Nope. In the third trimester, the woman no longer has a choice, in these rare occasions, unless it is absolutely life threatening. Period. Again, not when the child is essentially being born. You lost that "choice" in the first two. But I guess you think it's OK to kill a child when it is already born, also. Not that close to birth, it isn't. Is this really a hard concept for you to grasp? With regards to this, it seems YOU are the one trying to push a political agenda. I can pretty much assume you have no children. You are way off base here, and it is you that have the irrational, and pretty pathetic, views.
Again, if there will never be a case where the mother's health will be at risk, then where is the harm in putting language in that creates such an exception? If so many doctors are certain that such a case will never come up, how could such a clause possibly cause any conflict. Mulder posted some information from NOW detailing some of the cases where D&E are used legitimately. This indicates to me that doctors are not 100% behind your claims here. You also know where I am. I would be perfectly happy to ban late term abortions so long as there is language protecting the mother's physical health. I would also like for such a ban to carve out exceptions for severe birth defects that are typically not diagnosed until late in pregnancy. In fact, I would support banning all abortions after the point of fetus viability if the pro-life crowd would agree to stop pushing for a complete ban. However, that is probably a non-starter.
Another question- If all mothers and fathers loved their unborn child how would their decision making process affect the abortion issue. This idea of an unwanted pregnancy= an unwanted baby, perplexing. Rational thought that a mother and father would love their unborn child seems to slip through the cracks of modern convenience and personal selfish gratification over responsibility. When a mother's life is in danger due to pregnancy it makes a big difference how that mother views the baby she carries. What is love anyways?
no group of people is ever 100% behind anything. i saw the NOW stuff. it doesn't surprise me NOW could have that information. check the official AMA position. though. i've posted their letter in support of the partial birth abortion ban a couple of times here.
should have read the whole thread here. didn't realize the late term was in regard to PBA partial birth abortion is horrible (can't think of a worse word to use) and should be banned. I wish everyone would read up on this procedure. (for me late term happens pretty soon after conception)
I am not arguing against banning late term abortions. Read what I have written on the subject and stop making assumptions. The only reason that I believe that the judges were correct in overturning that ban is because it did not have language in it to protect the physical health of the mother. Read the information that Mulder posted. Again, I am not arguing for late term abortions. I believe that the practice should be banned with the exceptions for the mother's physical health and perhaps for birth defects that are not diagnosed until late in the pregnancy. First of all, it is language like this that keeps people from being able to have a meaningful dialogue on this subject. Second, one it is born, it is alive, and thus is due the same protections that all of us are. Until it is born, it is not a "life" in my book. Actually, until they pass a ban that meets constitutional requirements, it is still a matter for the woman, her doctor, and God. I support having a ban on the books, but the GOP decided to play politics in place of passing a law that would be upheld. Really? All of my statements in the section you quoted referred to inflammatory language (which you use too), a law that was overturned as a result of the lack of a mother's health exception (a law that I would have supported if it had contained such an exception), and pro-lifers pushing their morality onto people who do not believe the same things that they do (a practice that I disagree with no matter what specific issue is being discussed). Where is my "political agenda?" You would be wrong. I have two kids and have posted pictures of at least one of them on this board. I don't see where you have pointed out a single "irrational" view, I see my points as pretty well thought out and logical. Please tell me what I have posted (not what you assume about me) that is "irrational." Characterizing my views as "pathetic" is more inflammatory language that will not help us to engage in a rational discussion.
Where is the harm in having a clause that protects the life of the mother if that clause will be used so rarely? I will get behind the ban 100% if it has that clause in it, as I suspect that half or more pro-choice people will.
So we agree? A 3rd tri-abortion should be allowed in life threatening situations. That is all most of us are arguing. From what I understand, MOST complications that threaten birth arise in the 3rd trimester. That is when things become critical. How is that statement relevant? But let me help you. If you are in an airplane and you lose cabin pressure, you are instructed to put on your own oxygen mask before your child's. Why? Because you are the caregiver. If the caregiver loses conciousness while trying to save the child, then what? In life and death situations, the parents life often needs to take precedence because the child's life depends on the mother's life. Here's my rant. Ignore if you don't feel like reading. I have a 4 month old. If during birth by wife's life became in question, I'd save my wife's life over my unborn child EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK if it came to that. Without my wife, I am lost and then I could not have any more children with her. The most important union in a family is between the husband and wife. That is the foundation from which all the children grow and without it, society crumbles. In more primitive areas, without both a mother and father, a child's life is jeapardized because you need both for a family to prosper. In America we can get by, sure, but I want my wife to help raise my children. I find it a little counter intuitive that Christians oppose gay marriage saying it corrupts the sanctity of marriage. Which is it? Is marriage more important or life? If life is more important, why isn't the mother's life more important if marriage is so important?
Lets get back to basics, rhester. If the mother dies during birth, who will feed the baby? There is a fundamental law that says the mother must live in order for the baby to grow healthy. Yes, I know in 21st century America we can raise a baby without a mother. But it is unnatural. Isn't the "unnatural argument" the same argument used by Christians to oppose gay marriage?
the only harm is that "health of the mother" has been so bastardized by the courts after Roe that it's come to mean, if the mother has anxiety about how she'll be able to afford taking care of children, then it adversely impacts her health and she can have an abortion. this is why we have abortion on demand in this country, contra to what Roe seemingly provided for.
what's unnatural about death??? and life carrying on after death?? this is probably not the best argument in support of your thoughts.
It's unnatural to knowingly sacrafice the mother's life to save an unborn child. In nature, wouldn't that child die of starvation? All I am saying is if it is "unnatural" for gay marriage, then the same logic should apply to sacraficing the mother to save the baby. It goes against the laws of nature. But a Christian will say we can now feed a baby formula in 2006. Yea, and a gay couple can adopt a child and raise it more lovingly than living in foster care. So why is it okay to break a fundamental law that baby needs mother but it isn't okay to break a fundamental law to allow a baby to grow up in a loving family unit, albeit a homosexual family?
I understand, nobody wants a mother to die during birth. I don't. I don't even want a mother to die driving her children to church or teaching her child how to swim. I don't want any mother to die and I don't want any child killed. Can we work that into the answer? Don't we frame these issues around extremes. If my wife had to die or my little boy had to die and I had to choose.... Do you know how hard it is to frame anything around extreme scenarios. Knowing me I might crumble under the load. A. Your wife dies, your child lives B. Your child dies, your wife lives C. ? I always choose C, please think about what I am saying. The PBA law is not framed properly. How about this- What can we do that will absolutely save the most combined lives of mothers and unborn babies and make that decision in a way that honors the dignitiy and deepest love and beliefs of the parents, gives equal value, respect and protection to the life of the unborn baby and leaves the influence of the government out of it on both sides? That is a question I would discuss.
unnatural to die? sacrifice the life?? before we had the technology to change it, women died in childbirth all the time. i'm not suggesting that's a good thing...or something we should settle with. i'm merely saying that it's not at all unnatural for the child to survive childbirth while the woman passes away. what is completely unnatural is to go into the woman and terminate the fetus to stop that process. but again...most abortions aren't done for this purpose anyway, so it's a bit of a red herring. man, you're all over the place?? let's deal with one problem at a time.
As I mentioned, I would be willing to have it stipulated in the ban that "health" would be defined as the physical health of the mother.
As usual, a thoughtful and honest answer. Well, this isn't an either or situation. But lets frame an extreme case just for the sake of argument. Lets suppose we are in an African jungle and a mother of a 2 month old leaves a baby for a moment. When she turns around, a pride of tigers appear and one angry looking tiger is has his mouth on the baby but not yet chewing. It is virtually certain you'll get seriuosly maimed and probably die of your wounds if you save the child. Even if you live, for the next several months you are in no condition to care for the baby. A.) Do you hang your head and save yourself? B.) Or do you jump in to save the baby which probably won't save the baby anyway and probably will result in your own death. If you did save the baby, will you be in condition to feed the baby? Tough choice. But humanity would become extinct if we always went for choice B. As cruel as it seems, the parent is the most important of the two because the parent has the best opportunity to perservere whereas the baby will likely die in either scenario. I'm sorry but we have to. In a country of 300 million (or whatever), extreme's while numarically rare, happen all the time. But that is what the judges have to do. They have to allow a Dr. to make a contentual choice if a rare situation presents itself. We can't just turn a blind eye to rare situations and allow people to die. Unfortunately, the judges don't have that option. They have to make a choice. EXACTLY. That is why you just let the Dr. and woman make their own decision. Any law enacted would inevitabely be wrong in certain situations. Agreed. I can agree that 3rd tri-mesters abortions are bad and should be outlawed ...except in rare cases where the woman's health in in jeapardy. Then the Dr. and woman can make thier own decision based on what is right for the unborn child and the expectant mother. That would, in my opinion, leave the government out of it.
I am a 'B' guy all the way. Not even a hard choice. Everytime- it's B that I guess leaves me at a disadvantage in the discussion. Yep, I am totally committed forever B and I want my children all to know it and see it in the way I live my life.
You are missing the point. I'm comparing "laws of nature" as Christians like to call it when framing the argument against gay marriage. And in ancient times or even in modern times in 3rd world countries, when the mother dies in childbirth, the life of the newborn is also in jeapardy. Maybe the child survives childbirth but the child wouldn't survive much longer. So it is unnatural to knowingly allow the mother to die and subject a child to a life without the mother. Once again, nobody is arguing "convenience abortions." Why do you keep bringing it up? We have the technology to save the mother. We also have advanced as a society where a gay couple can raise a healthy child. Why is one acceptable but not the other? I'm staying on topic by drawing a paralell argument. You, on the other hand, continue to argue against "convenience abortions" which has nothing to do with the topic.
Fathers discussing abortion are kind of like loving parents reading stories to their children and taking them to the park to play after work.
