US top court backs abortion ban

[ICantSpellDawg]

US top court backs abortion ban (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6569007.stm)


The US' top court has upheld a ban on the controversial late-term partial birth abortion procedure.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The act was passed by Congress in 2003 and signed by President George W Bush.

Abortion opponents condemn the operation, in which the foetus is partially removed alive from the woman's uterus and then aborted.

This is the first time the nation's highest court has banned a specific procedure in a case of how, not whether, to perform an abortion, says correspondent Vanessa Heaney in Washington.

It is one of the most significant decisions since the landmark Roe-versus-Wade ruling in 1973 that gave women the basic constitutional right to abortion, our correspondent adds.

Dissent

The upheld law makes it a crime for a doctor to carry out an abortion when an "entire foetal head" or "any part of the foetal trunk past the navel" is outside a woman's uterus, Reuters news agency reports.

The Partial Birth Abortion Act and the court's defence of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Justice Anthony Kennedy said opponents "had not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases".

But the court's four most liberal members dissented.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who called the decision alarming, took the rare step of reading parts of her dissent.

"In candour, the Partial Birth Abortion Act and the court's defence of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court - and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives," she said.

Observers say the decision reflects the recent addition to the court of two conservative justices appointed by President Bush.

Pro-choice blow

The Bush administration has defended the law as drawing a line between abortion and what they say is infanticide.

But abortion rights groups say the decision is a blow that could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy.

They say the procedure is sometimes the safest for a woman.

"This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety," said Eve Gartner of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

However, government lawyers and others who favour the ban, have said there are alternative and more widely used procedures that are still legal - which involves dismembering the foetus in the uterus.

[Vladimir]

US top court backs abortion ban (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6569007.stm)
However, government lawyers and others who favour the ban, have said there are alternative and more widely used procedures that are still legal - which involves dismembering the foetus in the uterus.

Wow. Sick.

[ICantSpellDawg]

In a way, this is great because it cleary defines Abortion and Infanticide legally. It also stresses that although part of the body is in the womb, the right to abort is curtailed.

In a way, this is scary that a clearly murderous procedure was only banned by a 5-4 margin.

I'm not looking forward to when the Dakota ban comews under scrutiny

[Grey_Fox]

The sick thing about late term abortions like that is the baby is capable of surviving on it's own. What they do is wait till the top of the head is out and then inject the child with sodium penthatol or the like - till it takes a breath they're not classified as 'alive', whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

[doc_bean]

Well, duh.

[Don Corleone]

Well, nobody pro or against should reach too much into this one. A procedure was outlawed. The decision has absolutely no impact on a woman's access to an elective abortion in her 38th week, should she desire one.

But Justice Ginsburg did her part. NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) should see a 15% uptick in contributions based on her innaccurate statement alone.

What we need is a sensible definition of when human life itself does actually begin and set elective abortion to end at that defined date. For as much as we rail against Socialist Europe and the Cult of Death in places like the Netherlands, they've all had this worked out for decades. I believe the USA stands alone on unfettered access to elective abortions in the 3rd month.

Speaking of places where abortion policy makes sense... I'd like to ask European orgahs about some other brow-raising policies the US has in place due to the bizarre fashion in which our abortion policy was fashioned....

1) Can minors (age 12, 13) get an abortion without the knowledge or consent of their parent/guardian?

2) Is there any effort made to talk to women about more responsible choices after say, the 3rd elective abortion?

Just curious, as you seem to have a much better handle on it than we do.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

1) Can minors (age 12, 13) get an abortion without the knowledge or consent of their parent/guardian?

2) Is there any effort made to talk to women about more responsible choices after say, the 3rd elective abortion?

In the UK-

1) If the doctor deems them competent to understand and consent to the procedure, yes.

2)I don't think so.

[doc_bean]

1) Can minors (age 12, 13) get an abortion without the knowledge or consent of their parent/guardian?

2) Is there any effort made to talk to women about more responsible choices after say, the 3rd elective abortion?



1) I *think* so. I think doctors might actually recommend an abortion at that age.

2) People need to give a reason for abortion, tough any will suffice, and have to wait at least a week after application before the procedure can take place (something that is occasionally questioned, mainly because we only normally allow first trimester abortions and with a week of waiting there's not much time left.) So abortion is always a bit discouraged, whether or not they get talked too about their other choices would depend on the doctor I guess.

[TB666]

1) Can minors (age 12, 13) get an abortion without the knowledge or consent of their parent/guardian?

2) Is there any effort made to talk to women about more responsible choices after say, the 3rd elective abortion?

Just curious, as you seem to have a much better handle on it than we do.In Sweden:
1. As far as I know, No. I'm not a woman so hard to say :laugh4: . But I have been to the youth-clinic and they are bound by the same law as the other doctors which means they aren't allowed to say anything unless it's a crime involved.
They recommend that you talk to the parents so they can support you if needed but it is not required.
2. Other then the importance of condoms and birth-control pills ?? No.

[Grey_Fox]

No abortions in Ireland, unless the life of the mother is endangered I believe.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's about time we joined the rest of the civilized world and struck down any constitutional support for this sick murder. Constitutional right my ***.

CR

[Goofball]

I don't see much of a problem with this ruling, other than (as has already been mentioned) I don't know how effective it will be. Can doctors still not perform a late-term abortion without removing part of the fetus from the mother first?

[Don Corleone]

Yes Goof. Now instead of extraction and dilation (puncture the baby's skull while it's in the birth canal and vaccuuming out the brain), now late term abortions will have to be saline or separation and extraction (severing the major sections, allowing the baby to die, then vacuuming out the parts).

But from a legal standpoint, no statement was made on timing or theoretical access, just the procedure used itself.

[Goofball]

Yes Goof. Now instead of extraction and dilation (puncture the baby's skull while it's in the birth canal and vaccuuming out the brain), now late term abortions will have to be saline or separation and extraction (severing the major sections, allowing the baby to die, then vacuuming out the parts).

But from a legal standpoint, no statement was made on timing or theoretical access, just the procedure used itself.

Kind of makes me want to cry.

(And that is not meant as a smart-ass comment)

[doc_bean]

Yes Goof. Now instead of extraction and dilation (puncture the baby's skull while it's in the birth canal and vaccuuming out the brain), now late term abortions will have to be saline or separation and extraction (severing the major sections, allowing the baby to die, then vacuuming out the parts).

But from a legal standpoint, no statement was made on timing or theoretical access, just the procedure used itself.

Hey, it's a start.

[Vladimir]

Yes Goof. Now instead of extraction and dilation (puncture the baby's skull while it's in the birth canal and vaccuuming out the brain), now late term abortions will have to be saline or separation and extraction (severing the major sections, allowing the baby to die, then vacuuming out the parts).

But from a legal standpoint, no statement was made on timing or theoretical access, just the procedure used itself.

Wow. Sick.

[HoreTore]

Another reason why I'm glad I live in Europe, not the US...

[Samurai Waki]

Another reason why I'm glad I live in Europe, not the US...

Please, explain to me how living in Europe or the US would make any difference in how a fetus is aborted?

[Vladimir]

Please, explain to me how living in Europe or the US would make any difference in how a fetus is aborted?

The screams are made with a cool accent.

[HoreTore]

The vast majority here wants it to be legal, that can't be said about the US...

[Don Corleone]

The vast majority of Norwegians want elective 3rd trimester abortions, HoreTore? If that's so, then why don't you have it?

[HoreTore]

I was talking about abortion generally, not abortion in the third trimester...

[Don Corleone]

I think the discussion and people's comments in opposition were to 3rd trimester abortions in general, and the particular procedure that was outlawed (and verified as illegal by the Supreme Court). I don't think anybody here, with the possible exception of Crazed Rabbit, was talking about abortion at large.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Welcome to the discussion, Horetore

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think the discussion and people's comments in opposition were to 3rd trimester abortions in general, and the particular procedure that was outlawed (and verified as illegal by the Supreme Court). I don't think anybody here, with the possible exception of Crazed Rabbit, was talking about abortion at large.

I was afraid of the verdict on the Dakota total ban to come in the near future.

[HoreTore]

Well, that ruling isn't a separate issue, it's linked to abortion generally.

But anyway, as for my opinion on abortion in the third trimester, my view is that it should be strongly encouraged to get the abortion done as soon as possible. However, I cannot see any reason why it should be illegal at a later stage.

[AntiochusIII]

But anyway, as for my opinion on abortion in the third trimester, my view is that it should be strongly encouraged to get the abortion done as soon as possible. However, I cannot see any reason why it should be illegal at a later stage.The argument of those in this thread, about the ruling, is that the method is a barbaric way to destroy a living thing. If we outlaw barbaric ways to punish people -- at least some of them -- then this is no different.

The argument against third-trimester abortion (that is to say, approximately 7-9 months into pregnancy) is that the baby can generally survive on "its" own "aborted" safely and properly which is a particularly powerful argument in favor of giving "it" all the rights we accord to children in our society, especially that of Life.

That does not necessarily mean that the person who support the ban against 3rd trimester abortion would support a total ban, naturally enough.

[Pindar]

The US' top court has upheld a ban on the controversial late-term partial birth abortion procedure.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.


There is no Constitutional right to an abortion. God save us from the rhetoric of the uninformed. Stupid BBC. :study:

[JAG]

Seems like a sensible decision to me, you won't find me arguing for abortion after 24 weeks unless there is the womans life at risk or there has been other serious reasons - such as mis information and cock ups.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, the leading Pres. contender have come out on the issue. The top three of dem and GOP are split on party lines - Dems saying they can't disagree more strongly, Republicans supporting the decision.

So, JAG, it appears as though you're to the 'right' of all the democrat candidates. :dizzy2:

CR

[Slyspy]

Fair enough on elective late abortions. If it takes someone that long then tough, have the child and get it adopted. If it needs to be done for medical reasons or such like then there are still legal methods available.

[HoreTore]

The argument of those in this thread, about the ruling, is that the method is a barbaric way to destroy a living thing. If we outlaw barbaric ways to punish people -- at least some of them -- then this is no different.

The argument against third-trimester abortion (that is to say, approximately 7-9 months into pregnancy) is that the baby can generally survive on "its" own "aborted" safely and properly which is a particularly powerful argument in favor of giving "it" all the rights we accord to children in our society, especially that of Life.

That does not necessarily mean that the person who support the ban against 3rd trimester abortion would support a total ban, naturally enough.

Well, my opinion of it, is that it is not a living thing. It's on the road to living, but not yet. Therefore, as it isn't living, I don't see it as taking a life, murder, etc, and as such I don't really have anything against whatever is done to it. But because of the severity of the operation for the woman, I of course want it done as soon as possible, preferably in the first couple of weeks. But if something has come up preventing that, I find it horrible that it isn't allowed. And as the article pointed out, in some cases, it's actually better to wait.

To me, there are only reasons to allow it, I don't see any argument against it that is valid in my opinion.

[Lemur]

I agree with Don that there's a lot less here than meets the eye. Anti-abortionists are crowing that this is the beginning of much stricter restrictions on abortion, but it's really just the allowing of a state's restriction on a particularly gruesome procedure. Pro-choicers are screaming to the rafters about much the same thing, and I suspect they're equally wrong.

I would imagine such a procedure is pretty darn rare anyway. Are there any numbers out there for how often third-tri abortions are even performed in the U.S.A.? It's got to be a tiny fraction of the overall number.

[JAG]

HoreTore - the fact that at this stage in development it is beyond doubt a living human being, which could even sustain its own life outside of the mother - with the right hospital equipment of course - and so to kill - and I use that word on purpose - it, is tantamount to murder and I do not believe we should ask doctors to commit murder, if we can help it. As I said before, if there are significant reasons for it to be carried out anyway, in specific cases - such as the mothers health or terrible diseases to the baby - then I would not have an objection.

There is a clear difference to cases after 24 weeks and those before this time. I am not a bible bashing conservative - well, actually quite the opposite - but I fail to see any serious objection to having this law in place, in fact I struggle to think of any other country bar the US where abortions are legally allowed in all circumstances after 24 weeks.


So, JAG, it appears as though you're to the 'right' of all the democrat candidates

The reason for that, on this issue, is because over there this issue is such an ingrained and rigid issue. Dem's pro choice, and pro choice come whatever may, and the Republican's the opposite. Where, as in most other areas of Western civilisation, there is much less rhetoric and much more rational when confronting this issue.

But, just to make you happy and restore the balance, within the first 24 weeks, I think the problems with Western nations is not that there are too many abortions but that there are too few. More abortions could lesson teenage pregnancy, unwanted children being harmed by their parents and multiple other social ills. Abortion should really be made easier to have and more information should be provided to would be mothers as to how easy and safe the procedure is. Happy CR? ~;)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Maybe the SCOTUS can give us all a good show by bringing out their ruling on the Dakota ban law about mid-september of 2008. :devilish:

Today's ruling will certainly generate more funds for the pressure groups on both sides of the question. :shame:

[Ronin]

man.....the limit that has just been aproved here in Portugal is 10 weeks...that seems reasonable to me...

now...partial birth abortions...that´s just ****** up!....if the kid is able to live on it´s own just give it up for adoption if you don´t want it!

[HoreTore]

HoreTore - the fact that at this stage in development it is beyond doubt a living human being, which could even sustain its own life outside of the mother - with the right hospital equipment of course - and so to kill - and I use that word on purpose - it, is tantamount to murder and I do not believe we should ask doctors to commit murder, if we can help it. As I said before, if there are significant reasons for it to be carried out anyway, in specific cases - such as the mothers health or terrible diseases to the baby - then I would not have an objection.

There is a clear difference to cases after 24 weeks and those before this time. I am not a bible bashing conservative - well, actually quite the opposite - but I fail to see any serious objection to having this law in place, in fact I struggle to think of any other country bar the US where abortions are legally allowed in all circumstances after 24 weeks.

Most people believe that there is something more than the biological body to life. They believe in a soul, a spirit, an essence, whatever you may call it. They believe that is what makes a human, a human. Without it, we are but a shell.

Now, you may argue that the fetus is biologically alive, like a flower, however, you cannot argue with certainty that it has a soul, and is alive like a human being. And if it's not a human being, then it's cannot be murder? It's not murder if you choose to cut the flowers in your garden, is it?

[Odin]

Most people believe that there is something more than the biological body to life. They believe in a soul, a spirit, an essence, whatever you may call it. They believe that is what makes a human, a human. Without it, we are but a shell. Now, you may argue that the fetus is biologically alive, like a flower, however, you cannot argue with certainty that it has a soul, and is alive like a human being. And if it's not a human being, then it's cannot be murder? It's not murder if you choose to cut the flowers in your garden, is it?

Well you make a fair point, but once we go down the path of equating a "soul" to life that becomes very subjective. By your argument I could deem you dont have a soul, or anyone for that matter then would it be murder if I chose to kill the person I deemed didnt have a soul?

My questions are rhetorical because thats such a subjective thing Hore Tore, biological functions for the most part are not, and if we have to use something as a measurement I would much rather use biological function then "soul".

[KukriKhan]

... you cannot argue with certainty that it has a soul, and is alive like a human being...

And isn't that certainty the crux of the issue? No one is certain when that (soul, spark, essense, etc) occurs. At conception? When the first unaided breath is drawn? Somewhere in-between?

That's what the argument is all about.

edit: That, and who "owns" the thing/human before it comes out into the world, and whose duty it is to protect it/him/her.

[Ironside]

My questions are rhetorical because thats such a subjective thing Hore Tore, biological functions for the most part are not, and if we have to use something as a measurement I would much rather use biological function then "soul".

The crux is that biological function is also difficult to define well. Simply being human (human DNA), alive and an unique induvidual (aka unique DNA, this accidently excludes twins btw ~;p ), simply doesn't cut it.

[Odin]

The crux is that biological function is also difficult to define well. Simply being human (human DNA), alive and an unique induvidual (aka unique DNA, this accidently excludes twins btw ~;p ), simply doesn't cut it.

Well yes in your example but we do agree on what a biological function is correct? lets say a heart beat is a biologocal function, thats measurable. Thats really my point in reply to Hore Tore at least with biologocal function we can come to a reasonable point of agreement.

Its certainly more tangible then the measurement of the soul.

[ShadeHonestus]

Does this mean they will no longer offer the home abortion kit from the Sears catalog. The Johnson and Johnson one had a 9 out of 10 doctor baby killer rating. It came with a bronzed knitting awl to remember the occasion.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

HoreTore - the fact that at this stage in development it is beyond doubt a living human being, which could even sustain its own life outside of the mother - with the right hospital equipment of course - and so to kill - and I use that word on purpose - it, is tantamount to murder

Welcome to the light. So you are now an anti-abortionist.:laugh4: So then its medical procedure that determines whether a fetus is a living human or not?



Most people believe that there is something more than the biological body to life. They believe in a soul, a spirit, an essence, whatever you may call it. They believe that is what makes a human, a human. Without it, we are but a shell.
Now, you may argue that the fetus is biologically alive, like a flower, however, you cannot argue with certainty that it has a soul, and is alive like a human being. And if it's not a human being, then it's cannot be murder? It's not murder if you choose to cut the flowers in your garden, is it?

OMG this is the first time ive seen the religous argument used to back abortion . Your leaving out just one little part of this . RELIGOUS people believe the souls enters upon conception and its a human being right then and there.

[Pindar]

Maybe the SCOTUS can give us all a good show by bringing out their ruling on the Dakota ban law about mid-september of 2008. :devilish:

Today's ruling will certainly generate more funds for the pressure groups on both sides of the question. :shame:

The Dakota Law's presumption leaves it deeply flawed. If one is opposed to Roe then any legal challenge should only come when there is a viable chance to succeed. As the Court stands: Dakota will be shot down by SCOTUS. Justice Stevens is 87 and Justice Ginsburg is in poor health. There is speculation one or both may not even make it to the 08 election. Regardless, the Court situation is far from stable on this issue. They should have waited until at least one more constructionist Justice was actually sitting before taking this action. Foolishness.

[Don Corleone]

Roe should be defeated as a matter of law, not policy. Out-Roeing Roe would be horrific. It already has engendered assumed powers onto the Court that it was never intended to have (where do you think the term "Living, breathing document" came from?)

Roe should be reversed not on the grounds that it allows abortion. It goes far deeper than that. It should be reversed because the Courts have no right to set health policy for the nation. They also have no right to generate and confer 'new rights' such as privacy.

The correct outcome would be a complete reversal of Roe on legal principal (a strictly deconstructionist argument) and that's it. In states where assemblies have authorized abortion, it should remain legal. In states where it has been found to be illegal, it should remain so.

As I understand it, the federal government is supposed to show a compelling reason why it needs to supercede states' authority in matters not specifically conveyed to the federal government (such as health policy). In the case of immunization, they can, but as far as I know, neither SCOTUS, the 434 Idiots nor the Den of Deceit on Pennsylvania avenue have ever made an argument why they have a compelling interest on reproductive health.

[ICantSpellDawg]

There is no Constitutional right to an abortion. God save us from the rhetoric of the uninformed. Stupid BBC. :study:


You made it look like I said that. I LOOK LIKE A TOTAL IDIOT IN FRONT OF EVERYONE!!!! gah.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You made it look like I said that. I LOOK LIKE A TOTAL IDIOT IN FRONT OF EVERYONE!!!! gah.

...this specifically names the BBC. Unless you set editorial policy for the BBC, TSMc, I think you're taking the post way too personally.

Don C & Pindar: Nice points above.

[HoreTore]

OMG this is the first time ive seen the religous argument used to back abortion . Your leaving out just one little part of this . RELIGOUS people believe the souls enters upon conception and its a human being right then and there.

You don't have to be religious to have the believe that there is something more to a living thing than a sack of molecules... I'm not religious in any way myself, so... What makes a human think? Noone has the answer to that. Some call it a soul or whatever. That was what I was talking about, the thing making a human think. Whatever you call it, soul, spirit, whatever, is irrelevant. In my mind, that is what makes a human, human.

But when does a human get that ability? Nobody knows, and unless we make some unthinkable breakthrough in science, we will never know. Now, we KNOW that someone who is born has that ability. That's certain without doubt. However, do we gain that ability before that time? Again, nobody knows the answer to that question. So, I leave it to an individuals own beliefs to determine that answer. Therefore, I do not want a law that contradicts whatever a person believe on this matter. If the person in question doesn't believe that the fetus is a human being, then I have no problem with an abortion of it. The issue is best left to the ones the issue affect, in my opinion.

Btw, the Quran states that the soul enters the body after 16 weeks of pregnancy...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You don't have to be religious to have the believe that there is something more to a living thing than a sack of molecules... I'm not religious in any way myself, so... What makes a human think? Noone has the answer to that. Some call it a soul or whatever. That was what I was talking about, the thing making a human think. Whatever you call it, soul, spirit, whatever, is irrelevant. In my mind, that is what makes a human, human.


Ok mister know it all , exactly when does this so called thinking proccess start? Dont animals think, yet we kill them? How does thinking make you human?


Now you answer my question


But when does a human get that ability? Nobody knows, and unless we make some unthinkable breakthrough in science, we will never know

So if you dont know should you not err on the side of humanity?


If the person in question doesn't believe that the fetus is a human being, then I have no problem with an abortion of it.

So if I see nothing wrong with killing you its OK? This is the excuse the Nazis used to kill the Jews and other ethnic groups like Gypsies. They werent human.



Btw, the Quran states that the soul enters the body after 16 weeks of pregnancy...

So it backs this decision then.

[Xiahou]

Roe should be defeated as a matter of law, not policy. Out-Roeing Roe would be horrific. It already has engendered assumed powers onto the Court that it was never intended to have (where do you think the term "Living, breathing document" came from?)

Roe should be reversed not on the grounds that it allows abortion. It goes far deeper than that. It should be reversed because the Courts have no right to set health policy for the nation. They also have no right to generate and confer 'new rights' such as privacy.

The correct outcome would be a complete reversal of Roe on legal principal (a strictly deconstructionist argument) and that's it. In states where assemblies have authorized abortion, it should remain legal. In states where it has been found to be illegal, it should remain so.

As I understand it, the federal government is supposed to show a compelling reason why it needs to supercede states' authority in matters not specifically conveyed to the federal government (such as health policy). In the case of immunization, they can, but as far as I know, neither SCOTUS, the 434 Idiots nor the Den of Deceit on Pennsylvania avenue have ever made an argument why they have a compelling interest on reproductive health.
Roe v Wade was a bad decision on many levels, the "right" to privacy argument, state vs federal, and so on. Even Roe herself now says she wants to see Roe V Wade overturned.

Abortion's criminalization/decriminalization is something that should have remained with the individual states and been decided by their legislatures. I will never be in favor of elective abortions and am willing to make my case and vote accordingly thru the political process- those on the other side can do the same. Having it enforced by unelected oligarchs is crazy.

[Don Corleone]

Well, HoreTore, not for nothing, but you're showing some serious ignorance on the biology of fetal development.

Your claim that abortions at week 38 are perfectly okay, because the fetus isn't human yet, but that once born, the fetus becomes a living, breathing, human being, possessed by a soul has a serious issue of timing. Children can be, and sometimes are, born early. Say 34 weeks, 35 weeks. Not even a requirement that they be kept for additional observation. In the last 4 weeks of a pregnancy, no additional fetal development takes place. The baby puts on weight and begins exercising its limbs. That's it. So if a child is born prematurely, at 34 weeks, you'd say let it live. But you'd kill one still inside that's 38 weeks. Is the incongruity of your logic starting to hit you yet?

You do actually touch on a very salient point. When exactly does a human being become a human being? Many claim at the moment of union of sperm and egg. Many others would put the point at the development of the neural cord and brain. Others would peg it at viability. All of these points have a certain amount of arbitrariness to them, but unfortunately, without more data, the choice has to be arbitrary, to a certain extent.

But this "not really alive until the first breath" argument you're making, and to be fair you're not alone... I'm sorry, I just don't see any logic behind it, unless the logic is a dedication to the act of abortion itself. The 'First breath' crowd could easily (and I'm surprised you don't) turn their arguments to justify infanticide.

[rory_20_uk]

I've helped cut babies out of their mothers when the baby was 28 weeks old. It lived - with minimal medical input. I've done loads of caesareans at 35 to 42 weeks. Not one died.

Unless something somehow goes across during the operation, the baby is able to survive independently of the mother. In almost all cases the mother has not even gone into stage 1 of labour.

I'm not able to comment on the "soul" aspect of things, but medically they're as alive as you or I - and grow up as such.

That you can think we could instead of delivering it remove its brain and then abort the body amazes me.

I'm pro abortion, but they have almost no place post 24 weeks - and ideally the woman should make her mind up in the first 12.

~:smoking:

[Don Corleone]

----> Born at gestational week 35 https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/tharris00/birth.jpg
(so she was still okay to abort in your book), yet still, clearly human (and wonderfully so, at that): https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/tharris00/DSCN1303.jpg

[HoreTore]

If you had read my post, Gawain of Orkney, you would have seen that I had answered your question already. We know, whithout a doubt, that post-birth, a human can think. Simple as that. As to why we kill animals, who do indeed think as we do, the answer is that we don't really care about other species than our own...

And yes, the quran backs this decision, however, it does not back the christian anti-abortionist maniacs...


Well, HoreTore, not for nothing, but you're showing some serious ignorance on the biology of fetal development.

Your claim that abortions at week 38 are perfectly okay, because the fetus isn't human yet, but that once born, the fetus becomes a living, breathing, human being, possessed by a soul has a serious issue of timing. Children can be, and sometimes are, born early. Say 34 weeks, 35 weeks. Not even a requirement that they be kept for additional observation. In the last 4 weeks of a pregnancy, no additional fetal development takes place. The baby puts on weight and begins exercising its limbs. That's it. So if a child is born prematurely, at 34 weeks, you'd say let it live. But you'd kill one still aside that's 38 weeks. Is the incongruity of your logic starting to hit you yet?

You do actually touch on a very salient point. When exactly does a human being become a human being? Many claim at the moment of union of sperm and egg. Many others would put the point at the development of the neural cord and brain. Others would peg it at viability. All of these points have a certain amount of arbitrariness to them, but unfortunately, without more data, the choice has to be arbitrary, to a certain extent.

But this "not really alive until the first breath" argument you're making, and to be fair you're not alone... I'm sorry, I just don't see any logic behind it, unless the logic is a dedication to the act of abortion itself. The 'First breath' crowd could easily (and I'm surprised you don't) turn their arguments to justify infanticide.

Well, that would be your opinion. It is not my opinion. I'm not in any way trying to make you agree with me on this point, however, I fail to see what your opinion on something that neither of us know the answer to should dictate what I can and cannot do. I guess that's the anarchist in me...

[HoreTore]

I'm pro abortion, but they have almost no place post 24 weeks - and ideally the woman should make her mind up in the first 12.

Excluding the rare idiot, nobody challenges that. Abortions should be done as soon as possible, or ideally, birth control should have been used, or worked...

However, we are talking about extremely rare situations, situations with a VERY good reason as to why it has taken such a long time. And as it was said in the original article, sometimes it's medically better to wait...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If you had read my post, Gawain of Orkney, you would have seen that I had answered your question already.

If you had read my post, HoreTore , you would have seen that I had noticed you answered my question already.


And yes, the quran backs this decision, however, it does not back the christian anti-abortionist maniacs...



Is abortion legal under Islamic law? And what christian anti-abortionist maniacs are you speaking of? Anyone we may know?


Well, that would be your opinion. It is not my opinion. I'm not in any way trying to make you agree with me on this point, however, I fail to see what your opinion on something that neither of us know the answer to should dictate what I can and cannot do. I guess that's the anarchist in me...


I guess his post just flew over your head. If its alive would killing it be murder? If you dont know someones alive and you kill them is that murder? You say when it starts to think its human. Youve been shown that a fetus is already thinking long before the third term yet you still back murdering it. Your nothing more than a hypocrit if you look at your stance. Its really indefensible.

[rory_20_uk]

When is a late abortion safer for the woman?

~:smoking:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

However, we are talking about extremely rare situations, situations with a VERY good reason as to why it has taken such a long time

Yeah like the mother couldnt make up her mind or her boyfriend split the ghetto at the last minute. You fail to understand how it goes here in the US. Abortion has become just another form of birth control.

[HoreTore]

I guess his post just flew over your head. If its alive would killing it be murder? If you dont know someones alive and you kill them is that murder? You say when it starts to think its human. Youve been shown that a fetus is already thinking long before the third term yet you still back murdering it. Your nothing more than a hypocrit if you look at your stance. Its really indefensible.

I don't see medically alive as "alive and thus killing it is murder". Medically alive doesn't mean that it is any more alive than, say, a car. Or better yet, a robot with artificial intelligence.

I have not been shown that a fetus is thinking before it is born, in fact, that is impossible to show.


Is abortion legal under Islamic law? And what christian anti-abortionist maniacs are you speaking of? Anyone we may know?

1. No idea about that if you mean sharia. But it's illegal in most conservative states in the world, including the arab world.
2. The ones claiming that human life begins at conception...


Yeah like the mother couldnt make up her mind or her boyfriend split the ghetto at the last minute. You fail to understand how it goes here in the US. Abortion has become just another form of birth control.

Well, in that case, I support abortion of the mother after she has given birth.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I have not been shown that a fetus is thinking before it is born, in fact, that is impossible to show.

Then you havent been paying any attention? Does the thought process start with the first breath? I doubt it? I bet if I google just a little I can prove they think long before their born. Why do people read and play music to their unborn babies? Are they crazy?


1. No idea about that if you mean sharia. But it's illegal in most conservative states in the world, including the arab world.


So your problem really is with christians then as if Muslims want it illegal thats fine by you.


. The ones claiming that human life begins at conception...


Believeing that makes one a christian anti-abortionist maniac?

Ill fill you in on a little secret. Millions and Millions of people who are not christian believe that.

[ajaxfetish]

I have not been shown that a fetus is thinking before it is born, in fact, that is impossible to show.
I've met a number of adults I'm convinced are not thinking beings. What should their rights be? Who should decide whether they are alive, or should there be an objective criteria to determine their condition?


Well, in that case, I support abortion of the mother after she has given birth.
:chuckle:

Ajax

[HoreTore]

Then you havent been paying any attention? Does the thought process start with the first breath? I doubt it? I bet if I google just a little I can prove they think long before their born. Why do people read and play music to their unborn babies? Are they crazy?

So your problem really is with christians then as if Muslims want it illegal thats fine by you.

Believeing that makes one a christian anti-abortionist maniac?

Ill fill you in on a little secret. Millions and Millions of people who are not christian believe that.

1. No, you would not be able to do just that. In fact, it is impossible(as of now, at least). You can prove that there are brain activity, they're moving limbs and so forth, but you cannot prove that they are formulating ideas in their heads. As such, you cannot prove that they are any more alive than a car.
2. Why do people believe that swinging a crystal back and forth in front of them cures cancer?
3.No, I want it legal everywhere, of course.
4. Believing that doesn't make you a christian anti-abortionist maniac, but christian anti-abortionist maniacs believes that. Simple :yes:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

. No, you would not be able to do just that. In fact, it is impossible(as of now, at least). You can prove that there are brain activity, they're moving limbs and so forth, but you cannot prove that they are formulating ideas in their heads. As such, you cannot prove that they are any more alive than a car.


So again its your postion that not a thought entered their tiny little brain until they tale that first gasp of air on their own? You do realise how ridiculous this position is dont you? How much thought process does a 1hr old baby have that it didnt 2 hrs earllier.


Why do people believe that swinging a crystal back and forth in front of them cures cancer?


Whats this on about?


. Believing that doesn't make you a christian anti-abortionist maniac, but christian anti-abortionist maniacs believes that. Simple

Most anti-abortionists believe that. Do you have a point. It really seem you have a problem with christians here.

One last thing. Isnt the real crime in killing the loss of future life. Nothing has more then to loose than a fetus.

[HoreTore]

So again its your postion that not a thought entered their tiny little brain until they tale that first gasp of air on their own? You do realise how ridiculous this position is dont you? How much thought process does a 1hr old baby have that it didnt 2 hrs earllier.

Whats this on about?

Most anti-abortionists believe that. Do you have a point. It really seem you have a problem with christians here.

One last thing. Isnt the real crime in killing the loss of future life. Nothing has more then to loose than a fetus.

1. I really don't care what you think of my position, but the fact remains, you cannot prove that a tought entered their mind.
2. It was a response to why people read books to a fetus.
3. Well, I despise christianity and all that it stands for, but that's got nothing to do with this... I son't have a point there at all, I've simply commented on your initial comment ;)
4. Well, if I have 100 bucks, and want to give it to you, but then I decide not to, I haven't stolen anything, have I?

[Goofball]

However, we are talking about extremely rare situations, situations with a VERY good reason as to why it has taken such a long time. And as it was said in the original article, sometimes it's medically better to wait...Yeah like the mother couldnt make up her mind or her boyfriend split the ghetto at the last minute. You fail to understand how it goes here in the US. Abortion has become just another form of birth control.

Actually, I think he was talking more about reasons like this:

"Coreen Costello, a Republican woman and full-time mother of two, testified, "When I was seven months pregnant I was having premature contractions. During an ultrasound, the physician became very silent. My husband reassured me that we could deal with whatever was wrong. We had talked about raising a child with disabilities. We were willing to take whatever God gave us. My doctor informed me that they did not expect our baby to live. She was unable to absorb any amniotic fluid and it was puddling into my uterus. This poor precious child had a lethal neurological disorder and had been unable to move for almost two months. The movements I had been feeling had been nothing more than bubbles and fluid." Both Coreen and her husband were anti-abortion and terminating her pregnancy was not an option. "I wanted her to come on God's time. I did not want to interfere." However, as the pregnancy progressed, doctors discovered that the baby was "stuck in a transverse position. Due to swelling, her head was already larger than that of a full-term baby. Natural birth or induced labor was not possible. I considered a caesarean section, but experts at Cedars-Sinai Hospital were adamant that the risks to my health.were too great...the doctors all agreed that our only option was the intact D&E procedure." The procedure left Coreen well enough to become pregnant again. She since has given birth to a healthy son."

or this:

"Vikki Stella learned that her fetus had nine severe abnormalities, including a fluid-filled cranium with no brain tissue at all. She was in her 32nd week of pregnancy, a pregnancy that was very much wanted. For Vikki, the safest procedure to protect her health and preserve her fertility was an intact D&E abortion. "As a diabetic.this surgery was.safer for me than induced labor or a c-section, since I don't heal as well as other people.I've been told mothers like me all want perfect babies.{my son} wasn't just imperfect - he was incompatible with life; the only thing that was keeping him alive was my body." Because Vikki's intact D&E preserved her fertility, she was able to have another child."

or this:

"Finally, there was Viki Wilson, a RN from Fresno, California. She was a pediatric nurse and her husband, Bill, was an emergency room physician. In the 36th week of her third pregnancy, again a very much-wanted pregnancy, they learned what could only be described as devastating news. Their baby had encephalocoele with severe microcephaly, with a large portion of the brain formed outside the skull, most of its tissue abnormal. Several doctors, including geneticists and perinatologists, told them, that the daughter they named Abigail could never survive outside her mother's womb, and that the 'healthy baby kicks' Viki had thought she felt were, in fact seizures caused by pressure as the baby's head had lodged in her pelvis. The specialists recommended the intact D&E as the best procedure for Viki. The Wilson's held a funeral for Abigail and a playground at their children's Catholic school is named in her honor. The Wilson's subsequently welcomed a baby son through adoption in December 1996."

Linky (and I do admit the site is biased, but I don't believe they lied about these cases):

http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/issues/issues_partial_birth_abortions.html

[Gawain of Orkeny]

1. I really don't care what you think of my position, but the fact remains, you cannot prove that a tought entered their mind.


Can you prove a thought entered their mind as soon as they were born? What thought would that be? Do you remember? If Im asleep and not thinking is it ok the kill me? Can you kill people who are in a coma?


It was a response to why people read books to a fetus.


I dont see how.


Well, if I have 100 bucks, and want to give it to you, but then I decide not to, I haven't stolen anything, have I?

No because that was never my 100 bucks. If you abort that fetus its future life however isnt yours now is it? If I kill you you loose no more, in fact you lose less than a fetus does.


Actually, I think he was talking more about reasons like this:


Unfortunalty here in the US these are the exception. I dont know anyone who opposes abortion when the life of the mother is threatened. In fact it has always been legal for such abortions to be performed in every state of the union.

[HoreTore]

Can you prove a thought entered their mind as soon as they were born? What thought would that be? Do you remember? If Im asleep and not thinking is it ok the kill me? Can you kill people who are in a coma?

I dont see how.

1. Thinking is not the same as thinking of something... I see it as brain activity more than a flower. And you are thinking when you are asleep...
2. I rate both the crystal swinging and the womb-reading as the same mumbo-jumbo.
3. in goofballs examples, the mothers life was not at risk. As for how things are in the US, well, I don't really care, it's a third world country anyway... But I'm not automatically buying your statement that these cases are an exception.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Thinking is not the same as thinking of something... I see it as brain activity more than a flower. And you are thinking when you are asleep...
Well Fetuses certainly have nrain activity. I dont see where your trying to go here. And no Im not concously thinking when Im asleep. I might have thought patterns some of the time.


. I rate both the crystal swinging and the womb-reading as the same mumbo-jumbo.


I guess theres a lot of crazy peditritions out there then.


in goofballs examples, the mothers life was not at risk


I considered a caesarean section, but experts at Cedars-Sinai Hospital were adamant that the risks to my health.were too great

As to the others these would not have lived for long even if born. Still there is the question of when is a fetus too messed up to deliver. Should we go the route of the Spartans?

[Goofball]

And just to inject a little perspective into this thread, here are some U.S. abortion numbers pertaining to the discussion at hand (I even made sure I took them from pro-life site):

At what gestational ages are abortions performed:
52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.

So, 99% of abortions in the U.S. happen before the end of the 20th week, with 89% of those happening before the end of the 12th week. Now, the site doesn't say, but I would be willing to bet that of the 1% that take place after the 20th week, most of them take place before the end of the 26th week. I would be further willing to bet that the reason for those later term abortions is the discovery of severe mental/physical disabilities in the fetus, or danger to the mother. I highly doubt the reasons are, as you so quaintly put it Gawain, "the mother couldnt make up her mind or her boyfriend split the ghetto at the last minute."

Linky: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So, 99% of abortions in the U.S. happen before the end of the 20th week, with 89% of those happening before the end of the 12th week. Now, the site doesn't say, but I would be willing to bet that of the 1% that take place after the 20th week, most of them take place before the end of the 26th week.

I dont think you can trust these statisitics. You dont think these doctors would openly flaunt the law do you? No they cover it up by using some loophole.


Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline's (R) request for the medical records of 90 women and girls who in 2003 underwent late-term abortions at two clinics and the lack of resulting prosecutions have become "key issue[s]" in the November election, the AP/Kansas City Star reports (Hanna, AP/Kansas City Star, 9/28)

Thats 90 late term abortions at 2 clinics in one year. They were all deformed?

LINK


would be further willing to bet that the reason for those later term abortions is the discovery of severe mental/physical disabilities in the fetus, or danger to the mother. I highly doubt the reasons are, as you so quaintly put it Gawain, "the mother couldnt make up her mind or her boyfriend split the ghetto at the last minute."



How much cash you have on hand?



For what reasons are late-term abortions usually performed?

There is no evidence that the reasons for which late-term abortions are performed by the partial-birth abortion method are any different, in general, than the reasons for which late-term abortions are performed by other methods -- and it is well established that the great majority of late-term abortions do not involve any illness of the mother or the baby. They are purely "elective" procedures-- that is, they are performed for purely "social" reasons.
In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, "420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks." These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems. ["Why Do Women Have Abortions?," Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988.]


About three-fourths of Tiller's late-term patients, Jarman said, are teen-agers who have denied to themselves or their families they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it. [Kansas City Star]


LINK (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact9.html)

Im getting mighty tired of being treated like I was nuts around here or just making things up in my head.

[Cowhead418]

Abortion is one issue I'm firmly planted on the fence, and I refuse to get off. I can see arguments from both sides, and I just can't see myself going one way or the other. I have to admit, I laugh my ass off whenever anyone says "a woman's constitutional right to an abortion." As if the constitution explicitly states "The rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the ability to terminate a fetus.":laugh4:

[ajaxfetish]

1. I really don't care what you think of my position, but the fact remains, you cannot prove that a tought entered their mind.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how to prove a thought has entered anyone's mind. This seems to be your primary criterion in ascertaining the life of a person, and I have no idea how you're judging it.


As for how things are in the US, well, I don't really care, it's a third world country anyway
Also, out of curiosity, why the US-hate?

Ajax

[HoreTore]

Also, out of curiosity, why the US-hate?

I'm a left-wing euroweenie, it's compulsory and part of my education to hate the US :laugh4:

[Slyspy]

I dont think you can trust these statisitics. You dont think these doctors would openly flaunt the law do you? No they cover it up by using some loophole.



Thats 90 late term abortions at 2 clinics in one year. They were all deformed?

LINK



How much cash you have on hand?







LINK (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact9.html)

Im getting mighty tired of being treated like I was nuts around here or just making things up in my head.

Because your posting style has changed? Because your posts are less fluid and rational than they used to be? Because you have developed a habit of making a statement and then looking for the evidence? Because of paragraphs like the first quoted above and the earlier "ghetto" comment?

[Don Corleone]

I think I worked out the math one time to approximately 16,000 elective 3rd trimester abortions a year, which jibes with Goofball's numbers. Something tells me that if we had 16,000 acts of murder in schoolyards, people would suggest we need to do something about it. In fact, that's roughly the total number of people killed with firearms each year, and many of those are suicides or engaged in illegal actions WHEN they are shot.

I'm not advocating outlawing abortion. I'm simply saying there's some really nasty sides to it, and we shouldn't just close our eyes and ears and talk about choice and convenience. Saying well, it's only 10K or 20K of the 1.6 million abortions we perform a year rings a little hollow to me.

I'd also say that there's something seriously wrong with our ability to educate our population and provide adequate alternatives if ~37% of all pregnancies end in abortion. I wonder if that's not a big part of the reason for the USA's frequently cited infant mortality rate. The rhetoric I've always heard from groups like Planned Parenthood was "We should be striving to make a society where it's legal but unheard of..." 37% of all pregancies is a miserable failure if that really is indeed your goal. :skull:


Calculation of that 37%: 16,400 was 1% of USA abortions performed, meaning appoximately 1.6 million were performed. According to the CIA factbook (http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/birth_rate.html): our birthrate was 14.4/1000 living people. We have a current population of 301M, so that means we had 4.3million births.

[Pindar]

Roe should be defeated as a matter of law, not policy. Out-Roeing Roe would be horrific. It already has engendered assumed powers onto the Court that it was never intended to have (where do you think the term "Living, breathing document" came from?)

Roe should be reversed not on the grounds that it allows abortion. It goes far deeper than that. It should be reversed because the Courts have no right to set health policy for the nation. They also have no right to generate and confer 'new rights' such as privacy.

The correct outcome would be a complete reversal of Roe on legal principal (a strictly deconstructionist argument) and that's it. In states where assemblies have authorized abortion, it should remain legal. In states where it has been found to be illegal, it should remain so.


Spot on. Any rights claim should come from the people via the legislature, not the Judiciary. The Courts do not determine rights: the citizenry does.

[Pindar]

There is no Constitutional right to an abortion. God save us from the rhetoric of the uninformed. Stupid BBC. :study:

You made it look like I said that. I LOOK LIKE A TOTAL IDIOT IN FRONT OF EVERYONE!!!! gah.

Sorry. That was not my intent. The judgment points to the BBC. That was my focus.

[Goofball]

I think I worked out the math one time to approximately 16,000 elective 3rd trimester abortions a year, which jibes with Goofball's numbers. Something tells me that if we had 16,000 acts of murder in schoolyards, people would suggest we need to do something about it. In fact, that's roughly the total number of people killed with firearms each year, and many of those are suicides or engaged in illegal actions WHEN they are shot.

I'm not advocating outlawing abortion. I'm simply saying there's some really nasty sides to it, and we shouldn't just close our eyes and ears and talk about choice and convenience. Saying well, it's only 10K or 20K of the 1.6 million abortions we perform a year rings a little hollow to me.

I'd also say that there's something seriously wrong with our ability to educate our population and provide adequate alternatives if ~37% of all pregnancies end in abortion. I wonder if that's not a big part of the reason for the USA's frequently cited infant mortality rate. The rhetoric I've always heard from groups like Planned Parenthood was "We should be striving to make a society where it's legal but unheard of..." 37% of all pregancies is a miserable failure if that really is indeed your goal. :skull:


Calculation of that 37%: 16,400 was 1% of USA abortions performed, meaning appoximately 1.6 million were performed. According to the CIA factbook (http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/birth_rate.html): our birthrate was 14.4/1000 living people. We have a current population of 301M, so that means we had 4.3million births.

I agree that 16,000 late term abortions are horrible, notwithstanding their statistical insignificance. But I still disagree with Gawain's assertion that these are mostly being carried out simply because the mother decides she doesn't want a baby after all. And that is really the heart of this issue for me. Quite frankly, I think purely elective (i.e. nothing severely wrong with baby, and no health danger to mother) late term abortions should be outlawed, no matter what type of procedure they are going to use to abort the fetus.

[Don Corleone]

I agree that 16,000 late term abortions are horrible, notwithstanding their statistical insignificance. But I still disagree with Gawain's assertion that these are mostly being carried out simply because the mother decides she doesn't want a baby after all. And that is really the heart of this issue for me. Quite frankly, I think purely elective (i.e. nothing severely wrong with baby, and no health danger to mother) late term abortions should be outlawed, no matter what type of procedure they are going to use to abort the fetus.

They're only statistically insignifcant in relation to the monstrously irresponsible number of abortions that are performed within the USA each year. As I pointed out, the number is roughly the same as the number of people that die from gun violence every year, and trust me, even the most ardent NRA member isn't claiming that the number of deaths is statistically insignificant. (Though it is 1/5 the number of people that die to verifiable malpractice, such as a drunken doctor, etcetera) each year.

Your examples are misleading, because you offer anecdotal evidence, and only demonstrating one position, so one naturally concludes that all late term abortions are a medical necessity. I've heard it said that fewer than 10% of all abortions and fewer than 5% of late term abortions are medically necessary, but I have nothing to back that number up (I'm racking my brain, so it may come to me later).

Though you do get full props for concluding that no abortions should be allowed in the 3rd trimester for elective reasons, regardless of the methods used. :bow: And then promptly lose them all for failing to acknowledge Her Supreme Cuteness in all her glory when I shamelessly trotted her out... (She's walking now, by the way).

Now, if I could just get people to agree that 37% of all pregnancies is a pathetic failure and damning statement on my society, we might actually get somewhere. This is one reason I cannot toe the Church line on contraception. I understand the rationale, but at 37%, all nuances of morality fall by the wayside and you have to take any means necessary to bring your society back to sanity.

[Goofball]

They're only statistically insignifcant in relation to the monstrously irresponsible number of abortions that are performed within the USA each year. As I pointed out, the number is roughly the same as the number of people that die from gun violence every year, and trust me, even the most ardent NRA member isn't claiming that the number of deaths is statistically insignificant. (Though it is 1/5 the number of people that die to verifiable malpractice, such as a drunken doctor, etcetera) each year.

Sorry Don, but I disagree. They are statistically insignificant no matter what you measure them against. But I agree with what I think you are getting at. Just because something is statistically insignificant does not make it insignificant by other yardsticks (morally, emotionally, real life impact, etc...).

And you are wrong about gun supporters not using this very same argument (statistical insignificance) when talking about gun deaths. It happens in this very forum all the time.

[Don Corleone]

Actually, what most 2nd ammendment types argue is that the number of deaths due to accidental shootings at home, the scenario for which gun-grabbers attribute all gun deaths, is statistically insignificant.

How is it that 16,000 is an epidemic when we're discussing gun violence, but it becomes statistically insignificant when we're talking about a form of abortion?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, what most 2nd ammendment types argue is that the number of deaths due to accidental shootings at home, the scenario for which gun-grabbers attribute all gun deaths, is statistically insignificant.

How is it that 16,000 is an epidemic when we're discussing gun violence, but it becomes statistically insignificant when we're talking about a form of abortion?

Nice line.

Jillian is, indeed, a paragon of cuteness. Walking now, talking soon, borowing your Mastercard FAR sooner than you think! :cheesy:

[Goofball]

Hey! No fair adding more to your post when I have already started replying!


Your examples are misleading, because you offer anecdotal evidence, and only demonstrating one position, so one naturally concludes that all late term abortions are a medical necessity. I've heard it said that fewer than 10% of all abortions and fewer than 5% of late term abortions are medically necessary, but I have nothing to back that number up (I'm racking my brain, so it may come to me later).

Sorry Don, but you need to look the conversation thread there. Gawain made completely unfounded (and quite offensive) suggestion that late term abortions are being carried out mainly because "the mother couldnt make up her mind or her boyfriend split the ghetto at the last minute."

I was simply providing some real life examples of other reasons why late term abortions are being carried out.

And even if your number is correct (i.e. fewer than 5% of late term abortions are a medical necessity), it would still not mean that the mother was aborting the child "because she changed her mind." It could be a case of severe physical/mental disabilities in the child, but presenting no danger to the mother. But aborting the child would still not be called a medical necessity.


Though you do get full props for concluding that no abortions should be allowed in the 3rd trimester for elective reasons, regardless of the methods used. :bow: And then promptly lose them all for failing to acknowledge Her Supreme Cuteness in all her glory when I shamelessly trotted her out... (She's walking now, by the way).

My apologies.

I simply concluded that any words of mine would not be up to the task of paying the required homage to such a stunning specimen of adorability...

:bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Sorry Don, but you need to look the conversation thread there. Gawain made completely unfounded (and quite offensive) suggestion that late term abortions are being carried out mainly because "the mother couldnt make up her mind or her boyfriend split the ghetto at the last minute."


Oh please I was jesting. But I do think that most are not for medical reasons and Ive seen nothing to persude me otherwise. As it says they are done for exactly the same reasons as regular abortions and we all know most of these are not to save the life of the mother. I was expecting a rise out of the ghetto statement by one of you accussing me of racism but not this. I was just trying to get a rise and spice things up a bit :whip: I guess you dont like my sarcasm.


And even if your number is correct (i.e. fewer than 5% of late term abortions are a medical necessity), it would still not mean that the mother was aborting the child "because she changed her mind." It could be a case of severe physical/mental disabilities in the child, but presenting no danger to the mother. But aborting the child would still not be called a medical necessity.



It couldnt be as I posted that many a teenage girl waits until its too late? What makes you think the majority of these or any other abortions are mostly for medical reasons?

From Wiki. Yeah I dont trust it either but what they hey.:beam:


[edit] Reasons for later abortion
See also: Reasons for abortions.
Reasons commonly given for having a late-term abortion include:

A deteriorating financial situation
A change in relationship with the father
A lack of awareness of the pregnancy until its later stages
Discovery of the pregnancy by others who persuade an abortion, for example, the parents of a minor Inability to have an abortion earlier in the pregnancy (possibly due to a lack of funds, lack of transportation, or a legal restriction)
Discovery of a fetal abnormality, undetectable earlier in the pregnancy
The pregnancy becomes a risk to the mother's life or health
There is very little data on how common each of these reasons are. In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy". 71% responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation", 48% said "found it hard to make arrangements", and 33% said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents". The report did not indicate that any of the 420 abortions after 16 weeks were performed because of maternal health problems.[3]




Do you see the 2 in bold. Their the same thing I claimed but more politically correct. Do you think any of us here in the US would have a problem with it if your claims are correct?

[Cowhead418]

I was born nine weeks early. I'm not sure on the facts - would it have been legal for me to be aborted?:jawdrop:

[Slyspy]

"There is very little data on how common each of these reasons are."

[Gawain of Orkeny]

There is very little data on how common each of these reasons are."

True. But just how many are going to say" I just didnt want the little bugger so i killed it."?

[Lemur]

I was born nine weeks early. I'm not sure on the facts - would it have been legal for me to be aborted?
As it stands in the U.S., yes, you would have been fair game until every bit of you cleared your mother's body.

[doc_bean]

I have not been shown that a fetus is thinking before it is born, in fact, that is impossible to show.


The brain continues to grow and develop after the birth for the first few years (especially the first few months). I believe the general consensus is that babies can't 'think', certainly not on an adult level, for the first few months. (Docors or psychologist may correct me if I'm wrong). So would it be okay to kill these babies ?

BTW I believe late term abortions (after 20 weeks) in the US are something like 2% of the total number of abortions, which would mean over twenty thousand performed per year, if I'm not too mistaken. So it's certainly not just a rare and occasional procedure.

[Slyspy]

True. But just how many are going to say" I just didnt want the little bugger so i killed it."?

So instead of using data we guess based on our own bias and preconceptions? Sloppy.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So instead of using data we guess based on our own bias and preconceptions? Sloppy.


For both sides of the argument.

[BigTex]

1. I really don't care what you think of my position, but the fact remains, you cannot prove that a tought entered their mind.

There have been many studies out recently showing babies will react to both their mothers fear, and fear from sudden movements. There have been also many studies showing how babies act to their mothers moods and stressors. I'd definately call that thought. Granted you can't hold a microphone up to them to give you a recap of what they thought/felt, but the reactions are self explanitory.

Not even the pope agree's with you here. The pope and most churches state that the soul enters the child when the blood enters the fetus, round 6 weeks iirc.


I'd also say that there's something seriously wrong with our ability to educate our population and provide adequate alternatives if ~37% of all pregnancies end in abortion. I wonder if that's not a big part of the reason for the USA's frequently cited infant mortality rate. The rhetoric I've always heard from groups like Planned Parenthood was "We should be striving to make a society where it's legal but unheard of..." 37% of all pregancies is a miserable failure if that really is indeed your goal.

Indeed quite sad. Believe canada had an idea here. Teach kids more about condoms, make them easier to get.

We're the only 1st world country that has such freedom for 3rd trimester elective abortions. The child can survive without the mother, were are their rights?

[Slyspy]

For both sides of the argument.

*sigh*

[Lemur]

Not to derail, but defining the boundaries of what is "alive" and what is not can cause biologists to chew their fingernails and scratch their heads. I'm not even talking about the moral or religious aspect, just the practical question of what is alive.

The more you think about it, the less obvious the answer becomes. Only tangentially related to the thread topic, but I thought it worth throwing out there.

[doc_bean]

Not to derail, but defining the boundaries of what is "alive" and what is not can cause biologists to chew their fingernails and scratch their heads. I'm not even talking about the moral or religious aspect, just the practical question of what is alive.

The more you think about it, the less obvious the answer becomes. Only tangentially related to the thread topic, but I thought it worth throwing out there.

True, my old zoology professor wrote a book (we were all forced to read :laugh4: ) on his view of what 'alive' meant. I'll spare you the details, but let's say that it isn't easy to define.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Ms. Foundation for Women (as opposed to the Ms. Foundation for Brutish Men) speaks out (http://www.ms.foundation.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=465).

Interesting for anyone who thinks someone could support the abortion method that was banned.


Ms. Foundation for Women Responds to Supreme Court Ruling on Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

We at the Ms. Foundation for Women wish to express our enormous disappointment in the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion.

Wednesday’s ruling was, under the guise of jurisprudence, nothing short of a political and quasi-religious referendum on the rights of women to make decisions about their own lives. In finding for the ban, Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito have not merely endangered the health and well-being of women who seek to exercise their autonomous rights as citizens of this nation; they have also endangered the health and well-being of our democracy as a whole.

Hyperbole? What, are you insane?! We would never in a million years do anything like hyperbole, you murderous savage!!

CR

[KafirChobee]

It is an irrelevent ruling. It really does very little, since trimester abortions are not a norm and have been a rarety. I read where there have been less than 1,400 since 1990 (something).

This thing opens the door to nothing. But, for the court of the land to feel the need to support the law - well, that may tell a story.
Lets just pay attention and see what they may do next with other laws to limit the freedoms of americans. This one doesnot.

[Don Corleone]

Not to derail, but defining the boundaries of what is "alive" and what is not can cause biologists to chew their fingernails and scratch their heads. I'm not even talking about the moral or religious aspect, just the practical question of what is alive.

The more you think about it, the less obvious the answer becomes. Only tangentially related to the thread topic, but I thought it worth throwing out there.

You are right there, Lemur. By almost all biological definitions, fire is alive.