I love PA... not....

[Serephino]

I'm thinking the whole country has lost its fricken mind.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Sad and funny at the same time.

[Serephino]

https://secure3.convio.net/pn/site/Advocacy?id=2007&page=UserAction&JServSessionIdr004=gwiiasl803.app331b

That's the link for a petition to stop this piece of crap from being passed.  Honestly, if this gets passed, I see each state doing something similar.  I'm anti-abortion for religious reasons, but I strongly support separation of church and state.  It seems like that's going out the window, and I'm very disappointed by that.

[Iniquitous]

You can definitely tell it is an election year. All the loonies have come crawling into the spotlight to push their personal agendas onto the people of this country.

[Shjade]

Honestly, if this gets passed, I see each state doing something similar.

Not a chance. Some states, certainly, but not all. Probably not even the majority.

[Caela]

This is crap! I am personally pro-life but I also don't believe I have the right to legislate MY moral values onto someone else. I am legislatively, pro-choice. I don't in anyone's shoes but my own and since I don't have the means, ability, or desire, to take in and raise every single unwanted child in the whole country I don't see where I, or anyone else, would have that right. I also don't believe the State OR the Church have any place in making my (or anyone else's) medical decisions for me. Those are between myself and my doctor whether it is getting a script for antibiotics or any sort of surgical procedure, which an abortion definitely is.

Why is it that when a woman's uterus is involved, doctor/patient confidentiality goes flying out the window?

[Callie Del Noire]

Why is it that when a woman's uterus is involved, doctor/patient confidentiality goes flying out the window?

Because the tools who write this crap are typically males who want a full on retreat back to the good old days when men wore the pants, women were to stay home (and pregnant) in the kitchen with no right to vote or speak out of turn with their husbands.

[Caela]

Because the tools who write this crap are typically males who want a full on retreat back to the good old days when men wore the pants, women were to stay home (and pregnant) in the kitchen with no right to vote or speak out of turn with their husbands.

Pfffft! Good luck with that! Sadly I think you have a point. Though I think some of it too, is desperation. Most of our "Statesmen" come from my father's or grandfather's generation. I think they look at people my age, and younger, and see that the world will change and are afraid of what we'll do when it's us who take hold of the reins of power. I doubt they think it out that clearly however, or they might make a few different choices.

As it is, my reproductive organs are MINE and I will make the decisions concerning them. IF some man thinks he has the right to make them for me, the I say turnabout is fair play and I'll be making the decisions regarding his penis...the first of which will be it's removal!

[Samael]

It is really hard to believe that this is happening.
As I grew up, I was told to look to the US for progressive thinking and giving us our first rocket cars.
The US was to be who takes us into the future.

Since then it seems parts of it have regressed into the other direction...

[Oniya]

As it is, my reproductive organs are MINE and I will make the decisions concerning them. IF some man thinks he has the right to make them for me, the I say turnabout is fair play and I'll be making the decisions regarding his penis...the first of which will be it's removal!

Preferably in the Lysistrata sense, rather than the Lorena sense.  (Less jail time.)

[Caela]

Preferably in the Lysistrata sense, rather than the Lorena sense.  (Less jail time.)

lmao...No I wouldn't actually take a knife to someone. But hey, if they get to muck with my plumbing I should get to muck with theirs. Since we're talking reproductive organs I think any man that thinks he should have a say in mine, should have to stand there while I make decisions for his. I assure you, I know some excellent surgeons (being a surg. tech. helps there) and after a few testicular removals men would stop trying to tell me what to do with my uterus and ovaries. :D

Yes I know that's extreme and not going to happen, I just get pissed when people think they should have a say in what should be a private decision between myself and my doctor.

[Callie Del Noire]

It is really hard to believe that this is happening.
As I grew up, I was told to look to the US for progressive thinking and giving us our first rocket cars.
The US was to be who takes us into the future.

Since then it seems parts of it have regressed into the other direction...

I think it's being backed by folks who want the public distracted with 'loud' issues while the real 'meat' of policy is being hacked up and our public fails to see how the back room deals are going on..

Sorry my inner cynic is being augmented by my next research paper.

[AndyZ]

One thing confuses me about abortion.  Why is it alright to kill a child in the womb, and a baby who actually survives a failed abortion doesn't always get health benefits in order to try to keep it alive the way a baby naturally born premature would, but it's not alright to kill a child who's out of the womb?

I get that people mistakenly believe it's just a bunch of cells that don't even resemble a person, but that's what the ultrasound disproves.

If people are required to take care of their infants or face jail time, even though it is their own bodies and such, it seems the rules would naturally be the same prenatally.  You can argue that it's not a baby yet, but the entire purpose of an abortion is to kill it before it becomes a baby.  If you expect it to be a miscarriage or such, then unless it's a health risk to the mother, let that run naturally.

I realize there are some cases where it would be necessary, but when people argue that you pull the limbs out but leave the head inside and then suck out the fetus's brains, I think you'd be much better off just inducing an early birth and at least giving the thing a chance at life.

Then again, I have my own very weird concepts on life and death.  I would just figure that abortion is closer to euthanasia than most people think, and it's weird to me that many people alright with abortion object to suicide.  At least with suicide, it's the dying person's option, and they had a chance at life.

[Iniquitous]

I get that people mistakenly believe it's just a bunch of cells that don't even resemble a person, but that's what the ultrasound disproves.

Mistakenly? Most abortions occur early in the pregnancy where the zygote IS a clump of cells. It's around the 8th week of pregnancy that it becomes a fetus but it still does not resemble a baby. It looks like a peanut and on an ultrasound screen, it will look like a snowy blob. It isn't until sometime around 12 weeks that it starts looking more like a baby.

The point is - forcing an ultrasound, especially before roughly 12 weeks, is not only stupid - it's invasive. It's state sanctioned rape imho.

[Callie Del Noire]

One thing confuses me about abortion.  Why is it alright to kill a child in the womb, and a baby who actually survives a failed abortion doesn't always get health benefits in order to try to keep it alive the way a baby naturally born premature would, but it's not alright to kill a child who's out of the womb?

I get that people mistakenly believe it's just a bunch of cells that don't even resemble a person, but that's what the ultrasound disproves.

If people are required to take care of their infants or face jail time, even though it is their own bodies and such, it seems the rules would naturally be the same prenatally.  You can argue that it's not a baby yet, but the entire purpose of an abortion is to kill it before it becomes a baby.  If you expect it to be a miscarriage or such, then unless it's a health risk to the mother, let that run naturally.

I realize there are some cases where it would be necessary, but when people argue that you pull the limbs out but leave the head inside and then suck out the fetus's brains, I think you'd be much better off just inducing an early birth and at least giving the thing a chance at life.

Then again, I have my own very weird concepts on life and death.  I would just figure that abortion is closer to euthanasia than most people think, and it's weird to me that many people alright with abortion object to suicide.  At least with suicide, it's the dying person's option, and they had a chance at life.

You're entitled to your belief AndyZ, as is everyone here. I miss the days where I served to uphold the right to have my fellow citizens believe what they will. Just remember your belief might not measure up to what someone expects.

The problem is this.. You can set definite limits and allow the use of abortion, as well as hopefully more suitable reproductive countermeasures and birth control, or you can let it continue in back alleys and behind closed doors. Where people died.

I look on, personally, abortion as a failure to plan things out for the most part. (some situations can't be avoided.. like rape)

How about this. I knew a couple, both of them were Tay Sachs recessive. That meant that they had a 1 in 4 chance of having their child die painfully before he/she attained their teenage years. Period. End of Story. As a result, along with fertility issues with the father meant that the turned to fertility treatments for a 'safe child' (which they finally got after years of work, suffering).

One of the things he said to me about his own outlook had to do with them early in their marriage. His wife was on the pill but they finally got pregnant. A test revealed that the child was Tay Sachs dominant. For several minutes my freind, and boss, sat there and I could only imagine what he and his wife went through. They knew he was not very fertile even then. That he managed to get her pregnant despite the pill was a miracle. A black one but a miracle still. Do they have the child or not was the hardest thing in the world.

I met his wife, she was a lovely lady. I couldnt imagine how hard it was for her and him to make that decision, even knowing that the child would never live to be an adult, given that his fertility issues were a constant thing.

Then I try to imagine what it would be like to have this loving couple be mandated to have their child paraded before them in this invasive and hateful manner. Knowing that it could the only child they could have ever conceived.

That is mean, hurtful, cruel and vindictive.

I occasionally go to my friend's facebook page to see the picture of their healthy daughter (who was the lucky 1 in 4 that doesnt' have the Tay Sach trait) and know that they are good people and parents.

A law like this.. doesn't make you a better person by rubbing someone's nose in their choices (right or wrong), it's invasive. It's hurtful. It's petty. It is low and vile and totally without compassion for another's issues or life.

That's discounting how you're grossly invading the privacy between doctor and patient.

Consider this. You open the door in one sitaution, where will the next invasion begin?

[Shjade]

I realize there are some cases where it would be necessary, but when people argue that you pull the limbs out but leave the head inside and then suck out the fetus's brains, I think you'd be much better off just inducing an early birth and at least giving the thing a chance at life.

...the hell?

[Serephino]

Yeah, a fetus looks like a blob with a tail until sometime in the second trimester.  I did research on this for my stories and role play to have some accuracy.  It really is cool to look at the pictures and watch it develop from a dot to a baby.

Andy, I do agree with you to a point.  Once a fetus does have a brain and organ systems and what not, I think killing it then is pretty horrific.  In my perfect world there would be a compromise.  If I could write legislation on this I would outlaw abortions after something like 14 weeks, unless of course the mother's well being is threatened, among other exceptions.  Even then, if the baby could be saved I would want the doctors to try.  Women usually find out before then, and if they wanted an abortion they could do it in the early stages.

As much as I don't like it, I concede that there are valid reasons.  Callie's example is one of those.  I wouldn't want to impose a low quality of life on a child.  This bill really is barbaric.  It requires the woman to have a copy of the ultrasound.  It can make a difficult decision so much worse.  Like Callie said, if that woman had to keep an ultrasound of the baby she had to abort, well, that would be torture, especially if she was never able to get pregnant again.

   

[AndyZ]

I'll admit that my posts are more about abortion, euthanasia and moral equivalence than this particular bill.  As such, if you want me to stop posting here, I shall.  I tend to get extremely philosophical, and when you combine that with ADD (and currently being sick), getting off-topic is easy.  However, I think abortion is close enough to the topic in order to keep posting, unless you say otherwise.

The way I personally see matters, I tend to be fully aware of causality.  If I save someone's life, it means that if not for me, that person would die.  By contrast, if I kill someone, I believe that that person would have continued to life were it not for my actions.  Otherwise, killing them would be meaningless.

To that end, in my perspective, if you're killing a fetus, unless you're doing so because you realize that the mother's life is at risk, then you realize that a baby will be born if not for your actions.  If the mother's life is at risk, then you realize that the baby's life isn't certain and are saving the mother.  Trying to claim that aborting the fetus when it may have been a miscarriage anyway does not work in my book, for the same reason that a person may have continued to live and you killed them anyway, or that a bomb may or may not have been triggered and the bomb squad detonates it anyway to make certain of safety.

Now, I understand the reasoning for terminating a fetus with birth defects.  However, I put that in the equivalence with euthanasia.  If someone is going to be born with a terrible disease that in your perspective makes it too terrible for that person to live, then you should accept the equal premise that someone with said disease has the right to commit suicide.

A lot of people don't accept this correlation, and I was hoping that someone could explain why.

The problem is this.. You can set definite limits and allow the use of abortion, as well as hopefully more suitable reproductive countermeasures and birth control, or you can let it continue in back alleys and behind closed doors. Where people died.

I am quite familiar with this premise, but when extending it to equivalent circumstances, I'm not sure it really holds up.

Have you ever heard of female circumcision?  I saw a thing a year or two ago on ABC about how a number of doctors face the dilemma either to perform it or to have their patients go to the Middle East to get it done by in abhorrent conditions and with less qualifications.

Many a dirty cop has said that if they don't accept the bribe, the crook will just find someone else willing to pull some strings.

A hit man can claim that if he doesn't kill people, they'll just hire someone else.

Perhaps it's a lighter shade of gray if performing the act yourself has less abhorrent side effects.  However, doing so changes the act from something terrible which is only best kept for tremendous circumstances, into an act which is commonplace because "everybody does it."

You don't need me to tell you how much trouble we're in solely from things that "everybody" does.

How about this. I knew a couple, both of them were Tay Sachs recessive. That meant that they had a 1 in 4 chance of having their child die painfully before he/she attained their teenage years. Period. End of Story. As a result, along with fertility issues with the father meant that the turned to fertility treatments for a 'safe child' (which they finally got after years of work, suffering).

One of the things he said to me about his own outlook had to do with them early in their marriage. His wife was on the pill but they finally got pregnant. A test revealed that the child was Tay Sachs dominant. For several minutes my freind, and boss, sat there and I could only imagine what he and his wife went through. They knew he was not very fertile even then. That he managed to get her pregnant despite the pill was a miracle. A black one but a miracle still. Do they have the child or not was the hardest thing in the world.

I met his wife, she was a lovely lady. I couldnt imagine how hard it was for her and him to make that decision, even knowing that the child would never live to be an adult, given that his fertility issues were a constant thing.

Then I try to imagine what it would be like to have this loving couple be mandated to have their child paraded before them in this invasive and hateful manner. Knowing that it could the only child they could have ever conceived.

That is mean, hurtful, cruel and vindictive.

I occasionally go to my friend's facebook page to see the picture of their healthy daughter (who was the lucky 1 in 4 that doesnt' have the Tay Sach trait) and know that they are good people and parents.

A law like this.. doesn't make you a better person by rubbing someone's nose in their choices (right or wrong), it's invasive. It's hurtful. It's petty. It is low and vile and totally without compassion for another's issues or life.

That's discounting how you're grossly invading the privacy between doctor and patient.

Consider this. You open the door in one sitaution, where will the next invasion begin?

I don't really like when the government steps in and something HAS to be done.  I'm not a fan of when Republicans do something like this, nor when Democrats force Christian hospitals to pay for such procedures.  Both are extreme views.  However, I realize that when the government redistributes wealth, it's got to put it somewhere.

I'm not really convinced that government programs should be able to withhold funds unless they like what you're doing, but I don't know how you would manage that without things going completely haywire.  However, when the government plays favorites (like how they go after the Christian hospitals but Planned Parenthood still gets public funding), the fact that the government is choosing sides becomes quite obvious.

I'm getting off topic though.

...the hell?

You've really never heard of partial birth abortion?

Under the Intact D&X method, the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[3] Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin, are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus's leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[4] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.[5]

This was a big argument during the 90s; I don't honestly know if it's currently legal in the United States.

Andy, I do agree with you to a point.  Once a fetus does have a brain and organ systems and what not, I think killing it then is pretty horrific.  In my perfect world there would be a compromise.  If I could write legislation on this I would outlaw abortions after something like 14 weeks, unless of course the mother's well being is threatened, among other exceptions.  Even then, if the baby could be saved I would want the doctors to try.  Women usually find out before then, and if they wanted an abortion they could do it in the early stages.

To me, if it's going to have a brain and organ systems, then actions taken to stop it from having them are pretty much the same in some aspect.  It's the same response that if someone is stopping a pregnancy because the baby will have X as a defect, then you realize that it's a causal thing, and unless you also accept euthanasia, you're disproving yourself.

One could argue that euthanasia requires a willing participant as well.  It's very difficult to prove if a person would want to be born.

But yeah, it could just be me.

[Shjade]

The way I personally see matters, I tend to be fully aware of causality.  If I save someone's life, it means that if not for me, that person would die.  By contrast, if I kill someone, I believe that that person would have continued to life were it not for my actions.  Otherwise, killing them would be meaningless.

To that end, in my perspective, if you're killing a fetus, unless you're doing so because you realize that the mother's life is at risk, then you realize that a baby will be born if not for your actions.  If the mother's life is at risk, then you realize that the baby's life isn't certain and are saving the mother.  Trying to claim that aborting the fetus when it may have been a miscarriage anyway does not work in my book, for the same reason that a person may have continued to live and you killed them anyway, or that a bomb may or may not have been triggered and the bomb squad detonates it anyway to make certain of safety.

A baby is likely to be born if not for your actions, sure. On the other hand, a baby hasn't actually been born yet. What currently exists is cell growth inside a person, something that takes place all the time every day and is often altered medically.

I'm not seeing the merit to your position; causality is not, itself, a support for something.

If you're removing a tumor, you realize that a tumor would continue to grow if not for your actions. Does that mean you should leave it alone because your interest in letting it grow takes precedence over the interest of the person in whom it is growing has in removing it? Everything eventually becomes something else. What does that have to do with this decision?

Also, one of your premise examples suggests you may benefit from rethinking your approach to causality and its relevance to action: you mention that killing someone would have no meaning if they would have died anyway, regardless of your actions. That's not necessarily the case. The method, timing, and reason for a person's death all have a dramatic impact on the results. I think you'd agree that if someone were dying in the hospital and their doctor euthanized them, the repercussions would be significantly different than if a family member did the deed, both of which would be significantly different from letting the patient's death come at its own pace from their condition. There are definitive differences in effect for each of these actions, despite the similar cause that would trigger each chain of events. A premise as broad as "he is going to die anyway" does not make all paths toward that destination the same or moot.

Likewise, a baby being born, or a baby not being born - these two things can come about in a wide variety of ways, each with their own considerations and repercussions. Lumping them all together in two massive columns doesn't really do justice to the concept.

[Oniya]

You've really never heard of partial birth abortion?

This was a big argument during the 90s; I don't honestly know if it's currently legal in the United States.

Partial birth abortions are late term (that is, between 15 and 26 weeks) - and they are highly dangerous to the mother as well.  On Nov 5, 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.  The PBA Ban prohibits all partial-birth abortions in the United States except those which are shown to be necessary to preserve the life of the mother. The penalty for performing a partial-birth abortion is a fine and jail time up to 2 years, both of which are levied upon the doctor who performed the procedure. In addition, the father of the fetus and the fetus' maternal grandparents (though not the fetus' mother) may seek damages against the doctor for performing the abortion.

It was challenged in 2007, and was upheld by a vote of 5-4.   Justices Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts voted to uphold the ban, and Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens dissented.

[Callie Del Noire]

Partial birth abortions are late term (that is, between 15 and 26 weeks) - and they are highly dangerous to the mother as well.  On Nov 5, 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.  The PBA Ban prohibits all partial-birth abortions in the United States except those which are shown to be necessary to preserve the life of the mother. The penalty for performing a partial-birth abortion is a fine and jail time up to 2 years, both of which are levied upon the doctor who performed the procedure. In addition, the father of the fetus and the fetus' maternal grandparents (though not the fetus' mother) may seek damages against the doctor for performing the abortion.

It was challenged in 2007, and was upheld by a vote of 5-4.   Justices Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts voted to uphold the ban, and Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens dissented.

So, medical emergencies aside, it's a not relevant point in the abortion debate? If I'm understanding what you posted right?

[Oniya]

Yup.  Some doctors won't even perform them in medical emergencies (I believe the alternative would be an emergency C-section, but I'm not certain on that.)

[AndyZ]

A baby is likely to be born if not for your actions, sure. On the other hand, a baby hasn't actually been born yet. What currently exists is cell growth inside a person, something that takes place all the time every day and is often altered medically.

I'm not seeing the merit to your position; causality is not, itself, a support for something.

If you're removing a tumor, you realize that a tumor would continue to grow if not for your actions. Does that mean you should leave it alone because your interest in letting it grow takes precedence over the interest of the person in whom it is growing has in removing it? Everything eventually becomes something else. What does that have to do with this decision?

Well, with the tumor it's a question of inaction vs. action, as well as certain vs. uncertain outcome.

A person with a tumor may die from it, or may not.  If you remove the tumor, it's because you believe that the person will most likely die, and take preventative steps towards that happening.

Continuing that analogy, a pregnant person may have a baby, or may not.  If you remove the baby, it's because you believe that the person will most likely have a baby, and take preventative steps towards that happening.

If you didn't believe the person's life was at risk, you wouldn't remove the tumor.  Similarly, if you didn't believe that the woman was going to have a baby, you wouldn't abort it.

A tumor has no rights; most would say that a person does.  A fetus becomes a baby becomes a child becomes a teenager becomes an adult.  I just don't see why one transition is more important when all are, if not inevitable, sufficiently expected to induce an abortion.

Also, one of your premise examples suggests you may benefit from rethinking your approach to causality and its relevance to action: you mention that killing someone would have no meaning if they would have died anyway, regardless of your actions. That's not necessarily the case. The method, timing, and reason for a person's death all have a dramatic impact on the results. I think you'd agree that if someone were dying in the hospital and their doctor euthanized them, the repercussions would be significantly different than if a family member did the deed, both of which would be significantly different from letting the patient's death come at its own pace from their condition. There are definitive differences in effect for each of these actions, despite the similar cause that would trigger each chain of events. A premise as broad as "he is going to die anyway" does not make all paths toward that destination the same or moot.

I agree.  I do not feel that the argument of "somebody else will do it if I don't" is acceptable.

Likewise, a baby being born, or a baby not being born - these two things can come about in a wide variety of ways, each with their own considerations and repercussions. Lumping them all together in two massive columns doesn't really do justice to the concept.

Again, I consider this equivalent to euthanasia, and the levels of life and death.

If a baby survives the abortion procedure, we treat it as a normal infant, giving it health care and all such.  Obama voted against this, by the way.  I don't disagree with the law by any means, but to me, this feels more like the Spartan method of seeing if your kid comes back alive in order to really respect him.  We failed to kill it, so therefore it's alive?

To me, the only point that makes sense to claim that another life exists is when, through no further action on your part, a child will exist.  While I agree that birth could be seen as that point due to labor and such, I don't think most people would claim that a nine month old fetus that's fully capable of coming out isn't really a baby until it takes its first breath.

Trying to demarcate a point on the pregnancy when it's actually a baby doesn't seem realistic to me personally.  Do we go by when it looks alive?  When it first gets eyes, a brain, hands?  Without getting into euthanasia topics, a person without such organs (on life support, presumably) is still considered to be a person in many respects.  It's even considered a double homicide if a pregnant woman is murdered.

I really don't know how to explain any better than this.  According to the law, if I fire a bullet at someone and it hits a sheet of bulletproof glass that I didn't see, I've still attempted murder.  If I had successfully committed that act, a person would not be alive who would otherwise be.  The argument that "maybe s/he would die anyway" does not hold for reasons already explained.

Then again, maybe I should just ask if people see any correlation between abortion and euthanasia.  I may be fighting a meaningless argument if people do accept abortion but also agree with euthanasia.  Could I get someone to comment on this part and let me know if I'm crazy for seeing a connection there?

Partial birth abortions are late term (that is, between 15 and 26 weeks) - and they are highly dangerous to the mother as well.  On Nov 5, 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.  The PBA Ban prohibits all partial-birth abortions in the United States except those which are shown to be necessary to preserve the life of the mother. The penalty for performing a partial-birth abortion is a fine and jail time up to 2 years, both of which are levied upon the doctor who performed the procedure. In addition, the father of the fetus and the fetus' maternal grandparents (though not the fetus' mother) may seek damages against the doctor for performing the abortion.

It was challenged in 2007, and was upheld by a vote of 5-4.   Justices Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts voted to uphold the ban, and Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens dissented.

Thank God.  I guess I just didn't hear about it while I was in college.  Thanks for the info.

As a stupid question, though, if a woman elects to get a partial birth abortion, why would she even try to seek damages?  Is this part of the bill just to make absolute certain, or did you add in the bit about the mother not being able yourself for sake of clarity?

[Oniya]

The bit about damages was included in the eHow article that I found by googling 'Legality of partial-birth abortions'.  If you want to review the text of the thing, here's a link to it:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ105/content-detail.html

As for me, the fact that it's illegal in the US makes it a non-issue.  It's already not going to be happening at any clinic, and therefore shouldn't be used as an appeal to emotion.

[AndyZ]

Yeah, I didn't realize that it was illegal now.  Thank you for letting me know ^_^

[Iniquitous]

Well, with the tumor it's a question of inaction vs. action, as well as certain vs. uncertain outcome.

A person with a tumor may die from it, or may not.  If you remove the tumor, it's because you believe that the person will most likely die, and take preventative steps towards that happening.

Continuing that analogy, a pregnant person may have a baby, or may not.  If you remove the baby, it's because you believe that the person will most likely have a baby, and take preventative steps towards that happening.

If you didn't believe the person's life was at risk, you wouldn't remove the tumor.  Similarly, if you didn't believe that the woman was going to have a baby, you wouldn't abort it.

A tumor has no rights; most would say that a person does.  A fetus becomes a baby becomes a child becomes a teenager becomes an adult.  I just don't see why one transition is more important when all are, if not inevitable, sufficiently expected to induce an abortion.

I agree.  I do not feel that the argument of "somebody else will do it if I don't" is acceptable.

Again, I consider this equivalent to euthanasia, and the levels of life and death.

If a baby survives the abortion procedure, we treat it as a normal infant, giving it health care and all such.  Obama voted against this, by the way.  I don't disagree with the law by any means, but to me, this feels more like the Spartan method of seeing if your kid comes back alive in order to really respect him.  We failed to kill it, so therefore it's alive?

To me, the only point that makes sense to claim that another life exists is when, through no further action on your part, a child will exist.  While I agree that birth could be seen as that point due to labor and such, I don't think most people would claim that a nine month old fetus that's fully capable of coming out isn't really a baby until it takes its first breath.

Trying to demarcate a point on the pregnancy when it's actually a baby doesn't seem realistic to me personally.  Do we go by when it looks alive?  When it first gets eyes, a brain, hands?  Without getting into euthanasia topics, a person without such organs (on life support, presumably) is still considered to be a person in many respects.  It's even considered a double homicide if a pregnant woman is murdered.

I really don't know how to explain any better than this.  According to the law, if I fire a bullet at someone and it hits a sheet of bulletproof glass that I didn't see, I've still attempted murder.  If I had successfully committed that act, a person would not be alive who would otherwise be.  The argument that "maybe s/he would die anyway" does not hold for reasons already explained.

Then again, maybe I should just ask if people see any correlation between abortion and euthanasia.  I may be fighting a meaningless argument if people do accept abortion but also agree with euthanasia.  Could I get someone to comment on this part and let me know if I'm crazy for seeing a connection there?

Thank God.  I guess I just didn't hear about it while I was in college.  Thanks for the info.

As a stupid question, though, if a woman elects to get a partial birth abortion, why would she even try to seek damages?  Is this part of the bill just to make absolute certain, or did you add in the bit about the mother not being able yourself for sake of clarity?

I put in bold the part that I am addressing. What you said is not true. Doctors remove benign tumors all the time that do not pose a serious risk to a person's life. The doctor and patient choose to remove it for comfort sake, appearances, etc. If people started protesting the removal of tumors because they are 'alive' and growing, I'd be calling that stupid as well.

The point of the matter is really very simple. There is no reason the government needs to be sticking it's nose in the business of women and their doctors. The government does not stick it's nose into men's medical business right? What this boils down to is a group of people trying to force their beliefs, their morals, onto everyone around them. Yes, I agree that partial birth abortions are horrible and do not need to be done unless it is medically necessary. Beyond that - no one should have a say so in what a woman decides to do with her body. And as Callie said, forcing a woman to go through an unnecessary medical procedure before getting an abortion is traumatic. It's cruel.

P.S. While The Onion is not a real news reporting agency - I think this video pretty much sums it up.

http://www.theonion.com/video/new-law-requires-women-to-name-baby-paint-nursery,14393/

[Shjade]

Well, with the tumor it's a question of inaction vs. action, as well as certain vs. uncertain outcome.

A person with a tumor may die from it, or may not.  If you remove the tumor, it's because you believe that the person will most likely die, and take preventative steps towards that happening.

Continuing that analogy, a pregnant person may have a baby, or may not.  If you remove the baby, it's because you believe that the person will most likely have a baby, and take preventative steps towards that happening.

If you didn't believe the person's life was at risk, you wouldn't remove the tumor.  Similarly, if you didn't believe that the woman was going to have a baby, you wouldn't abort it.

A tumor has no rights; most would say that a person does.  A fetus becomes a baby becomes a child becomes a teenager becomes an adult.  I just don't see why one transition is more important when all are, if not inevitable, sufficiently expected to induce an abortion.

You make large assumptions here. If you remove a tumor, it's because someone came to you to remove a tumor. Most likely your reason for removing it is you're being paid to do so; that it may save a life could also be a motivation, but it's not the sole reason a person will undertake such an action, nor should it be assumed that this is the driving motivation for the action. These assumptions will get you into trouble when trying to discuss action by coloring it with your perception of motive.

A baby is aborted because of a request to have a baby aborted, as a preventative measure for the possibility of birth, not to counteract the guarantee of such; nothing is guaranteed. By your reasoning, you seem to be saying that because the potential for future life is there, life is already there and, moreover, that life is independent of its mother, despite a total inability to live on its own or, indeed, having anything resembling independence or individuality. If you accept that point of view, then any form of birth control prior to conception is equally destructive, killing babies before they've even had a chance to experience being a nerveless, brainless packet of cells growing in a womb.

Even abstinence is outright refusing to assist babies in taking their first breaths, those selfish, murdering bastards with their genital restraint! They're almost as bad as those men and women who kill cancer patients by not going to medical school to become doctors, thereby never gaining the skills they need to treat cancer patients.

Really, how far do you want to go with that kind of argument? It's an extension of pre-crime theorizing; whatever might happen in the future hasn't happened yet. It's nonsensical to act as though it's already tomorrow today. You can't charge an assassin with murder for a planned assassination he was going to execute next week; you charge him with conspiracy to commit murder, probably illegal possession of weapons, etc. You know, things he's actually done.

I agree.  I do not feel that the argument of "somebody else will do it if I don't" is acceptable.

Then why did you essentially support this argument by saying killing someone is meaningless if they were going to die anyway regardless of your actions? If someone else is going to do it even if you don't, then your doing it is similarly meaningless and, as such, there should be no problem doing it, right?

[vtboy]

And as Callie said, forcing a woman to go through an unnecessary medical procedure before getting an abortion is traumatic. It's cruel.

That, and "transvaginal ultrasonic probe" sounds like something brought to us via Roswell, New Mexico.

Just sayin'

[Serephino]

A good point has been brought up.  If you kill a pregnant woman it's double homicide, but the mother can kill it?  Can you really have it both ways?  A fetus is a person when you want it, and not when you don't.  That really irks me.  You can have two women both 20 weeks along, and one gets murdered.  There's outrage, and the murderer gets charged with two murders because technically he killed two people.  The other woman suddenly changes her mind and wants rid of the fetus.  She feels she has the right because since it can't live independent of her it isn't a person.

Somebody really needs to make up their mind.  A tumor really is just a mass of cells.  It's overgrown tissue that will never be anything other than bigger overgrown tissue.  If it's cancer, it will kill the person. If not, it would still keep growing, and possibly cause other health problems by squeezing out other organs.

A fetus slowly becomes a mini human.  It gets a nervous system, organs, a heartbeat, it's own blood supply, eventually can move and react to stimuli.  And eventually it will born and become a person instead of just indefinitely getting bigger and bigger.  And no, a person without one specific organ is not suddenly not a person.  It's the package as a whole.  It's apples and oranges anyway because you're comparing a fetus that hasn't been born to someone who has.

Unfortunately, women get to deal with this because they're the ones who have babies.  I don't think I'm unreasonable with my views.  I don't consider a fetus a baby until it has a functioning nervous system.  That takes several months, and if you've already been pregnant that long....  I understand it's a tough decision for most women, but surely it can be done before that point.

[Shjade]

If you kill a pregnant woman it's double homicide, but the mother can kill it?  Can you really have it both ways?

I can't say I like the way that works either. It leaves things far too ambiguous and adds to the confusion about this whole topic. I figure if we go the route of abortion being okay because of X Y or Z reason disconnecting gestation from birth, then in a situation like the above the murderer shouldn't be charged with double homicide.

He should instead be charged with 1 count of murder and 1 count of illegal/unsolicited/whatever-word-you-want-to-use abortion.

[AndyZ]

Ah, okay, I see the confusion.  I probably shouldn't be trying to post on here after sleep deprivation, so this will be my last post for a while.  Please bear with me as I'll try to catch up before passing out.

You make large assumptions here. If you remove a tumor, it's because someone came to you to remove a tumor. Most likely your reason for removing it is you're being paid to do so; that it may save a life could also be a motivation, but it's not the sole reason a person will undertake such an action, nor should it be assumed that this is the driving motivation for the action. These assumptions will get you into trouble when trying to discuss action by coloring it with your perception of motive.

A baby is aborted because of a request to have a baby aborted, as a preventative measure for the possibility of birth, not to counteract the guarantee of such; nothing is guaranteed. By your reasoning, you seem to be saying that because the potential for future life is there, life is already there and, moreover, that life is independent of its mother, despite a total inability to live on its own or, indeed, having anything resembling independence or individuality. If you accept that point of view, then any form of birth control prior to conception is equally destructive, killing babies before they've even had a chance to experience being a nerveless, brainless packet of cells growing in a womb.

Even abstinence is outright refusing to assist babies in taking their first breaths, those selfish, murdering bastards with their genital restraint! They're almost as bad as those men and women who kill cancer patients by not going to medical school to become doctors, thereby never gaining the skills they need to treat cancer patients.

Really, how far do you want to go with that kind of argument? It's an extension of pre-crime theorizing; whatever might happen in the future hasn't happened yet. It's nonsensical to act as though it's already tomorrow today. You can't charge an assassin with murder for a planned assassination he was going to execute next week; you charge him with conspiracy to commit murder, probably illegal possession of weapons, etc. You know, things he's actually done.

There's a difference between action and inaction, though.  Let me try to explain.

Many would agree that if you see someone drowning in a lake, you should go out and save them.  This implies that via inaction, if you do absolutely nothing, that person will die.  However, this does not require you to stand out by the lake all day to make sure nobody drowns.  That would be an action, voluntarily taking a step towards that end.

On the one hand, you have pretty much certainty of a death if you fail to act.  On the other, you're relegated to the madness of the might-have-beens.

That's probably not a very good explanation, so if need be, I can go further into it when I'm awake.

Then why did you essentially support this argument by saying killing someone is meaningless if they were going to die anyway regardless of your actions? If someone else is going to do it even if you don't, then your doing it is similarly meaningless and, as such, there should be no problem doing it, right?

This was my mistake for the wrong word.  What I meant by "meaningless" would probably be better summed up in "pointless."  If I hated someone, but they were dying already of something and would be dead by the end of the day, I'd watch to make sure they're dead but I wouldn't see any reason to kill them myself just to make sure they know it was me.  Especially when they're going to die anyway.

I was trying to say that the very act in killing someone was to make sure that they're dead.  I didn't mean that it's right and/or moral to kill someone.

Apologies that that was unclear.

I put in bold the part that I am addressing. What you said is not true. Doctors remove benign tumors all the time that do not pose a serious risk to a person's life. The doctor and patient choose to remove it for comfort sake, appearances, etc. If people started protesting the removal of tumors because they are 'alive' and growing, I'd be calling that stupid as well.

You're right, I forgot cosmetic surgery.

She feels she has the right because since it can't live independent of her it isn't a person.

See, there's a bit I have trouble with also, because a baby can't live independently either.  However, a parent is considered to be responsible for their child, to the effect of jail time for negligence and/or abuse.  If you have a child, you're required by law to take care of them.  It would follow that the same would be required for the fetus.

I think I remember stories about a child suing his father because his dad was doing something that knowingly caused birth defects and the child ended up deformed, but I can't remember where or how; it might have just been a fiction story.

I can't say I like the way that works either. It leaves things far too ambiguous and adds to the confusion about this whole topic. I figure if we go the route of abortion being okay because of X Y or Z reason disconnecting gestation from birth, then in a situation like the above the murderer shouldn't be charged with double homicide.

He should instead be charged with 1 count of murder and 1 count of illegal/unsolicited/whatever-word-you-want-to-use abortion.

Very logical.  I like this idea.


Alright, off to bed.  Sorry if this post isn't clear, and a small request: Please don't assume that I'm for the bill just because a lot of things don't make sense to me.  I take a decent amount of pride in being neither Democrat nor Republican.

[Trieste]

A good point has been brought up.  If you kill a pregnant woman it's double homicide, but the mother can kill it?  Can you really have it both ways?

Yes, for the same reason that a woman can have a hysterectomy without facing charges, but someone attacking her and removing her uterus is assault. The difference is in the choice itself. Like it or not, a fetus cannot survive without its mother and is part of her body up until it becomes viable (which, I believe, is at about 23 weeks now). It is, regardless of what you would do, her decision, her body, her choice, her conundrum. If she chooses not to do anything and deliver the baby, well, her choice has lined up with your morality and you can rejoice. If she chooses not to have the baby, it doesn't line up with your morality, but it is still her choice. Her body. Her choice. Period.

Although due to current legislation, it would not be her choice at 20 weeks, as that would already be termed a late-term abortion and therefore it would be illegal. It is her choice up to about 14 weeks.

[Iniquitous]

I have sat and considered how to respond to this without coming across uncivil. I realize everyone has their own opinion and I respect that everyone does.

But, if you are saying in your opinion that life begins when the fetus has a nervous system then you might want to actually look up what time frame that is. Weeks 6 and 7 of pregnancy are when the brain of the fetus forms into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible. It is also the time when tissue forms that become the vertebra.

Now, I don’t know about other women but I can tell you that I did not find out I was pregnant till I was 8 weeks pregnant TWICE. If the time for abortion went by your measure - I would have been denied as soon as I found out.

And you make the assumption that women just up and change their minds about having a child. It comes across as if you are saying women are fickle minded and that an abortion is some easy decision. Now, I am sure there are some women out there that have been very flippant about choosing to have an abortion, but I can tell you the few people I have known that have had abortions struggled with the decision. It was not easy for them and they, to this day, deal with the emotional consequences of that decision.

Trying to make it harder for a woman to have an abortion is flat out wrong. It is cruel. It is nothing more than people being unable to butt out of what is not their business. You* do not get the right to tell me (or any other woman) what I can and cannot do with my body just because you think your morals and beliefs are right. If you do not have a say in whether I have my breasts enlarged or I have my stomach stapled then what in the hell makes you think you have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my reproductive system? When do I get to tell you what you can do with yours?

It is a serious violation of privacy, and while my next example is not as polarizing as abortion, it should make you stop and think for a moment. What if the holier than thou politicians turned their attention to what goes on in your bedroom? What if they suddenly started actually punishing those old, old laws that says anything other than missionary style sex between a man and a woman was illegal and everyone had to have a camera installed in every room of their house to make sure citizens abided by it?

It is the same violation of privacy. The same violation of personal choice. You would not like it at all if people started butting their nose into your sexual life, so why would you think it is okay for you to demand the government to violate the privacy of every single woman?


*For simplicities sake I am using ‘you’ to denote the collective that demand ultrasounds and other harsh measures be implemented. It is in no way meant to signify you personally.

[Serephino]

Again, women have to deal with this because they are the ones that carry the babies.  Their decision effects something that in time will become a living breathing person with feelings.  That's why people have strong opinions and feelings.

I did say I understand it's a difficult decision.  However...  My boyfriend used to work with this one girl.  She got knocked up being an idiot.  At first she was so happy about it.  Then her boyfriend dumped her, and she changed her mind.  One of my boyfriend's aunts used to get pregnant to trap men.  She kept the babies even when the men didn't stay, but I'd be willing to bet there are women out there that won't, just like my boyfriend's coworker, A.  I'm not saying all or most women are like that, but they're out there.  I live next to one.  They use babies as a means to and end, and when it no longer serves their purpose they get rid of it; personal responsibility free.  I won't pretend this doesn't effect my opinion.  After all, we are formed by personal experience.

Also, I used the words fully functioning.  Just because the tissue is there doesn't mean it works.  Movement, which requires working nerves, starts happening at about 15 weeks.  Senses begin to develop at about 23 weeks.  I could've said having a heartbeat, but that happens much earlier.

No, I wouldn't like laws being made about what I can or can't do in my own bedroom.  However, there isn't anything I could possibly do that would kill a potential life, so that's another argument that isn't entirely relevant.  All people have a right to life, otherwise murder would be legal, and the subject of debate is when does a fetus become a person.  The fetus may be inside the woman, but that's kind of how biology works.  If men were the ones having babies, then all of this would effect men.

If you've allowed a fetus to live inside your womb for, say, 18 weeks, you're about halfway done anyway.  I've never said a woman shouldn't have a choice.  I'm saying decide while it's still a clump of cells.  If women aren't fickle and won't change their minds on a whim, why is that so terrible?  It's been said here before most abortions happen in the first trimester anyway.  It may be a woman's body, but eventually a fetus becomes a human body that will live or die depending on what the mother does.  Nothing else a person can do in their own bedroom carries that kind of weight, unless you're saying the decision to have an abortion is as easy as deciding what position to have sex in.

And before anyone jumps on that emotional club, no, I don't believe a woman should be punished for spontaneous miscarriage or an accident.  Accidents happen, and I don't think anyone should be punished for something that is truly an accident.

Something else I wonder... Would I be getting such opposition and outrage if I were a woman with the same opinion?  Would I be judged so harshly?  I have to wonder how many of my female writing partners will dump me because of my opinion.  Though, I'm not against abortion period, only late term abortion.

[Trieste]

It's not about being fickle and changing one's mind on a whim, and I have to admit that characterization of women in that fashion is more than a little asinine. It's largely about the fact that the first 8 weeks are not always enough time to discover that there is a pregnancy. So current legislation is forcing a woman who found out at, say, 10 weeks of pregnancy to make the decision of whether to have an abortion in less than a month. I don't understand how forcing what should be a weighty decision in less time is beneficial to anyone. Perhaps someone can explain that to me.

I did say I understand it's a difficult decision.  However...  My boyfriend used to work with this one girl.  She got knocked up being an idiot.  At first she was so happy about it.  Then her boyfriend dumped her, and she changed her mind.  One of my boyfriend's aunts used to get pregnant to trap men.  She kept the babies even when the men didn't stay, but I'd be willing to bet there are women out there that won't, just like my boyfriend's coworker, A.  I'm not saying all or most women are like that, but they're out there.  I live next to one.  They use babies as a means to and end, and when it no longer serves their purpose they get rid of it; personal responsibility free.  I won't pretend this doesn't effect my opinion.  After all, we are formed by personal experience.

I'm wondering if you'd rather use said child as a punishment? If someone doesn't want personal responsibility, are they really going to make a decent parent? Are you really suggesting - as it appears that you are - that someone be forced to carry a child to term, be forced to raise a child, because they make personal decisions that you don't agree with? And that's supposed to honestly be better for the child?

I mean, really?

Something else I wonder... Would I be getting such opposition and outrage if I were a woman with the same opinion?  Would I be judged so harshly?  I have to wonder how many of my female writing partners will dump me because of my opinion.  Though, I'm not against abortion period, only late term abortion.

I guess it depends on whether or not you feel that your choices and your morality should affect my body. If that is the case, it doesn't matter if you're male, female, other, or all. I think that people who think that what they feel is wrong with regard to their bodies should inform the choices of what others make are overstepping their bounds. Your morality has nothing to do with my choices. Whether you're for or against late term abortions has nothing to do with the conversation I have with my doctor if I find myself with an unwanted pregnancy. Someone else has no business entering into that conversation, at all, whatsoever. It is between me and my doctor. It has nothing, nothing, to do with anyone else unless I choose to include them.

[Iniquitous]

In this matter I do not look at the gender of the person saying it. I say my opinions to male and female alike - an example is my mother who is extremely pro-life. I do respect the opinions of those that are pro-life. I just think that some with extreme views need to step back and ask themselves if they would like having their rights taken away from them the way they want to take them away from pro-choice people.

[Serephino]

It's not about being fickle and changing one's mind on a whim, and I have to admit that characterization of women in that fashion is more than a little asinine. It's largely about the fact that the first 8 weeks are not always enough time to discover that there is a pregnancy. So current legislation is forcing a woman who found out at, say, 10 weeks of pregnancy to make the decision of whether to have an abortion in less than a month. I don't understand how forcing what should be a weighty decision in less time is beneficial to anyone. Perhaps someone can explain that to me.

Before you start calling me asinine, show me where exactly I said all women are like that.  I said they're out there, and I've known a few personally.  Other than that I am done with this conversation because, you know what, it's asinine to call someone asinine over an opinion, especially when you judged it right off, and took it out of context.

[Trieste]

I used the same terminology you did: women. Not 'some' women. Not 'women who were stupid'. You said women. I said women. That's not out of context; that's taking your context and responding to it.

[Serephino]

I'm locking this topic myself before I go from upset to something much worse.

[Trieste]

Probably for the best if you can't bring yourself to step away instead of locking it. In the future, the better option, however, is to step away from the computer and deal with it, rather than locking down an entire conversation. Even staff doesn't do that unless there have been several instances of locking and they haven't worked.