Abortion...

[lawdog]

Well, we had a thread titled "Rape," so I thought, "Why not an abortion thread?"

Seriously, I just wanted to wonder what everyone thinks of the fact that a bill banning so-called "partial birth abortion" is likely about to pass? For those of you not paying attention, here's what's going on:

The Senate passed 108 S. 3 in late March and last night the House passed H.R. 760. Both purport to ban "the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion" and both make it a federal crime carrying a 2-year sentence for a physician to perform the procedure.

Interestingly, the bill does not contain an exception for the mother's health, only one for instances where her life may be in danger. Why is this interesting? Because three years ago the Supreme Court held that a similar Nebraska law was unconstitutional.

Moreover, while "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term, but rather a politically loaded one, like "pro-choice" or "pro-life," there is arguably some question as to what procedures would be illegal, and what wouldn't. It's typically understood to refer to a procedure known as dilation and extraction, though. This procedure made up one-tenth of 1 percent of the 1.3 million abortions performed in 2000.

Okay, then, let's review:

(1) Congress is passing a bill that directly contravenes very recent Supreme Court precedent, and is almost assuredly unconstitutional under current law.

(2) The bill, even if upheld and enforced, would do very little to reduce the number of abortions performed in the country.

Now, if you'll allow me to be cynical for just a moment: Does it seem to anyone else like this is nothing more than the Republican controlled Congress stirring the pot and trying to rile anti-choice voters in the year before the election? I mean, think about it. There are going to be lawsuits to enjoin this law before the ink* from Bush's signature is dry. It will be stricken in the lower courts, and unless the composition of the Supreme Court changes, or they reverse their position, the lower courts' striking of the law will be upheld by the Supremes as well (assuming they even take the case).

The only thing this law is going to accomplish is to generate litigation, which will make the news. Bill O'Reilly will accuse liberals of wanting to defend a particular nasty variety of abortion, and the Christian right and other lifers will get outraged. Some of them will even be dumb enough (yes, I said dumb enough) to have votes swayed by this.

Say what you will, and flame me if you must, but this law's passage has nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with political grandstanding, and bringing a divisive issue back into play.

P.S. The last CE/P thread I started turned into an absolute pissing contest. What are the odds this one does, too?



* I was going to say something about him signing the bill with a magenta Crayola instead, but that seemed too snooty and liberal elitist.

[watusi]

oh,crap, i'm outta here, this is bound to get ugly.....

[cuddlyevil]

*ducks and covers*

[butter_of_69]

Originally posted by lawdog
and the Christian right and other lifers will get outraged. Some of them will even be dumb enough (yes, I said dumb enough) to have votes swayed by this.

Well, you said it.

I am "pro-choice", but find this wording ridiculous. What else do votes get swayed over, pray tell? Like it or not, this is an issue that rankles many, MANY people, and rightly so. If nothing else, it should put the issue in the minds of other pro-choicers, and encourage them to go to the poll and vote in candidates who will support the right to obtain a safe and legal abortion.

[lawdog]

Well, I don't think it's dumb to be pro-life (although I'm obviously not). I think that people getting all riled up over "partial birth abortion" is dumb. It's a tiny fraction of the abortions performed in this country. It just happens to be a particularly ugly variety of abortion, and one that the anti-choice crowd uses to hoodwink people into believing that all abortions involve crushing the heads of little babies.

So, to clarify:

If the abortion issue sways your vote, I don't think you're dumb.
If this partial birth abortion ban changes your vote, well, then I think that might be a little silly.

You raise an interesting point, though, about the fact that this might rile just as many voters the other way. When you think about it that way, it makes my entire "this is just a political ploy" thesis look, well, dumb. But I don't see how the Republicans can possibly be serious with this bill.

Ah, I should never post about divisive political topics when I'm pissed off (or conscious). Apologies to anyone I offended with the "dumb" comment.

[classicgrrl]

*gone back to hiding behind my pile of half-read sex books*

What can I say...ld is WAY braver than I...

[eurotek1]

i'm kind of afraid to do this, but i guess i will anyway.... i shy away from political discussions round these parts cause my views are so off kilter from the rest of yous guys.

i don't follow politics much, i don't have the patience. but in reply to this:
Well, I don't think it's dumb to be pro-life (although I'm obviously not). I think that people getting all riled up over "partial birth abortion" is dumb. It's a tiny fraction of the abortions performed in this country. It just happens to be a particularly ugly variety of abortion, and one that the anti-choice crowd uses to hoodwink people into believing that all abortions involve crushing the heads of little babies.

i will say that what's the harm in banning something that even pro-choicers think is 'particularly ugly?' if it's wrong and bad, then it's wrong and bad, no matter what the christian right or anybody else says. i guess i just don't care about the motivation behind it. if 'partial birth abortions' are such a small percentage, ok, fine, then nobody will care. nobody will miss them, and maybe a few less babies will die every year (ok there, i said it...yes i am 100% pro-life)

as far as the generation of publicity, litigation, etc... i don't know enough to be able to ponder all of that. which is another reason i generally don't talk politics.

[Orestes]

i must say that i am in 100% agreement with eurotek

[eurotek1]

woah....i never thought anyone would agree with me here!
:D

[lawdog]

Originally posted by eurotek1
i will say that what's the harm in banning something that even pro-choicers think is 'particularly ugly?' if it's wrong and bad, then it's wrong and bad...

Well, because in some cases, it might actually be necessary to preserve a woman's health. Moreover, dilation and extraction may be necessary when the fetus is seriously malformed. I said it was ugly (and it is), but not that it was wrong and bad.

Actually, I think my use of "ugly" reveals quite a bit, though. I hate that abortion is so polarizing, because I think figuring out whether it's right or wrong is extraordinarily complex. I'm troubled by it, but think that everyone (actually, every woman) ought to be able to make the decision on her own.

[eurotek1]

i see your points, ld, but will counter with this.
'when the fetus is seriously malformed.." a malformed person shouldn't live? i'm guessing that's not what you're saying. and i'm also guessing we have fundamentally different views on the meaning/significance of life.

but yah, also the use of 'ugly' was interesting....hmm....

and as for the choice thing....most of the time (read; exceptions in cases of rape/incest) the woman makes the choice to have sex. protection/pills don't always work. the choice is made upon deciding to have sex. it may be my body in which a child is growing, but i don't think that gives me the right to end that kid's life.

i guess i just feel that overall, presently we humans put far too low of a value on life.

[MonkeyGirl]

I am pro-choice, but I never agreed with partial-birth abortions unless the mother's life/health is at risk. My view is, if you're gonna carry the fetus for THAT long, why get an abortion then? My first 5 months were the rough one- constant morning sickness, yada yada. I certainly wouldn't have put up with all that to get an abortion afterwards.
I dunno. I believe in women having reproductive rights and the rights of their body, but I don't believe in getting an abortion as a f*cked up way of birth control (ie, not taking responsibility for one's actions).

[lawdog]

Originally posted by eurotek1
i'm guessing that's not what you're saying. and i'm also guessing we have fundamentally different views on the meaning/significance of life.

No, not really. And yes, probably. :)

Originally posted by eurotek1
i guess i just feel that overall, presently we humans put far too low of a value on life.

You're undoubtedly right on that point, although that extends far further than just to this issue.

Back to the meaning/significance/value of life issue, though...

Does a 'malformed" child deserve to die? (BTW, that word was from a CNN article. I suspect you find it distasteful. So do I). Absolutely not.* However, if a woman is faced with the choice of either:

(1) Having a child who would have tremendous difficulties in life, and perhaps not even live long at all, or,

(2) Not continuing with that pregnancy and having the chance to later have a child that would be "normal,"

...then I can understand her wanting to take choice (2). I'm not saying it's the right choice, and it's not one everyone would make. However, I understand it. I realize that sounds extraordinarily wishy-washy, but it's the best I can do.

Similarly, even if there's nothing wrong with a fetus, I can understand if a woman decided not to continue with a pregnancy because she was not currently at a stage in life at which she was capable or ready to care for a child. Would it be better for her to have an abortion, and then try to have a child again later, when she was more able to care and provide for it, and give it a better life?

I realize that the second scenario is less sypathetic, and a decision to have an abortion in that context could be construed as very selfish. But think about how many kids there are out there whose parents just don't have the emotional, intellectual, or financial means to support them (or worse, whose parents just don't give a damn). Viewed in the harshest possible way, abortion is tragic, but unwanted, uncared for, and unloved children are far more tragic (in my view).

Originally posted by eurotek1
but yah, also the use of 'ugly' was interesting....hmm....


Indeed it was, e-tek, indeed it was. It's something that I struggle with, but because (and not in spite of) the fact that I think abortion poses moral and ethical questions that are very difficult to answer, I think women should have the freedom to work out their own answers.

* Hey, if you're near a library over there in Europe, check out the February 16, 2003 New York Times Sunday Magazine. There's a great article in there by disability rights advocate Harriet McBryde Johnson. Your question reminded me of it.


P.S. E-tek, I think we're going to have to close this thread if we're going to sit here and actually have a rational discussion and not personally attack each other. That sort of thing just isn't done in CE/P. :)

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by lawdog
I think we're going to have to close this thread if we're going to sit here and actually have a rational discussion and not personally attack each other. That sort of thing just isn't done in CE/P. :)

Is that my cue?


The reason this issue is so polarizing is that there are no easy answers and both sides will go to extremes to deny the other side any sort of victory.

I used to be 100% pro-choice, but have gradually come to believe that there should be some restrictions on abortions. Particularly third-trimester abortions, if you go by the criteria that the fetus is viable outside of the womb after that point and, hence, constitutes a "life."

If late-term (partial-birth) abortions represent such a small portion of abortions, then the pro-choice (or is it "anti-life"?... j/k) movement shouldn't have much of a problem with it.

The notion that one should allow late-term abortions of a "malformed" fetus because it will have a difficult life begs the question of why you can't commit infanticide on a full-term "malformed" baby, since it will likewise have a difficult life.

So, we are back to the same old problem of trying to define when life begins.

As for the exclusion of exceptions for cases of the mother's health, I would guess that this is an attempt to close any loopholes. The bill is designed to avoid cases where there is broad interpretation of what "the health of the mother" may mean. So they included an exception for cases where the mother's life is in danger, as it is a more narrow exception.

And isn't history full of instances where certain issues keep going back to court until they pass?

This is a tough issue because it encompasses ethics, morality, religion, health, and, of course, politics. But it's always good for invigorating the populace because so many people have such strong views on it.

[Kittymld]

I'm currently on my 4th pregnancy with 6 weeks left to go. Every pregnancy I've had, I have had all my testing finished by 20 weeks. That including all tests on the baby to determine any malformations or slow developments or anything that looks unusual. I know that most abortion clinics go to 24 weeks, so if you felt the necessity of having an abortion after finding fetal malformations you could easily go to a regular clinic instead of getting too far along and having to have a partial birth. Which I don't know where you would even find one. I will be the first to admit I did have an abortion when I was 19 at 20 weeks. It was my choice and I will always stand by that decision, but my point is that was 6 years ago and I have to drive to Cleveland to have it performed because I couldn't find anyone local to do it that far along. I can't image someone could actually find a doctor that would perform an abortion any further than 24 weeks. And I don't think it's necessary. Nowadays, you can even leave your newborn at the hospital anonomously and it not be a crime because the child will be safe. Having had an abortion, I think they should ban the partial birth. Not very many people get it and not very many doctors perform it. This will just force the people considering abortion to get prenatal care and advise before they get too far along. By the way, I did only have one abortion, one miscarriage, and will soon have my second child. I do believe in women having a choice but I do not approve of it being used as a method of birth control. If you have one mistake, take care of it and take the necessary precautions to make sure it does not happen again. People lie, look out for yourself.

[tobedawg]

There's great points being brought up from every angle of this discussion. This discussion is especially relevant now since there is a debate sparking over the Lacey Peterson case regarding considering a fetus a life with rights.

My parents got married when my mother was pregnant. Due to the conservative upbringing of my mother she married the man who was my "father". He was an asshole who I use to watch beat my mom when I was younger. I went through my youth wishing that I was never born.

Alot of the venoumously anti-choice people are the same people who stand up and scream about how "families should stay together" and that divorce shouldn't be the alternative and condemn women who have children out of wedlock. So what these moral fascists are basically saying is... IF you make a mistake, you have to pay for it the rest of your life...

AND... Abortion is Murder.. Murder is Wrong.. but War is necessary!!

I am not pro-abortion, but I do feel very strongly about a woman's right to choose.

[Huxley]

Originally posted by tobedawg
I am not pro-abortion, but I do feel very strongly about a woman's right to choose.

ok, here is my brief stance on the matter. which will all get back to my original words spoken on my first post in ce/p... "most of the world's problems would be solved if we were a society free of so many judgmental greedy assholes."

I believe a woman does have her right to choose, which she should choose not to get pregnent in the first place. Which, before I offend anyone there, allow me to explain. Most abortions that cause the big ruckus is an unwedded woman has a kid she doesn't want. So she has all these things going on around her of what people have to say about that. I just think people should be more careful when having sex "wrap it before ya tap it," and "just take the pill." Which "that's like 99.9% effective," says Dr. Drew from lovelines).

So since society will never change its asshole ways, be better protected. It's that simple. I wish the world wasn't the way it is but it is. If you fuck up and have a mistake, you fucked up plain and simple. Now, take responsibilities.

In cases of rape or health its ok, but strict limits would have to be eforced.

[solomon]

So here's my take.

I consider myself morally pro-life, but politically pro-choice. I think that the most objective way of defining when someone is human is right at the beginning and thus any taking of the life after that is murder, and everything that goes along with that.

But I don't think it's logistically possible to really stop abortion. You'll just create a black market and open a whole new can of worms. There's not even a record of the person yet. So the way I see it, if you want to go kill your baby, fine. Go do that. But I think you'll get your's someday.

Sol

[cuddlyevil]

I have to applaud you guys, this has to be one of the most civil discussions happening over here--'course, it's early yet and I'm not gonna weigh in beyond saying I believe in a woman's right to choose, it's just not the right choice for me.

[foolsgold]

Wow. Nice discussion guys. No flame bait or name calling!

One thing which has troubled me (and I really like Sol's morally pro-life/politically pro-choice) about abortion is what the alternatives are. I think it is safe to say that no one thinks abortion is a good thing that someone should be doing, but how would you lower abortion rates?

Another thing, I don't know the stats, but I which age group has the most abortions.

[eurotek1]

cuddly; you are right on. i too am really impressed with this thread. i really thought i was going to be standing alone in my opinion, and that i would be ignored or overlooked or whatever. but this thread is interesting, thought-provoking, and polite. coool.

the lack of personal attacks and high level of openness and questioning is really quite impressive. thanks guys, this is enjoyable. it's nice to discuss things with people who have almost opposite viewpoints as i do, but still respect what i believe.

there are so many points in here that could be debated, i'm overwhelmed. i may weigh in again later.....

[DaysWithoutEnd]

I also applaud everyone for keeping such a hot topic so civilized. I recently had this same debate via email with a friend of mine. He is moderately conservative and i am generally pretty liberal.

For the record, I agree with Soloman in that I also think of myself as morally pro-life but legally pro-choice. I think the rights of the mother should come before those of the unborn. It shouldn't be up to the politicians to make that call, although I do admit that late-term abortions are pretty questionable.

Like FoolsGold, I also wonder about the alternatives. My friend says that over 1 million abortions occur each year. He argues that all the children could be adopted. However, my research found that only 20,000 adoptions occur each year. This means that banning abortions would require a 5,000% increase in the number of adoptions each year. Yet, I don't see too many pro-lifers lined up outside of the adoption agencies. It also seems strange to me that many pro-life people are the same conservatives who have no problem cutting programs for children and families.

I guess my overall feeling is that I'll worry about the unborn AFTER we take care of the people that are already here.

[butter_of_69]

Many of you have hit on my main problems with this:

There may be too low a value placed on human life, and I would generally agree with that, but I also feel that people are very intolerant of young people making stupid mistakes, whether it be getting pregnant or committing stupid crimes. I understand the morality involved in the abortion debate (i.e. a fetus is a human life, and is special), but do not believe in it myself. It seems that anti-abortion legislation is another way to legislate morality, a general idea I disagree with.

Those who want to force people to have children who are doomed to a life of mental or physical deformation seem to be unwilling or unable to provide alternate ways for these children to receive care. Wouldn't an increase in these births necessitate an increase in social spending, not the drastic cuts that have taken place in recent years? I find it hard to believe that the same conservatives who advocate both anti-abortion legislation and cuts in social spending will approve of an increase in their taxes to fund the increase in illegitimate births that are forced to take place by Roe being struck down.

[pathogen.b]

Originally posted by butter_of_69
Those who want to force people to have children who are doomed to a life of mental or physical deformation seem to be unwilling or unable to provide alternate ways for these children to receive care.

nor do the same people seem willing to adopt a child in that same situation... or adopt any child for that matter. funny.

[Sovrana]

WOW!!

excellent points! Bravo!

*stands and applauds for you*

[butter_of_69]

Originally posted by rightstarter
I don't think that kids age 5 should be slaughtered.
at the same time, I don't want to care for these 5 year olds who would otherwise be slaughtered.

More faulty logic: 5 year olds and fetuses are not equivalent.

Continue.

[postfeminist]

i'm not sure why i'm weighing in, because what i think has already been said...i gotta agree--i'm a political pro-choicer, and i'll vote that way every time... but i will also say-- it's not the right choice for me. i don't think i could have an abortion, but i'm grateful that the choice is there for the women i have known who chose that, and felt they made the right choice for them...

i'm glad someone posted about adoption stats...i agree--if every child in america who needed a loving safe home had one, i'd say, sure--outlaw abortion.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by DaysWithoutEnd
says that over 1 million abortions occur each year. He argues that all the children could be adopted. However, my research found that only 20,000 adoptions occur each year. This means that banning abortions would require a 5,000% increase in the number of adoptions each year. Yet, I don't see too many pro-lifers lined up outside of the adoption agencies. It also seems strange to me that many pro-life people are the same conservatives who have no problem cutting programs for children and families.

I read an article recently about adoption and SARS, which said there are several thousand adoptions of Chinese children each year to families that can't find babies to adopt in the US, so I think there is still a demand.

But arguing about the practicalities doesn't sway me. If you support abortion you are either saying that life doesn't begin until a baby comes out of the womb, or you are saying that the baby doesn't have any rights -- and by "any rights" I mean it doesn't even have the right not to be murdered.

Originally posted by butter_of_69
There may be too low a value placed on human life, and I would generally agree with that, but I also feel that people are very intolerant of young people making stupid mistakes, whether it be getting pregnant or committing stupid crimes. I understand the morality involved in the abortion debate (i.e. a fetus is a human life, and is special), but do not believe in it myself. It seems that anti-abortion legislation is another way to legislate morality, a general idea I disagree with.

Aren't drunk driving laws an attempt to legislate morality? Moreover, drunk driving by young people can be classified as a stupid mistake, but we don't seek to make it legal, nor do we even excuse the behavior.

If you acknowledge that a fetus is a human life, then you can't say that abortion is not the taking of a human life. So, aren't you actually restricting human rights in this case? Or maybe you're just saying that the mother's rights supercede the rights of the baby, even to the point of having the right to kill the baby.

It's a tough issue, but I haven't been able to find a way to balance the rights of the mother with those of the fetus (which I consider to be a life after the point that it is viable outside the womb). And since favoring the rights of the mother involves the taking of a life, but favoring the rights of the unborn baby does not involve the taking of a life, I ended up believing it's better to favor the rights of the unborn baby.

[IPrayForSound]

Alright...I have a feeling this is gonna be rambly....and repetitious...

I wouldn't want my future child aborted, but that's MY take and I don't expect everyone else to agree. I have no urge to force them to agree. I don't believe life exists without viability. It's perfectly legal (although some may question your sanity) to thwack off your toe or other body part, and until a fetus is viable, I look at it as just another part of your body.

I don't think abortions should be banned. Some types, sure, but there need to be safe procedures available, 'cause you're not going to end them. If people want abortions, they will have abortions. Period.

[butter_of_69]

Originally posted by dcXhc
If you support abortion you are either saying that life doesn't begin until a baby comes out of the womb, or you are saying that the baby doesn't have any rights -- and by "any rights" I mean it doesn't even have the right not to be murdered.

No, the fetus has no rights until it is viable, until it can survive on its own outside the womb. That's another option you did not mention.



Aren't drunk driving laws an attempt to legislate morality? Moreover, drunk driving by young people can be classified as a stupid mistake, but we don't seek to make it legal, nor do we even excuse the behavior.

No, they are an attempt to protect other drivers from the drunk driver.

If you acknowledge that a fetus is a human life, then you can't say that abortion is not the taking of a human life.

Ah, but I'm not. And there's the rub.

You seem to be arguing against all abortions for a while, then at the end, arguing only against partial-birth abortions. I guess I'm confused.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by butter_of_69
No, the fetus has no rights until it is viable, until it can survive on its own outside the womb. That's another option you did not mention.

You seem to be arguing against all abortions for a while, then at the end, arguing only against partial-birth abortions. I guess I'm confused.

I'm saying that the taking of a life is wrong. I'm also saying that since a fetus is viable outside the womb after 24 weeks, abortion shouldn't be allowed after that, as it would be the taking of a life.

If you add the condition that it has to survive on its own, then what about babies that are carried to term but still can't survive on their own? Do we let them die?

I'm not trying to moralize or tell you what to think, I'm just sort of spitting out all the different scenarios and thoughts that I have considered myself and why I believe what I believe.

[butter_of_69]

Originally posted by dcXhc
If you add the condition that it has to survive on its own, then what about babies that are carried to term but still can't survive on their own? Do we let them die?

I think that's up to the parents as to whether or not to put the child on life support. I would let he/she die if that were the course that things seemed to be taking. Living a life of misery and suffering seems cruel to me.

[pathogen.b]

d'oh, i didn't see anything about adoption before i posted. i should probably read all of the posts first. i rule.

(i think you should have to adopt a child before you can place a "it's a child, not a choice" bumper sticker on your car.)

[red embers]

A fetus is another life, not another body part. Yes, it is totally dependent on the mother for survival, but it's wholly dependent on others after birth as well, just to a different degree.

To say you're pro-choice is only half right, because the unborn baby still has no choice whether to live or die.

I hope poeple would look at this issue more objectively and not by party line.

[butter_of_69]

Originally posted by red embers
A fetus is another life, not another body part. Yes, it is totally dependent on the mother for survival, but it's wholly dependent on others after birth as well, just to a different degree.

To say you're pro-choice is only half right, because the unborn baby still has no choice whether to live or die.

I hope poeple would look at this issue more objectively and not by party line.

Sounds like you're looking at it objectively.

And thus the devolution begins. Good night, everyone!

[Sovrana]

personal accounts:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/06/07/late_term/index.html

[Duemellon]

I think the final point of contention regarding this debate is to determine when "life" begins.

We have to define "life"

We have to scientifically demonstrate when this "life" begins

Then we protect it from that point on.

If we consider something alive based on the general definition of life, then we'd better catch every menstrated egg and sperm cell, because they're alive.

As we get more specific with the definition, we start forcing ourselves to include non-sentient, quasi-sentient, organism. I seriously doubt the bulk of pro-lifers are moral vegetarians &/or vegans.

Ah, sentience. The capacity for sentience or the demonstration of sentience? And how to measure it? For me, that's the debate. At the point you are able to comprehend that you are alive, and the implications of being alive, then you are alive. But that's my personal definition.

[Kwyjibo]

Originally posted by pathogen.b


nor do the same people seem willing to adopt a child in that same situation... or adopt any child for that matter. funny.

Since when are people not standing in line to adopt children? last I heard there where thousands of people on waiting lists to adopt children.

Ugh, what an issue. I love the morally pro-life, politically pro-choice thing, that was nice whoever said it. I agree, I don't think the government should be making any ruling on it at all.

I understand it in cases of rape, and health. I'm not sure it's right in these cases, but if the shoe were on my foot I'm not sure what I'd do. I'd like to think that I'd have the child and put it up for adoption in the case of rape. And I'd like to think that I'd be noble in the case of it affecting myself healthwise in an adverse way and take one for the team. I don't know that I'd do either though. Other than that, if you're having risky sex, then you should be able to endure nine months of pregnancy and give the child up. You fucked up, I don't see why you should get to play God and kill a baby.

As for partial birth abortions. Ugly is right! I think this is an entirely different subject than choice/right to life. In this procedure, the child's head and neck are actually passed through the birth canal, the back of the neck is gruesomely opened and the brain is sucked out with a vacuum. The body is then extracted. Tell me how that comes even remotely close to being the same as an early term abortion. Tell me how this procedure changes how the birth process affects the health of the mother. Partial birth abortion my ass, more like pull it out and kill it abortion. That kid has seen the light of day, and obviously had a chance to live, and briefly did. You can't say it was never a life, that kid was born! That kid was outside of the womb. Gross and sick, and it should be outlawed. Go on with your pro-choice/pro-life arguments, but partial birth abortion is a whole different can of worms.

[butter_of_69]

Originally posted by Duemellon
We have to define "life".

We have to scientifically demonstrate when this "life" begins

Then we protect it from that point on.

Ah, sentience. The capacity for sentience or the demonstration of sentience? And how to measure it? For me, that's the debate. At the point you are able to comprehend that you are alive, and the implications of being alive, then you are alive. But that's my personal definition.

I agree with you, but sadly no one will ever agree on this definition. Because at some point, a Pope told his followers that life begins at conception.

Unfortunately, your definition of sentience would allow for killing of retarded people and babies under, oh say, 6 months old.

[Duemellon]

Unfortunately, your definition of sentience would allow for killing of retarded people and babies under, oh say, 6 months old. thank you for noticing. It would also prevent us from being able to kill intelligent dogs, certain computer programs, and let us kill people in comas, or those unable to take the test through being incapacitated regardless if they were once sentient.

Isn't that great having a hard-lined scientific cut-off point where you can say "this is how far my emotions will go, but not past".

No, none of that was a slam versus u, just an illustration of the difficulty of the debate.

[eyeball]

ahhhh celibacy....can be a gir-that-isn't-ready-to-be-a-mom's best friend. Rape is an ugly thing and being pregnant from such an attack can't be any prettier. I can assure you that if I had gotten pregnant when I was 19 when it happened to me (when you leave the bar with 2 people you don't know things can happen. I said no. a lot) I would not have had the child. I don't like partial birth abortions. Its not my place to decide for others though.

to be perfectly honest I wouldn't be able to care for a child now...financially or emotionally. But if I break my pledge of celibacy for a night of fun (protected of course) should I be forced to have a child. No! My box, my choice! I know its not very eloquent but I miss my bumper sticker so I had to type it.