw the WHOLE THING!!! There is no question about what I saw; someone died. I turned off the TV, and stared at the blank screen --- I was numb; somewhere inside me, a part of me was SCREAMING. My heart ached, but no tears came; they came later--- in great torrents. Of all of the helpless, innocent creatures in the Universe! What kind of ANIMAL kills its OWN UNBORN?!?! I do understaned how some go to jail over the issue.

You have no idea how deeply it will affect you; if you are "pro-choice", you have an OBLIGATION to see actually what you support. You have no idea at all.

I did not deal well with the televised reports last year about children kidnapped and murdered for "mollestation"; how more helpless are those not yet emerged from the womb.

I challenge you, before you say "I'M PRO-CHOICE", see for yourself what you're supporting.

I hope you have the backbone for it...