Sometimes using the power of the state is counterproductive. Just because a law says it is protecting life, it doesn't make it so. We have seen failed bloody prohibition that solved nothing already. We don't need more. I have no confidence our prison industrial complex.
The aftermath of abortion is that there is one more lass who needs her womb to be filled with your love, so get to work.
This is a fantastic point that is close to the only one that matters to me on this issue. There should be reasonable regulations on abortion, but an outright ban would cause much bigger problems than we have now.
honestly, how many people have you heard here calling for an outright ban. at this point, most of us who are pro-life would prefer ANYTHING to the way it is today.
Another fantastic point. If pro-lifers spent as much time and money educating people, particularly teenagers, about safe sex and reproduction, they would have a far greater impact on abortion rates than anything they are doing now. I would suspect that if that were the case, it would lower abortion rates even lower than if we banned abortion altogether.
Exactamundo. Same with the "War on Drugs," prostitution, and gambling. Simply banning behavior between consenting adults does not keep it from happening, it just exacerbates the harms and forces the behavior underground.
Yes, I absolutely believe it. When I was working in drug abuse rehab, I counseled a girl who thought she might be pregnant because she made out with (kissing and light petting) a guy while she was on pass. With the opposition that many religious groups have to sex education, particularly in the intermediate schools (where it is most needed), many of our kids get only "abstinence education," which is worse than no education at all. If there was a 6th grade course based around a book called "Taking Charge of Your Fertility," I would bet just about any amount of money that the girls in that class would have far lower rates of pregnancy than teens at large and would be prepared and educated as to how to use various forms of contraception when and if they did decide to have sex. Sex education is a joke when done by most parents. How many parents do you know who will show their son/daughter how to properly put on a condom, use a diaphragm or sponge, or have sex that doesn't cause pregnancy? If we educate teens, rates of pregnancy (many unwanted) will drop, as will rates of abortion. In addition, the availability of the "morning after" pill would also help to reduce abortion rates. Interestingly enough, all of the measures I have mentioned would be vehemently opposed by most "pro-lifers."
There should be a line, I agree, but we cannot draw that line solely based on some people's opinion of when life begins. Those people should be working with people like me to come up with a compromise that everyone can live with rather than fighting for an outright ban on a medical procedure because of an opinion.
Then why didn't you take your leaders to task for not putting language in the "partial birth" bill to protect the health of the mother? That was a reasonable regulation that most pro-choice people that I know agree with. However, the leaders who passed the bill were more concerned about court challenges than passing a productive law and as such, it got struck down. We should have regulations that limit the times when you can get an abortion, but due to the intransigence of the pro-life lobby, we do not. And I don't hear the pro-lifers saying diddly to their leaders, they just decry the "liberal" judges, the "liberal" lawmakers, and any other "liberal" they can find to blame. We don't have reasonable regulations because people on both sides are simply unwilling to compromise.
http://www.gargaro.com/ama.html The Honorable Rick Santorum United States Senate 120 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Santorum: The American Medical Association (AMA) is writing to support HR 1122, "The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997," as amended. Although our general policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated. HR 1122 now meets both those tests. Our support of this legislation is based on three specific principles. First, the bill would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician's judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. Second, the bill would clearly define the prohibited procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation what act is to be banned. Finally, the bill would give any accused physician the right to have his or her conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial commenced. In this manner, the bill would provide a formal role for valuable medical peer determination in any enforcement proceeding. The AMA believes that with these changes, physicians will be on notice as to the exact nature of the prohibited conduct. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine. Sincerely, P. John Seward, MD Executive Vice President American Medical Association
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/05/14/ama.abortion/ AMA Recommends Alternatives To So-Called 'Partial Birth' Abortions CHICAGO (AllPolitics, May 14) -- In a report to its delegates, the American Medical Association (AMA) recommends an alternative to the controversial medical procedure known by its critics as "partial-birth" abortion. A section of the 32-page report reads, "According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion." Intact D&X, or dilation and extraction, is the medical term used by the AMA to describe the late-term abortion procedure. The AMA recommends against intact dilation and extraction, unless alternative procedures pose a greater risk to the woman. One alternative procedure is called "labor induction," in which a solution is injected into the amniotic fluid, ending the life of the fetus and inducing labor. Other options include surgical removal of the fetus, and surgical removal of the uterus and fetus. The latter two methods are rarely used due to the significant medical risks they pose to the woman. The AMA report goes on to say, "The physician must, however, retain the discretion" to decide what procedure is used. The AMA says in some rare cases, intact dilation and extraction is the safest method of late-term abortion. The AMA report also recommends that "abortion not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life." This report, issued Saturday, comes at a time when the Congress is fighting over whether dilation and extraction abortions should remain legal, but a press officer for the AMA says there was no political motive in the timing of the report's release. The American Medical Association is a non-profit organization representing approximately 300,000 physicians in the United States.
My friends have 2 daughters both attending Catholic schools in Houston. One in High School, the other Junior High. BOTH schools teach sex ed. In those classes they talk about contraception, although it is not "promoted". I still find it hard to believe (as I wrote in my original post) that the vast majority of teenagers don't know a pregnancy may occur if they have unprotected sex. Granted, there are exceptions , but I strongly believe if I went up to 100 13-14 year olds 98 of them would know that.
http://tennesseerighttolife.org/human_life_issues/human_life_issues_partial_birth_abortion.htm To begin the procedure, the abortionist turns the baby into a breech position by grabbing the legs with forceps. Pulling the live baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal, the doctor purposely keeps the head lodged just inside the cervix. The abortionist then sharply thrusts a pair of long surgical scissors into the base of the skull and opens them to enlarge a hole. This, of course, kills the baby. A tube connected to a high-powered vacuum is then used to suction out the brain material. This allows the skull of the baby to be crushed, making it easier to complete the extraction. Medical experts testified at congressional hearings that the baby feels tremendous pain during the partial-birth abortion procedure. In fact, doctors say a baby at this stage of development has a much higher density of Qpioid (pain) receptors than children or adults. Partial-birth abortions are performed routinely on mothers from 41/2 months into the pregnancy through full-term. About 90% of partial-birth abortions are done during the fifth and sixth months. The majority are performed on healthy babies carried by healthy mothers for elective reasons. The American Medical Association (AMA) does not recognize the partial-birth abortion procedure. In fact, the AMA officially endorsed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in Congress. Contrary to what the proponents of partial-birth abortion are saying, this procedure is never medically necessary to save the life or future fertility of the mother. In 1996, a group of physicians, mostly experts in the fields of obstetrics, gynecology and pediatrics, were outraged over the false stories being spread by the national media and pro-abortion groups. They banned together to form Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT). PHACT now consists of more than 600 medical specialists including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. These doctors came together to get the message to the American people that partial-birth abortions are never medically necessary to save the life of the mother or her future fertility. (Under the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, a mother can still have a partial-birth abortion if her life is in jeopardy.) Dr. James McMahon, a Los Angeles abortionist and inventor of the partial-birth abortion procedure, developed the procedure to meet the demands of women who wanted an abortion late into their pregnancies. The often used dilation and evacuation abortions or "D and E", used from 10 - 18 weeks, in which the fetus is torn limb-from limb inside the womb, carries a high risk of perforation and tearing of the uterus. This can result in severe hemorrhaging and even death. Before his death last year, Dr. McMahon testified he had performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions. Supporters of the procedure argue that only in rare cases of great fetal abnormality or threats to the mother's life, are partial-birth abortions performed. During the debates on Capitol Hill, the lie was exposed. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers had argued that partial-birth abortions were extremely rare and used only in dire situations. Now he says his remarks were only a deception to protect the abortion industry. "I lied though my teeth," Fitzsimmons said. He now says the numbers are more in the 5,000 per year range, and "they are primarily done on healthy fetuses of healthy women." (Many believe that his estimate is still quite conservative.)
First, if it is true that it is NEVER medically necessary, what possible harm is there in having that language in the bill? Second, if that language were in the bill, the courts would not have struck down the law. Again, y'all are attacking the opposition instead of trying to find a reasonable compromise.
In the AIDS education class I took as part of my CADAC certification, the instructor actually put condoms on a banana, which I doubt the teachers at the Catholic school would even consider. That is only one of the things that I can think of that schools should, but do not teach. Though I have to admit that it gives me a chuckle imagining a nun explaining to girls how to insert a diaphragm, cervical cap, or sponge. If you actually think that they get proper education regarding contraception in a Catholic school, much less public school, then your blinders are even bigger than I thought. They would know that, but the girls would not know about the times of the month that they are not fertile. Most of the boys would be unable to properly don a condom, and most of the girls would not know about the proper use of a diaphragm, cervical cap, or sponge. I agree with you that people like the example I gave (girl who thought she could get preggers from making out) would be few and far between, but there is a HUGE difference between that level of knowledge and the kind of education I think should be given to every child.
it WAS in the bill. from the AMA's letter, quoted below: Our support of this legislation is based on three specific principles. First, the bill would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician's judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. apparently it wasn't good enough for the courts. but it was for the AMA, which is comprised of and serves the very doctors this bill pertains to.
of course!!! i just don't understand it. you have tons of congressional testimony saying the same thing...you have the AMA saying it's cool...and you have another group of doctors organizing to say it's not a concern. a safeguard gets put in, which, again, the AMA says makes it all good.... and clinton vetoes it then it passes under GWB and gets overturned because it didn't have safeguards.
IIRC, the AMA letter was in support of the 1997 bill, which had the language. The bill that passed was stripped of the language and as such was struck down.
i'll have to look into that. it was my understanding it did contain the same language. but i'm not certain of that.
