partial birth abortion data twisted?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion...03/06abort.html

 

we obviously know which way this article is biased, but the information is still interesting. thoughts?

[Guest Vyce]

Studies show that attitudes towards abortion in general since it was legalized in 1970 are trending more and more AGAINST the practice.

 

It's unlikely that we'll ever see abortion made illegal (it won't happen - no matter how much of a doomsayer you are, Bush isn't going to get rid of it), BUT I can see an total ban on partial birth abortions occurring. And the beautiful thing about it will be that a majority of the population will FAVOR that ban.

[Guest Mole]

I'm all for abortion, but not partial birth abortion. If the kid's head is out of the body, he is alive and that is murder.

[Guest Ripper]

Here in Georgia, 2 out of the 3 partial birth abortions performed in the last 2 years was a case of the child not having a brain due to a defect...are you saying that it should have been illegal for the mother to abort the fetus?

 

Everything is not so damn black and white. I think that all laws that try to completely ban any type of abortion is ridiculous. Everything should be a case by case scenario.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Real women, agonizing choices

 

Excellent article at Salon about just that, Ripper. I recommend anyone interested in the issue watch the ad to get Salon Premium for a day and read this article. Here are two examples of the dangerous grey area that the 'partial birth abortion' ban will ignore.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I agree, there is a grey area here. It should be taken on a case-by-case situation.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Here in Georgia, 2 out of the 3 partial birth abortions performed in the last 2 years was a case of the child not having a brain due to a defect...are you saying that it should have been illegal for the mother to abort the fetus?

 

Everything is not so damn black and white. I think that all laws that try to completely ban any type of abortion is ridiculous. Everything should be a case by case scenario.

Yeah, I guess in those cases they don't have to jam something into the baby's skull and suck it's brain out.

 

Abortion is barbaric and all forms of it should be banned.

[Guest EricMM]

Even to save the mother's life?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Yeah, I guess in those cases they don't have to jam something into the baby's skull and suck it's brain out.

 

Abortion is barbaric and all forms of it should be banned.

It's precisely when you post blind, disgusting, and hysterical outbursts like this that reasonable people stop listening.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Another thing about this that you have to acknowledge is that the fetuses in question -- those who may have this admittedly tragic procedure performed upon -- are not viable. As was stated in the article I posted, they are often in the second trimester; they aren't in the third as many pro-life legislators have claimed.

[Guest Blacklight Angel]

It's precisely when you post blind, disgusting, and hysterical outbursts like this that reasonable people stop listening.

 

It was far from blind or hysterical. It may be disgusting, but rightly so.

 

Having actually watched an abortion take place on film, I can say with some certainty that we, the human race, have come up with the most barbaric act known to man: murder of convenience.

 

Despite the fact that fetuses are not "born" does not mean they are not "living."

 

Still, I do favor abortion in three (and ONLY three cases):

 

-Incest

-Rape

-Imminent danger to the mother's life

 

Other than these, it's truly an abomination that's been foisted upon us.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Your position is completely untenable. If you claim that abortion IS murder, it is an action (a crime, if you will) taken against the fetus and not the father. As such it cannot be justified even in cases of rape or incest, although imminent danger to a woman's life could be justified on grounds of self-defence. I agree that an unborn fetus is living; I do not agree that there is any hard evidence to support the contention that it is a living human being from the moment of conception. Since this is the case I am more than willing to take measures to keep abortions to an absolute minimum pending evidence; however, I will not allow people like you impose your absolute and unproven beliefs on others simply because you believe them strongly.

 

I do favor abortion in three (and ONLY three cases)

We disagree again. There are no circumstances under which I favour abortion. None. In fact, I'll discourage people from having them if I'm asked.

But I will not impose my doubts on anyone else.

 

Whether or not you've watched an abortion on film and whether or not you were disgusted is utterly beside the point. Have you ever watched someone being given an emergency tracheotomy with a pencil sharpener blade and a soda straw? I have. That was pretty disgusting, too. Should I have arrested the off-duty EMT who saved a man's life because what he did made my stomach turn? How about heart surgery? Icky. Let's ban that too. Organ transplants? Brain surgery? What about caesarean sections? Hell, let's just get rid of all invasive surgery and pray to Jesus when we get sick; let's ban inoculations too because needles gross out some people. Will that make you happy?

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

I hate the idea of abortion. But people who want abortions or people who feel they need abortions will get them. If abortion is legal, they're in a hospital. If it's not, it's done in some back alley with a coat hanger. That's why I'm against banning abortions.

[Guest Blacklight Angel]

Try reading it again.

 

You immediately assumed that I got "squeamish" from seeing blood and other bodily fluids, not from the fact that a defenseless human was killed. Trust me, I'm not squeamish. Perhaps I should have been a bit more specific: I'm not disgusted by legitimate life-saving medical procedures.

 

Now, this part... just pure, unintentional comedic genius:

 

Whether or not you've watched an abortion on film and whether or not you were disgusted is utterly beside the point. Have you ever watched someone being given an emergency tracheotomy with a pencil sharpener blade and a soda straw? I have. That was pretty disgusting, too. Should I have arrested the off-duty EMT who saved a man's life because what he did made my stomach turn? How about heart surgery? Icky. Let's ban that too. Organ transplants? Brain surgery? What about caesarean sections? Hell, let's just get rid of all invasive surgery and pray to Jesus when we get sick; let's ban inoculations too because needles gross out some people. Will that make you happy?

 

So, to recap... you've extrapolated that I would like to see EMTs and other medical personnel arrested for doing their jobs and we should all join the Christian Scientists.

 

Who's hysterical now?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Try reading it again.

Try writing more specifically and more clearly. You said that you were disgusted as a direct result of watching the film. Surely the film itself didn't clarify for you whether or not a fetus is a human being. It didn't for me, but maybe we watched different films.

 

Trust me, I'm not squeamish.

Okay.

Perhaps I should have been a bit more specific

You certainly should have.

pure, unintentional comedic genius

Completely intentional, as it happens.

 

you've extrapolated that I would like to see EMTs and other medical personnel arrested for doing their jobs and we should all join the Christian Scientists.

No longer, since you've seen fit to actually post your thoughts in reasonably clear English. Keep it up; it helps.

 

Who's hysterical now?

Neither of us, it seems. Would you care to address the first paragraph of my last post now, and the internal contradictions brought up by your three exceptions to a hypothetical ban on abortion?

[Guest EricMM]

It is hard to prove that a fetus should be killed because the mother was raped by the father. The fetus does not deserve to have it's life terminated.

 

A lot of people can say that that's easy for me to say because I'm a guy. But I can't help facts, (nor would I, I like being a guy, what) and I still think that abortion outside of saving the mother's life is basically wrong. I'm not about to ban them, for all the sanitation reasons etc. above, but I certainly won't be having one. If that means not having sex unless I know the person I'm with is on the pill, so be it. There are other ways people, ways she's frankly more likely to get off on anyways

 

There is no reason to kill a unborn child, unless it has the chance of killing a parent. It's hard enough to justify the killing of cows for food and monkeys for shampoo or whatever. But a baby is a HUMAN. And one shouldn't just kill one because one doesn't feel like being pregnant, especially if one just messed around. That's how I feel.

 

But should is not really a legal term. Just ethics which at the end of the day don't seem to mean much these days.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

But should is not really a legal term. Just ethics which at the end of the day don't seem to mean much these days.

On the contrary, this entire debate is about ethics. The ethics of forcing your beliefs on another person without rock-solid evidence.

[Guest EricMM]

Ok granted granted. But what sort of evidence do you need to prove whether or not something is right or wrong?

 

Or to put it another way, how can this abortion issue ever be decided anyways?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

It won't, which is why the Supreme Court refuses to take these cases.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Yeah, I guess in those cases they don't have to jam something into the baby's skull and suck it's brain out.

 

Abortion is barbaric and all forms of it should be banned.

It's precisely when you post blind, disgusting, and hysterical outbursts like this that reasonable people stop listening.

My post was neither blind nor hysterical. It was disgusting... but unfortunately that's exactly what a partial birth abortion is. Obviously, my contention that all abortions should be banned is debatable. However, I can't see how any reasonable person, who may or may not be listening, can allow the partial birth variety to be performed. It is blind to say 3rd, even 2nd, trimester babies are not human. This type of abortion should elicit a hysterical response. And it is a disgusting act.

 

If you claim that abortion IS murder, it is an action (a crime, if you will) taken against the fetus and not the father. As such it cannot be justified even in cases of rape or incest, although imminent danger to a woman's life could be justified on grounds of self-defence.

Exactly. With the exception of the mother's life case, abortion is an all or nothing issue. Making exceptions lessens the gravity of the practice overall. Abortions in cases of rape and incest, which represent 1% of all abortions btw, place culpability on the wrong party.

 

A good case can be made for imminent danger to the mother's life, such as an eptopic pregancy. To those that argue for that position, I say there are other practices that guarantee a woman's safety and still give the baby a chance to survive. Inducing early labor is a perfect example. These practices may end the baby/fetus's life as a side-effect, but the intention is to save the mother. The intention of this type of abortion is to terminate the fetus and save the mother as a by-product.

 

Some may ask what the difference is, since the baby/fetus is most likely not viable anyway. However, assessing viability is very subjective and can easily lead to a domino-effect where babies with birth defects or disabilities are aborted. With no blindness or hysteria whatsoever, it's ridiculous to say, "Well, I couldn't keep my pants on and now I've got some kid that won't be able to walk? Screw it, I don't want to deal with that."

 

I agree that an unborn fetus is living; I do not agree that there is any hard evidence to support the contention that it is a living human being from the moment of conception. Since this is the case I am more than willing to take measures to keep abortions to an absolute minimum pending evidence; however, I will not allow people like you impose your absolute and unproven beliefs on others simply because you believe them strongly.

The only pieces of evidence I can offer for human life at conception are 1) the complete human DNA that a zygote posesses and 2) the fact that humans only produce other humans. Further into a pregnancy more and more evidence begins to mount: brain activity, a heartbeat by at least 7 weeks. And most of these things happen before a woman even finds out she's pregnant.

 

And now the always fun "imposing of beliefs" argument. One of us is inherently imposing our absolute and unproven but strong beliefs on the other... especially in an issue like this, with no middleground. It's very easy for me to argue to you that you shouldn't impose your belief that human sacrifice is wrong on Satanists. In that case, murder should be made legal. The imposing of beliefs argument is always a slippery slope.

 

On the contrary, this entire debate is about ethics. The ethics of forcing your beliefs on another person without rock-solid evidence.

Like aborting a fetus without rock-solid evidence that it isn't human?

[Guest Ripper]

I would like to say that the "Couldn't keep your legs closed so now you want a abortion" line has got to be the dumbest thing that I hear commonly said.

 

Having a child is about more than if your body can take it. If you are not emotionally ready to take on the resposiblity of a child, it is better to not have the child. The same people that bitch and moan about today's society and how parents can't raise kids andhow kids are murders and killers are alot of the time the same ones that say abortion should be outlawed all together. Its all about physical preparation. Anyone here that has EVER had sex with anyone of the opposite sex is just as irresponsible as the women that you are claiming couldn't keep their legs closed. EXACTLY the same. ANYTIME you have sex there is a chance of pregnancy. And please no one show ignorance and say "But I wore a condom blah blah blah" because nothing but abstinance is 100%.

 

So unless you are saying that all non-virgins are irresponsible people that can't keep there legs closed(that includes the men having sex) then that is a ignorant statement. If you are saying that we all are irresponsible, then fine.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

It's very easy for me to argue to you that you shouldn't impose your belief that human sacrifice is wrong on Satanists. In that case, murder should be made legal. The imposing of beliefs argument is always a slippery slope.

Very easy and also very trite and very false. Society has the right to take measures to ensure its viability. Outlawing murder is a perfectly reasonable measure to that end.

 

As for the rest of the argument, I'm more concerned with the lives of actual people who have a past, a history, friends, families, passions, hopes, and fears than a potential person. Call me a baby-killer if you like. It makes no difference. I don't like abortion, and I won't defend it as an action, but I will defend it as a right. And neither you nor anyone on the Bible-thumping right will ever be able to take that right away. Not in the United States.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

If people aren't emotionally ready to have a child, a very real consequence (intended or not) of having sex, they should abstain. They are irresponsible if they use contraception that fails and then don't deal with the consequences of their actions. Oh, and I said "couldn't keep your pants on" which is gender-neutral. It takes two to tango.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Society has the right to take measures to ensure its viability.

Like ensuring the propogation of the species?

 

And neither you nor anyone on the Bible-thumping right will ever be able to take that right away. Not in the United States.

A shame. I never even mentioned God or religion in my post.

 

And I'm Catholic... we're child molesters not bible-thumpers.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

A shame. I never even mentioned God or religion in my post.

Which is why I said "anyone" rather than "anyone else."

 

And I'm Catholic... we're child molesters not bible-thumpers.

I know. <g> So am I.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

OK.

[Guest Ripper]

If people aren't emotionally ready to have a child, a very real consequence (intended or not) of having sex, they should abstain. They are irresponsible if they use contraception that fails and then don't deal with the consequences of their actions. Oh, and I said "couldn't keep your pants on" which is gender-neutral. It takes two to tango.

I'm sorry but that falls in line with the thinking that not giving teens condoms and telling them to abstain is the perfect choice to curb teen pregnancy and diesease.

 

Sure, in a perfect world everyone that isn't ready to have a child should be virgins...well in your eyes at least. But that simply is not the case. When people say the someone not ready for a child should HAVE to raise him/her, then you are putting your morals above the life of the child just as much as anyone having the abortion. So until the Bible thumpers start using all of their ENORMOUS profits supporting under priviledged, under resourced and under prepared families regardless of thier faith, then they shouldn't have a word to say. They just want to stop the abortions, make these unprepared women and men parents and walk away patting each other on the back saying job well done despite the life that has to come into the world with parents that can't raise it properly.

 

As I said, I feel abortion is a case by case matter that no one outside of the doctors and the parents of the unborn child should have the right to decide on. Agree with the issue or not, it you not mine or yours or anyone elses place to tell a person how their life should go.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Ever heard of adoption? Never said they had to raise the kid.

 

And you missed the point. I'm not saying they shouldn't have sex, I'm saying they should accept the consequences of their actions. In a perfect world, the choices we make wouldn't have any negative effects. However, in this world there's cause and effect, actions have consequences. Sex is an adult act with adult consequences. Besides one doesn't have to have intercourse to feel good... there are other ways to please your partner.

 

...you are putting your morals above the life of the child just as much as anyone having the abortion.

Illogical. The abortion causes the child not to have a life above which one can place his morals.

 

Even though I'm not a Bible-thumper, I'll take up their cause. They don't make unprepared women and men parents... unprepared women and men having sex and conceiving a child makes them parents.

[Guest Ripper]

Ever heard of adoption? Never said they had to raise the kid.

 

And you missed the point. I'm not saying they shouldn't have sex, I'm saying they should accept the consequences of their actions. In a perfect world, the choices we make wouldn't have any negative effects. However, in this world there's cause and effect, actions have consequences. Sex is an adult act with adult consequences. Besides one doesn't have to have intercourse to feel good... there are other ways to please your partner.

 

...you are putting your morals above the life of the child just as much as anyone having the abortion.

Illogical. The abortion causes the child not to have a life above which one can place his morals.

 

Even though I'm not a Bible-thumper, I'll take up their cause. They don't make unprepared women and men parents... unprepared women and men having sex and conceiving a child makes them parents.

And you missed the point. I'm not saying they shouldn't have sex, I'm saying they should accept the consequences of their actions. In a perfect world, the choices we make wouldn't have any negative effects. However, in this world there's cause and effect, actions have consequences.

 

And there is the flaw in your reasoning, at least to me. Parenthood should not be entered into seen as a "negative effect" of ones actions. If the child is viewed this way, what kind of life can the child recieve. If you view the child as punishment for irresponsibility, how will the child view him or herself?

 

And if we take EVERY abortion and put EVERY one of those children into foster care and the adoption process, we have a HUGE problem on our hands. Sure it sounds simple, if you don't want your child someone will come right along and scoop him/her up for you, but the amount of children in the system right now prove that it doesn't work like that.

 

If it did, I would be fully on board against adoption. But everyday when I watch the news and some 7 year old kid is chained up in his closet dieing of malnutrition, somebody is beating their children to death with rocks and saying some benevolent force told them to do it or some psycho is shaking thier baby to death because they don't want it there or in the mall calling thier child a "fucking piece of shit" (actually saw this Saturday) , it sickens me. I would rather have had these people not have had the baby at all than having them and treating them like crap and causeing them a lifetime of pain in their few short years.

 

People that don't want children and aren't ready to have children shouldn't be in control of childrens lives.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

People that don't want children and aren't ready to have children shouldn't be in control of childrens lives.

Exactly. Couldn't have said it any better myself.