Reply With Quote
Impossible to measure, given that most illegal abortions were not reported or recorded.How many abortions were there before Roe v. Wade? After?
And that's what we're arguing about, isn't it?
Sure, why not.
I disagree.
Impossible to measure, given that most illegal abortions were not reported or recorded.How many abortions were there before Roe v. Wade? After?
But, the numbers of women that died due to the illegal procedures is known...
I'll find the statistics.
What is the difference between a nation allowing abortions to occur and a nation allowing starvation to occur?
That is, in all likelihood, a small fraction of the total number of "back alley" abortions.But, the numbers of women that died due to the illegal procedures is known...
Not every woman stuck a rusty coat hanger up her snatch.
You may need to make your point because, I'm not sure I follow, but I'd say
Abortion are acts that are either legitimized or delegitimized by government while starvations is a condition that is either responded to or not by a government.
Both are preventable but one is an overt act while the other is a sympomatic condition of other problems.
I agree but, the more illegal abortions there were only reduces the mortality rate when compared to current legal abortions.
It's a catch 22 for pro-abortionists. Either illegal abortions had a lower mortality rate than legal ones do or we've so increased the number of abortions by legalizing them that it's not longer a safe alternative for mothers because we're killing more of them now than we did when they were illegal.
Noodle that one out and I'll get back to you later.
I disagree. Abortion is not legitimized by the government's choice not to interfere. The government is not sanctioning abortion as they would, say, gay marriage. They are simply allowing it to happen, because it's going to happen and trying to police or prevent it would create more problems.Abortion are acts that are either legitimized or delegitimized by government while starvations is a condition that is either responded to or not by a government.
That sounds like a great reason to picket abortion clinics or mail out pamphlets, but I don't see what it has to do with whether or not the government should step in and enforce a no-abortions policy.It's a catch 22 for pro-abortionists. Either illegal abortions had a lower mortality rate than legal ones do or we've so increased the number of abortions by legalizing them that it's not longer a safe alternative for mothers because we're killing more of them now than we did when they were illegal.
If the woman chooses to risk her life for an abortion, that's her choice. Of course, she probably has a better chance of being killed in a wreck on her way to the clinic...
Stop saying "pro-abortion". I am pro-choice..NOT pro-abortion.
Are conservatives "pro-war" thus "pro-death"?
If you're not against it, you're for it. But -- since I wasn't talking directly to you -- let me say, there are pro-abortion people out there.
Nah, just pro-security.
So you're all for the woman having the right to have an abortion but when they exercise that right you're against it?
That's not the greatest analogy Joe.Are conservatives "pro-war" thus "pro-death"?
Many involved in war are able to defend themselves and therefore leave the war alive, the baby facing abortion has no capacity to defend himself or herself and therefore there are no survivors.
That should break the hardest of hearts but it doesn't.
I have a problem with it because your standard is no more reasonably or any less arbitrary than the viability standard that you so readily decry. There's ample medical research on which to base a determination that a fetus has become viable. You reject that as too arbitrary, so why is your standard any different.
Certainly there is medical research and obstetrical history to allow some determinations to be made in objective terms. But that all assumes proper diagnoses and the existence of only known conditions as the causative factor in all maternal mortality cases. Neither assumption is valid.
And what is the government to do if a particular doctor finds that his or her patients are suffering from problems that threaten the mother's life? Should there be an investigation if the findings are out of kilter from some sort of national average -- I mean, surely you'd have to develop some means to prohibit doctors from readily concluding that the lives of certain unhappy patients were in danger as a result of their pregnancies and giving them the medical go-ahead to have an abortion. Are we now going to investigate each and every clinic to insure that the dire consequences diagnoses are founded in fact and not in a willingness to aid a patient to obtain the abortion that you outlawed?
It is based on individual cases and not arbitrary benchmarks of gestational age. The viability date of a fetus has yet to be fixed definitively, has it?
But, it is based on the facts known about a particular case and for which individuals can be held accountable and not an arbitrary standard based on the "medical consensus" du jour.
Do we demand any less for a person going to the executioners chamber?
Viability can be fixed as definitively as the likelihood that a pregnancy will threaten a mother's life. Both are complex issues that involve any number of uncontrollable variables. We do know that there are some instances in which a pregnancy will threaten a mother's life, but it's hubris to think that we've identified each of them. In the same sense, it is my understanding that we know that there is a point after which a fetus is viable, though not all become viable at the same time. In any event, if it's arbitrary to conclude that there is a particular viability date, it's equally arbitrary to conclude that a mother's life is or is not endangered by her pregnancy.
And again, any exceptions to the rule that you espouse would seem to defeat the policy justifications you advance for the rule itself. If abortion is a violation of the rights of the fetus, then an abortion is an abortion is an abortion. There can't be an exception without undermining, to some extent, your policy.
How are you going to hold them accountable, though? Are we going to ins ute the Abortion police and create a whole new bureaucracy to ensure that no women are having abortions when they shouldn't be? Can Joe Friday walking the beat assess whether an abortion was properly permitted without a medical degree? Do we have to have governmental panels review the determinations of individual doctors on these issues? Who decides what the panels standards are and do those panels apply national or local standards?
If the right was so vehemently against subsidized health care because of the bureaucratic largesse it would require, why is this problem any different in kind?
So you'd be in favor of some sort of investigation into every case in which a doctor concludes that a woman is eligible to have an abortion? and would that investigation have to precede the procedure or would it be a post hoc review to ensure that transgressing women can be thrown in prison as frequently as possible?
There is...it's roughly 16 weeks. If you've ever been pregnant and been to regular doctor visits during the first 3-4 months they advise you to be very cautious because a pregnancy is very volatile during that time.it is my understanding that we know that there is a point after which a fetus is viable
Not coincidentally, after which, any pregnancy that is terminated is considered a late-term abortion and is banned in most states unless critically, medically necessary. In Texas it is illegal to have/perform an abortion after 16 weeks.
Last edited by SpursWoman; 11-03-2005 at 09:08 PM.
Define "roughly" and then help me to understand how to reconcile those that unfortunately fall just on the wrong side of the "roughly" line.
Thanks.
Right. Then go look into the eyes of a woman who has been brutally raped, impregnated by the rape, and then tell her that she can go herself if she thinks she's morally justified getting the remains of a monster out of her body...that she has no rights and she's nothing but a ing incubator for a criminal and to just deal with it. Because that's what YOU believe so that's THE ONLY answer. And I'd I like her reaction on video tape.
Thanks.
Okay, way to concentrate on less than .5% of abortions in order to justify the over 99% of others.
First of all, the baby isn't a monster and isn't to blame for the rape. Further, I find it reprehensible that you would exploit a rape victims dilemma in order to justify a convenience abortion.
So, back to that definition of "roughly."
Last edited by Yonivore; 11-03-2005 at 10:55 PM.
A baby's heart begins beating 18-25 days after conceptionSpurswoman:
In Texas it is <legal> to have/perform an abortion <up to> 16 weeks...she's morally justified getting the remains of a monster out of her body...
Sixteen weeks old. The baby can grasp with his/her hands, kick, or even somersault. Baby now has a sucking reflex. If a bitter solution is introduced into the amniotic fluid, all swallowing stops, however, if a sugary solution is introduced, the baby swallows twice as fast as before! The baby can also get the hiccups just about now.
16 weeks old ^^^
Texas abortion law sparks protests
Jamie Wilson in Washington
Tuesday June 7, 2005
The bill also restricts doctors from performing abortions on women who have carried a child for more than 26 weeks unless the woman's life is jeopardised or the baby has serious brain damage. More than 30 US states have implemented similar legislation.
http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=48516
^^^25 weeks
10" now, Skin now becomes opaque instead of transparent. The heartbeat can be heard by someone outside the body now by placing an ear on the belly. If you talk or sing, he can hear you.
25 weeks - 79% of babies survive premature birth.
Doesn't sound like "her body" to me!
Uh, okay.
Thanks for the pictures, I've seen several sonograms of my own kids....it's pretty awesome. Of couse, that'd be my own opinion.
Which, btw, is that that is something I could never choose for myself..but I'm not naive enough to think that the cir stances surrounding all pregnancies are all teddy bears, pink wallpaper, and baby showers...and it's not my place to make those kinds of decisions for people I don't know based on my own feelings.
And "roughly" = a subjective POV that if were able to be clearly defined, would pretty much make this argument moot. And I understand "erring on the side of caution," but *you* need to realize not everyone feels the same way you do, and until *they* do, what your opinion is is just that...your opinion.
Last edited by SpursWoman; 11-04-2005 at 07:39 AM.
wasn't casey vs. pennsylvania a case against a law that was brought forth by a pro-life democrat Bob Casey... ? Just wondering heard something about that the other day..
And btw, about 16 weeks is the time you can actually start *feeling* the baby move inside of you...up until then all you really feel is nauseous. I'm for a ban on late-term abortions, too.Sixteen weeks old. The baby can grasp with his/her hands, kick, or even somersault. Baby now has a sucking reflex. If a bitter solution is introduced into the amniotic fluid, all swallowing stops, however, if a sugary solution is introduced, the baby swallows twice as fast as before! The baby can also get the hiccups just about now.
Maybe, if by naked eye an 8 week old embryo looked like something other than a blood clot it'd make a bigger emotional impact in the initial term, too, and greatly decrease a woman's inclination to terminate it.
That would pretty much define it absolutely as viable at that point, wouldn't it? I don't think anyone is arguing that. None would survive a premature birth at 8 weeks.
No, you are wrong. I am against it, just not willing to force a woman to do what I feel is right.
Nice spin. But if I use you way of thinking..If you are for war you are FOR death. Pro-security?...sounds like pro-choice to me. Pretty hypocritical to me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
