And if that is the case, then what is the harm in having language that protects the doctors for protecting the physical well being of the mother?
Well they don't say what the physical problem was, and if it wasn't a threat to life, I'm not really in favor of ending another's life....
twhy77 -- back up to the study prior that looked at all abortions performed after 22 weeks. EVERY FREAKING ONE was for mental reasons!!! Not one was to prevent the death of the mother. Not one. 302 of the 574 aborted during that period were termed as "viable" by the doctors in their reports...yet they were aborted anyway....for "health" reasons...because of mental health. wow. i'm going to go crawl under a rock now.
So, if there was an extreme case that could lead to a debilitating stroke for the woman, but it wasn't "a threat to life," the woman could just have a stroke as far as you care, huh?
andy - we're still talking partial birth abortion, right?? so we're talking about delivering the baby halfway, right? do you honestly believe that she has a better chance of living if they kill the baby once it's halfway out, rather than if they just pull the entire baby out to live??
] Highly doubtful that that would happen but yes. There are some risks to being alive. Strokes happen and are totally natural. Abortions go against the natural life cycle of man. I'm pro human.
totally with you on this, madmax. abortions in general are just so f*cked up. it's basically one misfortune (having an unwanted child). followed by a even worse misfortune (either killing the child or letting it grow up knowing that it was unwanted). the very thought of any of these scenarios ought to insult the sensibilities of regular folks. i'm with you on social status too. you're absolutely right about status not interfering with the human right to reproduce. i guess my point was that irresponsible parents often neglect unwanted kids by choice. that gets me seriously riled up. very poor people have an excuse. even if they mean well, they got to work, they haven't got enough to feed their kids, to send them to school, etc. etc. but regardless of intentions, aren't the end results the same? maladjusted kids destitute both spiritually and physically, with no clue as to social and moral responsibilities, and as likely as not to visit the same sort of misfortune on their own poor offsprings... i think it is the state's responsibility to educate people about having/raising children responsibly, and where the parents fail, the states needs to step in and fill the void to give these kids a proper upbringing. and certainly prevent their messed-up parents from ever making that same mistake again. unfortunately, i don't think our society/govt is there yet. i mean, kids can't give consent nor have to be accountable for their actions, but they can have sex and get pregnant? irresponsible men have the right to lie to women to get them into bed and not use a condom, but don't have to be around when the women bear their children? to me, the problem also stems from our society's inability to cope with human biology/psychology. today, it's the babies who get violated and pay for these imperfections. tomorrow it may be women. eventually, there might be future means of birth control, childbearing, and fetal care as to provide a perfect technological solution to our problems. right now, these problems are simply unavoidable. but we're getting away from the subject here. i too am against partial birth abortions. for the most part. i think on that we agree.
this is what has freaks like me so upset. i'll give you the situtions where people's lives are at stake...but that just ain't the case. yet these pro-choice groups will scream like crazy after Bush signed this bill about how this is a death warrant for women. what a freaking joke! meanwhile, more babies are killed everyday.
Sorry, you didn't close the case for me, you said that you would choose a fetus that may or may not be viable over a woman who could have debilitating health issues. That is unconscionable to me and you should be ashamed that you believe this way. All it would take is a few words in the bill to get the ban passed, words which by your own admission will probably never be invoked and yet you can't get past your bias. I guess some people would rather b****, moan and complain rather than get something done.
Every time I see an abortion thread, I'm comforted by the fact that MadMax always seems to feel the exact same way I do, and lays out the points very eloquently and logically. Thanks for injecting sanity into the D&D, MM.
Whatever. Did you look at the report, all of the fetus/babies were deemed viable, every freaking one of them. You have absolutely no proof to back up your position. Yes, it sucks that the lady had a stroke, but guess what andy? People have strokes, and live to tell about it. Killing a baby is the bigger atrocity. Your language allows for wiggle room that doesn't need to be there.
he said he would put one in that protects the life of the mother...but not the health...and then provided evidence for why he wouldn't do that. what's there left to understand? you may disagree, but i think he's got a pretty solid argument. the ultimate point, andy, that you keep overlooking...is that the AMA and others are saying these partial birth procedures aren't medically necessary to save lives. that went into the bill. the baby is halfway out..whether it comes out dead or alive at that point is of no consequence to the mother's life.
Just because it didn't happen in the study does not mean it CANNOT happen, which is why there needs to be an allowance for the woman's health. As I said, it could be limited to MAJOR health consequences, but if we could save the woman from the stroke and the consequence is to abort the fetus, I say abort away. The "wiggle room" needs to be there to prevent abuses.
I would also add, that the procedure would not be used the way it is, and that the doctor would have every intention of trying to save the child...and could not use a procedure that directly violated that intention, i,e cutting open the skull and sucking out the brains...
This is exactly the issue for many women! Max and twhy77, you seem to be arguing that the health of the woman is not a compelling issue; to women out there, it's compelling. There are serious potential consequences to not including an exception to the health of the mother. What about when the fetus has irreparable genetic defects, will not survive outside the womb, and yet to carry the fetus to term will permanently impact the ability of the women to bear childern in the future? Her life may not be in danger, but her ability to reproduce will. WRT to the title of the thread, I find it hard to understand how anyone can argue that an exception for the *health* of the woman is not necessary...
