Kilmer17 Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Bad bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Interesting... while I think it will pass the meeting of the senate and house to rectify any differences, I'm not sure the end result will be positive for the right. Passing the ban is interesting from the standpoint that many have argued it should be a state issue. In that sense, it's kind of a splitter for the right. The potential trap is that this is exactly the type of issue the left needs to mobilize. The left has been silent on arguements of substance for quite some time, much to its detriment. All stats I have seen argue that partial birth abortions are unpopular, but so is outlawing abortion entirely. There are people on both extremes of the spectrum...but up until now, only one extreme has really been active. All in all, this could make for a very interesting election in 2004. I think the other risk is that it might mobilize the left only to get knocked off by the supreme court (again). It's certainly a risk. I do understand why the right did it though. They have to pay back their constituents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Gbear, It is possible to be for state rights and against murder. And, while I don't believe abortion under all circumstances is murder, it is without question that inducing a 9-month old child into being born, then halting that birth as the crown of the baby's head escapes the mother, only to crack the baby's skull, suck out the brains and then dismember it inside the mother for removal is the description of murder in 100 percent of the cases. It shouldn't be up to the states to allow THIS type of abortion. Up to six months, sure. But, THIS should be illegal. Just as a mother who sticks a knife into her stomach to kill an unwanted baby can be charged for a crime, though she's supposedly in charge of her own body . You do catch the distinction with what states should be allowed to legislate and where federal law should reign, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 13, 2003 Author Share Posted March 13, 2003 My problem with this is the seemingly random assignment of an OK time? Why is 6 months ok but not 6 months and 1 day. This issue is a major loser for the GOP regardless of what people think of this specific procedure. Why they keep bringing it up is beyond me. Let the states set the laws. In the end, the people that perform, participate, and have these and any abortion will have to face a bigger jury than any we have in this life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Art...And you hope everybody sees it that way. News flash...they don't. You're only picking extreme examples becasue they suit your point. Third trimester births...so by definition that would be what? everything after 6 months? Just what percentage of 6 month babies would survive if birthed that early? Not many? How many of them would ever have higher brain function? It sounds like your definition of "murder" is whether the baby is viable and can live on its own outside the mother. Is that true? If so, why not make that the legal standard...take the baby out...and see if it lives. Of course, somebody should probably come up with a definition of "lives" is. A parent can sign a DNR for a child, will you let the aborting mother do the same? Realise that as you take it out and wait to see it die, it may/will suffer. Are you willing to let it suffer and die? One doesn't have to believe in the fetus's humanity at any point in time to not wish it extra pain and suffering. Afterall, if it comes down to it, I won't wish my dog any more suffering than necessary when its time comes. IF my dog is sick sick, I'll end its suffering as quickly and painlessly as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Gbear, A partial birth abortion is a defined procedure. It's inducing labor. Stopping labor. Cracking the exposed skull of a baby open. Sucking out the brains. Chopping up the child inside the mother. Pulling out the pieces. That's what a partial birth abortion is. As I understand what's being addressed it's not just third trimester abortions. It's PARTIAL BIRTH abortions. And, there's only one way to look at what that is. As what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Art....is right in the sense that the procedure in some forms is infanticide.....and that is illegal...... as if the war wasn't enough....now this....thank god Martha Burke has her priorities straight!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Yeah, but you're still not saying the fetus is a viable person. Why is this worse than forcing the mother to birth the fetus prematuraly to die on the outside? Basically, this procedure saves the fetus and mother pain. Just like I would shoot my dying dog or give him an overdose to make it painless, I'd hope that whoever was having an abortion would make it as quick and painless for the fetus as possible. Note, it seems that the option now (if the bill stands) is birthing the fetus and letting it die on the outside or killing it while it is still in the mother then removing it. Have you really changed anything by changing where the fetus is when it's killed other than making it and the mother suffer more? You really think this is less gross and disgusting? Oh, and you might have made it less safe for the mother. Congrats. Now you can run the risk of killing two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Tough situation. Where do you draw the line, time-wise? Six months, three months? We will probably never be able to solve that one to everyones content. But partial birth abortions are WRONG, WRONG , WRONG becasue they are EXACTLY how Art described them. Had that same baby been allowed to come out, it would live. But it's OK to dismember a baby in the birth canal. I'm sorry, I have a problem with this, as should any decent human being. Will the Republicans get slammed for this? I don't believe so, but even if they do, it was the right thing to do, and it's about time they stood up and had some balls about it. I'll eagerly await liberals/democrats to defend this procedure to the general populace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagsbch Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Ya know I have wondered how many kids my girl and I have killed with The pill. I know that sounds wacked but the potential was killed. This is such a sad topic. Personally I think tha taking a viable human life after it is formed is abhorable. I feel sorry for people who have to live with themselves after having committed such an atrosity. What a buzz killer. Killing a defenseless baby, I mean how much lower can a person go. I think the question is when does the soul and mind make contact. I played guitar to my child when she was in the womb. John thhe Baptist leaped in his mothers womb what ever that means... I mean it was documented for a reason. The point is we don't know when contact is made in the development of a fetus, or do we? God help us all.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 You mean to tell me with all our science we can't define, be it brainwave functions or what have you, a point at which an individual is considered to be just that, an individual? This is not a state issue. It's a human life and a moral issue. The legality of partial-birth abortions is not one that should even be debated. One could even argue that even in the case where the mother's life is threatened, one life is no more important than another. Nature's scheme is a grand one, and one that should not be interfered with. For those of you who wonder where my right-wing tendencies lie, well, here's a prime example. I may lean pro-choice but dammit, we've got to define at what point after a sperm encounters an egg, that a human exists. Anything after that point dictates when abortion become illegal. Yeah, I'm an admitted idealist. But Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, if I can grab a leg or a head inside the birth canal, then abortion should not be legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagsbch Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Hey get your hands out of there.:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Roe v. Wade breaks down the rights of the fetus by trimester. Remember that it was written in the early 70's and that medical science has progressed quite a bit since then, but, as I recall (and it has been years since I studied Con Law so but I think I have this right) The Court stated that the states have the right to allow abortion in the first trimester in all cases. During the second trimester, they must show a vested interest and that Abortion should be prohibited during the third trimester because viability becomes a distinct possibility. The problem is that medical science has pushed viability back, so the distinctions might become a problem. Personally, I don't believe that life begins at conception, but after seen the sonogram of my daughter at 11 weeks, I believe that she was alive then. I am a big proponent of the "morning after" pill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 That's the problem (not the only one obviously). 3 months is okay, but not 3 months and 1 day. As I have said, let them kill as they will. They will have to answer for it eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFunky1 Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 As I have said, let them kill as they will. They will have to answer for it eventually. I guess we should have just said the same thing about Hitler... I mean who are we to say whether or not someone has a right to life or not or if someone has a right to take that life. According to Hitler, since we are using situational ethics to describe when life begins or doesn't and if that life is viable, gypsies, Jews, and other undesirables were wiped off the face of the earth. Sometimes you have to stand up for what is right, not what is politically expedient or prudent. Yes they will have to face judgement for their actions in the afterlife, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't speak out about attrocities while they are occuring. As far as partial birth abortion goes... to illustrate it more clearly. The baby is delivered in a breach position and stopped when the base of the skull is exposed... now this child is only inches from being alive and by definition, in almost all cases, is viable. Once the base of the skull is exposed a pair of scissors or other pointed object is shoved up from the neck into the baby's skull and wiggled around destroying the brain. Once that is completed the brains are sucked out, and the skull collapsed and the baby fully removed. I say baby, because the majority of the cases the mothers life is not at risk, nor is the child not viable. Every woman I know who has had an abortion has had either emotional or physical complications or both. One had both and after a few miscarriages was finally able to give birth. She has been extremely thankful for her child and still deals with the guilt of aborting the other. Lastly miss "Roe" of Roe v. Wade has had a change of heart on this issue... not that it changes law, but it does bring to light people can and do change beliefs about issues. Miss Roe's Website I know this is a politically and emotionally charged subject, and one many people have strong feelings on. Kilmer, I did not say you were equivalent to Hitler incase you think that... I did call you out on your apathy towards human life and how those who are unable to speak up for themselves are represented. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by gbear Yeah, but you're still not saying the fetus is a viable person. Why is this worse than forcing the mother to birth the fetus prematuraly to die on the outside? Basically, this procedure saves the fetus and mother pain. Just like I would shoot my dying dog or give him an overdose to make it painless, I'd hope that whoever was having an abortion would make it as quick and painless for the fetus as possible. Note, it seems that the option now (if the bill stands) is birthing the fetus and letting it die on the outside or killing it while it is still in the mother then removing it. Have you really changed anything by changing where the fetus is when it's killed other than making it and the mother suffer more? You really think this is less gross and disgusting? Oh, and you might have made it less safe for the mother. Congrats. Now you can run the risk of killing two. This is an example, Gbear, of your wayward slavish adherence to what you perceive to be a party line. Partial birth abortion, the practice described to you here, is done in the vast majority of cases with a healthy mother and a healthy fetus involved. The bill that passed the Senate still allows an exception in cases where the mother's life is at risk. That provision alone will save over 2000 babies a year, allowing this radical treatment only in circumstances in which the mother may die in the balance. If you are not wildly FOR this then something has happened to your moral center. I am not a religious man. I'm not a particularly moral man. Sometimes you need to allow yourself to be guided by conscious though, even in the face of an assault on your party's most cherished issue. Here is a case you are allowed to be a human being, instead of a Republican or Democrat. Thankfully, so many Democrats allowed that to happen to sweep this bill through the Senate. Perhaps more should join. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 6 months? My neice, Lilly, was born 3 months early at 1 pound 10 oz. She'll be 6 years old this summer. She's as smart and manipulative as any 6 year old girl. Yea, I think 6 months is an easy call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 awesome Mardi!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.