TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Supreme Court bans "partial-birth" abortions
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

^^ Good point.

Haha, I like how NeoPhono's and Lilith's post are now opening with a "no."

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono As I've said before, if there is a medically pertinent reason for an abortion, I don't see where any law can stop it from being performed. What we're dealing with though is an elective procedure that has no overall effect on a woman's health.

Elective? How is having an accident elective?
Like I said, remove the percentage chance of contraceptive failure and then throw it back as a completely deliberate action to have a child. But we don't live in that hypothetical perfect world where accidents never happen and is it really in the best interests of someone's health that someone be lumbered with an accident for the next 18 or however many years and the financial burdens involved of looking after an unwanted child?

By that reasoning we could also just say, someone falling A over T down a flight of stairs and breaking some bones whilst drunk should be denied medical treatment for self inflicted stupidity. They're unlikely to die from a broken bone and they'll be crippled physically and economically for a time, but hey, everyone knows you shouldn't be navigating stairs whilst intoxicated, there's a better than average chance you'll have some kind of 'failure' and fall down them.

The world is full of fools and people who have accidents, why is this specific procedure just being targeted against a small section of the small, foolish and accident prone bit of society?
I mean really! It's just coming down to the fact that it's a halfway measure to appease the christian fundamentalists out there that at least in the good old puritan USA we're not making god angry and in the good old USA, god votes too.


There's a lot of federal judges arguing that it's going against the constitutional right to abortion though, they're a lot more qualified on the matter than any of us when it comes to interpreting the law... more so than the politicians at least
I mean we've got this moron for starters-

quote:

Bush 'pleased' Reacting to the ruling, Bush said that it affirms the progress his administration has made to defend the "sanctity of life." "I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."

Course he's happy, more little soldiers out there to replace the 1000's dying in Iraq, but hey he's only the record holder in the united states (154-155?) for signing state executions too so we should take this idiot seriously about the 'sanctity of life'.

Look, basically if it's alright for your administration to chip away at your constitutional rights then it's hardly my prerogative to argue on behalf of your citizens.
You live there, you live with it. I'm just damn glad I don't.

I think until the pro-life movement gets away from just being (in my view at least) anti-abortion (or anti-Roe v. Wade), they will have no credibility. I watched part of that "March for Life" back in January, and I didn't hear people talking about all of those people (including babies) who've been killed in Iraq. I didn't hear them condemming the death penalty and those who aren't truly guilty on death row. I didn't hear them condemming our nation's poor health care system that turns people away because they just can't afford it (or have no health insurance period). I didn't hear them talk about gun control and violence prevention and how to make us a more peaceful society. And I surely didn't hear them address poverty, one of the reasons why women have abortions (because they just can't afford to take care of the child, provide for him or her). Oh and I didn't hear them talk about the environment and climate change/global warming and the well being of our planet (which in turn means a concern for our health and the survival of our species and other species).

Basically, to me, being pro-life means being pro-life all the way, not just anti-abortion. I will concede I don't like it when those who consider themselves "pro-life" label those who are "pro-choice" as "pro-abortion", but more and more, I see both sides (especially the "pro-life" side) as being single issue. And they fail to see that adoption doesn't always work (there are many orphans who go from foster home to foster home and often are poorly treated, neglected, abused, and in some cases...they die). Until we have a quote un quote "perfect" society (which is impossible) where everyone is "moral" (which is impossible) and there is no poverty, you will have abortion. There was abortions before Roe v. Wade, and there will be after Roe v. Wade.

"Pray" to end abortions (like a bumper sticker I saw on a car today at my new school which is very pro-life..it's Catholic) wont end abortions. Solving the problems, finding the reasons why abortions happen, and perhaps even having more oversight so it isn't used as a means of birth-control (there are contraceptives, which most of the pro-life movement is against, esp the Catholic) is what should be done. Not banning Roe V. Wade, turning abortion doctors and their patients into criminals and forcing them into back-alleys.

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 I didn't hear them condemming the death penalty and those who aren't truly guilty on death row.

Apparently anywhere between 7-10% on death row are actually innocent, old "GWB now with bonus stupidity version 2.0" has a lot of blood on his hands as it is and not just the US, which worries me that he's got a role in deciding things like this because he's just pandering to the christian voters for more support. 2 terms of consecutive idiocy, guess he needs more idiots backing him to stay in.

Lil, read this for me please.

http://archive.salon.com/mwt/featur...oice/index.html

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Elective? How is having an accident elective? Like I said, remove the percentage chance of contraceptive failure and then throw it back as a completely deliberate action to have a child. But we don't live in that hypothetical perfect world where accidents never happen and is it really in the best interests of someone's health that someone be lumbered with an accident for the next 18 or however many years and the financial burdens involved of looking after an unwanted child?

Accident? The pure biological reason for sex is to have the "accident" you're referring to. And as long as sex is "elective," which it is in the case of consensual sex, then the "accident" is elective too. If you don't want to worry about the possibility of having an "accident," electively decide not to have sex. If the possibility of the accident it too great, then don't do it. Even a vasectomy is technically not 100% effective in the case of early sex or spontaneous ductus regeneration. The bottom line is if you're having sex, there's always the chance of getting pregnant, and that's where the responsibility part of sex comes into play.

quote:

By that reasoning we could also just say, someone falling A over T down a flight of stairs and breaking some bones whilst drunk should be denied medical treatment for self inflicted stupidity. They're unlikely to die from a broken bone and they'll be crippled physically and economically for a time, but hey, everyone knows you shouldn't be navigating stairs whilst intoxicated, there's a better than average chance you'll have some kind of 'failure' and fall down them. The world is full of fools and people who have accidents, why is this specific procedure just being targeted against a small section of the small, foolish and accident prone bit of society? I mean really! It's just coming down to the fact that it's a halfway measure to appease the christian fundamentalists out there that at least in the good old puritan USA we're not making god angry and in the good old USA, god votes too.

If the accident means your life or health are in danger, of course you're going to get care. A normal pregnancy does not fall into that category. You can complain about the trials of parenthood or the economic strain a kid may bring, but that's not a health issue. If a drunk falls down the steps and punctures a lung, that "accident" could kill him. If his broken bones are not set properly, he could be physically disabled for life. However, he's not going to get a nose job or liposuction out of the tumble, because those are not health or life preserving procedures needed due to his accident.

Pregnancy is a normal biological function as a result of sex. It's not the same as falling down a flight of steps when you're drunk. The female body is designed to go through pregnancy. A drunk's body is not designed to fall down a flight of steps. Pregnancy may not be a pleasant experience for some mothers, but as I've said, sex is elective, so is pregnancy. And for the record, I have a hell of a lot less sympathy for a drunk falling down the steps or a drunk driver wrapping his car around a telephone pole than I would if it were truly an accidental situation. I guess you could equate a drunk getting hurt to a couple having unprotected sex getting pregnant.

I'll always sympathize with a mother or couple that is having a child under difficult circumstances. I can understand that having a kid in less than ideal situations is difficult. However, that couple made a conscious decision to have sex, and I won't excuse them from the responsibility that goes along with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Oh I don't think it's simple at all. Is life always better than no life, regardless of how short that life is? Or does life have to reach a certain point in order to be preferable to no life? If so, what is it? 10 years? A year? A month? A nanosecond?

0.000000001 > 0.0

And on some level, that difference represents a monumental difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka 0.000000001 > 0.0 And on some level, that difference represents a monumental difference.

If that's the case, then surely we shouldn't preach abstinence. Even if we abort the fetus, at least it got to have some life, rather than never having any at all.

Furthermore, that suggests late-term abortions are actually preferable. Seven months of life is better than three, no?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka 0.000000001 > 0.0 And on some level, that difference represents a monumental difference.

And yet at the same time it also represents an insignificant difference depending on perspective of course.

I would have to say no life. The best part about life is having the chance to experience the various ranges of emotions and creative outlets mankind has discovered. If that is not allowed, there was never a purpose in living.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 Lil, read this for me please. http://archive.salon.com/mwt/featur...oice/index.html

Read it ages ago, do you want me to prepare a rhetorical on crimes and bastard acts (no pun intended) down through the ages perpetrated by men against women?
It'll be quite long, probably in excess of several thousand words and would you actually bother to read it?

Simple fact is, humans can be grubby little mongrels to one another, gender as much as it's played up by writing 'Men are from Mars, Women from Venus' for cheap psuedo-intellectual amusement, are just arseholes to one another for a variety of reasons, but gender has no black and white lines or planetary vagaries and comparisons drawn on it, for being horrible to one another.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Accident? The pure biological reason for sex is to have the "accident" you're referring to. And as long as sex is "elective," which it is in the case of consensual sex, then the "accident" is elective too. If you don't want to worry about the possibility of having an "accident," electively decide not to have sex.

The bottom line is that it isn't practised like animals on Discovery Channel for the purposes of only procreation. Animals function like that, human society doesn't.
Its full of people, old, young, underaged, smart, dumb, thick and thin and under the influence or out of their brains just doing it for their own amusement most of the time and very occasionally, deliberately.
They aren't doing it to have kids the majority of the time and as a society its just something you have to accept that some people just do not have any responsibility.

So the rest of us have to foot the bill!
I don't want to foot a lot of the bill for people to have kids because they screwed up, had an accident or something broke!
I pay a 6 figure tax bill EVERY YEAR and have done since I was 23 which pays for a lot of things and some of those include people falling down stairs and people who have kids on welfare subsidies because they cannot afford the accidents they made. I'll quite happily chip my bit into the social security which my taxes help pay for, for someone to cost $3000 for a once off abortion, rather than spend the next 18 years supporting them to the sum of around $4000 up front, plus around $10k a year so they can be kept out of the gutters, clothed, fed, educated and a roof over their head.

I accept this will happen and will contribute, I can't accept why anyone in their right mind would want MORE of it happening simply because an alternative was denied to them. It's society going arse-backwards into deeper levels of stupidity!

quote:

If the possibility of the accident it too great, then don't do it. Even a vasectomy is technically not 100% effective in the case of early sex or spontaneous ductus regeneration. The bottom line is if you're having sex, there's always the chance of getting pregnant, and that's where the responsibility part of sex comes into play.

Oh no, hands off your reproductive responsibility, we couldn't force that on you now could we to minimise the chances of unwanted kids from whole number percentages of chance, to fractions of a percent chance.

I'm done.
It's your country, 'god bless it' because the 'I logically think' factor seems to be being ignored for the sake of the bible thumpers votes.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Accident? The pure biological reason for sex is to have the "accident" you're referring to. And as long as sex is "elective," which it is in the case of consensual sex, then the "accident" is elective too. If you don't want to worry about the possibility of having an "accident," electively decide not to have sex. If the possibility of the accident it too great, then don't do it. Even a vasectomy is technically not 100% effective in the case of early sex or spontaneous ductus regeneration. The bottom line is if you're having sex, there's always the chance of getting pregnant, and that's where the responsibility part of sex comes into play.

While the pure biological reason for sex is indeed to have that important accident as a species, human kind has gone beyond doing stuff for the sole reason of acting on our primal instincts. Hence the discovery that apart from its use of making babies its also a fun thing to do as are i would guess many other things we do that are remnants of our primal urges that we do today just for fun (that a single one doest come to mind at this moment so i could give an example doesn't mean that there arent any just that im an idiot, ill have to get back to you on that after i get back from work).

In some case abortion would be the responsible thing to do. If you are 18 or under abortion is the most responsible action you cold take. No reason to fuck up your life so early or the unborn baby for that matter. Sure everything could turn out fine but in the real work that doesnt always happen. An ex of mine got pregnant when she was 17 (not mine i swear we broke up a year earlier) and had the baby just after she turned 18. Now i loved that girl, she was fun to be with, smart and hard working. But she did come from what i believe the technical term is a seriously fucked up family. Bringing a child into that family was the most irresponsible thing she could have done but she did it anyway because of her fucked up parents (only the mom actually, her dad ran away some time ago) and her fucked up boyfriend (went ballistic when she told him she didn't want the little bugger, he left her a week after she had the baby mind you).
I haven't seen her for a while after that, more than a year. What i saw then was not the nice smart girl i used to know, but a liquuered up shell of a woman who was forced out of school and into a dead end low pay job to support that stupid kid of hers. By being forced to take responsibility she did the most irresponsible thing she could have, she completely ruined her life and quite possibly the babies life as well and if anyone disagrees with me here im going to ninja kick him in the head (i will fail spectaculary but its the thought that counts)



Fuck fuck fuck im so gonna be late for work...

Just to clarify:

I do not agree with abortion, however, I do not think there should be an outright ban. Even if used as a means of contraception, I do not think they should be banned. However, if you're going into the second half to last third of your pregnancy and then decide to have an abortion, I think it's "too late."

Even if you don't believe a fetus is a human, it is a genetically unique living thing. The closer you get to the end of that 3rd trimester the more human characteristics it gains. By the time a partial birth abortion is performed, it is no different from a premature infant in its basic development other than it is smaller and we don't yet have the technology for it to remain viable outside the uterus. I'm sure that technology will soon be here, and in a horrific few cases of these late-term abortions, the fetus would have been viable outside the mother. (Furthermore, you get into the double standard where the law says a mother killing her fetus is an abortion and legal, whereas if I were to do the same I'd be booked for murder.)

I guess I'm saying that if you don't want to take the responsibility for sex, in this case pregnancy, at least take the responsibility to have an abortion quickly and early.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter If that's the case, then surely we shouldn't preach abstinence. Even if we abort the fetus, at least it got to have some life, rather than never having any at all. Furthermore, that suggests late-term abortions are actually preferable. Seven months of life is better than three, no?

Think you overreached there just a bit. The question was zero life vs. any life, not varying degrees of life--that's an entirely different question and is much more subjective. Anyway, that's just my opinion. Think of it as an extension of "better to have tried and failed than to have never tried at all."

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I just don't see how we can argue that men must take responsibility in the case of a pregnancy, yet be complacent in the event of an unwanted abortion, yet women can opt out of the responsibility when it comes to pregnancy and have the sole decision making power when it comes to abortion. It takes two to tango, and I don't know why it apparently only takes one in the aftermath.

fine, then go and design a reproductive system whereby the male and the female are equal partners in the baby-making transaction, and then ill give you equal rights and responsibilities. until then, youre shit out of luck.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I'll also stick by my original point. 99.9% of people, if given the choice would chose a "rough life" over no life at all. If we had a time machine, and could go back however many years to a person's conception, how many would say "yeah, go ahead, abort me?" I'd even choose a short life over no life.

well, when foetuses have evolved to such an extent to be capable of real thought and answering such complex questions, then we can try out your idea. until then, the unwanted cells are the woman's property, to do with what she wishes.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN fine, then go and design a reproductive system whereby the male and the female are equal partners in the baby-making transaction, and then ill give you equal rights and responsibilities. until then, youre shit out of luck.

Yes, damn you biology, damn you to hell.

I'm sorry that you think women got the short stick on reproductive evolution. No matter what you think it's a non sequitur. Men and women do have equal rights and responsibilities when it comes to making the decision to have sex...I'm asking people to be equally responsible afterwards.

quote:

well, when foetuses have evolved to such an extent to be capable of real thought and answering such complex questions, then we can try out your idea. until then, the unwanted cells are the woman's property, to do with what she wishes.

So by your definition an infant, severely mentally disabled, comatose or the severely senile are also just a bunch of cells since they are incapable of "real thought and answering complex questions?" That's going to rewrite a lot of laws out there. And don't give me the "well, the fetus wouldn't survive outside of the body" line, because an infant wouldn't survive on their own, or any of the other groups I just listed.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Yes, damn you biology, damn you to hell. I'm sorry that you think women got the short stick on reproductive evolution. No matter what you think it's a non sequitur. Men and women do have equal rights and responsibilities when it comes to making the decision to have sex...I'm asking people to be equally responsible afterwards.

no you're not. you're saying men should have equal say in the arrangement, which is just farcical. men don't have equal responsibilities anyway, they can leave whenever they wish. hell, if they decide to leave the country, what exactly can a woman do then? in many nations concepts such as maintenance are quite, quite foreign. so lets not be silly about this shall we?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono So by your definition an infant, severely mentally disabled, comatose or the severely senile are also just a bunch of cells since they are incapable of "real thought and answering complex questions?" That's going to rewrite a lot of laws out there. And don't give me the "well, the fetus wouldn't survive outside of the body" line, because an infant wouldn't survive on their own, or any of the other groups I just listed.

honestly man, you can play the pedantic game as much as you like. knock yourself out, really. as far as i care a child isnt a child til its born. i dont care about foetal suffering or stress or any of the other emotional argument the pro-life side try and muddy the waters with. its part of the woman's body, not unlike a tumour. if she doesn't want it anymore, its none of your business.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN its part of the woman's body, not unlike a tumour. if she doesn't want it anymore, its none of your business.

That's the part I've always felt is utter nonsense. A tumor, or anything else that's part of the body, doesn't exactly have the potential to become a full human being. Note, I avoided the usage of the term life, since that kind of hard to establish. To be specific, at what stage exactly would a [insert prefered term here] qualify to classified as a seperate [still entity dependant on it's mother].

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z To be specific, at what stage exactly would a [insert prefered term here] be qualified to be classified as a seperate entity dependant on it's mother.

when it comes out kicking and screaming.

but seriously, when it comes to drawing lines in the sand regarding the age of the foetus, i am happy to let that decision fall to the medical community. if its ok for them to abort up until the end of the second trimester, then thats ok for me. if they believe "partial-birth" abortions are safer for the mother, then so be it.

im not really into the semantics on this issue, we could go at it forever.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN when it comes out kicking and screaming. but seriously, when it comes to drawing lines in the sand regarding the age of the foetus, i am happy to let that decision fall to the medical community. if its ok for them to abort up until the end of the second trimester, then thats ok for me. if they believe "partial-birth" abortions are safer for the mother, then so be it. im not really into the semantics on this issue, we could go at it forever.

It's not exactly about sematics really, it's simple based on the fact that there's no real way to determine the answer to that, which is why I've always sort of sat on the fence when it comes to this issue. The only case in which I personally have no issues with abortion is when sex isn't consenqual, during the first trimester, and that's really about it. I still don't have an opinion one way or another in other cases since it's hard to draw the line. Obviously I consider the issue, beyond a certain point, to completely irrelevant when it comes to rights of any gender. And that doesn't really have anything to do with my religious views in case your curious, although I'll admit they probably have some effect on a more subconcious level. But it really has more to do with the fact that there's a lot we simply don't know to excersice that choice under any circumstances. Does that make more sense to you?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Does that make more sense to you?

more sense than any post you've ever made

i support a woman's right to control her body, and i leave the details up to the doctors.

i think you should be against the oppressive state legislating against an individual's freedom of choice

i always find it amusing that the NRA lobby and the right-to-lifers tend to be one and the same

quote:

no you're not. you're saying men should have equal say in the arrangement, which is just farcical. men don't have equal responsibilities anyway, they can leave whenever they wish. hell, if they decide to leave the country, what exactly can a woman do then? in many nations concepts such as maintenance are quite, quite foreign. so lets not be silly about this shall we?

I would settle for that a man would have at least some say in the matter and that his point, if valid would have to be considered. After all its his wallet that about to suffer greatly for the next 18 years. Considering thats a damn long time a man should get some say. But if a men will be forced for all eternity to support the little buggers then they should at least have an equal part in the child's life (if they want to of course) if the mother agrees to that or not. I mean seriously, as you describe how some men run out of the country to escape child support, some women keep the kid just to spite the guy that made her pregnant and to get his money while refusing him any contact with the baby. Thats about as fucked up as running away. If a man is forced to pay for the damn thing he might as well get something out of that.

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose I would settle for that a man would have at least some say in the matter and that his point, if valid would have to be considered.

well, what do you propose? how do you legislate for the man having a "say" in the matter? the only logical result of such thinking is for a man to be able to force a woman to carry a baby to term, or have an abortion. neither of which is acceptable.

if a man wants a "say" in the life of his child after birth, then whats what custody is all about. not saying its perfect by any strength of the imagination, but there ARE mechanisms to deal with it.

i am in know way sticking up for women that manipulate men via their biology. but at the moment its just something us guys will have to learn to live with.

remember, dont be a fool! wrap your tool

One thing I love about abortion debates is that people are so boxed in and won't even begin to question the assumptions and conventional pratices that are directly related to the situtation in the first place. The again, I can't expect most people to think outside the box and question the values and culture that's passed down to them.

I'd add two things:

First, using birth is a very crude and inappropriate way of determining when a fetus becomes a human, in my opinion. Premature infants are not born that way, yet we consider them "human" none the less. What we're really saying is that we're allowing technology to determine when a fetus becomes human. The farther we push back the time in which we can maintain a fetus outside of the womb, the farther we push back our definition of human. I think that's an absurd way of doing thing, as one day the entire gestation process will be done artificially. When that happens, then how do we determine what is human and what is not? Each stage of pregnancy will be viable outside the uterus, so is each stage of pregnancy then human? Will abortion then be completely outlawed?

I'd also say the arguing the 9 months of pregnancy on the part of the mother somehow outweighs a lifetime of the loss of a child on the part of a father is a bit callus. I realize the mother is going to sacrifice for 9 months to bring the child to term, but on the other hand you're asking a father to give up a lifetime with a child. You can argue one is purely physical (with some emotional, don't get me wrong) and the other is purely emotional, but I'd be pregnant (if I could) if it meant I was giving a lifetime of parent/offspring "togetherness." That's especially true if I willingly took the steps to get pregnant in the first place.

And if you're wondering, and you're probably not, where I define "human" it's at syngamy. At that point you have a genetically diverse organism that under an undisturbed environment will develop into a human.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.