Partial Birth Abortions

Today the US senate will vote on a bill to ban “partial birth abortions”. It’s expected to pass. As most of us know this is just the beginning of their fight against abortion.

In my opinion its far too easy to get an abortion. If we want to fight the flu we must see a doctor and get a prescription. I can’t even buy reading glasses when I know what strength I need with out a doctors ok. But yet any women can say I want to stop this person from being born and answer to no one. No MD, consular, husband, mother, priest. It could even be a spur of the moment decision…like changing ones hair style. I think this goes beyond the bounds of personal freedom.

Well that’s my 2¢

So how far do we let the present administration go with this?

OK I am confused.... basically it's presented that some are against a womans choice to have an abortion. Pro-Life; but you are against the vote to ban partial birth abortions??? You do realize it's expected to pass? Basically the senate, who has nothing to do with recent presidential elections is voting on the issue that you seem to support.

RoadClosed sorry im a little scattered (pissed). this morning i found someone had bent the top of my car door down to break into it...in my driveway.

im aware, an also stated that the bill is expected to pass. imo partial birth abortions have pushed the issue as to when a fetus is a humam being past the point of reason. im glad it will pass.

it is the presidents people that are pushing for this...and im not saying for this we should "vote him out". i'd just like to know how far people are willing to let this go...all the way to ban all abortions. stop the whole thing right here. what are peoples feelings on this?? being a political issue its not a taboo subject like it has been. or maybe it is and im still in a comma.

Ah so you don't think Bush is not going far enough? That he should fight a supreme court decision made in the 70s?

The Senate just OKd the Ban by the way.

the plaintiff in that supreme court decision asked the court to reverse its decision about 2 months ago.

i worry about how far these guys are going to go. sometimes i think that’d like to see a christian rule on the order of the taliban rule although it would be nice to see some morals involved in our legal decisions. a nations moral standard can exist without a particular religion or without a belief in a particular god. Separating from church doesn’t necessitate doing away with morals. But we the people need to decide what the standard shall be.

As far as abortion in general goes i don’t think it should be totally up to the individual, to a large part yes. What would happen if i decided i didn't want to have a few toes. its my body! Or my pinkys got in the way like zorba the greek. If I started lopping then off they’d lock me up…its not totally up to me. Qualified people have to make this decision. (So much for everyone being equal). To make sure im in my right mind etc.

I don't think this decision sets precedence for the Supreme Court to overthrow the decision to make abortion legal. I guess I am somewhat of a hypocrite because I think a woman should not be forced to carry and give birth to a child if she doesn't want to. I don't want them to do it but I see abused kids all over the place everyday of my life. It never stops. But I think carrying a baby until it's almost born and then pulling it half way out and sticking a harpoon in the back of it's skull is a little over the edge. I also think some people in our society have come to realize that.

I am not sure why people support that kind of procedure, except to not let anything slide through because they are worried about Roe vs. Wade, and I don't blame them. Reversal of that decision would not be supported by the current climate of our society.

Roe v Wade will eventually be regarded by historians as a remarkable
parallel to Dred Scott v Sanford:

Quote:

---

In Scott v. Sanford the Court states that Scott should remain a slave, that as a slave he is not a citizen of the U.S. and thus not eligible to bring suit in a federal court, and that as a slave he is personal property and thus has never been free.
The court further declares unconstitutional the provision in the Missouri Compromise that permitted Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories. In fact, the compromise is already under assault as a coalition of political leaders—some slaveholders, o thers westerners who resent the federal government's ability to dictate the terms of statehood—claim that territorial residents should be able to determine on what terms they enter the union. The decision in Scott v. Sanford greatly alarms the antislaver y movement and intensifies the growing division of opinion within the United State. The newly-formed Republican Party, which opposes the expansion of slavery, vigorously criticizes the decision and the court.

---

http://library.wustl.edu/vlib/dredscott/chronology.html

Before the Dred Scott decision, slavery was regulated by a delicate political
compromise, The Missouri Compromise, that permitted free states to prohibit slavery,
and requiring new states to be balanced in number between free and slave.

The Dred Scott decision made slavery the law of the land, for all intents
and purposes, destroying the right of free states to prohibit slavery. War followed.
:cool:

One hundred years from now, people will wonder how we could have allowed
abortion to go on so long. We are under a curse. God damn America.

personially i beleave it is up to the mother and the father if the father is not around then it is up to the mother what thay do, if the girl is under a cirtan age then it should be up to the parents of the girl, not the girl.
you should not ban abortin as think of all the unwonted children out there allready, try trippling that, that is what you will end up with, and all those "back yard" abbortion clinicks that are going to open, look at all the infection and death that is going to happon.
keep it legal, if thay wont an abortion thay should have the right to do so and do so knowing that thay are going to be ok when it is over, may be not mentally but physacly thay are going to be ok, and there are councerlers on hand if thay need them.

just my 4c worth

Nightfalls_Girl

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 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.

I might of screwed up what I wanted to say but its 1:30 in the mornign and I'm beat.

ok now what if she was raped and she fell pregnant that way?
why should she have to keep that baby, it would be a constant reminder of the raping.
not to mention giving the raper a reason to mentially tourture her, in court over custartd battles ,access rights, ect

Nightfalls_Girl

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

Those of you advocating adoption...have you looked at the state the US foster child system is in....that is not a good life, unless you are a white infant you will not be adopted and you will go form group home to forster parent untill you are 18, a lot of ofster parents are only in it for the money, and a lot of group homes are filled with very troubled kids...its a very harsh life.

Quote:

---

Those of you advocating adoption...have you looked at the state the US foster child system is in....that is not a good life, unless you are a white infant you will not be adopted and you will go form group home to forster parent untill you are 18, a lot of ofster parents are only in it for the money, and a lot of group homes are filled with very troubled kids...its a very harsh life.

---

You are right, it is a very harsh lifestyle. I would know, I work for an adoption agency. I see kids everyday with nothing yet they still push on. However some of these children may change the course of history, and is it right for a someone to decide if a child should get to have that chance?

Tedob1 I agree it is unethical to take a life without a reason. But it is exactly this reason - for which women want to abort - that must be weighed and thought about. And this is a very difficult decission to take, especially if we had people allowing or rejecting abortions [kinda like, you make a request, and a jury takes it into consideration and lets you do it or not]. Who's to be the judge if that reason is acceptable for the abortion?

I'm not sure how many people are aware of the way in which an abortion takes place, but I just found out recently and I strongly think the method is definitely inhumane. There's salinization where the doctor injects a saline solution in the placenta, causing it to 'burn out' the fetus [the baby starts kicking and this is quite unpleasant for the mother aswell]. Then there's another one that's stuck to my mind, where the doctor enters the uterus through the vagina and cuts the fetus to pieces inside, then the corpse is removed. There are 2 more I cannot remember right now... Oh, and as far as I know, there's no cesarian section on the mother [which makes all these methods cause severe damage to the fetus - I've seen some pictures that could make you puke your stomach out].