the right to live

[meatwad]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031022/ap_on_go_co/congress_abortion_22&cid=512 (http://http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031022/ap_on_go_co/congress_abortion_22&cid=512)

My opinion, this is great. Let's see how the rest of the board sees it.

[RedHead1420]

i couldnt get this link to work. anyone else have the same problem?

[coll214]

Nope, nothing but a search page for netscape...

[G35Guy]

I think this was about the late-term abortion vote. I disagree with it. It's a procedure normally used only in extreme cases of danger to the mother. I don't think congress should be stepping in and making medical decisions for women and their doctors.

[meatwad]

Here's another article.

Congress Passes Ban on One Abortion Procedure
VOA News
21 Oct 2003, 22:31 UTC


The U.S. Senate passed a ban on a specific abortion procedure Tuesday.
The Senate approved the proposed ban on what anti-abortion activists call "partial birth" abortion, three weeks after a similar bill passed the House of Representatives.

This term refers to a procedure usually performed in the last three to six months of a woman's pregnancy, in which a fetus is partially delivered before being killed.

The bill now goes to President Bush, who is currently traveling in Asia, for his approval.

Speaking late Tuesday in Singapore, Mr. Bush, an opponent of abortion, welcomed the Senate's vote, saying he looks forward to signing the bill into law. He called the ban a "very important" piece of legislation that will help build what he called a "culture of life" in the United States.

The measure is the first federal law restricting a specific form of abortion since a landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision upholding abortion rights.

But opponents of the ban say it is unconstitutional and have vowed to challenge it in court as soon as it becomes law. They have won previous court cases that overturned restrictive state laws on the issue.

[cheetah]

I find it reprehensible also. Apparently, it has no provision to acocunt for abortions for the health of the mother, and partial birth abortion isn't even a medical term, which I heard is still poorly defined in this legislation, as it was in the Nebraska legislation that was struck down. Procedures that would be banned under this actually are very few, and are probably, instead, a way to intimidate medical professionals who perform abortions (pro-lifers would look for ways to fit their procedures into this vague definition, then prosecute them) and a frist step in the outlawing of abortion altogether, and yes, even birth control. You know there are people out there who oppose birth control, right? This is a first step for them, too. I'm all for procedures that minimize impact to all involved parties, but this is largely symbolic of steps toward outlawing abortion and intimidating abortion providers, rather than saving lives.

I always say if pro-lifers really wanted to SAVE LIVES, they would back, fund and actively encourage sex education. Research and experience in other first world countries prove that increased sex education reduces the amount of STDs, unwanted pregnancies and abortion. Also, Europe (an example of a aplace with less abortion and more sex ed) has a lower rate of teenagers even having sex! Who knew sex ed could actually help teenagers decide NOT to have sex? Not activist pro-lifers, certainly. The best way to reduce abortion is to prevent the need for them in the first place, not to outlaw them. That activist pro-lifers are often against sex education and freely available prophylactics signals to me that they aren't really interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

[lostindc]

My question is: Why are so many prolifers in favor of capital punishment? The two positions seem to be logically inconsistant.

[Benwa]

lostindc you pose a interesting point. But you see, that would require the use of logic which seems to be the antidote for many hardcore prolifers. I submit this, if one truly believe in an eternal heaven and hell, then most gripes would go away. Forget capital punishment, why send someone to prison at all. What, etrenal damnation would be too good for them? You got to ruin what life they have left. Isn't that rather cruel. But everyone knows Jesus preached "be cruel to thy fellow man, cruelty is my way, compassion is for the weak, this is the word of god."

All these shenanigans W and Jeb are up to seem so wrong to me. Abortions are difficult decisions for women and they should be treated with openness and compassion. And if you believe she will go to Hell for killing the fetus, then so be it. Not everyone is of the same moral background as everyone else. We need flexibility in our society, not rigid rules. You want more hippocracy? The life of the fetus is so important, but the life of the american soldier, the iraqi, the afghani, the palestinian are all expendable. As long as they serve your purposes.

You know what I'm for? I'm for the Right to leave people the hell alone. Let people decide for themselves. It isn't the politician's place.

[lostindc]

I don't think that religous arguments are applicable to public policy debates (Hence the 1st ammendment).

The contradiction I see is that the same people that are for capital punishment are also for forcing the elongation of a terminally ill patients life even if it is contrary to that patient's wishes.

Which leads the question: What leads the (purely theoretical but logically feasible) question: What if a terminally ill patient committed a capital offence? Would this be only way of the patient's wishes being granted? How would prolifers resolve this?

[Benwa]

I agree that religious arguments are not aplicable for policy debates. But we live in a heavily judeo-christian country. It borders on the fundamentalism seen in Iran. Although the constitution allows us the right to practice any religion we wish our leaders and the decisions made have a strong foothold in judeo-christian theology. In fact I am not aware of any elected official who is not of judeo christian back ground. If anyone knows of one let me know, its a subject i find interesting. In fact i hope there is, I truly hope I'm wrong on this.

So, every political decision has at least something to do with this theology. It is infused in our culture. Religion has traditionally been used to justify unethical issues the state endorses (wars, laws etc.) It isn't out in the front like it used to be in Columbus' time where the indian was a savage in dire need of christianity. But it is still there, thinly veiled. It is most likely an unconcious action performed by the folks we elect, but it is there. They live in the culture and absorb it like everyone else.

And is there any doubt that the current admin is heavily judeo-christian. Scripture passages are actually quoted in W's speeches. "God bless america" well what about everyone else? God will protect us, we are on the side of right, we must rid the world of the evildoers. Isn't this just smacking of biblical fire and brimstone?

Hippocracy is almost always characteristic of our leaders. They abide, subconsciously mostly, to the Judeo-Christian ideal. But the true judeo Christian ideal doesn't favor the leaders, it favors the meek and the masses. Therefore they must twist it slightly to meet their ends. I seriously doubt an individual could embody true judeo christian ideals and be a leader in the state. One of the reasons Jesus was killed was because he rallied the masses and threatened the power structure. I like his aspect of the J-C ideal. Jesus was a cool guy, but religion has turned him into kind of a weiney. He was a badass really. He raised hell and I dig that about him.

[meatwad]

I'm an atheist.
I'm pro-life.
Prove to me how killing a baby is ever a good thing.

[Benwa]

pre-civilized humans killed their infants on occasion to ensure the survival of the group. Here's a neat tidbit, its been documented that women in tribal groups knew when they were ovulating and would refrain from sex then. They just knew it somehow. Childbirth was even reported to be painless. Sadly the more civilized we became, the more out of touch we became with our bodies.

Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. If someone feels abortion is wrong then they can simply choose to have the child. The danger is when you make blanket ethical statements for everyone. Ethics is an ever changing gray area. It varies from culture to culture and person to person. No one would dream of passing a law mandating that you HAVE to get an abortion, so why should there be laws saying that you can't. Each decision should be made on a case by case basis. And that decision should be respected as should the person who makes it.

But I am very much against state control. I think many more things should be legal. Not only that I feel we need to do away with the prison system too. It's a system based on punitive measures rather than curative. It simply doesn't work.

[meatwad]

So your theory is to let everyone do what they want when they want and to hell with the consequences?

[tipsy88]

against the better of my intuition to not address, i'm bored at work so here goes... (this is not necessary a post to prove, just some thoughts)

it depends on the circumstances that surround that individual having the baby. Life isn't black and white, and issues in life shouldn't be viewed in such a way. While it may not be morally right to kill a baby, not having the baby in certain situations may restrain that particular sitatuion from deteriorating even farther. Consider the easy target, drug abusers who are pregnant that may live low grade neighborhoods. To some it seems unfair to have the baby punished for the mistakes made by the mother, but perhaps it is more of a punishment to have a child even grow up in such an undesirable environment. It is a matter of opinion.

Also there are arguments made on the pro-life side that hold water, such as by allowing abortions you may run a risk where upon people may view it has a way out of responsibility, that people aren't held accountable for their actions. Perhaps some comprimise could be found? Why not impose a limitation on the number of abortions a woman can have barring medical reason?

[Rainster]

Originally posted by meatwad
So your theory is to let everyone do what they want when they want and to hell with the consequences?

But think of the consequences if abortion were once again illegal. Regardless of whether we're all pro-life or pro-choice, women WILL have abortions, legal or not. (The reasons are between them, their doctors, and their Gods).

From a public health perspective, I'd rather have the procedures performed by medical professionals, rather than by cheap back-alley quacks whose primitive methods (coat hangers, anyone?) will probably kill the women desperate enough to go there.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by meatwad
I'm an atheist.
I'm pro-life.
Prove to me how killing a baby is ever a good thing.

It's not a baby, it's a fetus (medical terminology, no argument here, I hope). A fetus is a human, but not a person (according to current law, also no argument there, I hope). The question is, do you think it should be defined as a person? I do not. I do not think a lump of cells, or even a semi-formed lump of cells is a person and does not deserve rights equal to post-birth human persons. I don't think we should issue death certs every time a woman miscarries or that we should have murder investigations if she does. We would have to hire a hell of a lot more police investogators, because a lot of miscarriages occur. I don't think women should be put in jail for manslaughter if they accidentally fall and cause the death of their fetus. I don't think we should issue SSNs to fetus's or that they deserve any further protection than the mother receives, which they will receive also inasmuch as they are in her body. I think the romanticizing of fetus's has caused people to falsely, emotionally react to the abortion debate, when if you saw a 12 week fetus aborted, probably still smaller than my toe, you would not have nearly the emotional reaction you get when you think of a full grown baby being viciously aborted. It's just overly romantic.

But, the point is, we'll never all agree on when a fetus deserves "personhood." I can't prove anything to you, when it's not a B&W issue.

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by cheetah
I think the romanticizing of fetus's has caused people to falsely, emotionally react to the abortion debate, when if you saw a 12 week fetus aborted, probably still smaller than my toe, you would not have nearly the emotional reaction you get when you think of a full grown baby being viciously aborted. It's just overly romantic.

But, the point is, we'll never all agree on when a fetus deserves "personhood." I can't prove anything to you, when it's not a B&W issue.

Amen, Cheetah. The comparison of the two different abortions above is right on. I think partial-birth abortions are equivalent to murder, since the fetus is pretty viable at that point. But at 12 weeks? No...it wouldn't be viable and besides, so many women have miscarriages around that time...it makes no sense to ban ALL abortions.

[paperjam1015]

I used to be pro-life all the way. I grew up in a very conservative area/family/religion.

Since becoming an adult, I've seen the end result of children who were never cared for. Children who have been so severely abused and neglected that they will never recover, much less have a productive life. They live in misery every day. I can't say my beliefs are the same now.

My question to those that are pro-life: Do you wish that the mothers of Charles Manson, David Koresh, Jeffery Dahlmer, Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler had abortions?

In a perfect world, abortions wouldn't be necessary. All children would be loved and cared for. Adoptions would be more common and unwanted pregnancies would be less common, but this world just ain't perfect....

[klo1335]

Didn't we have this same discussion yesterday? And I thought that we came to the conclusion that there is no 100% argument to prove one side or the other. If one person thinks that having an abortion is killing a baby...then that is their choice. If someone else thinks that having an abortion is the only way they will be able to feed their 5 other kids...then that is there choice.

Let me post this question: Pro-Lifers says that having an abortion is killing a baby. Well what should the 13-year old girls who are raped do with these babies? They don't have a job or a family to support them, then what? Adoption? Ok, so if every person that gets raped puts these children up for adoption do you realize how many children that would be? What if all the babies were kept. Do you realize how high the number of people who are on welfare would be?

This issue CAN NOT be generalized. Someone sitting in suburbia in their big house and picket fence. In their nice job and driving a nice car. Or still living with mommy and daddy has NO IDEA what it is like to live in the inner city. "Oh no, we didn't know what birth control was and now she is pregnant. Don't worry mommy and daddy will help us." Instead, She gets pregnant and he wants nothing to do with it. Mom and dad (if dad is even in the picture) won't help out. Even if the women is lucky enough to get a job and convince mom to watch the kid...mom refuses to do so until welfare pays for her to babysit.

I wish people would just open their eyes and stop being so close minded about these social issues that affect our country. We just brush them to the side and forget that they exist!!!

[cheetah]

With all due respect, klo, if I actually believed a fetus was a "baby" and deserved equal protection that infants, children and adults get, I wouldn't be swayed by the argument that they are going to have to live in horrible conditions. I mean, we don't kill off homeless people just because they live in horrible conditions and mess up our social services, right?

Now, it so happens that I don't believe that and I think the only reason(s) people do believe it is because they are romanticizing what a fetus is (i.e. they only think of it at it's 9 month stage, not its 2 month stage) and that it is handed down through increasingly conservative religious organizations (i.e. abortion used to be a lot more common and not interfered with by religion until late in the 19th century from what I have read). If people didn't romanticize a tiny lump of flesh, like I've said before, they probably wouldn't have such an emotional reaction to abortion. And that's what I think people need to reexamine. It is NOT killing a "baby" so get over it!;)