i don't know if the distinction was made...it was just procedures past the first trimester, which i'm sure included partial birth abortions, a smaller subset of abortions in general.
Answer the question yourself, if you can. Are you OK with endangering the life of a woman in favor of a potentially viable fetus?
It's not a fetus at this point andy, I mean its half way out. I like the, if you can part, so dignified of you. And the way you ask the question is about as lame a rhetorical device as you can use... Besides, it seems as if now you are saying mother's life instead of mother's health, which brings me back to my point on intentionality... answer this, if you can, do you really believe cutting open the babies skull is the most viable way to save a mother's life?
I too find partial birth abortions distasteful. However, I do consider it acceptable it when the mother finds there will be a gross deformity/abnormality with the fetus. That's the only condition under which I support it. The other scenarios simply don't make sense. I think for maternal health, premature induced delivery is often sensible. However, maximum effort must be made to ensure that the fetus survives delivery. -------------- As an aside, I'd like to ask whether America has state-run orphanages? And do parents have to pay for their kids if they surrender them to orphanages or for adoption? -------------- One part of me is violently pro-choice. I believe every child has a right to loving parents who have the means and intention to raise him/her properly. And if these conditions don't exist, I'd prefer that they not be born at all. The world has enough suffering neglected kids as it is. Some pro-choice teachers in my youth showed me pictures of how women, forced to abort fetus on their own, resort to the most disgusting and unsafe means imaginable to abort their babies (clothes hangers, chemicals, etc.) and incur horrendous self-inflicted harm in the process. And so growing up, I always thought, if women are going to do it anyway, let them do it the right way in a safe environment. The argument is akin to the state provision of clean syringes for drug addicts. Better to have them shoot up in clinics than have them brought into ERs half-dead with their arms rotting off and living off AIDS medication at taxpayers expense... Yet another part of me appreciates the beauty of life (this is especially true with the birth of my beautiful niece). And when I look at the innocent baby, I can't help but feel the instinct to protect them at all cost. That has swung me considerably towards the anti-abortion camp, though never quite completely. I mean, as a man, I still can never bring myself to tell any woman, "You must have this baby, whether you like it or not! Your body is no longer yours, but that of the baby and the state which protects it" which is in essence what we'd be telling women in the latter half of their pregnancy. An analogy would be if someone in dire need of bone marrow / kidney found by accident that YOURS matched. Would you then want the govt to take you into custody and FORCE you to share your bone marrow / kidney? It's the same life and death situation. While a mother may have a moral responsibiilty to the unborn fetus, she also has a right to decide what to keep inside her own body. I guess my point is that one day all this would be moot, when artificial wombs can delivery babies. But right now, we're still violating someone rights no matter which side we take.
as another aside, i'd like to conjecture the following: when obstetricians grab these half-formed fetuses out of their mothers, they probably look at them less as potentially viable babies than dying, mindless proto-lifeforms, which need to be put out of their misery quickly. The scissor, which to you may be an instrument of murder, is probably an instrument of mercy for them... not a doctor myself, but i do believe most doctors are moral and humane. and i think surely these people have rationales for doing what they do (more than just dollars), right?
Couple of thoughts Lil...and I do appreciate your tone, big time. I really do...even if I disagree with you a ton! 1. I don't want a world where we go around saying, "Oh, well...these people are poor and may not be able to afford this baby..so let's kill it." But use words like abort or terminate so we feel better about it. This hiding from the reality of the procedures used to kill doesn't help, in my view. 2. How many great people...whom the world has been much richer for having known...would have been aborted under a policy such as that?? 3. Can you imagine if we made other rights/rules/laws contingent on social status? If a fetus is a life...and I think there's a lot more evidence that it is rather than that it isn't...then isn't it entitled to some protections? I mean we have criminal laws in this country for killing a pregnant woman that are distinct because two lives are terminated, ultimately. 4. I understand the concern about telling a woman she has to have a baby...I truly do. But I think the baby's right to live trumps her inconveniences through 9 months. Ultimately, pregnancy passes. But once you kill that life, that's it. It's a final decision... 5. I'm not sure one who has sex and gets pregnant than has a RIGHT to say, "I don't want to be pregnant." Particularly past a certain period of time of the pregnancy, though I think those timing distinctions are way too arbitrary. Creating a new life is one of the possible outcomes of having sex....everyone knows that. To then say, "Well, I don't want this baby...I made a mistake...so let's kill it," sounds a bit draconian to me. Far more than a culture that says, "No...we value the life of you and that baby."
you'd think so...you'd certainly hope so. and yet one thing they learn in med school is how babies have heightened sensitivity to pain. and these babies are pulled out just seconds away from their first shot at a breath...their first shot at life on their own. i know women who worked in abortion clinics and went in soooo pro-choice....and came out saying, "hell, no..that has to stop. i had no idea it was like that." public sentiment on the issue in this country is changing, too. even pro-choice groups acknowledge that. i think that has to do primarily with the development of ultra-sound technology, quite frankly. show a woman an ultra-sound of the thing inside her, and the chances of her going through with an abortion fall exponentially.
Our next door neighbor just had a baby. She told us she was pro-choice until she saw the newer ultra-sound pictures of her child. She is no longer pro-choice.
My sister has had one baby and lost another one a month before it was due (today actually). She saw the ultra-sound pictures of her child. She is still pro-choice.
Nice way to avoid answering the question. That is for a doctor, not you or I, to determine. If that is the only way to save her life or prevent a debilitating health condition, they yes, it is the most viable way. The real point is that we are talking about cases where the mother's life or health is in serious jeopardy and in those cases, I would choose the mother over the fetus (isn't it a fetus until it is born? I will look up the technical definition).
From Dictionary.com: Fetus - The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
I answered the question when I said it was a difference in intentionality. I'm through discussing this with you.
Case Closed There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony).
2 old and one new. Then again, we were never planning on aborting, we were trying to get my wife pregnant.
Man this issue is such a dynamic one. It's so easy to pro-choice when you have never had a child of your own. I know. I used to be absolute pro-choice. Now I have a 3 month old son whose heartbeat I could hear when he was a six week old fetus. Now I find the whole debate a lot more complicated. Now I tend to feel that this is more of a responsibility issue. If you have sex, you stand a chance of getting pregnant. The percentages may vary depending on what form, if any, of birth control that was used. If a woman does not want to have a child, I now feel that she should go out and buy a pregancy test within the first week or so after having sex. She made the choice to have sex so she should accept the responsibilities that come along with it. Abortions should never be used as a form of birth control. That's a pretty sad refection of the person who chooses to do so. But mistakes happen and many young people make bad decisions. That's why it is best to find out sooner than later. If you choose to have an abortion, then i would hope that you learn from it and never allow yourself to put in that situation again. It is evil have a late term abortion when the Mother's life is not in jeopardy. Like Max, I just don't understand it. At this point, it should not be about a person right to choose. You missed your opportunity to choose. Your irresponsibility is not a reason to end the life of a child who is about to born. If a doctor says that you will die from a vaginal or c-section birth, then that is different. So in other words, I am against partial birth abortions unless the Mom is going to die.
So you find one example of a doctor who believes this and consider the case closed? So much for hearing opposing viewpoints and taking into account differing circumstances.
Do you need me to find more examples? I will. I've only seen this eleventy million times. There are no opposing viewpoints that I've found.
