I think this is a good law, or at least a passable one.

a 24 hour waiting period is not an unreasonable thing to ask of a woman who is about to end a life. I think in some states aborition is illegal altogether? (not sure on this)

I do however think that they should have made an exception in the case of rape or incest.

I also think that linking breast cancer and abortions is needless propaganda.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

I don't see anything wrong with this. It's probably a bit pointless seeing as most women probably would have already thought long and hard about it before committing themselves to having an abortion ("oh look, I'm pregnant. Honey, could you drive me down to the abortion clinic?") so I'm not sure how much difference another 24 hours is going to make.

But still, so long as the material in the booklet is impartial and medically sound, I don't see any harm in it.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith I think this is a good law, or at least a passable one. a 24 hour waiting period is not an unreasonable thing to ask of a woman who is about to end a life. I think in some states aborition is illegal altogether? (not sure on this) I do however think that they should have made an exception in the case of rape or incest. I also think that linking breast cancer and abortions is needless propaganda.

I think in some states it was illegal, but the Roe vs. Wade supreme court case (I think it was in '72) mandated that it be legal in all states. Furthermore it stated that life begins when a baby is born, and not before; Probably one of the most important US supreme court cases of the century. Of course technology has gotten much better since the early 70s, which works in the favor of the anti-abortion people. It allows babies with more severe cases of premature birth to have a chance at survival. I have not seen the pamphlets, so I don't know if they are propaganda or more like a biology textbook.

This will pass...

Lol @ Renegade's satire of the pregnant couple.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I don't see anything wrong with this. It's probably a bit pointless seeing as most women probably would have already thought long and hard about it before committing themselves to having an abortion ("oh look, I'm pregnant. Honey, could you drive me down to the abortion clinic?") so I'm not sure how much difference another 24 hours is going to make. But still, so long as the material in the booklet is impartial and medically sound, I don't see any harm in it.

Well I don't think you have a clear understanding of what goes on at these abortion clinics. Typically they're surrounded by a bunch of religious nuts who protest the clinics, harrass the medical workers, and harrass the women who try to get in. You can imagine what kind of a predicament a woman is in if she's already in a semi-vulnerable state. If a woman gets harrassed by going to a clinic to register, think of the harrassement she'll receieve the next day when she actually goes to get her abortion. I agree with Dave on this one, it's demeaning to assume that a woman can't make a rational choice without taking 24 hours to think things over some more.

I am all for however, the age restriction on abortions unless parental consent is given. That informational pamphlet is a good idea though.

___________________
Retro ...

I'll have to say that I'm on the conservative side with this one, although I'd still be a little bit speculative of what "information" actually is printed on these packets.

I think a life is a life is a life. Babies have the ability to learn even before they are born. Psychologists around the world have proven this. They are a living being. They have a brain and a heart. I cannot understand why anyone would want to kill them, except in the case of rape. Clearly, in a situation of rape, a woman has no choice but to have the baby, and that can alter and inhibit her life forever. In any other situation, however, the woman always has the choice not to have sex. If you are not ready to support a baby, you shouldn't be having sex. And if you are, you should take responsibility for your actions. That means both the father and the mother.

I believe the "pro-choice" view is bullshit on this issue. They say "the woman has a right to chose," but that is ridiculous. Why should anyone have the right to chose whether someone else lives or dies?

I understand that my argument is based solely on the notion that a fetus is a person. While I acknowlege that some may not believe this, I will argue that because it can learn, it is, therefore, a seperate entity, and not part of the woman. At least in the third trimester.

___________________
Tracks that fuel my dreams:

CM - Dream Universe (Marino's Space Mix)
Illuminatus - Hope (Oliver Lieb Remix)
Virtualmismo - Last Train to Universe
Stefano Libelle - Ascension
Magica - Magica (Ibiza Remixx)

quote:

Originally posted by cougar23 I'll have to say that I'm on the conservative side with this one, although I'd still be a little bit speculative of what "information" actually is printed on these packets. I think a life is a life is a life. Babies have the ability to learn even before they are born. Psychologists around the world have proven this. They are a living being. They have a brain and a heart. I cannot understand why anyone would want to kill them, except in the case of rape. Clearly, in a situation of rape, a woman has no choice but to have the baby, and that can alter and inhibit her life forever. In any other situation, however, the woman always has the choice not to have sex. If you are not ready to support a baby, you shouldn't be having sex. And if you are, you should take responsibility for your actions. That means both the father and the mother. I believe the "pro-choice" view is bullshit on this issue. They say "the woman has a right to chose," but that is ridiculous. Why should anyone have the right to chose whether someone else lives or dies? I understand that my argument is based solely on the notion that a fetus is a person. While I acknowlege that some may not believe this, I will argue that because it can learn, it is, therefore, a seperate entity, and not part of the woman. At least in the third trimester.

I guess it all depends on when you believe that a fetus is considered a human being. Although a life is a life is a life? Then according to your arguments we shouldn't be using spermicide since that's killing a life ...

But here's what I don't get about pro-life believers. If you believe that a fetus is a living human being and woman should not have the right to choice then why would you make an exception for a case of rape??? On the one hand, you're establishing that the fetus is a living organism with a right to live that transcends the mother's right to make a choice to bear that fetus, and on the other hand, you are denying that fetus's right to live simply based upon the circumstances of its conception. Does the first fetus have more rights granted to it than the second despite the fact that they are equal in all other respects? The pro-life argument is inconsistent with its own fundamental thesis.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I guess it all depends on when you believe that a fetus is considered a human being. Although a life is a life is a life? Then according to your arguments we shouldn't be using spermicide since that's killing a life ... But here's what I don't get about pro-life believers. If you believe that a fetus is a living human being and woman should not have the right to choice then why would you make an exception for a case of rape??? On the one hand, you're establishing that the fetus is a living organism with a right to live that transcends the mother's right to make a choice to bear that fetus, and on the other hand, you are denying that fetus's right to live simply based upon the circumstances of its conception. Does the first fetus have more rights granted to it than the second despite the fact that they are equal in all other respects? The pro-life argument is inconsistent with its own fundamental thesis.

I guess my stand isn't very parsimonious, but it really boils down to who's responsible. A forced child can pretty much ruin the rest of a woman's life. So why should she have to face the consequences not brought on by herself. Even so, I would much rather see the fetus aborted right away, i.e. in the first trimster, when by no means is is an independent human being. Any other child that is the result of irresponsible sex, I feel that it is the responsibility of the mother and father to take care of it. I see your point, though, but I just can't justify within myself the ending of a human life because some irresponsible people feel it is more convenient.

___________________
Tracks that fuel my dreams:

CM - Dream Universe (Marino's Space Mix)
Illuminatus - Hope (Oliver Lieb Remix)
Virtualmismo - Last Train to Universe
Stefano Libelle - Ascension
Magica - Magica (Ibiza Remixx)

quote:

Well I don't think you have a clear understanding of what goes on at these abortion clinics. Typically they're surrounded by a bunch of religious nuts who protest the clinics, harrass the medical workers, and harrass the women who try to get in. You can imagine what kind of a predicament a woman is in if she's already in a semi-vulnerable state. If a woman gets harrassed by going to a clinic to register, think of the harrassement she'll receieve the next day when she actually goes to get her abortion.

Hmmm.... good point. Never thought of that.

Are these abortion clinic demonstrations that common then?

Cougar23:

quote:

I think a life is a life is a life.

A Fetus = Life.
A Fetus does not = a life.

A Kidney = Life.
A Kidney does not = a life.

It's not an issue of life, it's an issue of personhood. So far as I'm concerned, up until the period where fetus's stand the slightest chance of being able to survive separated from their mother (about 22 - 24 weeks) they do not deserve to be considered a "person" and thus do not deserve the same rights that people do. I don't think that "potentiality" for personhood is a valid argument either, otherwise we'd have to send every boy who's ever masturbated and every girl who's ever menstruated to trial, because, after all, they've killed off living material that had the potential to become a person, didn't they?

quote:

Babies have the ability to learn even before they are born. Psychologists around the world have proven this.

I would suggest only later on in the pregnancy (6 months +) when the fetus is well developed and is approaching the cusp of what we may call personhood. This is a third trimester issue, though, and third trimester abortions are much more contentious for this reason. Do I agree with third trimester abortions then? Only in cases where the fetus is badly malformed (some debilitating conditions cannot be identified until fairly late on in the pregnancy) or where the fetus endangers the life of the mother. Otherwise, the mother would have a hard time convincing me that the abortion isn't something approaching infanticide.

quote:

They are a living being.

They are living, but they are not a being. They do not attain the status of a being until they are capable of surviving independantly of the mother. The fetus is no more deserving of being labelled an independant entity than the appendix is.

quote:

They have a brain and a heart.

The nervous system - from what I can remember from my abortion speach in year 12 - doesn't begin to form until about 18 weeks (the heart slightly earlier). Before this mark, the fetus is no more capable of "feeling" than any other parasitic growth in the body - how can it be considered a person?

quote:

In any other situation, however, the woman always has the choice not to have sex. If you are not ready to support a baby, you shouldn't be having sex. And if you are, you should take responsibility for your actions. That means both the father and the mother.

You aren't a catholic by any chance are you? I think we've gone past the days where sex was merely used for procreational purposes.

Sometimes, even if the couple were being "responsible" with contraceptives and so forth, pregnancies do happen. So, if a couple do have sex and do, inadvertantly, conceive, then what do you propose? Force the woman to have the baby against her will? Even if she is not mentally or finincially capable of caring for it? Do you force the woman to ruin her own life and that of the child just because you're a bit morally sqeamish about the legality of the fetus?

What if the baby is disabled or disformed, requiring lots of attention and astronomical medical fees? Do you force the parents to go through that? If you're not faint of heart, look up "harlequin fetus" in Google (essentially a fetus born with run-away scabies), and tell me that any parent should be forced to give birth to one of these - and this is just one of many similarly grotesque abnormalities that can occur in fetal development. Personally, I think it is far more immoral to force a woman to give birth to a child she does not want or to a child who obviously has no possibility of living a normal, happy life, than it is to abort the pregnancy earlier on.

quote:

I believe the "pro-choice" view is bullshit on this issue. They say "the woman has a right to chose," but that is ridiculous. Why should anyone have the right to chose whether someone else lives or dies?

Aren't we doing that - according to your definition - every time we have sex or masturbate? Deciding whether a baby lives or whether the matter necessary to create a baby dies?

quote:

I understand that my argument is based solely on the notion that a fetus is a person. While I acknowlege that some may not believe this, I will argue that because it can learn, it is, therefore, a seperate entity, and not part of the woman. At least in the third trimester.

What's your stance on abortion pre-tri-semester then?

(Remember, 3rd trimester abortion is illegal virtually everywhere.)

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Cougar23: A Fetus = Life. A Fetus does not = a life. A Kidney = Life. A Kidney does not = a life.

My stance on abortion is generally moderate. I know it is based on what you consider a human. I would hardly consider a kidney a human, so the analogy is invalid. I do however, consider a fetus a human.

quote:

It's not an issue of life, it's an issue of personhood. So far as I'm concerned, up until the period where fetus's stand the slightest chance of being able to survive separated from their mother (about 22 - 24 weeks) they do not deserve to be considered a "person" and thus do not deserve the same rights that people do. I don't think that "potentiality" for personhood is a valid argument either, otherwise we'd have to send every boy who's ever masturbated and every girl who's ever menstruated to trial, because, after all, they've killed off living material that had the potential to become a person, didn't they?

I would say that the time that a fetus becomes a person is a grey area that even I cannot define. This is why I don't believe stongly either way.

quote:

I would suggest only later on in the pregnancy (6 months +) when the fetus is well developed and is approaching the cusp of what we may call personhood. This is a third trimester issue, though, and third trimester abortions are much more contentious for this reason. Do I agree with third trimester abortions then? Only in cases where the fetus is badly malformed (some debilitating conditions cannot be identified until fairly late on in the pregnancy) or where the fetus endangers the life of the mother. Otherwise, the mother would have a hard time convincing me that the abortion isn't something approaching infanticide.

I agree with this.

quote:

They are living, but they are not a being. They do not attain the status of a being until they are capable of surviving independantly of the mother. The fetus is no more deserving of being labelled an independant entity than the appendix is.

It all depends on what you consider living "independently" of the mother. Can a newborn live withoug a mother? Certainly not. The mother is essential to a child's life for quite some time. This essentiality changes during certain periods, but even a newborn cannot survive without the mother or a mother figure (a provider) for many years. You don't suggest killing newborns is ok, just because they can't forge for themselves, do you? Of course not.

quote:

The nervous system - from what I can remember from my abortion speach in year 12 - doesn't begin to form until about 18 weeks (the heart slightly earlier). Before this mark, the fetus is no more capable of "feeling" than any other parasitic growth in the body - how can it be considered a person?

This is not an easy issue, as it is a gradual process. I take a conservative stance since I would rather deal with the responsibility of a child than kill it. I really would.

quote:

You aren't a catholic by any chance are you?

Yes I am.

quote:

I think we've gone past the days where sex was merely used for procreational purposes.

You sure are right. However, sex is a risk. Even from the strictly pragmatic point of view. You deal with the consequences. This belief in me has nothing to do with Catholicism. In case you're wondering, I don't have much confidence in the Church itself. I think it's a joke and a mockery of what Jesus taught. So even though I belive strongly in Jesus, my view ahs more to do with pragmatism than anything else.

quote:

Sometimes, even if the couple were being "responsible" with contraceptives and so forth, pregnancies do happen. So, if a couple do have sex and do, inadvertantly, conceive, then what do you propose?

Well, everyone knows that contreaceptives are not foolproof. They pay for the risks they take. You will never get pregnant it you don't have sex. Every skydiver knows the risks they take, and some die. But they know the risks beforehand, and are willing to pay the consequences.

You can't get pregnant even if you have oral sex. I was not born a Catholic, I learned about it on my own volition. So I didn't have idiotic views forced upon me. But I do believe in the sanctity of intercourse; The act that can produce children. If you are willing to risk having a child, you better damn well trust the other person enough to raise them in a healthy fashion. In my mind, this means love. If you wanna risk having a child, you better believe that you will be able to spend the majority of your life raising it with your partner. This may not be a "cool" view, but it is my view. It is the "dealing with the consequences of your actions" view, which I strongly believe in.

quote:

Force the woman to have the baby against her will? Even if she is not mentally or finincially capable of caring for it? Do you force the woman to ruin her own life and that of the child just because you're a bit morally sqeamish about the legality of the fetus?

You don't think that you should ruin a fetus' life just because the mother might feel squemish about dealing with the consequences of her own actions, do you?

quote:

What if the baby is disabled or disformed, requiring lots of attention and astronomical medical fees? Do you force the parents to go through that? If you're not faint of heart, look up "harlequin fetus" in Google (essentially a fetus born with run-away scabies), and tell me that any parent should be forced to give birth to one of these - and this is just one of many similarly grotesque abnormalities that can occur in fetal development. Personally, I think it is far more immoral to force a woman to give birth to a child she does not want or to a child who obviously has no possibility of living a normal, happy life, than it is to abort the pregnancy earlier on.

This is a seperate moral issue. I believe in abortion if it will spare pain for both the mother and the baby. Of course, this is another grey area, but as I said, my stance is not very parsimonious.

quote:

Aren't we doing that - according to your definition - every time we have sex or masturbate? Deciding whether a baby lives or whether the matter necessary to create a baby dies?

There is no risk of having a baby during masturbation, nor is ther for manual or oral sex. I don't have any problem with any of these behaviors, even sex. I really think that people can do what they want, as long as they deal with the consequences. Abortion is trying to shove the consequences under the rug, though, and I do not agree with it on these grounds.

quote:

What's your stance on abortion pre-tri-semester then? (Remember, 3rd trimester abortion is illegal virtually everywhere.)

Pre-trimester abortions are anoter grey area. I never said my view was balck an white. Any abortion that takes place, though, should happen as soon as possible. If I accidentally created a child, though, I could only hope that the mother would be willing to go through the pregnancy, so I could take care of it from then on, to say the least. I would not want my child's life ended, no matter what.

___________________
Tracks that fuel my dreams:

CM - Dream Universe (Marino's Space Mix)
Illuminatus - Hope (Oliver Lieb Remix)
Virtualmismo - Last Train to Universe
Stefano Libelle - Ascension
Magica - Magica (Ibiza Remixx)

um... isnt this unconstitutional, and against doctor/patient rights? also why is it that most men, and a few woman (if any in texas senate) voted on this and not women themselves....

for those people who say they are on the conservative side... thought you people were less government, not more!

Last edited by rizo on May-23-2003 at 06:36

Haha. So true.

States rights? What about individual rights??

It's clearly an anti-abortion bill.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/