NationStates Jolt Archive

Now before I begin let me state one thing, I believe myself to be a good Catholic and a faithful Christian.

But if this is a human being:
http://home.t-online.de/home/wk.blfd/foetus.jpg

Then so is this:
http://attack22.com/archives/images/heart-illustration.jpg

They are both contain complete genetic codes, they both grow inside human beings and they will fight to stay alive.

God may say "thous shalt not kill", but if we say that a foetus constitutes a human being than every time someone has an arm or leg amputated they have commited murder.

they are both equally unlikely to divide or develop if deprived of a host, as well. you're right on the money, and WOW is it amazing to see a Catholic who thinks like this :).

they are both equally unlikely to divide or develop if deprived of a host, as well. you're right on the money, and WOW is it amazing to see a Catholic who thinks like this :).
It's no doubt amazing to find a Catholic who thinks.

*gigantic applause fills the room*

*some real important guy hands Rotovia a scroll with important writing on it*

Take a bow, Rotovia! :)

I disagree.

A fetus (if it lives) will eventually separate from the host and become a separate, unique person.

On the other hand, I've never heard of a heart deciding to secede from the rest of the body. :p

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

We have adoption agencies, why can't you just drop your child off there? I'm a firm believer in pro-life (except in cases of incest) but i also believe in euthenasia. my philosophy is that everyone should get a chance at life, but once you suck at it; you should die.

Abortion is wrong. Most of the people who use abortion just screwed around and now they're pregnant and they don't want anyone to know.

I am against abortion unless you have been raped, have HIV or something of the like that will cause the baby harm, or if there is something wrong with the pregnancy and mother or the child is at risk of dying.

You took time to create life and just because it's an inconvienicne to you, you want to destroy that?

I'm not saying that the people who believe the opposite are bad people, but just looking at it from a black and white perspective. Life is not black and white all the time, it's grey too. And you have to look at the greys to see some of the more important issues.

Abortion is wrong. Most of the people who use abortion just screwed around and now they're pregnant and they don't want anyone to know.

I am against abortion unless you have been raped, have HIV or something of the like that will cause the baby harm, or if there is something wrong with the pregnancy and mother or the child is at risk of dying.

You took time to create life and just because it's an inconvienicne to you, you want to destroy that?

I'm not saying that the people who believe the opposite are bad people, but just looking at it from a black and white perspective. Life is not black and white all the time, it's grey too. And you have to look at the greys to see some of the more important issues.
It's exactly because this is such a grey issue that we should not ban abortion. Abortion isn't 'wrong' and it isn't 'right'.

Ultimately, what does it have to do with you, the government or anyone else except the father if a woman chooses to dispose of part of her body?

Abortion is possibly the most difficult ethical issue.

I believe that, it should be the choice of the woman, assuming she is of sound mind. If you believe abortion is always wrong, CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE AN ABORTION!!!!

In my case, I am not in a financial position to have a child. Hell, I can't even afford proper pre-natal care to ensure the health of an unborn child, so I can't be sure that I'd give an adoption agency a healthy kid. I would have no choice except abortion if birth control failed. :(

I want to know why most of the Pro-Lifers seem to be men. They use arguments like "it's only nine months", which is bollocks: Nine months is a long time to carry around a child that you do not want and may even physically hate. If a woman resents the unborn child that much there are many, many ways to ensure it was a shitty life - hitting the bottle hard wouldn't give it a good start.

Pro Choice all the way, I'm a man and I've got no say in the matter unless I'm carrying the child.

I want to know why most of the Pro-Lifers seem to be men.

Because you don't talk to enough pro-lifers.

Men are more pro-life then women are, although the margins pretty thin (3-4%).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml
Its a bit dated but on the other hands this debate dosen't change much.

Because you don't talk to enough pro-lifers.

Men are more pro-life then women are, although the margins pretty thin (3-4%).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml
Its a bit dated but on the other hands this debate dosen't change much.
Fair enough: But the last time abortion got mentioned on the news the representative of the pro life side was male, which seems ridiculous.

It's exactly because this is such a grey issue that we should not ban abortion. Abortion isn't 'wrong' and it isn't 'right'.

Ultimately, what does it have to do with you, the government or anyone else except the father if a woman chooses to dispose of part of her body?


Hear hear!
Actually, the fetus is counted as a parasite, since it lives off the woman and does nothing to help her in any way.

It's exactly because this is such a grey issue that we should not ban abortion. Abortion isn't 'wrong' and it isn't 'right'.

Ultimately, what does it have to do with you, the government or anyone else except the father if a woman chooses to dispose of part of her body?
If it were quite certain that a fetus was not a person, then it wouldn't be anyone elses business.

I, however, believe that a fetus is (or might be) a person. It therefore has rights separate from the rights of the mother, and can be no more easily disposed of than a baby, child, or adult can be disposed of.

The life of a person, any person, ought to be protected unless attempting to do so constitutes a direct threat to the life of another person.


If a criminal is on the loose, try to capture the criminal alive unless he/she is threateaning the life of another person (or is likely to do so).
In certain mass casualty situations, it is not humanly possible to save everyone. The principle of triage: Save who you can and let the others die.
For pregnant women: Carry the fetus to term unless complications have developed and the mother is in danger of dying or suffering permanent damage.


Someone might ask questions regarding life vs. quality of life. Those would be harder questions, and I'm willing to yield on the issue if it's something like "The child is likely to develop a dibilitating disability". I am, however, opposed to abortions committed merely because they're convenient.

On a related issue, I disagree with Church doctrine on contraceptives (at least, those contraceptives that do not terminate a fertilized egg). I also disagree with advocates of "abstainence-only" sex education.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

A fetus (if it lives) will eventually separate from the host and become a separate, unique person.
Couldn't the same argument (that of the potential to become a person) also be applied to every drop of sperm. *Resists temptation to derail serious thread by singing a Monty Python song*

Couldn't the same argument (that of the potential to become a person) also be applied to every drop of sperm. *Resists temptation to derail serious thread by singing a Monty Python song*
No, a sperm needs to be fertilized. Having a few million sperms sitting out in a dish won't form anything if they're kept isolated, no matter what the conditions.

No, a sperm needs to be fertilized. Having a few million sperms sitting out in a dish won't form anything if they're kept isolated, no matter what the conditions.

Having a few million week old foetus' sitting out in a dish won't form anything if they're kept isolated, no matter what the conditions...

Having a few million week old foetus' sitting out in a dish won't form anything if they're kept isolated, no matter what the conditions...
Ok let me rephrase it.

If you keep sperm cells nourished and alive, they're not going to turn into a fetus.

If you keep a fetus nourished and alive, wouldn't it turn into a baby, eventually? It would be very hard to accomplish such conditions - replicating the uterus - but if achieved, it would follow the normal path, would it not?

Abortion is a tough debate.

I do not believe there is a "soul" or a "conscious."

I just think we're billions of specialized cells that have joined to form one organism. That being said, since a fetus is also the same thing, it's alive. No one seriously doubts that a fetus is alive, as in a living being. I mean, come on, the fetus has the DNA requirements of being human. It is human, just like a chick inside of an egg is a chicken.

But there's a hell of a lot more to abortion than whether the fetus is alive or not.

Oh, and please stop saying that a fetus can/is a parasite. Although I see where you're getting this from, the fetus is responsible for the continued growth of our species, which can not be a parasite.

Ok let me rephrase it.

If you keep sperm cells nourished and alive, they're not going to turn into a fetus.

If you keep a fetus nourished and alive, wouldn't it turn into a baby, eventually? It would be very hard to accomplish such conditions - replicating the uterus - but if achieved, it would follow the normal path, would it not?

That's very true but at the same time ignores the very reason that abortions are undertaken - the interference with the rights of the woman who has to carry the foetus to term. If a foetus could be removed and brought to full term in a jar then abortions would no longer be an issue...

That's very true but at the same time ignores the very reason that abortions are undertaken - the interference with the rights of the woman who has to carry the foetus to term. If a foetus could be removed and brought to full term in a jar then abortions would no longer be an issue...
Sometimes, but by no means all or even most of the time, it is possible for fetuses to live but instead they're aborted. The bill was passed in Congress to ban this form of abortion, but of course its being fought in the courts right now...

Sometimes, but by no means all or even most of the time, it is possible for fetuses to live but instead they're aborted. The bill was passed in Congress to ban this form of abortion, but of course its being fought in the courts right now...


Aha, your ban on partial birth abortion?
This was a mistake in my opinion but then in the UK this as never been available as an elective procedure (not that it was ever used that way in the US as far as I'm aware).

In the UK, elective abortions are available up until 24 weeks. Cerebral cortex activity begins at about 28 weeks. Abortions where the mother's life may be put in danger or in cases of severe deformity are avaliable past this limit.

I support abortion(unless it's VERY close to when the baby's due. Let's say, oh, 2 or 3 months before the apporximate date of birth). Circumstances change, and what seemed like a good idea several months ago can seem like a bad idea now.
Also, the fetus is in the MOTHER'S body, and it should be a MOTHER who decides what to do with it. Not the government. Not the father. Not a random man who will never have to go through pregnacy. Not a random woman who preaches that little clumps of cells that don't look anything like people until sevearl months have passed ARE people. The MOTHER.

Even if you protest that a fetus is a person and/or that it was a the mother's choice in the first place, what about rape? Failed birth control? Those certainly weren't the mother's choices. The mother's life being put in danger? The fetus possesing a severe problem? Would you rather kill the mother to let another child enter an already over-populated world? Would you want a child with a problem, such as a missing limb or mental retardtion, that the child will suffer from their entire life?

Yea, Im the same way. If you create a life, it has become your responsibility and nothing anyone else says should matter. It would be sad to see a child who is nearing birth be aborted, but it should be the mothers decision no matter what... as long as they can live with it.

Sometimes, but by no means all or even most of the time, it is possible for fetuses to live but instead they're aborted. The bill was passed in Congress to ban this form of abortion, but of course its being fought in the courts right now...

You have obviously been reading anti-choice propaganda. The *only* time a fetus that can be viable outside the womb is aborted in this country is if the woman's life is in danger.

And another thing you have wrong, the ban is not being fought because it isn't a gruesome image, it is being fought because there is no clause that provides for the instance in which the mother's life is in danger.

I believe in abortion, but only until the second trimester, after that, the fetus can survive out of the womb and therefore is more of a being than if it had only been in the womb for a month.

I'm pro-choice. I believe in the right for women to choose. I am not pro-life nor am I pro-abortion. I believe that women have a certain amount of right over whether or not they keep the fetus. But, the line should be drawn after the first trimester.

Speaking of listening to propoganda,

PBAs are a procedure in which a person :

deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus


Moreover, if someone violates the law, due to medical necessity, they can fight it in court :

A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

Although the chances of a partial birth abortion being a medical necessity is none to low, the chances of something wrong happening during the procedure is higher than a normal abortion, and the US Congress as well as many medical associations, aside from those staunchly for the killing of late-term fetuses, have all concluded that PBAs are never medically necessary and in fact are more dangerous to the woman than just giving birth.

abortion is maybe the most ethically wrong thing you can do. killing a potential hero before they are born. even in a rape case, it iis still wrong, what if Martin Luther King Jr. was aborted, or JFK, or Carmen Electra. Our world would suck.

Now before I begin let me state one thing, I believe myself to be a good Catholic and a faithful Christian.

when is the last time you went to conffession? or chruch for that matter?

I believe in the right for women to choose. I am not pro-life nor am I pro-abortion.

I hate that

lets not be pro or anti anything, lets all just be pro-choice

I'm not pro-death penalty, I'm just pro-choice

I'm not pro-war, I'm just pro-choice

I'm not pro-genocide, I'm just pro-choice

through your silence you are a defacto supporter

Moreover, if someone violates the law, due to medical necessity, they can fight it in court :

And possibly go to jail for doing something to save their lives. There should be a specific clause in the law that provides for this, not a "well, you can sue if they try to put you in jail for it."

Although the chances of a partial birth abortion being a medical necessity is none to low, the chances of something wrong happening during the procedure is higher than a normal abortion, and the US Congress as well as many medical associations, aside from those staunchly for the killing of late-term fetuses, have all concluded that PBAs are never medically necessary and in fact are more dangerous to the woman than just giving birth.

I've got news for you: according to Roe v. Wade and every single state law I have looked up, third trimester abortions (which it would pretty much have to be for the fetus to be viable outside the womb) can only be performed if the mother's life is in danger. So saying that it is never a medical necessity is pretty silly.

That's very true but at the same time ignores the very reason that abortions are undertaken - the interference with the rights of the woman who has to carry the foetus to term. If a foetus could be removed and brought to full term in a jar then abortions would no longer be an issue...

if they could do that, that would be superb. it would be a win-win situation, the woman doesn't have to deal with the troubles of childbearing and she still has her genetic material live on.

also, there are reasons for partial birth abortions. take hydrocephallus, it is when the fetal skull swells with fluid, delivery of such a fetus would kill or cripple a woman. it is also used on dead fetuses in place of a cesarian section which has many more complications and risks.

abortion is maybe the most ethically wrong thing you can do. killing a potential hero before they are born. even in a rape case, it iis still wrong, what if Martin Luther King Jr. was aborted, or JFK, or Carmen Electra. Our world would suck.
What if Hitler was aborted, or Stalin, or Musolinni? The odds of aborting someone who would grow up to be great are very low. You might be killing a potential villian. It seems hypocritical that right wingers who oppose abortion usually support wars. Is it ok to kill humans that are indisputably alive and sentient, and not ok to kill a fetus that doesn't even have enought of a frontal lobe to begin to have concious thoughts? And why should a woman suffer 9 months of pregnancy and labor just because some sicko ****ed her up?

I feel that once a fetus starts developing brain waves and concious, sentient thought, it should be considered a human being and not be aborted unless the mother is in danger.

Don't park drunk. Accidents cause people.

oh, and also: third trimester abortions account for less than 1% of all abortions and they are done out of medical necessity.

I hate that

lets not be pro or anti anything, lets all just be pro-choice

I'm not pro-death penalty, I'm just pro-choice

I'm not pro-war, I'm just pro-choice

I'm not pro-genocide, I'm just pro-choice

through your silence you are a defacto supporter
OK, chalk me up as pro-abortion. The label doesn't really matter.

I've got news for you: according to Roe v. Wade and every single state law I have looked up, third trimester abortions (which it would pretty much have to be for the fetus to be viable outside the womb) can only be performed if the mother's life is in danger. So saying that it is never a medical necessity is pretty silly.
If that were true, then this would not have been true. The US Congress came through with many Democrats going across party lines to ban this. That was not the way PBAs were working out, regardless of what you have read. Someone must have found a loophole in the law, because PBAs aren't necessary to save a mother's life. The simple fact is the act of giving birth is taking place during a PBA, the birth does not kill the mother.

And possibly go to jail for doing something to save their lives. There should be a specific clause in the law that provides for this, not a "well, you can sue if they try to put you in jail for it."
If you violate the law, you're going to jail. You can't just have a PBA for fun. If it is medically necessary - extremely doubtful - you can get it appealed, at which point the courts would certainly let you go. If you have a PBA not for a medical emergency, which would be basically every time, then you would be in violation of the law, and should go to jail for having this horrible procedure done.

If that were true, then this would not have been true. The US Congress came through with many Democrats going across party lines to ban this. That was not the way PBAs were working out, regardless of what you have read. Someone must have found a loophole in the law, because PBAs aren't necessary to save a mother's life. The simple fact is the act of giving birth is taking place during a PBA, the birth does not kill the mother.

a partial birth abortion does not involve giving birth...

If you violate the law, you're going to jail. You can't just have a PBA for fun. If it is medically necessary - extremely doubtful - you can get it appealed, at which point the courts would certainly let you go. If you have a PBA not for a medical emergency, which would be basically every time, then you would be in violation of the law, and should go to jail for having this horrible procedure done.

and there are medical reasons for it. stop being so stupid. do you honestly think women are going to sit there and say "i know, i'm through most of this ordeal, i'll just end it with one month to go just for the hell of it."

a partial birth abortion does not involve giving birth...
Yes it does, by the very definition cited from the bill itself, a woman :

"deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus"

and there are medical reasons for it. stop being so stupid. do you honestly think women are going to sit there and say "i know, i'm through most of this ordeal, i'll just end it with one month to go just for the hell of it."
Yes, there are millions of women in America with the ability to bear children, PBAs happened in a small number, its not hard to imagine that people would, due to whatever reason, change their mind and want an abortion at that point.

abortion is maybe the most ethically wrong thing you can do. killing a potential hero before they are born. even in a rape case, it iis still wrong, what if Martin Luther King Jr. was aborted, or JFK, or Carmen Electra. Our world would suck.

Haha.

Sorry for laughing, but thinking like that you could aswell argue for banning condoms etc. They to can hinder a potential hero to be born. Lets breed like bunnies and we will breed more heros, eh?

when is the last time you went to conffession? or chruch for that matter?

If you haven't done neither the last week you can't call yourself a catholic christian, right?

Yes it does, by the very definition cited from the bill itself, a woman :

"deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus"

they take the feet out after they induce labour. generally if the head is swollen to 50 cm in diameter (it's supposed to be 10cm, by the way), that thing is not coming out head first. nor is the head coming out at all in a natural manner without severely injuring or killing the woman attempting to deliver it.

The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first. The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb.

2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including:
- There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.
- The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.
3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:
- The fetus is dead.
- The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
- The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
- The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

this is from www.religioustolerance.com. i have found them to be rather impartial and they check both sides of the story rather than just one as many sites do. there is no mention of elective procedures being done, in fact the site also mentions that states have legislation preventing dilation and extraction procedures from being done electively.

If that were true, then this would not have been true. The US Congress came through with many Democrats going across party lines to ban this. That was not the way PBAs were working out, regardless of what you have read. Someone must have found a loophole in the law, because PBAs aren't necessary to save a mother's life. The simple fact is the act of giving birth is taking place during a PBA, the birth does not kill the mother.

You are making the extremely false assumption that Congress only votes on something if it knows what it is talking about. The members of Congress vote on false information all the time. You know why? Because they are not experts in the area and they listen to whoever comes to talk to them about it (especially if that person tells them what the already want to hear.) Right now, the far-right lobby has a lot of ears and a lot of power (but very little fact in most of the matters they lobby for). So don't assume that just because Congress voted for it, it must be right.

Read the current law. Third trimester abortions can only be performed if the fetus is basically dead or if the woman's life or health is in extreme danger. Second trimester abortions can only be performed under doctor's orders (not just because the woman decides she wants it).

If you violate the law, you're going to jail. You can't just have a PBA for fun. If it is medically necessary - extremely doubtful - you can get it appealed, at which point the courts would certainly let you go. If you have a PBA not for a medical emergency, which would be basically every time, then you would be in violation of the law, and should go to jail for having this horrible procedure done.

Yes, because the courts are always right. They never convict anyone who is innocent and they always let you go when you show you had good reason for what you did. Look, I think our court system is about the best you can get, but it is far from perfect. There should be a clause in any law against a medical procedure for the case in which the patient's life may be in danger if the operation is not carried out.

If the laws were upheld, it would be no problem.

The US Congress has established that PBA is not needed under any circumstances for health reasons. If the fetus is dead, its not really an abortion. Defects and risks to health can be determined much before the tail end of a pregnancy, to subject a fetus, which by this time can already survive out of the womb, to this when it can be avoided is inhumane, which is why they banned the unneccesary procedure.

Defects and risks to health can be determined much before the tail end of a pregnancy

Note that it CAN be. That doesn't mean you always determin them in good time.

The US Congress has established that PBA is not needed under any circumstances for health reasons. If the fetus is dead, its not really an abortion. Defects and risks to health can be determined much before the tail end of a pregnancy, to subject a fetus, which by this time can already survive out of the womb, to this when it can be avoided is inhumane, which is why they banned the unneccesary procedure.

it's the same procedure if the fetus is dead, some women can't get a rotting fetus removed because of legislation that prevents dilation and extraction procedures.
and no, some defects don't show up until the end of a pregnancy:

According to Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology writing in the Arkansas _Times_ a weekly newspaper, "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." Usually not discovered until LATE in the second trimester, "it is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain ... close to two gallons ... of cerebrospinal fluid." (The average *adult* skull is about 7 to 8" in diameter.)
...
Dr. Harrison says the partial birth and the "draining" of the fetus' skull is actually drawing off of this fluid from the brain area of the fetus. The collapsing of the fetal skull is to allow the removal without the brutal rupturing of a woman's uterine passage or necessitating a classic cesarean section that poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies.

http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/hydrceph.html

the fetus wouldn't even survive to gain consciousness in many cases of hydrocephalus, and you want to put a woman to death to deliver something that won't live anyways. aren't you the humanitarian of the year?
and you want to talk about inhumane, take an opening that's only supposed to stretch to about 10 cm (and it's a tough stretch at that) and try to push something 50 cm through it. that's what you'd be forcing some women to do. if that's not cruel, i don't know what is.

If the laws were upheld, it would be no problem.

The US Congress has established that PBA is not needed under any circumstances for health reasons. If the fetus is dead, its not really an abortion. Defects and risks to health can be determined much before the tail end of a pregnancy, to subject a fetus, which by this time can already survive out of the womb, to this when it can be avoided is inhumane, which is why they banned the unneccesary procedure.

The US Congress is not well-trained in medicine. They have no business saying they determined any such thing.

So don't assume that just because Congress voted for it, it must be right.
Of course. Thats why we look at other things, for example the poll done by Medical Economics, in which only 27% of all physicians were for keeping the procedure legal. Among obstretrician-gynecologists, 57% thought it should be banned. http://www.memag.com/be_core/search/show_article_search.jsp?searchurl=/be_core/content/journals/m/data/2002/1011/ethabort.html&title=Abortion%3A+A+right+or+an+outrage%3F&navtype=m&query=abortion

Also from the bill :

Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.

Also

`(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.'.

So its the physicians who are going to be punished, not the women. It clearly states in the bolded part the exception for health.

I am Pro-choice, this is not supporting abortion, it is simply the view that each person can decide on what is right for him or her.

For myself, I couldn't think of killing something growing inside of me. Then again, I'm married, finished school and working. If I was 15 and in high school or financially unstable, I would be afraid of getting pregnant and maybe, it could be argued, not capable to care for a child the way it deserves. I'm not in anyone elses shoes so I won't say abortion is wrong for them.

I may be naive to think it, but I don't think choosing to abort could be an easy decision (or "convienient") for anyone.

I'm not about to judge anyone who has had an abortion, they can judge their situation for themselves, as I have mine.

the fetus wouldn't even survive to gain consciousness in many cases of hydrocephalus, and you want to put a woman to death to deliver something that won't live anyways. aren't you the humanitarian of the year?
What's the basis for this? As far as I can tell, there is none. A woman would never end up dying because of this law. If it was medically necessary, it would be done.

If you haven't done neither the last week you can't call yourself a catholic christian, right?

yeah, that would de-Catholicize you

What's the basis for this? As far as I can tell, there is none. A woman would never end up dying because of this law. If it was medically necessary, it would be done.

not necessarily, some doctors are afraid of breaking the law so they refuse to do the procedure even in the cases where the woman's life is endanger. hell, even when the fetus is dead.

What's the basis for this? As far as I can tell, there is none. A woman would never end up dying because of this law. If it was medically necessary, it would be done.

yes, remeber an abortion is defined as volentarialy taking the life of the baby

if it has to be done to save the mother's life its not an abortion and will still be legal after abortion is outlawed again

not necessarily, some doctors are afraid of breaking the law so they refuse to do the procedure even in the cases where the woman's life is endanger. hell, even when the fetus is dead.
It wouldn't be breaking the law though, thats the thing. Most people don't become abortionists because they don't support abortions.

yes, remeber an abortion is defined as volentarialy taking the life of the baby

if it has to be done to save the mother's life its not an abortion and will still be legal after abortion is outlawed again
And it still is legal for PBAs to occur if the mother's life is in danger.

It wouldn't be breaking the law though, thats the thing. Most people don't become abortionists because they don't support abortions.

i recall reading an article where a woman had a dead fetus inside her for a while because she couldn't find anyone willing to remove it. it was a late term fetus and the doctors didn't want to push their luck with the ban on the procedure.

And it still is legal for PBAs to occur if the mother's life is in danger.

no it's not

because if the mother's life is in danger it doesn't qualify as an abortion and is perfactly legal

i recall reading an article where a woman had a dead fetus inside her for a while because she couldn't find anyone willing to remove it. it was a late term fetus and the doctors didn't want to push their luck with the ban on the procedure.

as the son of doctors in the lawsuit era, chances are the doctors didn't want to push their luck in court

no it's not

because if the mother's life is in danger it doesn't qualify as an abortion and is perfactly legal
Ok. You just said no its not legal, and then ended and said its perfectly legal. I think I'm missing something...

yes, remeber an abortion is defined as volentarialy taking the life of the baby [sub/fetus]

if it has to be done to save the mother's life its not an abortion and will still be legal after abortion is outlawed again

It is an abortion if the fetus is aborted. The reason for it doesn't change the wording. If abortion is made illegal, then any abortion will be illegal.

If you read the bill that was passed, it goes to great lengths to say that this procedure is never medically necessary (despite mentioning evidence to the contrary which Congress decided to ignore). Then, it says that a doctor will not be prosecuted (not that it isn't illegal, just that the doctor won't be prosecuted) if the woman's life is in danger. However, if Congress has stated that the woman's life is never in danger - and it says so in the law, what court is going to side with a doctor that says her life was in danger?

Seems to me like the law should be challenged on the fact that it is contradictory.

It is an abortion if the fetus is aborted. The reason for it doesn't change the wording. If abortion is made illegal, then any abortion will be illegal.

no, it won't

my aunt had a extopic pregnancy aborted in the 30's back when abortion was still illegal

if the baby will kill the mother then abortion will still be permissable

Ok, so I've read these posts and noticed that people have said abortion is wrong / should be illegal, with some exceptions like rape, incest, and life of the mother. So, for the pro-lifers, a few questions...

1. Hoe does one decide that the life of the mother is more valuable than the life of a fetus, especially in a circumstance where either could live if the other dies?

2. If the reason abortion should be illegal is because life is sacred or the state has a vested interest in protecting all life, then why are fetus's that are the result of incest or rape less valuable than those that aren't?

3. If a fetus is the result of incest or rape and is carried to term and born, does the baby become a person then if they weren't a person (could be aborted) before the birth, or whatever other time we pick? Does a fetus that can be aborted under this rule ever become a person whose life is protected, and if so, when?

Oh, and in the interests of full disclosure, I'm pro-choice.

no, it won't

my aunt had a extopic pregnancy aborted in the 30's back when abortion was still illegal

if the baby will kill the mother then abortion will still be permissable

You're right, it will if the law has an exception that says so. If the law just says "All abortions are illegal," then it would mean what it says. If the law were to say "All abortions are illegal unless the life of the mother is in danger," then it would be permissable if the woman's life were in danger. See how we need those little clauses about the health of the mother?

You're right, it will if the law has an exception that says so. If the law just says "All abortions are illegal," then it would mean what it says. If the law were to say "All abortions are illegal unless the life of the mother is in danger," then it would be permissable if the woman's life were in danger. See how we need those little clauses about the health of the mother?

the old laws prohibiting abortion had no such clauses but if the mother's life was still in danger...

Ok, so I've read these posts and noticed that people have said abortion is wrong / should be illegal, with some exceptions like rape, incest, and life of the mother. So, for the pro-lifers, a few questions...

1. Hoe does one decide that the life of the mother is more valuable than the life of a fetus, especially in a circumstance where either could live if the other dies?

2. If the reason abortion should be illegal is because life is sacred or the state has a vested interest in protecting all life, then why are fetus's that are the result of incest or rape less valuable than those that aren't?

3. If a fetus is the result of incest or rape and is carried to term and born, does the baby become a person then if they weren't a person (could be aborted) before the birth, or whatever other time we pick? Does a fetus that can be aborted under this rule ever become a person whose life is protected, and if so, when?

Oh, and in the interests of full disclosure, I'm pro-choice.

#1 - doctors decide that

#2 - I don't know what pro-lifers your talking about but the none that I know think that a baby concived of rape or incest is less valuable that a normal baby

#3 - we don't pick, they were a human life since conception

If you read the bill that was passed, it goes to great lengths to say that this procedure is never medically necessary (despite mentioning evidence to the contrary which Congress decided to ignore). Then, it says that a doctor will not be prosecuted (not that it isn't illegal, just that the doctor won't be prosecuted) if the woman's life is in danger. However, if Congress has stated that the woman's life is never in danger - and it says so in the law, what court is going to side with a doctor that says her life was in danger?

Seems to me like the law should be challenged on the fact that it is contradictory.
Thats a good point, and it probably should be challenged on that. Perhaps they wanted to bring up a challenge so they could revisit the partial term abortion case and get it overturned in the courts, too.

Thats a good point, and it probably should be challenged on that. Perhaps they wanted to bring up a challenge so they could revisit the partial term abortion case and get it overturned in the courts, too.

it was already overturned by some bitchy judge in SF

it wasn't even brough to court

she just woke up one day and said it was unconstitutional

#3 - we don't pick, they were a human life since conception

so identical twins are one human life?

and 50% of all human life is terminated before pregnancy even begins?

that's quite interesting indeed.

If the law were to say that abortion would be illegal except in the case of rape or incest (as the law being challenged in Roe v Wade did) then there is an implication that fetuses that are the result ao rape or incest are somehow less valuable than others, or at least shouldn't have the same protections of the law. Thus, when people propose that abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape or incest, as people on this forum have done, there is an implication that those who are the result of rape or incest are less valuable that others, or at least should not enjoy the same protections.

yes, remeber an abortion is defined as volentarialy taking the life of the baby
I think of "volentarialy" taking the life of a baby to be something along the lines of beheading an infant with a battle axe, not killing something that can't even think. FETUSES ARE NOT BABIES. THEY HAVE NO FRONTAL LOBE AND ARE NOT CAPAPABLE OF INTELLIGENCE BEYOND THAT OF A FRUIT FLY.

How do you establish if it was rape or not? It can't really be a rape unless someone is found guilty for it, right? And now that can surely take some time. I don't know how fast a rapecase would take in the US but I think it wouldn't be over in a week or two, right? And even if he is convicted, and the case goes to a higher instanse to be retryed and there he is guilty, what then? Should you wait that long? And how about the reverse? The guy is found not guilty, it goes to a higher instas and there he is found guilty, what then? And how long wouldn't that take?

I think of "volentarialy" taking the life of a baby to be something along the lines of beheading an infant with a battle axe, not killing something that can't even think. FETUSES ARE NOT BABIES. THEY HAVE NO FRONTAL LOBE AND ARE NOT CAPAPABLE OF INTELLIGENCE BEYOND THAT OF A FRUIT FLY.

agreed that fetuses shouldn't be compaired to babies.

How do you establish if it was rape or not? It can't really be a rape unless someone is found guilty for it, right? And now that can surely take some time. I don't know how fast a rapecase would take in the US but I think it wouldn't be over in a week or two, right? And even if he is convicted, and the case goes to a higher instanse to be retryed and there he is guilty, what then? Should you wait that long? And how about the reverse? The guy is found not guilty, it goes to a higher instas and there he is found guilty, what then? And how long wouldn't that take?

well, what if they can't find the perpetrator?
or what if a defense lawyer latches onto the conviction before abortion thing and uses that as a tactic to keep jurours from voting guilty. if you get a couple pro-life people who don't consider rape to be a reasonable exception, they might choose what would keep the embryo alive in the woman.

well, what if they can't find the perpetrator?
or what if a defense lawyer latches onto the conviction before abortion thing and uses that as a tactic to keep jurours from voting guilty. if you get a couple pro-life people who don't consider rape to be a reasonable exception, they might choose what would keep the embryo alive in the woman.

My point is, that if you are going to have exceptions to the rule, you gotta form a stance to defend it up in every alley it could end up in. Therefor they must think through how it would work in cases like the ones that you and I presented.

Actually, I don't see rape as to be an exception.

when is the last time you went to conffession? or chruch for that matter?
I attended Church last sunday.

she just woke up one day and said it was unconstitutional

I have a hunch there was a liiiiiiittle bit more to it than that.