Partial Birth Abortions

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by cheyenne1212
I think even if a girl messed around and got pregnant, she should still be responsible and have the baby. It was her fault that she became pregnant.

---

Again, playing the advocate...

What if the woman becomes pregnant as a result of a rape?

If we decide abortion is ok in the case of rape:

What if she decides she hasn't the strength to make a police complaint or the police refuse to prosecute etc.

Then it becomes the word of the woman wanting an abortion claiming rape - Who makes the judgment.

Will more men be accused of rape after a casual sex encounter?

Don't get me wrong, not not against the pro life argument, I just don't think it is as simple as that.

Steve

It has allways amazed me that republicans claim that the ybeleive in personal freedom, and yet insist that they cna force their morality on every one and decide what someone dose with their own body. the abortion issue, the euthinasa issue its all the same thing, right winngers trying to take away all of our freedom, they will only be happy when we live in a facist theocracy.

Correct me if I am wrong here as I have only heard a little bit about this bill. The bill is supposed to block one form of abortion, but the problem most people have with it is that the law is really loose in its definitions and they think it might lead to an interpretation of the law that bans all abortions?

After some research I have an opinion of the Act. It's a measure to get the Supreme Court to look at partial birth abortions and make them illegal. Congress and the senate have passed it. In fact this is like the 3rd time or so that they have passed it. If you can remember it was vetoed by Clinton a couple of times back in the 90s. Each time it had representative support but I don’t know what the bill looked like at the time. It’s been modified several times.

Basically it says, if you deliver a baby past the navel – you can’t kill it. Or in the case that it’s delivered head first. If the head comes all the way out – you can’t kill it. The bill is pretty specific in my opinion. It defines what cannot be performed but there are still other ways to get to the same procedure. You can still kill while the fetus is still in the womb and evacuate it after it’s torn to pieces.

The difference now is that Bush Jr. has always made it clear he wants the act to pass. With the act in place partial birth abortions will be restricted. However, the Supreme Court has already ruled that Roe vs. Wade gives a doctor the ability to perform abortions by any means they see as necessary, so it may not hold up and I don’t think it’s a direct assault on Roe VS. Wade. A woman should be able to choose her course in a reasonable amount of time. (my opinion).

Here are some pictures that were presented to congress as evidence. They are from some biased sources, I know – but if you want to see what is being banned and what is not being banned and what these people who we elected looked at, have a look.

Banned (covered by the bill)
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA...hers_Place.htm

Not Banned (not covered by the bill)
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DEabortiongraphic.html

Great, I just went through an abortion presentation yesterday. Mostly unbiased. Presenting the facts, and some scary pictures...

First off, Tedob1, please do not mix _ethics_ and _morals_ together too easily. I know there are many definitions for either of the terms and so I will not try to push the ones I adhere to as being the right ones... but generally something that is ethical is supposed to be "the way it ought to be", while morality is on a more individual basis, and strongly influenced by religious / cultural biases. Hence while ethically the issue of abortion is under constant discussion, most people have an opinion about it anyway. I am curious of the morals you think are okay to become part of our everyday life, imposed in some form or another by the government. I am not saying we are not already under the influence of someone's morals, but it is not ethical that this is the case.

As for myself, I tend to be pro-choice. There would be too many unwanted, uncared-for children in an as-it-is over-populated world, and having been given life does not make their life worth living like that. As for pregnancy from rape, statistically it does not occur often enough to become a problem. But, as pointed out already, it would really cause more rape acusations after casual sex / sex-based relationships.

"statistically it does not occur often enough to become a problem. "
the statistics that you talk about, thay are only the ones that come to the polics about the rape, there are many more out there who get raped and fall pregnant with out ever letting any one knoe about it.


Nightfalls_Girl

hypronix ethically speaking it is wrong to take a life without cause. if its questionable if a fetus is a "human being" or not then shouldn't the decision lie in favor of it being so. Yes morals are more subjective than ethics and nothing is simple or black and white. So should it be so simple to "possibly" be taking a human life. shouldn't we at least have to show cause why this should be done. Its not like all doctors are men anymore and we are talking about a surgical procedure here. the same people that scream that its their body therefore their decision dont even balk at going to an eye doctor to get permission to buy glasses. Is an un-born child less significant?

Quote:

---

I'm pro life my self. I think abortions should be an illegal thing. No matter what, your killing a living human being. I'm sure you people have had sex ed. So once that egg is fertile, its a living thing.

---

I am in total agreement, I feel that it is important that we first realize that the egg once feritlized is a human being. However, I am torn between the idea of rape and impregnation. I have known a few girls that have been raped and still to 20 some years later they still have nightmares about it. Rape is heineous and disgusting the idea behind rape makes me want to puke. However, with that aside we must decided as a nation what we do about a rape victim.

I feel a rape victim if wanting an abortion must first go to a clinic get checked. If there is any rape side-affects (scareing, mass amounts of tearing and other things) the girl/woman should get a note stating she has to make one of two choices:

1. She can give the child up for adoption to a loving home who does not mind a "bastard (I mean it in all seriousness of the word)" child.
2. She can get an abortion within a certain time limit (i.e. 2 months)

This would please the human rights activits and the woman fighters along with the conservatives. I am still not in agreement with abortion but instead of bitching about it we need solutions. I would much rather say no to any abortion. But if someone said no to me about something I thought was nesecary I would get mad. However if they offered an alternative (like ^) then we have something to work with.

Thanks,
Adiz

Tedob1: Umm you don't need an eye doctorts permision to buy glasses, all you need is a rateing for the lenses, I have had the same galsses strength for three years, keep gettig new lenses, no eyedoctor vist (need to go again and get them uped though.) ...and what the hell dose the gender of the doctor have to d owith anything....quit tossing straw men into the discuession.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by adiz

1. She can give the child up for adoption to a loving home who does not mind a "bastard (I mean it in all seriousness of the word)" child.
2. She can get an abortion within a certain time limit (i.e. 2 months)

---

Okay, we are now starting to grasp some of the complexities, let me add a few more into the melting pot.

If the preganancy is affecting the health of the mother to the extent that her life is in danger, whos life do you give the higher priority to ?

Steve