|
Supreme Court bans "partial-birth" abortions (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
But women do have control of their bodies. |
No, people are passing laws in the US saying, "You cannot have this specific medical procedure"
That specific medical procedure is only for women, not men, just women and a lot of it comes back to the Christians which sway your country's politicians with their influential voting practice and banging away on an old book and it's mostly outdated notions. You really do not want these people influencing and making policy or you'll just end up another repressive secular state, keep the church and state separate. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
No, people are passing laws in the US saying, "You cannot have this specific medical procedure"
That specific medical procedure is only for women, not men, just women and a lot of it comes back to the Christians which sway your country's politicians with their influential voting practice and banging away on an old book and it's mostly outdated notions. You really do not want these people influencing and making policy or you'll just end up another repressive secular state, keep the church and state separate. |
No, a specific form of the procedure is being banned. Unless you decide to wait past the 21st week of pregnancy you're in the clear. Even past that time, only around 15% of abortions are "partial birth."
Besides, there are many elective medical procedures that are "banned." Walk into your doctor's office and ask to have a kidney removed, your appendix taken out or have a colostomy placed with no medical reason. It's not going to happen. There is no medical reason behind the overwhelming majority of partial birth abortions, it's simply the removal of a fetus in order not to have a kid. 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. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
^^ Good point.
Haha, I like how NeoPhono's and Lilith's post are now opening with a "no." :D |
|
|
| Lilith |
| 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. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
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. |
|
|
| Lilith |
| 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. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| 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. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| 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. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| 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? |
|
|
| WM2 |
| 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. |
|
|
| Lilith |
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. |
|
|
|
|
