Senate Votes To Ban Abortion
dr_d
Join Date: 2003-03-28 Member: 14979Members
Join Date: 2003-03-28 Member: 14979Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">oh god no</div> <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20031021/ap_on_go_co/congress_abortion_13' target='_blank'>news link</a>
Congress passed the OK to ban what they deemed partial birth abortions, an issue anti-abortion activites have used as the trumpt card for their cause, these were extreme cases where abortions would take place up to the third trimester.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The bill defines partial birth abortion as delivery of a fetus "until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The troubling vauge description of what a partial birth abortion is within the bill.
My thoughts on this is that it will cause more problems than it will solve. I'll elaborate later.
Congress passed the OK to ban what they deemed partial birth abortions, an issue anti-abortion activites have used as the trumpt card for their cause, these were extreme cases where abortions would take place up to the third trimester.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The bill defines partial birth abortion as delivery of a fetus "until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The troubling vauge description of what a partial birth abortion is within the bill.
My thoughts on this is that it will cause more problems than it will solve. I'll elaborate later.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
BUt still, I have yet to actually meet an abortionist who supported breech/partial birth abortions. That said, I dont think its going to create too many problems. It pretty much says "If you've started having it, we aint gonna kill it for yah".
And anyway the Bible says that /looks at forum rules... nm <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
This is a very bad thing (IMHO) because they are basically putting a ban on what and what not a person can do. Yes, technically the fetus might not be part of them but if they decide to abort because of something (say a genetic test finds that the child will be born with a zillion defects) they should have the right to make sure the child doesn't suffer in life and abortion does that
(Forgive if slightly rambled, i feel very strongly about this topic)
But thats life dr.d. Thats exactly what the pro-lifers said when abortion was first legalised - its a slippery slope.
Are you saying the absolute horror of late term abortion should be allowed to continue merely to give anti-abortionists a harder time?
*rocking back & forth, muttering "will not go off on a rant"*
*rocking back & forth, muttering "will not go off on a rant"* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahhh evil - we cant stop it so why try? Not a good attitude Nova, at least IMHO.
Fact: Late term partial birth/breech abortion is evil. Anyone wish to debate that?
Fact: This legislation will prevent that. Anyone also wish to debate that?
Fact: Pro lifers will flog this for all its worth and try to take it another step, and some sick ****s will do street late term abortions.
All in all - I think its worth it. And I dont see how having scissors stuck in your skulk by either a doctor or some guy on the street makes any difference to the fetus.
But thats life dr.d. Thats exactly what the pro-lifers said when abortion was first legalised - its a slippery slope.
Are you saying the absolute horror of late term abortion should be allowed to continue merely to give anti-abortionists a harder time? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it wasn't just to give pro-lifers a hard time. I always believed there was a legitimate reason to have the three trimester law as there were extreme cases where women had no chance to get the abortion earlier, these cases were rare but necessary. Aside from our own personal feelings about it we can't deny the right for those extreme cases to happen, also the current laws have been in place for a long time and changes either for pro-choice or for pro-lifers would be inherintly bad imo.
But on to my main issue passing a law that bans something that occurs as infrequently as partial birth abortions is a bit of biased slap in the face if you ask me. It would be like making it illegal for someone to drive if they were born in a certain town in Cincinatee (sp) it would be unecessary and clearly show a disdain for that town on the behalf of the legislative powers.
and usually abortions don't involve scissors being stuck in your head.
(Cinncinati, IIRC, from the name Cinncinatus of Roman history)
dr.d, just because something doesn't happen much doesn't mean it shouldn't be stopped. If I chose to carry out a horrific practice very once and a while, it being only every once and a while doesn't change the fact that it's horrific, unhumane, and wrong.
Son, that's the way democracy works. If all three branches of government are republican, then the public that elected (well, the two of those three branches) must be republican also. So it all works out in the end. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Either way, it isn't like republican and democrat are the only political labels. Not all republicans are the same and they aren't even all that bad.
but still, this is very bad.
Late term abortions I have <i>never</i> agreed too because then you DEFINITELY have more than a bunch of undifferentiated cells. However I understand that by banning this incredibly sick procedure it will be used as a stepping stone to try to ban all abortions altogether (which I disagree with).
But then again, whatever, these are usually a very small percentage of cases and probably should be limited to medical reasons/usage only.
Do you know what they do?
The deliver half the baby. Its hanging outside its mother. Its still alive. They then take a hose and then jam it through the soft part of the child's skull and then procede to mash and suck ups its brains. The woman then pushes the rest of the child out, dead and bloody.
A few <b>inches</b> determines the difference between what is a human being and what is not. Simply criminal. This is the only issue I get really sad about. I generally unemotional about politics, but this crosses the line. Its murdering a baby in the most barabaric way possible, at the very last minute. Its robbing a child of their life. Its horrible. Its so sad.
Smoke Nova: Your basic argument is "Its a stepping stone to outlaw aborition."
So? I'd like to see abortion outlawed, but that doesn't nullify the facts on partial birth is murder a few seconds before its illegal.
I really can't see a partial birth as a medical use either. If a woman is strong enough to deliver a corpse, she's strong enough to deliver a live child.If she doesn't want to care for it, put it up for adoption.
EDIT
For the record the supreme court is split 4 dems, 5 repubs, 1 indep in terms of political swing. 1 or 2 of each group can go either way though. Its hardly 'very republican'
You know, to tell you the truth, I have no qualms about killing non-sentient things. None!
Would a newly born baby fit your definition of "sentient thing"? Would a demented old man?
Now if anti-abortion is wrong, I don't want to be right.
You know, to tell you the truth, I have no qualms about killing non-sentient things. None! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, let's go back in time and say your mother is some sex starved 17 year old living out on the streets. She has sex, gets pregnant with you and then, 10 seconds before your birth, decides to have a tube shoved into your head, killing you. You're dead, and I guess you would have no "qualms" about that, right?
You may say you wouldn't, but I know you would. "If it doesn't affect me, it's fine. But if it does, it's evil!" I hate how humans think this way and, no offense, I hate the people who do think this way. Soon the definition of "sentient" might have changed if this law hadn't been passed. Soon it might have been legal to kill a 2 month old. Also, what gives you the right to determine what is a "sentient" being and what is not? What gives anybody the right to say, "This thing can't think, therefore, it's not alive."? How is partial birth abortion evil? Look at how it's done and I'll tell you.
This was just conservatives saying their piece about how they thought women have been out of the kitchen, unpregnant, and with shoes on for far too long.
This was just conservatives saying their piece about how they thought women have been out of the kitchen, unpregnant, and with shoes on for far too long. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny you call it her body when it has different DNA, different cell structue.
The logical conclusion isnt always she could care for it. I dunno, maybe its stigma, but I find it hard to believe women who have abortions are the kind and loving type.
Like I said before - if these "Ravenging millions who are going to be born and die miserable because we didnt kill them in the womb" are so worthless, why dont we kill them now? Once these things get sentient, they WANT to live. Or why cant we put the little fellas up for adoption? The waiting list is huge, and despite the hype, adoption isnt hell on earth.
I'll repeat myself my problem with the bill is that it adresses an issue that was more or less already regulated, passing this law is like saying we want the third trimester law to be the two and a half trimester law instead. The wording of the bill, the reasons for which it was passed, and the way pro-life groups advocate it, just samcks of hatred for the whole abortion idea.
The distinction has to be made: BABIES ARE 100% SENTIENT! Babies are in fact sentient inside the womb as well... I couldn't tell you at which stage, but it's basically just after the nerve stem is grown.
Why? Because the definition of sentience is possessing senses. You know... senses like Taste, Touch, Smell, Sound, Taste, Orientation...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b><a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=sentient' target='_blank'>sentient</a></b>
\Sen"ti*ent\, a. [L. sentiens, -entis, p. pr. of sentire to discern or perceive by the senses. See <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sense' target='_blank'>Sense</a>.] Having a faculty, or faculties, of sensation and perception. Specif. (Physiol.), especially sensitive; as, the sentient extremities of nerves, which terminate in the various organs or tissues.
<b><a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=sentient' target='_blank'>sen·tient</a></b>
<i>adj. </i>
1. Having sense perception; conscious: “The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage” (T.E. Lawrence).
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do believe the word you are looking for is sapient. Possessing intellegence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b><a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sapient' target='_blank'>sa·pi·ent</a></b>
<i>adj. </i>
Having great wisdom and discernment.
<b><a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sapient' target='_blank'>sapient</a></b>
\Sa"pi*ent\, a. [L. sapiens, -entis, p. pr. of sapere to taste, to have sense, to know. See Sage, a.] Wise; sage; discerning; -- often in irony or contempt.
Where the sapient king Held dalliance with his fair Egyptian spouse. --Milton.
<i>Syn: Sage; sagacious; knowing; wise; discerning.</i>
<b><a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sapient' target='_blank'>sapient</a></b>
adj : acutely insightful and wise; "much too perspicacious to be taken in by such a spurious argument"; "observant and thoughtful, he was given to asking sagacious questions"; "a source of valuable insights and sapient advice to educators" [syn: perspicacious, sagacious]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Babies are merely pre-sapient. Granted, depending on your measuring stick, some members of this very forum aren't sapient either... shall we kill them? They might never become sapient, while babies generally have the potential, at the very least.
Her convenience becomes irrelevant as soon as we reach the conclusion that the child she bears is fully human. Given that the child would be considered human if it resided outside of her womb, there is no reasonable way to define it as inhuman while it resides inside her womb. Furthermore, killing an innocent human is murder.
You see that objective moral judgements are an exercise of simple logic. No "high ground" is required.
I'm not much interested in the legal situation though. The law exists to govern public order, whereas acts like abortion, which can happen in secrecy, are usually outside of its reach. The woman is, in the physical sense, free to do whatever she wants with her body and the body of her child that is entrusted to her. But there can be no doubt which decision we, as observers, must regard as moral and which as depraved.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->this is where as it stands now 30 thousand kids a year can't have a home found for them, the intake is constantly higher than those leaving orphanages and if every women that didn't want a child gave birth, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps you should ask these poor children if they'd rather be dead. My estimate is that you will find surprisingly few of them to agree with your method of emptying orphanages.
Three reasons this bothers me:
1) There is already a 3rd-trimester law. Why do we need this one?
2) The wording of the bill outlaws partially delivering a fetus "for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus." But when you sit down and think about that, isn't that what *any* abortion is? Where will the line be drawn? This wording is very disturbing to me, as it sounds like a bit of dirty pool to get a foot in the door.
3) (This was explained to me by a woman who makes a career out of counselling mothers and pregnant women) Partial-birth abortions are generally only performed on fetuses that *cannot survive* outside of the womb due to developmental complications. Two examples she offered me were a fetus with its brain outside its skull and a fetus with no lungs. Now mothers must carry these doomed fetuses to term.
Three reasons this bothers me:
1) There is already a 3rd-trimester law. Why do we need this one?
2) The wording of the bill outlaws partially delivering a fetus "for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus." But when you sit down and think about that, isn't that what *any* abortion is? Where will the line be drawn? This wording is very disturbing to me, as it sounds like a bit of dirty pool to get a foot in the door.
3) (This was explained to me by a woman who makes a career out of counselling mothers and pregnant women) Partial-birth abortions are generally only performed on fetuses that *cannot survive* outside of the womb due to developmental complications. Two examples she offered me were a fetus with its brain outside its skull and a fetus with no lungs. Now mothers must carry these doomed fetuses to term. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is a good point. I had failed to consider deformities of that severity. Naturally there should be accomodations for such instances, but this bill does not aparently have any... It looks like D was right, this is a very bad sign...
The third trimester law already exists. We all know that. Once you hit the third trimester it is ILLEGAL to get an abortion and that will never change. (btw, third trimester is 6-9 months). This new law is basically banning the abortion of premature children, usually around 4-5 months (as dr. D said) and if a child is born that premature, it is a one-in-one-million chance they will survive to full-term. If they aren't born with tons of complications anyways.
but, as I expect, this will only be a climibing foothold for even stricter laws.