Manchus. I suppose we're not dying race - but a lost culture due to our own doing. Lang Lang the concert pianist is a Manchu. And yes - restricted abortion seems like a good compromise. Why can't the extremists on both sides just accept the hypothesis that life begins at some point after conception but before birth? For those extreme pro-lifers, a substantial percentage of pregnancies end in miscarriage without the mother ever knowing she was even pregnant. I can't accept these as "infant fatalities". And for the extreme pro-choicers, an 7 month "embryo" is a living child that has a heartbeat, identified gender, fingers, brain function, etc. Scott Peterson DID commit a double murder and was justly tried and punished as such.
<b>Originally posted by Sishir Chang Giddyup; In case you missed it I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but pointing out that your statement is indicative of many pro-lifers attitude, they value the unborn, particularly American unborn, than the born but since I didn't know you well enough I didn't know if that's what you really think.</b> I don't see the connection because the circumstances are different. I don't buy the sweeping pro-Life argument that Batman tries to promote where he lumps in meat-eating with baby-killing. Why would I value the unborn more than the born? The problem is that in reverse: there are those who value the born over the unborn. Being pro-abortion takes a life; being anti-abortion does not. Seeking a back alley abortionist is unnecessary-- especially today when there is almost no stigma against unwed mothers as there was pre- Roe v. Wade. Isn't it funny how in the era of rampant abortions it also became chic to be an unwed mother? <b>Given your answer and the fact that you've already admitted you think its a much bigger deal that fetus are being aborted than actually born walking arond Iraqis killed I think that statement perfectly applies to you.</b> I'm not sure where I said that. Talk to the insurgents; they are the ones killing Iraqis. I did admit that I am vigilant about unborn children because too many people are not. It's a tragedy when innocent people die; that's why I am passionate about the abortion issue. That doesn't mean that I don't care about Iraqis dying, but it doesn't mean that I am a pacifist either. Totally different circumstances surrounding the termination of an unwanted pregnancy and the death of an Iraqi civilian because of the war. <b>Ontop of that I gotta figure that a JDAM dropped into a populated part of Baghdad probably killed a few pregnant women or at least caused a few spontaneous miscarriages. Tell me would something like that bother you as much as an American teenage girl raped by her uncle getting an abortion?</b> Of course it would bother me, but Life is not Rape or War. You have taken the two extremes and made folly of comparing them. I think the discussion is better served by sticking with mainstream examples.
For one reason conciousness and awareness might play some part. Even at birth, neurologically speaking, infants have significantly less conciousness than a grown chimpanzee. I'm not saying that makes it ok to kill either chimps or infants, but when a choice must be made between a living adult and an unborn because of health, I don't have problem weighing conciousness into the decision.
Let me know the next time you have to make such a difficult choice.... I'll pray for you! IT'S NEVER A CHOICE.
There is never a choice between the life of the mother and the unborn child? Woman die in childbirth to this day. I won't have to make that choice. I wasn't talking about that.
I misread what you wrote. I missed the part where you were specifying about childbirth. I have no issue with choice being available when there is a true life or death health challenge to the mother. I don't go for these wide-berth mental health issues though.
Yes and ideally they would be able to find out if that choice would have to be made sooner than at moment of delivery.
Also from his 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation: "No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy."
Not to derail, but, do you know anything about wills? When my wife and I were having our wills, health care directives, etc. drawn up, my wife made a point to say that in the event she was pregnant and had a health issue, she wanted everything done to ensure the unborn baby was saved even at the expense of her own life. The lawyer told us that was how it was anyway, but he would add her wishes for reenforcement. This is in Minnesota. Is there anything like that in Texas?
It occurred to me to repost something from Max's thread in '03 about this subject. This is the first time I thought to use the search feature. (thanks, Clutch!!) Here it is: "I haven't read every single page of this thread, although I looked at the majority of it. I want to mention something about a real situation... My wife worked with a young woman, a brilliant and engaging person, who discovered during her pregnancy that she had a virulent form of cancer. She was very far along, but not far enough to have a premature delivery and have a chance of the fetus surviving. She was told that the only chance to save her was treatment that would be harmful or fatal to the fetus. She chose not to have it. The baby was born several weeks ago and a few weeks later, after getting treatment too late to do any good, the young woman died. My wife was devastated and the funeral was very difficult, as anyone could imagine. Now the husband is left with the baby, but has lost his wife. He is in a state of shock and uncertain how his life, and that of his child, will play out. I'm wondering what choice some of you would have made. I would have chosen trying to save my wife, and if an abortion was necessary, then so be it. Frankly, I don't know if his wife gave him that option. I would like to think she did, but I don't know. I do know one thing... that was a courageous woman." http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67731&perpage=30&highlight=Deckard I just wanted to add that my wife was this young woman's boss and mentor, and that, after crying at the funeral, she came home and cried some more. This is a very tough subject, and to have a personal experience like this makes it less "esoteric," if you will. These are never "easy" decisions to make, regardless of what some of you think, but I still believe the woman has to have the right to make that decision, as painful as it is. I think a curb on abortions in the third trimester would be a good idea, but ony if the rights of the women who are pregnant are completely protected. That's where many of us disagree... on the rights of the woman. Again, anyone who thinks that this is a cavalier decision for a woman is a fool and an idiot, in my opinion. Keep D&D Civil!!"
Thank you for sharing this Deckard. I hate to use your story as fuel for my own position, but I believe these are the cases for not making late-stage abortions illegal. It doesn't really matter how you word the language of the legislation trying to prevent "life-at-risk" cases, the effect of legislation means that you're taking the RIGHT to make the DECISION out of the woman's hands and into the hands of the court. Besides, the stereo-typical guilt-free abortion-as-birth-control myth isn't consistent with the myth of frequent late term abortions. Think about it, does a woman that is using abortion as birth control WANT the world to know she was pregnant and had an abortion? Does she want to chance becoming attached to the child, or carry it any longer than possible? The pro-life side is attacking a straw woman. They're assuming that a majority of women are cold and careless in there decisions to abort, and that they're lazy and calloused enough to do it after they've carried the child to term. This is NOT reality. Any compromise on late-term abortions further perpetuates this false reality, and puts decisions like the one above out of the hands of women and their families, and into the hands of courts and politicians.
I said I was for some curb on abortions during the 3rd trimester, but with the rights of women completely protected. When I wrote that, I was very aware that completely protecting the rights of a woman, and having any curbs at all, would be a dilemma. The fact is that some compromise by both sides would be needed. Yes, it's a quandry, and I wouldn't trust this Administration to do anything that they didn't see as a crowbar to use as an attempt to further curb women's rights down the road. To tell you the truth, I don't expect any progress, what I would see as progress, to be made until there is a check on the radical Republican Leadership currently in control of the White House and Congress. When the Democratic Party is in control of one of the branches of government, then perhaps something may be worked out. Until then, I'm for the status quo. God help us all when Bush gets control of the Supreme Court. He will. The people quaking in their boots about the "War on Terror," instead of seeing the big picture, assured that last Fall, in my opinion. Keep D&D Civil!!
states require that abortion providers turn over information about the term the abortion is carried out in and the reasons, therefore. they are overwhelmingly done for "soft" mental reasons...like the woman being concerned with being a mother...being able to provide..etc. i've posted tons of congressional testimony here about that before. i've also posted these provider reporting documents from various states, i believe. colorado sticks out as one, in my memory, that i've posted before. i wish you right about this...but "health of the mother", which by the way is the only reason you can have an abortion after the 1st term under Roe v. Wade has been softened to mean virtually anything. unfortunate, but true.
So in my class today, we got down and dirty with abortions, and again, with proponents and opponents, it came down to opinion. However, none of the pro-life law students could answer one question: Do women have the right to give consent to become pregnant? without citing assumption of the risk (which can be done with a lot of things) and before getting to the fetus/child/whatever, does this question deserve an answer?
i dont' get it. do you think the majority of abortions stem from rape? not sure the question deserves an answer if your view is that it's a human life living inside there.
I think you're mischaracterizing my argument. The frequency of late term abortions has been blown way out of proportion. Only 1% of abortions are carried out after the 20th week, which isn't even the middle of the second trimester. Given even a conservative estimation of the statistics, and that means we're talking about 1 pregnancy out of 4000 ending in an abortion after the 20th week. While this number is comparatively small, and you claim that a majority are done for "soft" reasons, this doesn't negate the rights of those who fall under the medical justification. So, what's the need for a compromise here? Any laws that would attempt to make "soft" late-term abortions would impact "legitimate" late term abortions, especially down here in the South. I would think that this risk would outweigh any real benefit to outlawing these statistically insignificant late-term abortions. If people have serious ethical or moral objections to this type of abortion, there are plenty of things they can do to prevent it that don't require legislation. There are ways that this country could solve some of the softer concerns regarding pregnancy, or reduce the number of pregnancies all together. But that would mean actually having to participate in the community, and having to put your money where your mouth is. Real sex education and a more socialized medical system would drop the entire abortion rate DRASTICALLY, overnight. But since when did Americans look at the source of a problem when writing legislation?
i don't believe i'm mischaracterizing your argument. it's certainly possible i'm not understanding it properly. i'd be interested to see the source of the stats you provide. i've seen stats that suggest otherwise. including within the congressional testimony on late-term abortion by abortion providers, themselves. by the way...we already have a standard...within Roe v. Wade. it's just not enforced. it went out of control. even the authors of the opinion have made that assertion. in this country, do you really believe sex education would help? i'm thinking most people know by age 12 that having sex means you COULD have a baby. i certainly agree that there are other things we can be doing to prevent this.
