Apparently I don't get your point about intentionality. If you can set aside being through discussing this with me, could you explain?
In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his paper on this procedure at a Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are "purely elective." In a personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that "elective" does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion. He admitted to Fr. Frank that there does not seem to be any medical reason for this procedure. CASE CLOSED, your own people are saying it.
The point about intentionality deals mainly with the example of a baby in the Fallopian tubes. In this case, both mother and child will die. Therefore, the doctor tries to remove the baby from the Fallopian Tubes, he does not try to kill it. However, the procedure almost always results in the baby dying...but this is not the intention of the action. In the case of partial birth, its looking more and more like this will never be the case... and if it ever does arise, it will be only once every andybluemoon
I have yet to see any one argue in this thread that elective partial birth abortions are OK. We're worried about the other 20%.
I agree with virtually everything you said. I heard my son's heartbeat for the first time at 8 weeks and despite having been told that it would change my belief system (by Max among others), I am still absolutely pro choice. I have always believed that there should be restrictions on, among other things, late term abortion. If we were serious about educating our young people about and providing contraception for our young people, we could reduce abortions dramatically without having to try to legislate our way out of this. Once pregnant, I agree with you that any choice that you have should be made immediately. If you procrastinate, you will eventually lose your right to choose. The only place where I differ with you is in the wording of the risks to the mother. If the language in the ban SPECIFIES that the ONLY ALLOWABLE case is when the mother WILL DIE from birth or c-section, there could be massive abuses from pro-lifers prosecuting doctors if there was ANY doubt of the risk to the mother. I think that using a phrase like "major health risks" is a much better line to draw because it allows for situations that, though not life threatening, could seriously impact the health and well-being of the mother. Again it should be mentioned, as Twhy77 brought up, that these cases should be extreme cases that do not come up often.
If it will be only in extreme cases (nice pun, BTW ), what is the harm in using language like "major health risk to the mother" when describing circumstances under which the procedure can be performed?
He said that there does not seem to be any medical necessity for this procedure. So when the other 20% become non-elective, the health reason is not a threat to life...i.e. it is for reasons max was citing earlier.
See thats the thing, two leading doctors say there is no chance that this will arise... so it looks as if there is no chance it would arise. The reasons not to add it are the same from a strict constitutionalist to a loose constitutionalist perspective. When you say threat to mother's life, you put more restrictions in place...
And if there is no medical necessity, the doctor could be prosecuted under the proposed law. If there IS a medical necessity, but no language protecting it, either a doctor goes to jail for saving the woman's from major health impacts or a woman is seriously hurt because of the law.
You are saying there is NO chance based on what TWO doctors say. I'm sorry, but there is a lot more difference in opinion than that. We need to account for every possibility because if we don't then innocents will be prosecuted or women will be hurt. Exactly, restrictions that could adversely impact the woman or her doctor for doing something that could be medically necessary.
That is for the judge and jury to decide. If the doctor can prove that there was a medical necessity, then he goes free, but if it wasn't necessary he goes to jail. Every case is covered instead of using a one size fits all approach, the same approach that gets 6 year olds suspended from school for sexual harassment for trying to kiss a girl.
What I don't understand is how uber conservative "christians" can be pro-life but NOT against the death penalty--let me clarify by making the distinction that I'm not indicting anyone in this thread for being christian OR conservative. I just don't understand how you reconcile the two when you are so concerned with"life". Furthermore, how can you be a conservative pro-lifer and then advocate cutting social services and welfare programs for pregnant mothers? In effect, "ya can't have an abortion because your child has a right to live, but we aren't gonna help your poor-a$$ with supporting that kid once they are born..."
while i don't fall into either category, i can probably give you the reasons: 1. death penalty -- when you commit crimes you forfeit your rights, i.e. become imprisoned, etc. the baby didn't commit a crime...it wasn't conceived of its own volition, even. it just is. the death penalty is punitive to the person who is receiving the punishment. abortion is punitive to a baby that has no say in the matter...and certainly doesn't get a trial to try to argue for its own life through some ad litem or something. 2. people who oppose welfare programs do so primarily because of concerns of the role of the federal government. concerns that a govt big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take away everything that you have. (thanks, mr. jefferson!). there are also a ton of non-profit crisis pregancy centers that are privately owned and do a tremendous job assisting women who are struggling with those concerns. having said all of that: 1. i'm against the death penalty 2. i would support welfare specifically designed for women who are pregnant and considering that option. my understanding is that WIC is very helpful to those women...and i pray like crazy for fathers to take a more active role with their children, financially and otherwise.
This is exactly what started me down the path to being anti-death penalty (though I don't think this was addressed to me). Eliminating abortion would be well worth the 'burden' on the taxpayers, though I would hope there would be a way to avoid women having baby after baby. Anyways, the economic aspect is a non-starter for me. Just because someone will be poor at some point doesn't mean they don't deserve to live.
The Catholic Church is consistent with their views. They are staunchly pro-life. They are also against the death penalty except in the extremly rare situation where there is absolutely no way to keep a killer imprisoned. In essence, there is not a single industrialized nation that should execute criminals.
Andy go to pg 11 of this link... disturbing. Not one partial Birth was done because of a threat to the mother's life. And then the body damage that would be done, out of 302 partial birth abortions, 301 were because of mental reasons. Only 1 case was for health reasons, and they weren't even life threatening. Is this proof enough?
Well said, I'm Catholic and support the Pope's Culture of Life rather than this Culture of Death I'm forced to live in....
