Who isn't against abortion? It is just an awful thing to have to do. The problem has become a framing issue. Instead of Pro-Choice advocates getting beat down in arguments with Pro-Lifer's, they need ot be reshaping the framework of the argument. Face it, everyone is Pro-Life (there isn't anyone in this debate that is going to say that they are anti-life). The difference in the two camps is not who is Pro-Choice either. The difference is really WHO gets to legally make the choice during certain stages of pregnancy and for what reasons. For some this is simply unacceptable because it is not BLACK and WHITE enough for them to pick sides. Too bad, because this isn't a black and white issue. Do some people take first term abortion a little too lightly? Absolutely. In that argument there is a great divide between the Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice crowd. It is when the issues start to muddle abit that we get presented with these more recent cases. Can the government actively take steps to stop doctors from performing certain types of procedures, during certain stages of pregnancy? If so, when may the state step in? When should they leave it up to a woman and her doctor? These are the wrinkles that ultimately decide this issue, because they aren't black and white. They aren't simple. They are very difficult.
There is never a justifiable reason for intentionally killing a child. Stabbing a baby in the back of the head and pulling out his or her brain to kill him or her is a reprehensible, evil practice, and by the "doctors" own admission is never necessary to save the life of a mother. And even if it was, would you kill your own child to save your own life? I know I wouldn't. I can't stand this argument that "the doctor should make the decision, not some politician!" So, if a doctor decided he should start poisoning his patients for fun, the law shouldn't step in for that? Doctors are governed by laws just like everyone else, and there is no reason they shouldn't be governed by a law that says you cant deliver a baby 90 percent of the way and then kill that baby. If there was government stepping in where it shouldn't, it was the idiotic judges who overturned a perfectly reasonable law because it did not contain a provision that their own personal political views demanded. Shameful.
I hate pro-choicers. They blow "life" way out of proportion. Should we protect the primitive life form on Mars? gimme a break.
I won't give you a break. If there is life on Mars, primitive or otherwise, which we still don't know, it certainly should be protected. Keep D&D Civil.
Hey well if it isn't the old "lets make the religious fanatic look judgmental and watch himself stumble over his feet" First off... Your suggestion that I am simple minded because you've taken issue with the bifurcated nature of my conviction is a personal judgement so your whole line of reasoning is essentially nothing more but hypocrisy. It is my personal conviction ingrained with my religious philosophy that abortion is out-right murder. The "rare cases" and such other things I have explained my stance on earlier, and I do not think they are applicable since I am talking about the practice in general. Let me make one thing clear, I am not judging these people because It is impossible for me to do so since I am not in a position of judgment. The activists who bomb the clinics in my opinion put themselves into a false position of judgment and instead of "remedying" the situation become nothing more than murderers themselves and only further bitterness on both sides. Those who stand outside the clinics protesting are doing nothing but making themselves look like hatemongers with nothing better to do then try and guilt a woman who is probably going through one of the most crucial times in her life. Shocked as you may be to learn this, I am not one who believes on imposing my beliefs on others. I may have no problem voicing my opinion when the issue arrises, but I'm not going to make myself out to be a crusader, I'll let my actions indirectly influence people rather than trying to ram it down their throats with my words. Incidently, I don't hate people who perform abortions or those who get them. It angers me when people badmouth my cause, but it angers you too doesn't it? I admit I lost my cool when Mulder posted that politically-charged writeup. I'm not going to throw massive hate all over the place though, thats not really what I'd try to portray myself to the world as. I don't know though, maybe that is too simple-minded for you.
If she only wants one child, can't she just give the one with DS up for adoption? I know it's going to be hard parting with one's child but it's gotta be better than killing him with an abortion.
Well spoken Moe, but don't worry too much about it. We will all be dead at exactly 6-14-09. I was told by the prophesies. Mark it. I know y'all think I'm joking, but apparently that's the date.
Until it is born, it is an "embryo" or a "fetus," not a "child." Under that definition, I agree with you wholeheartedly. No, the only doctors who have "admi[tted]" that are pro-life doctors who want to push a ban that does not have language protecting the life of the mother. If it is SO rare for such a procedure to threaten the life of the mother, then what is that harm in inserting language that protects the mother's life? If I were a woman, I would absolutely end a pregnancy if I knew there was a good chance that it would threaten my life. I could always get pregnant again if I lived. And that is your choice. Nobody would force you to choose to terminate the pregnancy. However, it seems that you WOULD force someone to bring a fetus to term, removing her choice as a result of your own ideology. Actually, I believe that the choice is between the woman, her doctor, and God. And your characterization of doctors performing abortions "for fun" is a disgusting, inflammatory, sick statement that does nothing to further your argument. Doctors should follow the law of the land. As far as I know, they do follow the laws that apply to them. However, the law in this case was struck down and as such, there is no law restricting late term abortions. First, there was no provision that protected the already existing life of the mother over the potential "life" of the fetus. In the absence of such a provision, the judges were 100% right to overturn the law. BTW, the only reason that you are upset about this is because a law that your personal political views agreed with was overturned. Yes, it is shameful that some people continue to try to push their morality onto people who do not believe the same things that they do.
That is hard to imagine. Please provide a link where doctors say it is 100%, without exception, never a plausible option. If you link the Pope's personal physician, pardon my skepticism. Seriously, if I learn it is common knowledge that a 3rd tri abortion is NEVER necessary, then I might reconsider my position. If a pregnancy is already risky, that means the child's life may be in danger too as well as the mother's. If my wife is in danger, I will chose my wife's life over my unborn child probably close to 100% of the time. I don't want my existing children or my unborn child to grow up motherless. Even that assume the child survives birth. Then I'd lose both my wife AND child just so you can stand on your idiologic platform and say "murdering babies is bad." I don't understand how this argument is relavant to reality. Poisoning patients for fun? If said procedure saves the woman's life, then the woman and Dr should be allowed to make that decision...not you and not a politician. living woman's life > unborn child's life If you call allowing judges to let women make a choice to avoid their own death as "idiotic", then let the judges be idiots. I for one am satisfied. Again, living woman's life > unborn child's life
I told our church on Sunday that our kindergarten and 1st grade Sunday School class may have more understanding than the adults (speaking of God's love). I commented that if those who were having marriage problems should stop arguing and seeing counsellors and just sit down and ask our little Sunday School kids how they should love each other and work out their problems they would know what God wanted them to do. I would trust these little children to come up with the right answers most of the time. Same goes for abortion. I think if you explained the procedure, the reasons and the options to our Sunday School class these 5-7 year old children could come up with a plan that would be wiser, and more loving than most of what I have heard from adults on the issue. What children know in simple truths adults complicate to absurdity. What a world we adults have made for ourselves. Jesus said 'unless you become as a little child, you cannot enter...'
andy -- it is not true that the only doctors who have admitted the late-term abortion procedure he described actually happens are pro-life doctors. that's false. there's congressional testimony that i've posted here more than once from abortion providers describing that very procedure being used...and not in cases where the woman is in danger of death by delivering the baby any further than she has to deliver it in order for the procedure to take place. you guys know where i am on this. i'm not sure there's much to argue, because its a deep value judgment. my thought is merely that if we're NOT SURE if its life...but we have a pretty good clue that it is...well, then we ought not be careless with it. and we ought to afford it protections.
Abortion is about protecting the innocent Those that cannot speak for themselves Killing for convience is ridiculous I'm Prolife and willing to pay the price meaning I want a complete and total overhaul of the adoption system I want a complete and total overhaul of the support system for young parents but see. .that takes WORK and no one wants to WORK raising a child takes WORK We want to just make a quick fix. . .SUCK IT OUT It is like LIPO .. don't wanna work out or eat right but wanna be thin . . .so we take a quick and easy SUCK IT OUT mentality Screw being responsible when you have a quick fix Our society is not going to survive it we keep putting duct tape over major problems Abortion is a symptom to a larger issue irresponsibility laziness and deteriorating social structure Rocket River
While I agree with the sentiment of this statement, the unborn's life does not take precedence over the woman's life. That is what this ruling is about... overturning the outright ban of 3rd trimester abortions. I don't think a single person here is arguing an abortion for convenience is a good thing.
Nobody is arguing about convenience abortions. We're arguing about abortions where the mother's life is in jeapordy. Does the unborn's life take precedence?
even if i can agree with your first statement....i don't see how it's relevant in trying to ban a procedure that literally has the baby travel out of the birth canal to meet its fate.
That is a good question to ask at any age of a child, not just prior to the actual birth. Is the mother's life more valuable than a child? Ask mothers maybe, or ask the children, or ask God. It is worth considering anyways. I respect krosfyah's opinions, in my understanding he is looking for protection a mother needs in the issue. Sometimes the mother is viewed as the evil murderer when framing the issue. I am against abortion. I am against killing mothers. Makes me want to pray more about it.
