Oxymoron of the Century: Abortion Providers in Texas Could Face Death Penalty

[CatsandCradles]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

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?

 

[MoosePilot]

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.

 

[raph91]

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.

 

[CatsandCradles]

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. 😳

 

[50dent]

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

 

[CatsandCradles]

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?

 

[raph91]

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.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

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.

 

[CatsandCradles]

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 😱



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

 

[MoosePilot]

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.

 

[raph91]

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.

 

[CatsandCradles]

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.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

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.

 

[bananaface]

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.

 

[MoosePilot]

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.

 

[aphistis]

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.

 

[Mike MacKinnon]

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.

 

[Law2Doc]

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.

 

[CatsandCradles]

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

 

[CatsandCradles]

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.

 

[Gut Shot]

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:

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.

 

[CatsandCradles]

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.

 

[Gut Shot]

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.

 

[Mike MacKinnon]

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.

 

[riceman04]

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

 

[DropkickMurphy]

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.

 

[LADoc00]

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.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

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.....

 

[Gut Shot]

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.

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.

 

[CatsandCradles]

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?

 

[CatsandCradles]

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.

 

[Mike MacKinnon]

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.

 

[Mike MacKinnon]

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.

 

[medhacker]

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.

 

[tigress]

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.)

 

[DropkickMurphy]

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.

 

[tigress]

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?

 

[DropkickMurphy]

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

 

[DropkickMurphy]

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

 

[tigress]

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.

 

[tigress]

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.

 

[CatsandCradles]

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? "

 

[CatsandCradles]

", 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 👎



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

 

[bobbarker28]

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.

 

[bobbarker28]

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.

 

[CatsandCradles]

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?

 

[bobbarker28]

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 👎



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.

 

[bobbarker28]

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.

 

[Whippet Good!]

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?

 

[Mike MacKinnon]

Nicely Said. 👍

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.)