Texas law: Abortion Providers in Texas Could Face Death Penalty

Yeah, so I was a little taken back by this:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/11/181917/671

http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/2005/08/texas-authorizes-death-for-some.html

I tried doing several Google searches, but I’m not finding updated information past September 15 of 2005. I'm suprised the ACLU is jumping up and down over this. Maybe this legislation is on temporary hold due to the Supreme Court decision with New Hampshire's parental notification law?

In case you don’t know, Texas has a law in the works that could mean the death penalty for physicians performing abortions in the third trimester or perform an abortion without parental consent.

My take on this whole matter: I’m not surprised that Texas would do this.
Now I’m pro-life across the board. I don’t support abortion; also I don’t support the death penalty. So I view this as a complete oxymoron.


Abraham Lincoln, when he over heard his secretaries and war cabinet talk about how they hoped to ruthlessly punish the South when the war was over, surprised everyone present by saying that he would love the former rebels as if nothing had ever happen. If you Texans are so hell bent on controlling abortion doctors, then it should be done with methods that do not involve taking someone’s life!

I have a love/hate relationship with Texas. They did a wonderful and generous job with Hurricane Katrina victims, but then they try to pass laws like this. Again, I am pro life, but legislation like this defeats everyone.

What do those of you in the pro life camp think of this legislation? Do you feel that this legislation is represents an extremist way of thinking? Is Texas the pro death state?

And what do you in the pro choice camp think of this legislation?

What do those of you in the pro life camp think of this legislation? Do you feel that this legislation is represents an extremist way of thinking? Is Texas the pro death state?

Murder is already a crime for which the death penalty is an option. They're just being consistent.

I can't wait to be a Texan.

I think any institution which has previously supported the murder of massive numbers of other people on ethnic or racial grounds should be destroyed. Oops, there goes the entire Catholic church.

Or 'accidentally' killing innocent people should be considered manslaughter and people should be prosecuted. But then the entire military currently stationed in Iraq, responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians they were trying to "protect" would have to be prosecuted. (And don't give me that costs of war crap.)

Come on. The above statements are about equal in REASONABLE consideration to this law. If you reasonably support the law, you should support the above (which, if put into action, would probably kill off the law, happily enough).

Just as an aside, I agree with third trimester abortions if the mother's health is significantly at risk. (Though if this law was passed I'd probably leave the woman to die on the table with the kid inside of her, I'm sure people would love that.) Otherwise, I don't really agree with them. But this law is still fubar.

Murder is already a crime for which the death penalty is an option. They're just being consistent.

I can't wait to be a Texan.


I had the feeling someone would say this. :o

Is it actually likely that they would do that to abortion docs? That's just outrageous to think about.

Come on. The above statements are about equal in REASONABLE consideration to this law. If you reasonably support the law, you should support the above (which, if put into action, would probably kill off the law, happily enough).



Can you elaborate on this. Is this one of those "if I support X, I must support Y" arguments we see in philosophy?

Can you elaborate on this. Is this one of those "if I support X, I must support Y" arguments we see in philosophy?

kind of. the reasoning behind this law seems to be "abortion is murder. we give the death penalty for murder. so the people who commit the abortions that we think of as murder deserve the death penalty." i doubt that most people would deny that killing innocent civilians (even accidentally) is allowable, even in the "line of duty." similarly, i doubt people would today support the destruction of entire other races or cultures and deem an institution that ever supported such acts should be put down (just to note, im a christian, i pick on the catholic church because this is fundamentally a christian country and it was the easiest target). both of these have similar lines of reasonings, though the premises might be more generally agreed upon (i.e., it is wrong to kill innocent civilians and it is wrong to support an institution that commits or supports genocide).

another good thing might be to say that anybody who has ever committed any murder should be given the death penalty, no matter what. also if the doctor receives the death penalty for the abortion, then so should the mother and there should be some prosecution of the person who took her to the doctor's office (after all, he/she would be an accomplice) and the nurses would be accomplices as well, and don't get me started on the owners of the land and the hospital/office center who may just be the people who supported the law in the first place.

I am pro-life but anti-death penalty. A rare position, I know, but the only consistent one.

But in a pragmatic sense, I consider abortion to be no better nor worse than Hitler's gas chambers, Jeffrey Dahmer, Schwartzenegger and GWB, or Karla Faye Tucker. Life is life. And murder is murder.

kind of. the reasoning behind this law seems to be "abortion is murder.
we give the death penalty for murder. so the people who commit the abortions that we think of as murder deserve the death penalty."



That's an eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth. Now you say below that you are a Chrisitan. I am as well.

Now this is where we might disagree, consider this "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also"

Further more, in Luke we read that we are to love our enemies overwhelmingly. We sometimes forget that Luke is a physician...

This is why I find this Texas law to be self defeating. If they are so determine to stop abortion, then why not something like house arrest? Or you can work to revoke the physician license. But taking his (or hers) life because they are abortion providers is revenge.

Ever watch Kill Bill vol 1? Can anyone remember that really catch-all samurai quote about revenge? Something about a windy rode in a dark forest...

This Texas law is a revenge law.

Take Ghandi's explanation on Luke: "An Eye for an Eye makes the whole World blind"



i doubt that most people would deny that killing innocent civilians (even accidentally) is allowable, even in the "line of duty."



Since I am prolife, I agree, but on the battlefield it can never be easy.

I know someone who's in the National Guard and his unit was called up. He was on a convoy outside of Baghdad when a gunmen, disguised as a women pulled out a rifle and started to fire at the Hummer he was on. My friend was manning the .50 caliber machine gun that we see on the Hummer in many pictures on TV.

Well he didn't know what to do because that gunmen was in a crowd full of Iraqis women and children (And it was later found out that those civilians didn't even know there was a gunmen among them!) In then end my friend didn't shoot and the rounds missed him though it hit another soilder.

But that's one hell of a split descion. He could have easily been killed on that spot. But he chose to not fire. Now if he did fire and civilians were killed, I'd have a hard time faulting him - he would have been trying to save own life.


similarly, i doubt people would today support the destruction of entire other races or cultures and deem an institution that ever supported such acts should be put down


Agreed.


both of these have similar lines of reasonings, though the premises might be more generally agreed upon (i.e., it is wrong to kill innocent civilians and it is wrong to support an institution that commits or supports genocide).


But perhaps executing someone for killing someone else is not the right course. Two wrongs do not make a right.

This Texas legislation is just that, two wrongs in hopes of achieving a right.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.



another good thing might be to say that anybody who has ever committed any murder should be given the death penalty, no matter what.



Well I realize you are trying to elaborate on the potential positive effects of this, but I'm not convinced yet.



also if the doctor receives the death penalty for the abortion, then so should the mother and there should be some prosecution of the person who took her to the doctor's office (after all, he/she would be an accomplice) and the nurses would be accomplices as well, and don't get me started on the owners of the land and the hospital/office center who may just be the people who supported the law in the first place.



So let say I own 2000 shares of Pfizer and 1000 shares of Bristol Myers Squibb, they pay me dividens each 4th quater (3.5%) and (4.0%) respectively.

These pharmacutical companies run a lot of illegal and unethical human trials test in Africa in order to say to the FDA "Yeah we did human trials and the results were X, Y, and Z)

The drug is a hit in America, but the African test subjects are dying from the earlier R&D.

If we use your material and social model of blamming the benefactors, then that makes me guilty of the death of those Africans :eek:



(I can't write anymore I have to go to sleep)

That's an eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth. Now you say below that you are a Chrisitan. I am as well.

Now this is where we might disagree, consider this "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also"

Further more, in Luke we read that we are to love our enemies overwhelmingly. We sometimes forget that Luke is a physician...

This is why I find this Texas law to be self defeating. If they are so determine to stop abortion, then why not something like house arrest? Or you can work to revoke the physician license. But taking his (or hers) life because they are abortion providers is revenge.

Why is it revenge? It's just the ultimate form of making sure the person never kills again. If a professional kills, knowing it's against the law, then that's the ultimate in cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder. They've killed for no emotional reason, but calmly and for money. I wouldn't trust someone like this not to do it again.

I don't think I brought my point across. I'm actually against the law as it stands. I was trying to make people see that it was stupid. And performed horribly. :(

By the way, I do agree with your example of your soldier friend. I was speaking more with reference to the missile bombing campaigns. Our missiles suck (I've worked on the computer systems involved in guidance and I KNOW they suck, badly.) Also, trust me, our military knows that our missile guidance systems suck. We have made huge advances, but we are really not as far as people like to say we are.

Why is it revenge? It's just the ultimate form of making sure the person never kills again.



The ultimate form of making sure the person never kills again? How is this "ultimate form" any different from "revenge"

If the "ultimate form" means killing someone, then what makes it different from revenge?



If a professional kills, knowing it's against the law, then that's the ultimate in cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder. They've killed for no emotional reason, but calmly and for money. I wouldn't trust someone like this not to do it again.




To this part I agree with. I would also have difficulty trusting that individual.

For once I agree with Mercapto (quick someone check the weather report for Hell)- murder is murder. Killing a fetus in the third trimester is wrong, because that child could live outside the womb and therefore is alive in my definition of the term. I don't believe that executing the docs is a good idea (perhaps hindering breeding by some of the population might eliminate the problem more effectively but I digress), but I do believe third trimester abortion is unethical. Just do a damn C-section for crying out loud.

I am pro-choice. But, once a fetus is viable, I don't see an abortion as much different than post-birth infanticide. If she doesn't want it to have a child at that point, I favor doing a c-section (like Praetorian) and placing the baby up for adoption.

For some reason the South Park 40th trimester abortion episode is now popping into my head.

For the OP, I think hypocrisy, not oxymoron, is the word you are looking for.

The ultimate form of making sure the person never kills again? How is this "ultimate form" any different from "revenge"

If the "ultimate form" means killing someone, then what makes it different from revenge?

Revenge has nothing to do with killing. Revenge is doing something to someone to get back at them for doing something to you. It implies emotional involvement and no other interest than "making them pay".

If death penalty is revenge, I'd say incarceration is, too. In our society, they're not revenge, but crime prevention. The judge isn't emotionally involved. The person wronged doesn't get to determine the punishment.

Revenge has nothing to do with killing. Revenge is doing something to someone to get back at them for doing something to you. It implies emotional involvement and no other interest than "making them pay".

If death penalty is revenge, I'd say incarceration is, too. In our society, they're not revenge, but crime prevention. The judge isn't emotionally involved. The person wronged doesn't get to determine the punishment.
There's also the issue of removing them from society.

I'm a pro-life, anti-capital punishment Christian. I agree that it's the only defensible Christian position.

"Vengeance is mine," says the Lord. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=12&version=9&context=chapter)

I am pro-Choice and Anti-Stupidity.

It should be everyones CHOICE to decide on their religion. Since all the Pro-Life crap is 100% based in the religious right, it is therefore only the choice of those people based on their own personal beliefs. Pro-Choice offers everyone the option to choose as they personally believe for themselves. It is WRONG to choose for others based on one subset of one cultures religious beliefs.

This is a tired argument on SDN and everywhere else. The country (and the law) agrees with pro-choice.

If i were to tell religious people there was a country wide vote on if there should be CHOICE in religion or only athiesm, everyone would agree individual choice is the right way to go. This principal is no different, choice is always a better option regardless if personal beliefs.

Texas law: Abortion Providers in Texas Could Face Death Penalty

Yeah, so I was a little taken back by this:


It's meaningless. Texas cannot enforce a law that is unconstitutional, and all jurists would agree that the death penalty and in what circumstances it is legal are squarely within the control of the US Consitution, not a matter of Texas law. The first person that they attempt to enforce this law against will appeal it up to the US Supreme Court (if the Texas courts are foolish enough to let it get that far), and then the law will be struck down (on grounds of both due process and cruel and unusual punishment, without necessarilly ever getting to the abortion issue). Makes for a nice news story headline and sound bite, and perhaps locks in the "right to life" vote for the Texas governor without costing him anything (because it's pandering legislation not worth more than the paper its printed on). But if this is something you think merits your time worrying, feel free.

Mike, this is my response to your post



I am pro-Choice and Anti-Stupidity.



Let us enter into a debate as your post is most interesting.



It should be everyones CHOICE to decide on their religion.



Agreed.



[/b]Since all the Pro-Life crap is 100% based in the religious right, it is therefore only the choice of those people based on their own personal beliefs. [/B] Pro-Choice offers everyone the option to choose as they personally believe for themselves.




Let us concentrate carefully on what you have written here. You have written that "the Pro-Life crap is 100% based in the religious right."

Let us then assume that religion is indeed the opium of the uneducated masses and have a debate that is strictly secular. Therefore let us then ignore religion.

I read this post of your and was wondering if you can comment on my response. It is as follows:

This country was founded on Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Mike I am going to use this secularist paradigm. If we bear these three principals in mind, I find it "curious" to say the least that some individuals feel that their Liberties and their Pursuit of Happiness outweighs the Life of an unborn child.

The pro choice camp places Liberties and Happiness of the women on a higher moral plateau than the Life of another human being.

In doing this we have a situation where two values, Liberties and Happiness, trump over the Life of another human being. (Now I look forward to seeing what SDNers argue life begins at)

Let us compare this argument to a British soldier on the shores of Normandy during WW2. If we assume that this young lad enlisted into the army, and assuming that this same soldier is an upright and respectable person, I would say that he is willing to sacrifice his own Life for the Life, Liberties, and Happiness for the millions of people in Nazi occupied Europe.

Do you see where this relates to abortion? Abortion, unless it is a situation where the mother's life is in jeopardy, is the exact opposite of the soldier knowing that he will most certainly die, yet he goes willingly into the danger. Let us take note that it was his choice.

So this is why I have great difficulties with those who argue for abortion - It is an institution that places women's rights ahead of the rights of someone else.

When concerning this issue, we must all ask ourselves, what would we think if our mothers aborted us because our presence in the world was an impediment on her Liberties and Happiness?

I am willing to agree with you that in some really desperate poverty situations in third world nations, abortion of an unborn child may in fact be the proper course of action to literally save the lives of the other children from further terrifying situations. In some nations food and water is in severe short supply. In those situations it is a matter of choosing the lesser evil.

However in the US there are relatively few situations that are of a similar tone. There is water, food, and social programs to help people out of the situations they are in.

Before I advocate my argument any further, I will stop myself here and let you guys fire off a counter response.

You can use the Life, Liberty, and Happiness paradigm I have here. Or please feel free to relate to your own paradigm if that will help you argue your case. If your brooding over how to response to this, you can raise up the issue as to when does an unborn child (or a larval fetus as some say) become a human being.

Here are some other things for those who advocate abortion to ponder over:

1) When does life begin?

2) Does an unborn child have any rights at all?

3) Is an unborn child in the third trimester not worthy of any rights?

4) If an unborn child does have rights, then is there ever a time when
That child’s rights protect him or her?

5) What are some of the Liberties and Happiness that are more worthy than
the Life of a child (or a larval/fetus) ?

6) And, what would you think if your mother aborted you because your presence in the
world is an impediment on her Liberties and Happiness?



It is WRONG to choose for others based on one subset of one cultures religious beliefs.



I will agree with that. Now let us have a debate that is devoid of religion.



This is a tired argument on SDN and everywhere else. The country (and the law) agrees with pro-choice.



You have just written that "This is a tired argument on SDN and everywhere else. The country (and the law) agrees with pro-choice. "

It may be a tired argument on SDN sir, but that doesn't mean it should not be talked about. Further, could you please elaborate on what you mean by: "The country (and the law) agrees with pro-choice"



If i were to tell religious people there was a country wide vote on if there should be CHOICE in religion or only atheism, everyone would agree individual choice is the right way to go. This principal is no different, choice is always a better option regardless if personal beliefs.




This is a very fine argument. It certainly reflects the mentality of the founding fathers as they framed the Constitution.

If you could elaborate on "choice is always a better option regardless [of] personal beliefs" that would be wonderful.

While it is not my intention to open up historical scars, I am under the impression that a number of states during the early half of the 19th century felt that because it was their choice to allow the institution of slavery, the personal beliefs of others who opposed slavery was irrelevant.

If you could explain to me on how this is flawed logic, it would be most enlightening.


C & C

The first person that they attempt to enforce this law against will appeal it up to the US Supreme Court (if the Texas courts are foolish enough to let it get that far), and then the law will be struck down (on grounds of both due process and cruel and unusual punishment, without necessarilly ever getting to the abortion issue).



Interesting point. I wonder if the state of Texas will push the matter that far. My ken tells me that they will.


Makes for a nice news story headline and sound bite, and perhaps locks in the "right to life" vote for the Texas governor without costing him anything (because it's pandering legislation not worth more than the paper its printed on). But if this is something you think merits your time worrying, feel free.

This is why I feel that it is an oxymoron, or as another poster pointed out hypocrisy, the governor campaigns to be pro life, yet he does this through advocating the death penalty.

It's an interesting world we live in.

but I do believe third trimester abortion is unethical. Just do a damn C-section for crying out loud.

I've been waiting for years for someone to produce a case of a healthy, normal third trimester baby being aborted. If anyone has one, please lay it out there for me.

From religioustolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_late.htm):

Third-trimester abortions: Medical intervention to terminate pregnancies during the third trimester is quite rare. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that 1% of all medical terminations of pregnancies are done at or after 21 weeks - (1994 data). It is sometimes done when the fetus has died in the womb. Termination of the life of a fetus is generally prohibited by medical societies' regulations after the 20th or 21st week of gestation. Exceptions do occur if required to save the life of the woman or avoid very serious, disabling health consequences. e.g.:

To save the life or health of a women experiencing a deteriorating health problem. This problem can rapidly grow worse with every day in late pregnancy, and can only be reversed by terminating the pregnancy. It is most often caused by diabetes or heart disease.

A midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5,000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but cannot live for long; it will never achieve consciousness.

In rare cases, the delivery of the fetus can go terribly wrong, threatening the life of the woman.

As of 2003-OCT-9, their options are limited. The main ones are:
Hysterotomy: This involves major surgery. It is essentially identical to a Caesarian Section. It involves significantly higher risk to a woman than a D&X.

"D&X" (dilation and extraction). The third method is often popularly called "Partial Birth Abortion" although that is not a medical term.

I've been waiting for years for someone to produce a case of a healthy, normal third trimester baby being aborted. If anyone has one, please lay it out there for me.



I'm not to sure how enthusiatic an abortion provider, if he or she terminates a viable baby in the third trimester, would be about making that information public.

Though there might be some very legitimate reasons as you have pointed out in the data you present.


Third-trimester abortions: Medical intervention to terminate pregnancies during the third trimester is quite rare. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that 1% of all medical terminations of pregnancies are done at or after 21 weeks - (1994 data). It is sometimes done when the fetus has died in the womb. Termination of the life of a fetus is generally prohibited by medical societies' regulations after the 20th or 21st week of gestation. Exceptions do occur if required to save the life of the woman or avoid very serious, disabling health consequences. e.g.:


Now it'll be interesting to see if the state of Texas tries to blurr the lines even further and charge an abortion doctor in situations where the mother's life is in jeopardy.

I'm not to sure how enthusiatic an abortion provider, if he or she terminates a viable baby in the third trimester, would be about making that information public.

There is a simpler explanation: it doesn't happen.

Sounds good :)

I will reply with your posts in black and mine standard.


Let us then assume that religion is indeed the opium of the uneducated masses and have a debate that is strictly secular.

Well, i do not believe it is the opium of the uneducated masses. What i believe is religion is personal and not to be used to create law for all (who arent of the same religion). But i agree lets keep it secular since that will allow for logic which religion is devoid of.

This country was founded on Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Mike I am going to use this secularist paradigm. If we bear these three principals in mind, I find it "curious" to say the least that some individuals feel that their Liberties and their Pursuit of Happiness outweighs the Life of an unborn child.

Acutally, this country was founded on seperating from the British rule and taking everything via war in the quest for wealth; but lets go with what you are saying.

The pursuit of happiness, liberty and life is not defined by the consitution for a reason, that is because it is different for everyone and up to the individual to CHOOSE what they feel is right for them in this regard. There is no weight to be defined between the three. This is not a fraction of which each is 33%. This is a general ideal by which people choose their own path within the law. This country was founded on the right to choose ones own destiny.

The pro choice camp places Liberties and Happiness of the women on a higher moral plateau than the Life of another human being.

This is not my perspective at all. You cannot talk about pro-life and be secular. The pro life camp bases their beliefs on the percieved fact that it is a SIN to end this potential life (which makes me wonder why they dont protest masterbation as the destruction of millions of possible children (but i digress)).

Let me indulge this argument anyway. The pro choice camp dosent reference this AT ALL. The pro choice camp places the right to choose (in any situation) above all else just as the forefathers of the USA did. The right to choose in any situation is what makes you free. If you take away the right for an individual to choose their own destiny/path/fate then you have taken away what it is to be free. This is a true slippery slope and goes well beyond the abortion issue. If you do not agree with abortion, then choose not to do it but DO NOT assume to choose for another person.


In doing this we have a situation where two values, Liberties and Happiness, trump over the Life of another human being. (Now I look forward to seeing what SDNers argue life begins at)

Again i disagree with this statement since it is flawed. However, life is defined by the ability for a fetus to survive on its own out of the womb. As a flight RN, I dont get concerned with the unborn child who is less than 22 weeks old as it is NOT VIABLE. Therefore, in my esitmation, life is irrelevant before this time. This is easily defensible when we get into the idea of parasitic twins in the womb. Noone argues that these are salvageable or "life" in the real sense and therefore we sacrafice them for the "healthy" child as a matter of rule. However, if you contend that a fetus before 22 weeks is "life" you must also believe that a parasitic twin is life (though it will never have self awareness) yet i dont see people fighting for them. See, not even pro-lifers know what/when life is nor can they apply or follow their own flawed logic to its correct conclusion in this regard.

Let us compare this argument to a British soldier on the shores of Normandy during WW2. If we assume that this young lad enlisted into the army, and assuming that this same soldier is an upright and respectable person, I would say that he is willing to sacrifice his own Life for the Life, Liberties, and Happiness for the millions of people in Nazi occupied Europe.

What? You prove MY point here. These peoplea re given the choice to do that (in some cases) and therefor have taken this route on the basis of their beliefs. For the rest of the conscripts from the draft; they are there because they have no choice.

Do you see where this relates to abortion? Abortion, unless it is a situation where the mother's life is in jeopardy, is the exact opposite of the soldier knowing that he will most certainly die, yet he goes willingly into the danger. Let us take note that it was his choice.

Wow, this isnt even vaguely related. What i see is a soldier who choses to give his life for his country. He was able to make this choice (if he was a volunteer) because it is the basis of freedom in this country. You are making a leap which is senseless here. Sorry.

So this is why I have great difficulties with those who argue for abortion - It is an institution that places women's rights ahead of the rights of someone else.

You say this like it dosent happen on a daily basis. vis a vie Politics.

When concerning this issue, we must all ask ourselves, what would we think if our mothers aborted us because our presence in the world was an impediment on her Liberties and Happiness?

You dont have to think about it. If it had happened you wouldnt exist.

1) When does life begin?

When the child is viable outside the womb generally over 22 weeks

2) Does an unborn child have any rights at all?

None whatsoever.

3) Is an unborn child in the third trimester not worthy of any rights?

Until a child is born it is devoid of rights as a human being and therefore is at the mercy of its mother


could you please elaborate on what you mean by: "The country (and the law) agrees with pro-choice"

In every vote, in every legal challenge and as a matter of law abortion is legal. The people have spoken and the law has responded. The fact is that even pro life people are on the side of the right to choose as a matter of law. This is because the right to choose is much larger than the issue of abortion and the principal alone is good enough reason to make sure a law prohibiting the ability for a person to choose in a situation (like abortion) is one that attacks the very foundation upon which this country is built; Freedom.


While it is not my intention to open up historical scars, I am under the impression that a number of states during the early half of the 19th century felt that because it was their choice to allow the institution of slavery, the personal beliefs of others who opposed slavery was irrelevant.

It has been decided as a country that this is wrong. treating another culture as a second class citizen is wrong. It infringes upoin their rights as self-aware humans to choose for themselves. That is why slavery is wrong and why it was outlawed.

Texas law: Abortion Providers in Texas Could Face Death Penalty

Yeah, so I was a little taken back by this:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/11/181917/671

http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/2005/08/texas-authorizes-death-for-some.html

I tried doing several Google searches, but I’m not finding updated information past September 15 of 2005. I'm suprised the ACLU is jumping up and down over this. Maybe this legislation is on temporary hold due to the Supreme Court decision with New Hampshire's parental notification law?

In case you don’t know, Texas has a law in the works that could mean the death penalty for physicians performing abortions in the third trimester or perform an abortion without parental consent.

My take on this whole matter: I’m not surprised that Texas would do this.
Now I’m pro-life across the board. I don’t support abortion; also I don’t support the death penalty. So I view this as a complete oxymoron.


Abraham Lincoln, when he over heard his secretaries and war cabinet talk about how they hoped to ruthlessly punish the South when the war was over, surprised everyone present by saying that he would love the former rebels as if nothing had ever happen. If you Texans are so hell bent on controlling abortion doctors, then it should be done with methods that do not involve taking someone’s life!

I have a love/hate relationship with Texas. They did a wonderful and generous job with Hurricane Katrina victims, but then they try to pass laws like this. Again, I am pro life, but legislation like this defeats everyone.

What do those of you in the pro life camp think of this legislation? Do you feel that this legislation is represents an extremist way of thinking? Is Texas the pro death state?

And what do you in the pro choice camp think of this legislation?

Well that's texas for you!!!
just backwards as ever

I should also state that I think abortion at any point during pregnancy for anything other than medical reasons (anencephaly, Downs syndrome, etc) is inappropriate.

There is a simpler explanation: it doesn't happen.

Actually happens all the time, I was suprised when I started getting all the big suckers as pathology specimens. They come down relatively intact with head that looks like someone ran over it with a SUV. Pretty feaky and FAR more common than I would have ever imagined. I remember getting one thinking damn this thing is HUGE what hell should I take sections of, some nurse walked in seeing me dangling this fetus above my bench and passed out. :laugh:

I should also state that I think abortion at any point during pregnancy for anything other than medical reasons (anencephaly, Downs syndrome, etc) is inappropriate.
Oh and rape and incest are valid indications too.....

Pretty feaky and FAR more common than I would have ever imagined.

Yeah, but are they elective terminations? In my home state (Virginia) you couldn't even do an elective second trimester abortion without medical necessity, much less third. For seconds you had to go to DC where there is a single clinic that does them. Third trimester? Better hope it has anencephaly or trisomy 18 or some other delightful foible of nature.

I remember getting one thinking damn this thing is HUGE what hell should I take sections of, some nurse walked in seeing me dangling this fetus above my bench and passed out. :laugh:

Moments like that make it all worthwhile. Actually they don't, but they're still pretty cool. I love it when the maintenance guys show up in the middle of autopsy to fix a drain and they all turn ashen.

This country was founded on Life,Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Mike I am going to use this secularist paradigm........ to say the least that some individuals feel that their Liberties and their Pursuit of Happiness outweighs the Life of an unborn child.

Acutally, this country was founded on seperating from the British rule and taking everything via war in the quest for wealth; but lets go with what you are saying.


Ah! But while it has been a long time since I have taken a US History course, I recall that the taxes that Parliment placed on tea was miniscule. The same can be said for the taxes placed on stamp. This wasn't some overwhelming taxation on these articles. People could afford it.

The justification for these taxes? Parliment needed to recoup capital for all that it used fighting France.

But what really irked people in the colonies was not the tax, but the fact that they were denied any representation in parliment. "No taxation without representation." Would you argue that the Liberties of the colonist were not being violated?


The pursuit of happiness, liberty and life is not defined by the consitution for a reason, that is because it is different for everyone and up to the individual to CHOOSE what they feel is right for them in this regard. There is no weight to be defined between the three. This is not a fraction of which each is 33%. This is a general ideal by which people choose their own path within the law. This country was founded on the right to choose ones own destiny.


Indeed there is scant refference to these three inalienable rights and one is left wondering as to why they are not defined. A search on Google reveals some, but it is not strong.

Nevertheless, I think we can reach a common ground that these 3 were denied to Africans at the beggining of the nation's history, however in time these 3 were extended to encompass everyone.

With that in mind, some people are trying to argue that these 3 process also extends to unborn children in the womb as well.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but you see the entire issue of abortion to be seperate from the 3 inalienable rights? That is you see a person's choice to trump in importance to the these 3 rights? (I will address this below)

If that is the case then do we need to even define the 3?


The pro choice camp places Liberties and Happiness of the women on a higher moral plateau than the Life of another human being.

This is not my perspective at all. You cannot talk about pro-life and be secular. The pro life camp bases their beliefs on the percieved fact that it is a SIN to end this potential life (which makes me wonder why they dont protest masterbation as the destruction of millions of possible children (but i digress)).



Could you prove to us that pro life people cannot be secular.


Let me indulge this argument anyway. The pro choice camp dosent reference this AT ALL. The pro choice camp places the right to choose (in any situation) above all else just as the forefathers of the USA did. The right to choose in any situation is what makes you free. If you take away the right for an individual to choose their own destiny/path/fate then you have taken away what it is to be free.




Are there no limits then? If you answer is "No" that there are no limits to what we can choose than there are some interesting scenarios we have to talk about.

Are there limits to our freedoms and choices?

Jeffery Dalmer would take people to his house at night for "dinner." Are we to say that his choice was right for him? No. There are limits to our freedoms and choices.




In doing this we have a situation where two values, Liberties and Happiness, trump over the Life of another human being. (Now I look forward to seeing what SDNers argue life begins at)

Again i disagree with this statement since it is flawed. However, life is defined by the ability for a fetus to survive on its own out of the womb. As a flight RN, I dont get concerned with the unborn child who is less than 22 weeks old as it is NOT VIABLE. Therefore, in my esitmation, life is irrelevant before this time.


You have written that: "Therefore, in my esitmation, life is irrelevant before this time."

It appears that you feel that at 22 weeks, an "unborn child" is alive, by that I mean life. However you feel that this life is irrelavant, but it is still life.

(1) Are you arguing that because this life is irrelavant, thus it is our choice to do with it as we so please?

or

(2) However perhaps (1) is not what you are trying to get at, but rather that our freedom to do as we please that is "what's right for me is right for me and what's right for you is right for you."



This is easily defensible when we get into the idea of parasitic twins in the womb. Noone argues that these are salvageable or "life" in the real sense and therefore we sacrafice them for the "healthy" child as a matter of rule.



Sure.

(3) But if you are a proponent of the pro-choice argument, then maybe it might not be a good argument as I will try to argue below.



However, if you contend that a fetus before 22 weeks is "life" you must also believe that a parasitic twin is life (though it will never have self awareness) yet i dont see people fighting for them. See, not even pro-lifers know what/when life is nor can they apply or follow their own flawed logic to its correct conclusion in this regard.



Earlier you argued that after 22 weeks there is an "unborn" child. I am assuming that you are now arguing that before 22 weeks, there is no life.

Do I contend that a fetus before 22 weeks is "life" and do I believe that a parasaitic twin is life?

Yes.

Look through a microscope. All of that bacteria. They are alive, and if I alter the enviroment let say by placing less sugar in the petri plate, there is competition.

Only the fittest will survive. If I place this type of sugar on the petri dish, only the bacteria with the proper enzymes to digest that sugar will survive.

Maybe your wondering what this has to do with abortion?

One way or another, these bacteria will "die" if they don't have the proper enzymes. They were alive, and then they died. Or do you argue that bacteria are not alive?

With this in mind, why are single cell bacteria considered alive by our scientific institutions and a 7 week old "fetus" not considered alive by those who are a proponent of pro-choice. Let us consider univeristy text books, I don't know of any biology text book used that argues that bacteria are not alive.

I see this as discrimination, however others will not and we need to disucss this.

Now for the situation that you mentioned that went like this:



you must also believe that a parasitic twin is life (though it will never have self awareness) yet i dont see people fighting for them. [/B] See, not even pro-lifers know what/when life is nor can they apply or follow their own flawed logic to its correct conclusion in this regard.



As I argued above, biology books consider bacteria in a petri dish to have "life." Then I argued that an unborn child less than 22 weeks old also has life.

Now do I believe that a "parasitic" twin is life? Most certaintly.

Now we are left in a situation, in which as you have pointed out, where you hold that the pro life side follows a flawed logic for choosing to save the healthier child.

Unlike what you argue at the beggining with the pro choice most in pro life seem to realize that there are limits to Life as well.

There are some people who are extreme enough to beleive that Life is so importnant that they will disaprove of abortions when the mother's life is in jeopardy.

To these few pro life who hold that life has no limits, I say that they are similar to the pro choice people who argue that a women's liberties have no limits.


Let us compare this argument to a British soldier on the shores of Normandy during WW2. If we assume that this young lad enlisted into the army, and assuming that this same soldier is an upright and respectable person, I would say that he is willing to sacrifice his own Life for the Life, Liberties, and Happiness for the millions of people in Nazi occupied Europe.

What? You prove MY point here. These peoplea [a]re given the choice to do that (in some cases) and therefor have taken this route on the basis of their beliefs. For the rest of the conscripts from the draft; they are there because they have no choice.



This is a good response. And it was the response I hoped for.

A conscript can flee to Canada. Does an unborn child have the ability to flee from his or her mother's womb?


When concerning this issue, we must all ask ourselves, what would we think if our mothers aborted us because our presence in the world was an impediment on her Liberties and Happiness?

You dont have to think about it. If it had happened you wouldnt exist.


Aren't there things in life that are worth living? And you haven't answered the question.


1) When does life begin?

When the child is viable outside the womb generally over 22 weeks


So not a 21 week old?

Is a bacteria considered to have life and an 8 week old said to not have life?

If you hold that anything less than 22 weeks is not alive, then will you argue that bacteria are not alive?

2) Does an unborn child have any rights at all?

None whatsoever.

3) Is an unborn child in the third trimester not worthy of any rights?

Until a child is born it is devoid of rights as a human being and therefore is at the mercy of its mother



Interesting. Suppose I was born on the 20th of the month. If someone where to kill me, then that is murder.

But suppose now that someone struck the womb on the 19th and I was killed.

Are you willing to say that my death was not murder?

If not, then why?


In every vote, in every legal challenge and as a matter of law abortion is legal. The people have spoken and the law has responded. The fact is that even pro life people are on the side of the right to choose as a matter of law. This is because the right to choose is much larger than the issue of abortion and the principal alone is good enough reason to make sure a law prohibiting the ability for a person to choose in a situation (like abortion) is one that attacks the very foundation upon which this country is built; Freedom.


Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you see liberty as key to this issue and that there is no conflict between life and liberty because an unborn child does not have the Big 3.

OK.

While some of your argument seems to be questioning my opinions, which btw are a function of the fact that i get to make choices for myself, they prove nothing. However, ill answer them. I will now refer to Pro Life in a more suitable manner which is descriptive; Anti-Choice.

Interesting. Suppose I was born on the 20th of the month. If someone where to kill me, then that is murder.

my opinion is that this is murder because someone else ended the womans life, as well as the pregnancy. This is an act NOT chosen by the mother. This is not at all similar to the argument. You are grasping at straws because your argument is not defensible via science or ethics. You now resort to adding the act of murder to try to create a parallel with abortion which clearly does not exist.

From this point i will no longer answer these types of questions.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you see liberty as key to this issue and that there is no conflict between life and liberty because an unborn child does not have the Big 3

The "BIG 3" are nothing but a construct based on ideas of a bygone era. They are irrelevant in both this dicsussion and in law. I dont understand at all why you even reference them. Except for the fact that there is no other point of reference for Anti-Choice but religion.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but you see the entire issue of abortion to be seperate from the 3 inalienable rights? That is you see a person's choice to trump in importance to the these 3 rights? (I will address this below)

No. I see the "Big 3" as not related to the argument. Choice = freedom. This country is founded on freedom. You take away choice you take away freedom.

Could you prove to us that pro life people cannot be secular.


Besides reading case law on the subject (and the history of it.) which i am not going to paste here. Do a quick google search. Religion is the beggining of Anti-Choice and the power behind it. People always reference religion in their argument making it, therefore, a matter of personal opinion. If you dont like abortion, CHOOSE not to have one.

Are there limits to our freedoms and choices?

Ok another example of you being unable to defend the position of Anti-Choice. You are utilizing classic diversionairy arguments. The argument isnt about the scope of choice and freedom, it is about taking freedoms away.

Of course there are limits, we call them THE LAW.

It appears that you feel that at 22 weeks, an "unborn child" is alive, by that I mean life. However you feel that this life is irrelavant, but it is still life.

I feel that a wart is "alive" but dosent deserve and rights of any kind. I would see a fetus before the age of viability (22 weeks) alive but without rights until it is born. All rights are retained by the mother. A Jew wouldnt want legilsation enacted to protect foreskin as "alive" because it removes the freedom of choice. Your argument is senseless.

Are you arguing that because this life is irrelavant, thus it is our choice to do with it as we so please?

Again, this is diversionairy. Life is defined as a biological machine. A wart is alive, syphlysis, AIDS and pneumonia are all alive but we do not afford them rights. That is EXACTLY how i see a fetus. Until the birth of the child it has no protection or rights, it is the choice of the mother.



Maybe your wondering what this has to do with abortion?

No I know it has nothing to do with abortion. It does, however, highlight my point that Anti-Choice picks and chooses what it thinks is life based on religion.


A conscript can flee to Canada. Does an unborn child have the ability to flee from his or her mother's womb?

Again typical diversionary tactics because the argument is baseless. You knwo this is irrelevant and unrelated why do you insult my intelligence?

Ok.

As opposed to reinevnting the wheel with this argument, let me give you some Non-Secular reading to do.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/index.cfm
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/articles.shtml

do a google search there is MUCH more.

In anycase, if you wish to argue with me, use facts and science. Please avoid diversionairy arguments unrelated to the topic.

I am pro-life and against death penalty. The proposed law just follows the eye for an eye principles which in my opinion are unacceptable.

Isn't there anybody else around here who is anti-abortion but pro-choice? Sure, that's impossible if you think abortion is equivalent to murder. I don't though. Because my religion says it isn't. Abortion is a BAD THING. It's really sad and horrible. But there are situations in which it's appropriate. And even if it's not appropriate, it's not equivalent to murder. When is it appropriate? That seriously has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Which is exactly why it should be legal. Without any reference to the person who originally said it, I agree that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare."

I would bet also that 3rd trimester abortion is EXTREMELY rare. I would suspect that the person who mentions getting 3rd trimester specimens in pathology is getting mostly still-births, spontaneous abortions, and procedures done for the health of the mother (i.e. saving the mother's life).

Okay, so because I'm a sucker for argument, I'll address one thing. I have to admit I didn't read all of the long posts in this thread, but here goes:

So not a 21 week old?

Is a bacteria considered to have life and an 8 week old said to not have life?

If you hold that anything less than 22 weeks is not alive, then will you argue that bacteria are not alive?

You do realize that there's a huge difference here? Bacteria can live on their own. That's the whole point the poster was trying to make -- after about 22 weeks, a fetus/baby can theoretically (although, in practice, very rarely) live outside a woman's body. Like bacteria, it still needs the right sort of environment to live in (it has to be fed and cleaned up, etc.), but it can actually survive outside of another life.

Even if this weren't the case, though, you're missing an important point. A woman who is pregnant may have a life growing inside her, or a potential life, but without her it wouldn't be able to exist. That's reality. So if, for whatever reason, a woman no longer feels like she can hold onto that potential life, how can we tell her she has to? That's imposing your will on her body. Like I said before, I think abortion is pretty horrible. Heck, I'm pregnant now, and I can't imagine wanting to get rid of the fetus growing inside me. But I can also imagine situations in which it would be necessary, and I would feel absolutely offended and disgusted if some other person came to me and said I couldn't do it. I would feel as offended as I would if somebody came to me and said I HAVE to have an abortion.

I am really happy to see a number of people here who realize the contradiction being "pro-life", going around preaching about the evils of abortion, and supporting the death penalty at the same time. I never could understand why some of the most "pro-life" people are also the most gung-ho over the death penalty. I also don't understand the religious Christian right's absolute opposition to abortion. I guess it's just part of their theology. I can assure you it's not in their bible. (Okay, I can't promise about the New Testament part. But it's for sure not in the rest.)

I'm limited pro-choice, but anti-abortion. If that makes sense at all, basically I mean that I think in limited circumstances abortion is appropriate, but at the same time it should not be used for birth control solely.

I'm limited pro-choice, but anti-abortion. If that makes sense at all, basically I mean that I think in limited circumstances abortion is appropriate, but at the same time it should not be used for birth control solely.

Okay, I agree with you there. Definitely. But I don't think that could possibly be legislated.

edit: I'm also more likely to be lenient in my own mind in cases of birth control failure (and yes, I do know a few women who have managed to conceive even while using birth control properly). And I don't consider endangering the physical health of the mother the only justification for abortion. In certain cases endangering the psychological health of the mother, or even possibly extreme financial reasons, may be justification. That's why I say it has to be case-by-case, so it can't be legislated. Who makes the decision of when it's acceptable? That certainly varies from person to person. If you believe in God and justice and all of that, can't you at least allow the person to live with their own decisions?

Of course not....it actually applies leeway in how things are done- people like things cut and dry.

Of course it could be legislated to be a restricted practice requiring hospital ethics review board approval or something similar.

Of course it could be legislated to be a restricted practice requiring hospital ethics review board approval or something similar.

Yeah, that's an interesting idea. Of course then who would sit on the review board? I mean, my own personal ethics and religious beliefs are probably a lot different than somebody else's. So even though I do think it's a good concept, I don't see how it could ever work.

I just wanted to mention here that there is an interesting article/editorial/book excerpt on abortion in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine. Here's a link:

My Father's Abortion War
By EYAL PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/magazine/22abortion.html


and here's a section from the end:

Why abortion doesn't play such a divisive role in countries like France and Italy may have something to do with the fact that, as The Economist pointed out in an article on the 30th anniversary of Roe, these nations didn't legalize the procedure by declaring it a constitutional right. Most European countries did so "through new legislation and, occasionally, referenda," decriminalizing abortion on the grounds of health rather than rights and leaving open the possibility that, should popular opinion back them, right-to-life advocates could reverse the status quo through conventional political channels.

Not a few commentators lately, including some who support abortion rights, have suggested that it would not be the worst thing if the availability of abortion were left to state legislatures to decide, which is what will happen if Roe is overturned. Overnight, they note, middle-class women who take their reproductive freedom for granted no longer would. Republicans who tailor their rhetoric to the religious right would have to consider whether, in a country where 70 to 80 percent of people favor keeping abortion legal all or some of the time, they really want to endorse a blanket ban on the procedure. At the same time, Democrats would have to contemplate what, in light of medical advances and popular opinion, reasonable limits on abortion are. (Most European countries have implemented limitations that in America would be deemed unconstitutional because of Roe.) A debate currently framed in absolute terms - the right to choose versus the rights of the unborn - may begin to reflect what polls suggest most Americans, including a majority of Buffalonians, believe, which is that abortion should be legal but regulated.

It might even become possible for Americans to have a more practical conversation about how to create a society in which fewer unplanned crisis pregnancies happen in the first place. According to Stanley Henshaw, an analyst at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the one exception to the trend of declining abortion rates in America is women below the poverty level, among whom the numbers have actually increased. Grappling with the reason for this, and how it might be addressed, would force both sides in the abortion debate to wrestle with things they might not like to. Among advocates of reproductive rights, it would mean acknowledging that in an ideal world, having an abortion is something that most women would prefer to avoid, and that the decision to raise a child is often the one that seems most impracticable to those who are disadvantaged. Among opponents of abortion, it would mean dropping the puritanical crusade against over-the-counter contraceptives and for abstinence-only sex education, as well as thinking seriously about whether they should support policies like those tucked into the recent Republican budget, which will leave states with billions of dollars less than what experts estimate they'll need to maintain child care for low-income working families in the years to come.

In reality, though, overturning Roe v. Wade will not end the abortion conflict. It will probably transform it from one battle into 50 smaller ones raging across the states. Women who thought they had secured a right several generations ago would have to fight for it again. In the meantime, the least privileged (those who live in remote areas, those who can't afford to travel) would face barriers to access far more restrictive than those in place in many states today. Many people believe that Roe is more likely to be chipped away at over the next several years than overturned. Whether they are right will rest in the hands of a Supreme Court seemingly more skeptical about abortion than any in recent history, one headed by a strongly observant Catholic, John G. Roberts Jr., who was born in Buffalo.

You do realize that there's a huge difference here? Bacteria can live on their own. That's the whole point the poster was trying to make -- after about 22 weeks, a fetus/baby can theoretically (although, in practice, very rarely) live outside a woman's body. Like bacteria, it still needs the right sort of environment to live in (it has to be fed and cleaned up, etc.), but it can actually survive outside of another life.


You are certaintly correct Tigress that bacteria can live on thier own. And there is no denying that the unborn child is dependent on his or her mother. Let's us look at some of the items Mike argues:




"However, life is defined by the ability for a fetus to survive on its own out of the womb."

"Again, this is diversionairy. Life is defined as a biological machine. A wart is alive, syphlysis, AIDS and pneumonia are all alive but we do not afford them rights. That is EXACTLY how i see a fetus. Until the birth of the child it has no protection or rights, it is the choice of the mother."



Guys I need you to jump in and pick out what you disagree with in my responses. I take it that this is arguing that anything that cannot support itself on its own cannot be considered "life." This is the grounds of your side of the argument? Correct?


Let us think of a recently born infant, can this infant, without the aid of others survive on his or her own?

Without our mothers (and our fathers, yes a few men do care ladies) as infants we would not be able to survive on our own. We are still dependent.

Because we are dependent on our parents to survive, does this mean that we are not alive? No, despite being dependent on others, as infants we are alive. Our life is protected.


Is your response something along the lines of "No, the early fetus is unable to do many of the things that a normally born child would do such breathing without the aid of his mother? "

", as well as thinking seriously about whether they should support policies like those tucked into the recent Republican budget, which will leave states with billions of dollars less than what experts estimate they'll need to maintain child care for low-income working families in the years to come. "


That there is one of the key weaknesses of the Republican camp.


We spend so much money on weapon programs and so few dollars to aid single parent moms. And yet we also say that we are against abortion while slashing all sorts of social programs to buy weapons.

Well we can't have both now can we?

To relate it back to the Texas law, it's similar to a small degree to saying that you are pro life and then advocating that we execute doctors who do abortions :thumbdown



Then we underfund "No Child Left Behind" and then run around saying how it's a huge success. [sigh]

Well that's texas for you!!!
just backwards as ever


It's amusing how elitists like you engage in anti-Texas and anti-South bigotry and stereotyping. I don't see how putting down a group of people based on where they live is any different from putting down people for having a different skin color as you. I notice the moderaters on this forum have no problem with bigotry aimed at southerners or christians.

I am pro-life but anti-death penalty. A rare position, I know, but the only consistent one.

But in a pragmatic sense, I consider abortion to be no better nor worse than Hitler's gas chambers, Jeffrey Dahmer, Schwartzenegger and GWB, or Karla Faye Tucker. Life is life. And murder is murder.


I don't think being pro-life but anti-death penalty is really a consistent position. A fetus is innocent, it has not killed another innocent person. A killer on death row has violated the right of life of innocent people, and it seems to me as a result a killer should have no right to life. Being pro-life and pro-death penalty is consistent if you cherish the right to life of the INNOCENT. I think it should be the family of the victims who get to decide of the killer lives or dies - we ought to let the families stone the killers to death, if they want.

I don't think being pro-life but anti-death penalty is really a consistent position. A fetus is innocent, it has not killed another innocent person. A killer on death row has violated the right of life of innocent people, and it seems to me as a result a killer should have no right to life. Being pro-life and pro-death penalty is consistent if you cherish the right to life of the INNOCENT. I think it should be the family of the victims who get to decide of the killer lives or dies - we ought to let the families stone the killers to death, if they want.

Nice counter argument.

But why execute a doctor? Why not work to revoke his or her practice or place them under house arrest?

That there is one of the key weaknesses of the Republican camp.


We spend so much money on weapon programs and so few dollars to aid single parent moms. And yet we also say that we are against abortion while slashing all sorts of social programs to buy weapons.

Well we can't have both now can we?

To relate it back to the Texas law, it's similar to a small degree to saying that you are pro life and then advocating that we execute doctors who do abortions :thumbdown



Then we underfund "No Child Left Behind" and then run around saying how it's a huge success. [sigh]

You wouldn't be a leftwinger if you didn't think a social program was underfunded. It's all about raising taxes for you socialists. No Child Left Behind has been a success, you just don't want to admit it because Bush is president.

Okay, I agree with you there. Definitely. But I don't think that could possibly be legislated.

edit: I'm also more likely to be lenient in my own mind in cases of birth control failure (and yes, I do know a few women who have managed to conceive even while using birth control properly). And I don't consider endangering the physical health of the mother the only justification for abortion. In certain cases endangering the psychological health of the mother, or even possibly extreme financial reasons, may be justification. That's why I say it has to be case-by-case, so it can't be legislated. Who makes the decision of when it's acceptable? That certainly varies from person to person. If you believe in God and justice and all of that, can't you at least allow the person to live with their own decisions?

I don't think any conservative has ever suggested that abortions should be illegal even if the mother may die as a result of childbirth. That is a strawman constructed by liberals. To say that it is okay to perform abortion because it may endanger the pyschological health of the mother is a weak arguement. I would think that most women that have an abortion feel guilty about it, even if they pretend they do not. You also sugggest that it is okay to abort a baby if the mother is poor. That seems like a sadistic way to solve social problems like poverty? Just kill off the offspring of the poor? If people just sat back and allowed people to live with their own decisions, slavery, rape, theft, murder could all be ignored. Society has always made decisions on what is acceptable morally and what is not, and abortion should not be excluded from that scrutiny.

I don't think any conservative has ever suggested that abortions should be illegal even if the mother may die as a result of childbirth. That is a strawman constructed by liberals. To say that it is okay to perform abortion because it may endanger the pyschological health of the mother is a weak arguement. I would think that most women that have an abortion feel guilty about it, even if they pretend they do not. You also sugggest that it is okay to abort a baby if the mother is poor. That seems like a sadistic way to solve social problems like poverty? Just kill off the offspring of the poor? If people just sat back and allowed people to live with their own decisions, slavery, rape, theft, murder could all be ignored. Society has always made decisions on what is acceptable morally and what is not, and abortion should not be excluded from that scrutiny.

Is that you, Rush?

Nicely Said. :thumbup:

Isn't there anybody else around here who is anti-abortion but pro-choice? Sure, that's impossible if you think abortion is equivalent to murder. I don't though. Because my religion says it isn't. Abortion is a BAD THING. It's really sad and horrible. But there are situations in which it's appropriate. And even if it's not appropriate, it's not equivalent to murder. When is it appropriate? That seriously has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Which is exactly why it should be legal. Without any reference to the person who originally said it, I agree that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare."

I would bet also that 3rd trimester abortion is EXTREMELY rare. I would suspect that the person who mentions getting 3rd trimester specimens in pathology is getting mostly still-births, spontaneous abortions, and procedures done for the health of the mother (i.e. saving the mother's life).

Okay, so because I'm a sucker for argument, I'll address one thing. I have to admit I didn't read all of the long posts in this thread, but here goes:



You do realize that there's a huge difference here? Bacteria can live on their own. That's the whole point the poster was trying to make -- after about 22 weeks, a fetus/baby can theoretically (although, in practice, very rarely) live outside a woman's body. Like bacteria, it still needs the right sort of environment to live in (it has to be fed and cleaned up, etc.), but it can actually survive outside of another life.

Even if this weren't the case, though, you're missing an important point. A woman who is pregnant may have a life growing inside her, or a potential life, but without her it wouldn't be able to exist. That's reality. So if, for whatever reason, a woman no longer feels like she can hold onto that potential life, how can we tell her she has to? That's imposing your will on her body. Like I said before, I think abortion is pretty horrible. Heck, I'm pregnant now, and I can't imagine wanting to get rid of the fetus growing inside me. But I can also imagine situations in which it would be necessary, and I would feel absolutely offended and disgusted if some other person came to me and said I couldn't do it. I would feel as offended as I would if somebody came to me and said I HAVE to have an abortion.

I am really happy to see a number of people here who realize the contradiction being "pro-life", going around preaching about the evils of abortion, and supporting the death penalty at the same time. I never could understand why some of the most "pro-life" people are also the most gung-ho over the death penalty. I also don't understand the religious Christian right's absolute opposition to abortion. I guess it's just part of their theology. I can assure you it's not in their bible. (Okay, I can't promise about the New Testament part. But it's for sure not in the rest.)

Praet.

I think we are on the same page here, as usual :thumbup:


I'm limited pro-choice, but anti-abortion. If that makes sense at all, basically I mean that I think in limited circumstances abortion is appropriate, but at the same time it should not be used for birth control solely.

Nice counter argument.

But why execute a doctor? Why not work to revoke his or her practice or place them under house arrest?


I don't support executing abortion doctors, as it is legal at this point in time for doctors to perform abortions. I do think that we as a people should be able to vote on the abortion issue, rather than it decided by a few judges in black robes on the supreme court. There is nothing in the Constititiion about abortion, so the issue should be left to the states to decide. The Roe vs. Wade decision said that abortion was legal because of a right to privacy, although no such right is mentioned in the Constitution. If there was truly a right to privacy, prostitution would be legal, and the income tax would have to be illegal, because you have to report your yearly income to the goverment. Most people would like to keep their financial situation private, i I would think.

Let us think of a recently born infant, can this infant, without the aid of others survive on his or her own?

An Invalid argument... AGAIN.

Is that you, Rush?


Is that you, Nancy Pelosi?

Is that you, Nancy Pelosi?

Allow me to rephrase.

Is that you, R-R-R-Rush?

Let us think of a recently born infant, can this infant, without the aid of others survive on his or her own?

An Invalid argument... AGAIN.


Could you explain to me why this is invalid. I think you have a thoughtful answer and if it's really good, you might convince me.

Isn't there anybody else around here who is anti-abortion but pro-choice? Sure, that's impossible if you think abortion is equivalent to murder. I don't though. Because my religion says it isn't. Abortion is a BAD THING. It's really sad and horrible. But there are situations in which it's appropriate. And even if it's not appropriate, it's not equivalent to murder. When is it appropriate? That seriously has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Which is exactly why it should be legal. Without any reference to the person who originally said it, I agree that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare."

If abortion isn't murder, why should it be rare? That makes no sense. Liberals support abortion on the BELIEF that the fetus has no life. They have not and cannot prove that the fetus is not alive...this is why abortion should be illegal. Ultrasounds seem to indicate that the fetus does have life, and does respond to the pain inflicted during an abortion. I learned in Biology 101 that life does begin at conception. I think it's rather arrogant for humans to decide what form of innocent human life is viable.

I would bet also that 3rd trimester abortion is EXTREMELY rare. I would suspect that the person who mentions getting 3rd trimester specimens in pathology is getting mostly still-births, spontaneous abortions, and procedures done for the health of the mother (i.e. saving the mother's life).

Liberals in congress opposed a ban on partial birth abortion. The baby's head is outside the woman at this point, and the physician sticks a fork-like object in the baby's head and sucks out his brains with a vacuum device. If that's not infanticide, what is? 3rd trimester abortion isn't as "extremely rare" as your conscience would like you to believe.


Okay, so because I'm a sucker for argument, I'll address one thing. I have to admit I didn't read all of the long posts in this thread, but here goes:



You do realize that there's a huge difference here? Bacteria can live on their own. That's the whole point the poster was trying to make -- after about 22 weeks, a fetus/baby can theoretically (although, in practice, very rarely) live outside a woman's body. Like bacteria, it still needs the right sort of environment to live in (it has to be fed and cleaned up, etc.), but it can actually survive outside of another life.

Even if this weren't the case, though, you're missing an important point. A woman who is pregnant may have a life growing inside her, or a potential life, but without her it wouldn't be able to exist. That's reality. So if, for whatever reason, a woman no longer feels like she can hold onto that potential life, how can we tell her she has to? That's imposing your will on her body. Like I said before, I think abortion is pretty horrible. Heck, I'm pregnant now, and I can't imagine wanting to get rid of the fetus growing inside me. But I can also imagine situations in which it would be necessary, and I would feel absolutely offended and disgusted if some other person came to me and said I couldn't do it. I would feel as offended as I would if somebody came to me and said I HAVE to have an abortion.

The fetus inside the woman is not the woman's body. It's a seperate human life. You seem to be comparing a fetus to a parasite in this paragraph. That seems like a rather shallow point of view. You say that a fetus would not be able to exist with the mother, but how many 4 year old kids would able to survive with their parents or other adults taking care of them? Your point seems to be that the woman should be allowed to kill her fetus because it cannot take care of itself. Shouldn't society and goverment strive to protect and help those that cannot take care of themselves, like the elderly and mentally disabled, not to mention fetuses.


I am really happy to see a number of people here who realize the contradiction being "pro-life", going around preaching about the evils of abortion, and supporting the death penalty at the same time. I never could understand why some of the most "pro-life" people are also the most gung-ho over the death penalty. I also don't understand the religious Christian right's absolute opposition to abortion. I guess it's just part of their theology. I can assure you it's not in their bible. (Okay, I can't promise about the New Testament part. But it's for sure not in the rest.)

I think it's funny how you think it's hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time. Liberals like you support terminating the life of fetus who has done no harm to anybody, but you think it's wrong to execute a ruthless killer like Tookie Williams, who has violated the right to life of several innocent people. It would seem to me that you are consistly against the right to life of the INNOCENT on abortion and not seeming to care too much about the right to life of the victims of murder, but support the right to life for a killer. Now that is hypocrisy.

If there was truly a right to privacy, prostitution would be legal, and the income tax would have to be illegal, because you have to report your yearly income to the goverment. Most people would like to keep their financial situation private, i I would think.

I have nothing of import to add to the rest of this thread, but I note that this is not a good interpretation of constitutional law in this part of your argument. Taxation would be exempt from any inherent right to privacy because the US Constitution pretty explicitly gives the government the right to "levy taxes". In law, the words of the document always override or are excepted from non-explicit terms. Your financial situation tends to be protected from others seeing, but the government has been given a right to see it by the founding fathers.
And FYI there is no federal law prohibiting prostitution, as evident from the fact that there is, in fact, legal prostitution in parts of Nevada.

I have nothing of import to add to the rest of this thread, but I note that this is not a good interpretation of constitutional law in this part of your argument. Taxation would be exempt from any inherent right to privacy because the US Constitution pretty explicitly gives the government the right to "levy taxes". In law, the words of the document always override or are excepted from non-explicit terms. Your financial situation tends to be protected from others seeing, but the government has been given a right to see it by the founding fathers.
And FYI there is no federal law prohibiting prostitution, as evident from the fact that there is, in fact, legal prostitution in parts of Nevada.

There are obviously state laws prohibiting prostitution, as the only example you can cite of legal prostition are in some parts of Nevada, a very small state in population. I never said that federal law prohibits prostitution...I stated that there is no right to privacy because prostitition is illegal in most states. This fact seems to indicate that the Constitition does not guarantee the right to privacy, as the prostitution issue is decided on the state level. The decision in Roe vs. Wade was that the Constitution does guarantee a right to privacy, making abortion legal.
The US Constitution does give the goverment the right to levy taxes, but if liberals want to use the "right to privacy" arguement to support abortion, I think you have to admit income taxation is an egregious violation of the right to privacy. Pro-abortionists argue that they have the right to medical privacy in regard to the goverment...it has nothing to do with other citizens. To be consistent, citizens should have the right to financial privacy in regard to the government. In addition, our founding fathers did not implement income taxation at all. Income taxation is not the only way to levy taxes. The first income taxation was implemented during the Civil War to support the war effort. Prior to the Civil War, the United States relied on sales taxes, property taxes (even on slaves), and tarriffs to generate tax revenue. See this link for the History of the Income Tax in the United States: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html I don't think the majority of the founding fathers would be too wild about income taxation, especially at the high levels it is now, or abortion. You might not want to use the founding fathers as a prop in this debate.

The US Constitution does give the goverment the right to levy taxes, but if liberals want to use the "right to privacy" arguement to support abortion, I think you have to admit income taxation is an egregious violation of the right to privacy.

This part of your argument is a losing argument (and has actually been already been litigated unsuccessfully by various tax evaders). The rights given in the Constitution (and any legal document, really) cannot override other things explicitly within the document. If there is a necessary conflict, which I don't think necessarilly exists here, then courts generally will construe the document to be enforceable to the extent it can be, with explicit terms given the higher priority. Thus you can still have a right to privacy under Roe, except to the point it infringes on the government's explicit right to levy taxes. The latter right is explicit, and thus carved out (an obligatory exception to that rule).

Could you explain to me why this is invalid. I think you have a thoughtful answer and if it's really good, you might convince me.
Because the difference between a term infant who only needs to fed, kept warm, dry, etc is no comparison to the preterm 26-weeker who is on a ventilator, being fed through a tube, under an incubator, at risk for IRDS, necrotizing enteritis, etc, etc. Most babies will survive at term even given less than optimal conditions (look at all the babies born to crack addled moms), where as the stars have to align for a lot of premies not to come out of the ordeal blind, retarded, deaf, crippled, or just plain dead. The miracles of a modern NICU are not as common as many would like to think. I think the difference between a term and a preterm infant is what Mike was trying to point out. Truth be told, a term baby is rather hard to kill for good reason...

If abortion isn't murder, why should it be rare? That makes no sense. Liberals support abortion on the BELIEF that the fetus has no life. They have not and cannot prove that the fetus is not alive...this is why abortion should be illegal. Ultrasounds seem to indicate that the fetus does have life, and does respond to the pain inflicted during an abortion. I learned in Biology 101 that life does begin at conception. I think it's rather arrogant for humans to decide what form of innocent human life is viable.

I never said a fetus isn't alive, actually. I said it is not an independently viable life, which it isn't until after approximately 21 weeks (at the very earliest). And why should abortion be rare if it isn't murder? Well, did you see where I said that abortion is a BAD THING? Lots of stuff that is bad is also not murder. Heck, beating somebody up is bad, but it isn't murder. Look, I'm saying this from a religious as well as a political/philosophical perspective. As I mentioned before, my religion does not equate abortion with murder. And I'm a very religious person.

Liberals in congress opposed a ban on partial birth abortion. The baby's head is outside the woman at this point, and the physician sticks a fork-like object in the baby's head and sucks out his brains with a vacuum device. If that's not infanticide, what is? 3rd trimester abortion isn't as "extremely rare" as your conscience would like you to believe.

#1. I am not a liberal in congress. I never said I supported "partial birth" abortion. Stop generalizing.

#2. Just because there is a term for this procedure doesn't mean it isn't extremely extraordinarily rare. It is. You just don't even have an argument there. Because something is in legislation and has a name, it's common? And my conscience doesn't really factor into this one at all; does yours?


The fetus inside the woman is not the woman's body. It's a seperate human life. You seem to be comparing a fetus to a parasite in this paragraph. That seems like a rather shallow point of view. You say that a fetus would not be able to exist with the mother, but how many 4 year old kids would able to survive with their parents or other adults taking care of them? Your point seems to be that the woman should be allowed to kill her fetus because it cannot take care of itself. Shouldn't society and goverment strive to protect and help those that cannot take care of themselves, like the elderly and mentally disabled, not to mention fetuses.

This was, is, and always will be a fallacious argument. Bacteria on an agar plate, to use somebody's prior example, is also alive and exists on its own, yes? Well, if I leave the plate sitting in the incubator for a while without doing anything, the bacteria will all die. See, there's a very real difference between being able to take care of yourself and being a viable life. Pets can't take care of themselves, but we don't go around killing them, right? This is why I said before (in different words) that a baby, once born, is capable of living and breathing and surviving without the direct physical support of the mother. It still needs the appropriate environment to survive in. So you could take it to somebody else, and that person could care for it, and it would still live.

I am not elloquent, nor am I trained in philosophy. I can't adequately explain the difference here. I'm sure others may be able to help. But if you just simply can't see that there is a difference, it may just be a waste of time to even try to explain it to you.

I think it's funny how you think it's hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time. Liberals like you support terminating the life of fetus who has done no harm to anybody, but you think it's wrong to execute a ruthless killer like Tookie Williams, who has violated the right to life of several innocent people. It would seem to me that you are consistly against the right to life of the INNOCENT on abortion and not seeming to care too much about the right to life of the victims of murder, but support the right to life for a killer. Now that is hypocrisy.

I love how I express one opinion and I become a dirty "liberal". There is way more to me than you know, and yet you're judging me, pasting me with a label that you think is dirty (and which I happen to think is not). That seems incredibly judgemental for somebody who seems to want to police the world's morals.

Because I don't support the death penalty I don't care about the victims of murder? Whoah, now that's an interesting claim. As a religious person I cannot and will not support the US death penalty system. Enough said.

This part of your argument is a losing argument (and has actually been already been litigated unsuccessfully by various tax evaders). The rights given in the Constitution (and any legal document, really) cannot override other things explicitly within the document. If there is a necessary conflict, which I don't think necessarilly exists here, then courts generally will construe the document to be enforceable to the extent it can be, with explicit terms given the higher priority. Thus you can still have a right to privacy under Roe, except to the point it infringes on the government's explicit right to levy taxes. The latter right is explicit, and thus carved out (an obligatory exception to that rule).

My point is there no right to privacy in the the Constition. The right that the goverment has to levy income taxes is proof that there is no right to privacy if the goverment can violate that right as it sees fit. The Roe vs. Wade decision said there was a right to privacy in the Constitition, and this is what liberals use to defend the abortion of fetuses. If the Constitution states there is a right to privacy, it would seem that income taxation would be illegal, and prostition would be legal. The fact that the goverment makes an "obligatory exception to the rule" regarding income tax and the right to privacy does not mean the exception is justified. Our goverment states there is a right to privacy, but then eagerly violates that stated right in order to fulfill their greedy desire to generate more tax revenue for their pet projects. Tax revenue can be generated by other means other than income tax including sales tax and property tax, and this would not be a violation of the right of privacy that you imagine is stated in the Constitution. I think tax payers have a more legitimate claim to the right to privacy in regard to income taxation than a woman who wants to abort her fetus for convenience. The Constition does not state specifically state how taxes are to be levied, so I can assume that income tax is not necessarily one of the ways the goverment should raise tax revenue, especially if there is a right to privacy in the Constitution, as you seem to believe.

The Roe vs. Wade decision said there was a right to privacy in the Constitition, ...

What the high court says is law is the law, unless and until overturned. It has nothing to do with liberals versus conservatives and their views on privacy -- it is currently the law of the land. The whole point of having a supreme court of lifetime appointees is to get past the silly liberal versus conservative, democrat versus republican arguments. I am neither liberal nor conservative, but as an American I accept the laws issued by my Supreme Court, which, under our constitutional form of government happens to be the law, until another case is heard that overrules the prior law. So as of this moment, there IS a right to privacy, not because any liberals are arguing there is one, but because our supreme court has chosen to find one. That you disagree is moot until you get appointed to that court. When that happens I would be quite interested to know your view of the constitution, but until then, it's irrelevent to me. :D
Again, your income tax argument has ALREADY been litigated by income tax evaders on similar grounds as you suggest (in terms of privacy), and they lost, so guess what -- that is the law of the country as well. Your argument on this point is even further flawed in that the government has the explicit right to levy taxes under the Constitution. The fact that the Roe case indicated that there was some right to privacy, and that income tax protesters/evaders were unable to sway the court that they shouldn't have to file and pay taxes in the manner currently required are not in conflict and can exist in harmony --neither of which undermines or negates the fact that both are currently the law. You may feel they are in conflict, but jurists disagree, and your view isn't directly pertinent to a court of lifetime appointees that you don't get to directly elect. There is really no point in debating anything further. You aren't likely to agree with my points, nor am I going to sway to yours.

I never said a fetus isn't alive, actually. I said it is not an independently viable life, which it isn't until after approximately 21 weeks (at the very earliest). And why should abortion be rare if it isn't murder? Well, did you see where I said that abortion is a BAD THING? Lots of stuff that is bad is also not murder. Heck, beating somebody up is bad, but it isn't murder. Look, I'm saying this from a religious as well as a political/philosophical perspective. As I mentioned before, my religion does not equate abortion with murder. And I'm a very religious person.

A child that is born isn't an independently viable life....it must be fed by adults to survive. You state that abortion is a bad thing....why is it a bad thing if it is not murder? I can't see any reason why abortion would be bad if it's not considered murder. Religion has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is ethical, so you can stop falling back on that.


#1. I am not a liberal in congress. I never said I supported "partial birth" abortion. Stop generalizing.

I didn't claim you were a liberal in congress. But you stated that third trimester abortions are extraordinarily rare, but you did not provide any source that supports that bold contention. Why would liberals in Congress oppose partial birth abortion if it's so extremely rare, as you claim?

#2. Just because there is a term for this procedure doesn't mean it isn't extremely extraordinarily rare. It is. You just don't even have an argument there. Because something is in legislation and has a name, it's common? And my conscience doesn't really factor into this one at all; does yours?

Again, where is your proof that this procedure is extremely rare? Stating something as fact doesn't make it so.


This was, is, and always will be a fallacious argument. Bacteria on an agar plate, to use somebody's prior example, is also alive and exists on its own, yes? Well, if I leave the plate sitting in the incubator for a while without doing anything, the bacteria will all die. See, there's a very real difference between being able to take care of yourself and being a viable life.

Your post above is rather incoherent. I think the point you are trying to make is that a fetus could not live outside the uterus, thus it is not a viable life. But, a one year old baby could not survive without adults taking care of it, but we don't abort one year old babies. To suggest that a human life can be ended because it can not take care of itself is very sadistic. It would follow that old people and retards could be killed off because they can't take care of themselves.



Pets can't take care of themselves, but we don't go around killing them, right?

Fetuses can't take care of themselves either, but you don't mind if others abort them. Your pet analogy seems to hurt more than help your arguement. You seem to care more about animal rights than fetus rights. I would think a fetus has a greater claim to the right to life than an animal.


This is why I said before (in different words) that a baby, once born, is capable of living and breathing and surviving without the direct physical support of the mother. It still needs the appropriate environment to survive in. So you could take it to somebody else, and that person could care for it, and it would still live.

This is a distinction without a difference. Whether the baby is born or unborn, it stills need some kind of support for survival. You claim the fetus needs the direct physical support of the mother to survive in the woman's body....isn't that evidence that the fetus has life, otherwise it would not need the mother's physical support. A dead object within in the mother would require no physical support.

I am not elloquent, nor am I trained in philosophy. I can't adequately explain the difference here. I'm sure others may be able to help. But if you just simply can't see that there is a difference, it may just be a waste of time to even try to explain it to you.

I agree that you cannot adequately explain the difference here.


I love how I express one opinion and I become a dirty "liberal". There is way more to me than you know, and yet you're judging me, pasting me with a label that you think is dirty (and which I happen to think is not). That seems incredibly judgemental for somebody who seems to want to police the world's morals.

I never called you a dirty liberal...I made a logical assumption that you are a liberal, and I accurately labelled you are so. If you are offended by being accurately labelled as a liberal, you might want to work on your self esteem. I don't get sensitive when people correctly label me as a conservative. I think it's amusing you are demonizing me for being against abortion as though I am some kind of Nazi. Whatever you think about abortion, I don't think you can demonize somebody who cares about the life of a fetus....that might be a tad bit judgemental on your part. If I say rape is wrong, does that mean I want to police the world's morals? Does that make me a judgemental bully? Are there any moral absolutes in your world view?



Because I don't support the death penalty I don't care about the victims of murder? Whoah, now that's an interesting claim. As a religious person I cannot and will not support the US death penalty system. Enough said.

As a religious person, you suppport the abortion of innocent fetuses, but have loads of compassion for ruthless killers on death row. That's one hell of a religion!!!! If you cared about the families of the victims of murder, you probably wouldn't be so anti-death penalty. The fact of the matter is you support abortion on the BELIEF that the fetus is not viable life....this is something that you cannot scientifically prove, and which ultrasounds seem to refute. Fetuses appear to have all the signs of human life at 12 weeks when many abortions are performed. A beating heart and brain waves seems to be enough to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt at this point, and let it live. Not to mention the fetus violently moves away from the tools used to perform the abortion, indicating the fetus can feel pain, a sure sign of human life.

What the high court says is law is the law, unless and until overturned. It has nothing to do with liberals versus conservatives and their views on privacy -- it is currently the law of the land. The whole point of having a supreme court of lifetime appointees is to get past the silly liberal versus conservative, democrat versus republican arguments. I am neither liberal nor conservative, but as an American I accept the laws issued by my Supreme Court, which, under our constitutional form of government happens to be the law, until another case is heard that overrules the prior law. So as of this moment, there IS a right to privacy, not because any liberals are arguing there is one, but because our supreme court has chosen to find one. That you disagree is moot until you get appointed to that court. When that happens I would be quite interested to know your view of the constitution, but until then, it's irrelevent to me. :D
Again, your income tax argument has ALREADY been litigated by income tax evaders on similar grounds as you suggest (in terms of privacy), and they lost, so guess what -- that is the law of the country as well. Your argument on this point is even further flawed in that the government has the explicit right to levy taxes under the Constitution. The fact that the Roe case indicated that there was some right to privacy, and that income tax protesters/evaders were unable to sway the court that they shouldn't have to file and pay taxes in the manner currently required are not in conflict and can exist in harmony --neither of which undermines or negates the fact that both are currently the law. You may feel they are in conflict, but jurists disagree, and your view isn't directly pertinent to a court of lifetime appointees that you don't get to directly elect. There is really no point in debating anything further. You aren't likely to agree with my points, nor am I going to sway to yours.

I never denied that the goverment has the right levy taxes, or to legalized abortion (if Congress does it, not the supreme court). The legalization of something by a government does not necessarily mean it is ethical or just. Slavery was once legalized by our government, but I think you would agree that slavery was not an ethical enterprise. The fact that citizens were not able to sway the Supreme Court that income tax is an invasion of privacy doesn't mean it's not an invasion of privacy. Men in black robes on the court are not Gods. They shouldn't have had the right to make abortion legal - abortion was not addressed in the Constitution, but the supreme court decided to make a new law that legalized abortion. This is not the role of the Supreme Court, it is the role of the Congress to make something legal, or illegal. My point was in regards to abortion....liberals argue that it's an invasion of privacy to make abortion illegal, but they support the invasion of privacy in regard to income taxation. You can pretend this isn't a contradiction, but I expect that from a smarmy law school grad (i'm assuming you went to law school based on your screenname).

Because the difference between a term infant who only needs to fed, kept warm, dry, etc is no comparison to the preterm 26-weeker who is on a ventilator, being fed through a tube, under an incubator, at risk for IRDS, necrotizing enteritis, etc, etc. Most babies will survive at term even given less than optimal conditions (look at all the babies born to crack addled moms), where as the stars have to align for a lot of premies not to come out of the ordeal blind, retarded, deaf, crippled, or just plain dead. The miracles of a modern NICU are not as common as many would like to think. I think the difference between a term and a preterm infant is what Mike was trying to point out. Truth be told, a term baby is rather hard to kill for good reason...
Exactly. I was too frustrated to post since it seems cats has no previous medical experience.

Exactly. I was too frustrated to post since it seems cats has no previous medical experience.
Eh, (s)he'll learn....just give it time.

A child that is born isn't an independently viable life....it must be fed by adults to survive. You state that abortion is a bad thing....why is it a bad thing if it is not murder? I can't see any reason why abortion would be bad if it's not considered murder. Religion has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is ethical, so you can stop falling back on that.

I already explained this to you. Interesting that you just completely ignored my explanation. Again -- since when are all bad things equivalent to murder? I think it's pretty bad to cut your own arm off, but it's not murder. And yes, I keep referring to religion. Why? Because anti-abortion advocates often refer to religion as the basis of their position, and I want to make it clear that as a religious person I hold a different position, which is also supported by my religion.

I didn't claim you were a liberal in congress. But you stated that third trimester abortions are extraordinarily rare, but you did not provide any source that supports that bold contention. Why would liberals in Congress oppose partial birth abortion if it's so extremely rare, as you claim?
...
Again, where is your proof that this procedure is extremely rare? Stating something as fact doesn't make it so.

And stating that it isn't doesn't make it so, either. If you read this thread, when I initially mentioned that these types of abortions are rare, I was agreeing with a previous poster. So no, I don't have evidence, nor did I say I do. I said I agree that I think they are rare, based on what I've read; I can't direct you to a source. But since you seem to want proof, why don't you find some yourself?

Your post above is rather incoherent. I think the point you are trying to make is that a fetus could not live outside the uterus, thus it is not a viable life. But, a one year old baby could not survive without adults taking care of it, but we don't abort one year old babies. To suggest that a human life can be ended because it can not take care of itself is very sadistic. It would follow that old people and retards could be killed off because they can't take care of themselves.

Fetuses can't take care of themselves either, but you don't mind if others abort them. Your pet analogy seems to hurt more than help your arguement. You seem to care more about animal rights than fetus rights. I would think a fetus has a greater claim to the right to life than an animal.

Obviously my post is incoherent to you because you can't understand basic reasoning. Why go over the exact same argument again and again and again? I explained the difference between being able to take care of yourself and being an independently viable life. There's your answer. And that makes the rest of your answer incoherent.

I don't actually care all that much about animal rights, at least not more than a normal person would. I was giving an example, get it?

This is a distinction without a difference. Whether the baby is born or unborn, it stills need some kind of support for survival. You claim the fetus needs the direct physical support of the mother to survive in the woman's body....isn't that evidence that the fetus has life, otherwise it would not need the mother's physical support. A dead object within in the mother would require no physical support.

Again, I never said a fetus doesn't have life! Stop putting those words in my mouth. It does not have an independently viable life. To use a previous poster's analogy, a mole on your face is also alive, because the cells within it are alive. But if I took it off your face it would die. No, I don't think it's a great analogy. Of course a fetus is different than a mole. But I believe a fetus has a unique categorization, neither a human with all the rights associated with that status, nor a non-living thing with no rights, nor an animal with it's own set of rights. It's a fetus, and it's sad when people terminate it, but it's not equivalent to murder.

I never called you a dirty liberal...I made a logical assumption that you are a liberal, and I accurately labelled you are so. If you are offended by being accurately labelled as a liberal, you might want to work on your self esteem. I don't get sensitive when people correctly label me as a conservative. I think it's amusing you are demonizing me for being against abortion as though I am some kind of Nazi. Whatever you think about abortion, I don't think you can demonize somebody who cares about the life of a fetus....that might be a tad bit judgemental on your part. If I say rape is wrong, does that mean I want to police the world's morals? Does that make me a judgemental bully? Are there any moral absolutes in your world view?

You labeled me as a liberal with a distinct tone to it. But furthermore, you labeled me as a liberal, thereby assuming in your post that you somehow understand my opinions and viewpoints by the very nature of me being liberal. That is an invalid generalization. I am not offended by being labeled a liberal, as I said (I don't see it as a bad thing). And thanks, my self esteem is great. I also never demonized you. I disagreed with you. You were the one who labeled me into a group which in your opinion has certain and specific viewpoints. What I do resent is assumptions about what I believe.

Sure, there are moral absolutes, and I don't think anybody really (well very few people) would disagree with them: murder is wrong, rape is wrong, etc. But then when you come down to definitions, and you say that abortion is murder and I say it is not, obviously there aren't absolutes there or we'd all agree. I respect the opinion that abortion is wrong because it is murder, and I respect people who do their best to fight against it, as long as they aren't hurting anybody in the process. I also think I have the right to defend my own point of view, and in my opinion abortion cannot be legislated because individual opinion on it varies too widely. If you think it's wrong, don't do it. Encourage others not to do it, and support them so they won't have to. That's great, I'd do the exact same things. I just don't think it should be illegal. (There should be restrictions, however, just like with most aspects of life; so yes, I support bans on very late term abortion, after a fetus is viable.)


As a religious person, you suppport the abortion of innocent fetuses, but h