Bush Declares National Sanctity of Life Day

[Chris 62]

First, I will say I'm pro-choice, and always have been.

Next, I laugh at you Bush bashers, it will be fun watching you attack him the next 5 years or so.

Mindless name-calling, and you wonder why Democrats are losing in this country.
Hint: THEY DO THE SAME THING.

Bad news boys and girls, he gets an opinion, just like you do, and there is nothing "hypocritical" about his postions, they are remarkably consistant.
He's a Born again Christian, that favors right to life.
Consistant.
He's a Republican that favors strong national defense.
Consistant.
He is a conservative that favors a hard line on criminal punishment.
Consistant.

Maybe you should all break out the "He's a puppet for big oil" stichk again, that's always good for laughs.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not going to defend abortion in the case of rape.

Having an abortion in the case of rape, is like having your car smashed up by a hit and run driver, and then smashing the car next to you in your frustration and anger. Is it right to hurt an innocent person because someone else has hurt you? No. The woman was violated, but abortion will not get rid of the rape.

We should offer all our support to any woman who has become pregnant through rape, to counsel her and to help her through these difficult times. Some woman have remarked that their child was the only good thing to come out of the rape. For those who do not wish to keep their child, adoption is available.

I know this is not popular, but we do not fix a wrong by committing another wrong.

tandee-

Men should pay child support. A man is supposed to support his partner, especially when she is pregnant. If it takes 2 people to make a baby, both have responsibility to ensure that it is properly cared for.

Am I a virgin by choice? Yes, until I get married.
Look at some of my other posts. The argument is by no means limited to virgins, all I say here is that if you are going to have sex, just be ready to take care of a baby. Both the man and the woman.

Proteus,
regarding RU486-

http://dianedew.com/ru486.htm

"Dr. Turshen examined the research findings of French studies, in which 50% of patients using RU-486 suffered complications ranging anywhere from nausea to bleeding for up to 40 days. "

"One death has been reported, supposedly from the prostaglandin (PG) administered with mifepristone. And three women have suffered heart attacks. Numerous others have had to undergo blood transfusions, or dilatation and curettage, to remove remaining placental fragments."

"Abortion with RU-486 is a lengthy procedure (three to five visits required) that cannot be kept confidential, she said. The patient cannot plan where the fetus will be expelled -- in the office, in the hospital, or at home."

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
"I'm pro-choice, obiwan, if that's what you're asking. I whole-heartedly believe human life is sacred. "

-Boris

What counts as human life then? Why don't unborn children count as well?

The development of the brain and "sentience" is what I would use as the defining factor, which occures about midterm in the pregnancy. When the "atma" (as loinburger referred to it) is present, then I think it counts as a viable human. That's why I don't think late-term abortions should be done except to protect the life of the mother (which is pretty much the only instances in which they are done today). Let's face it--if you've been pregnant for 5 months, you've had enough time to decide if you want the baby or not.

"This proclamation is a political stunt to pander to the Christian conservatives. "

Perhaps, but I'll take a National Sancitity of Life day anyways. Clinton would never have announced something to this effect.

Perhaps because Clinton had no reason to pander to the Christian Right. At any rate, I won't support an empty proclamation designed to pander to a political group, especially one with which I have a lot of problems.

"he openly mocked a woman about to be executed in Texas."

Didn't hear about this. When did this happen?

Carla Faye Tucker. She was on death row, and asked for clemency. Bush denied her clemency, and in a press conference proceeded to mock her request, saying in a high pitched voice "please don't kill me."

It was probably the most disgusting displays by a politician I had ever seen, and was one of the moments that defined my dislike of Bush as a person, not just as a public figure. It was inexcusable behavior on the part of a state governor.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I do not see how it is not murder after brainwaves exist
Jon Miller

Hmm, I haven't seen the brainwave standard set forth before as the point at which human life begins. I've seen the at-conception standard of the right wing and the viability standard of Roe v. Wade but I've never been convinced by either of those approaches. But brainwaves...hmm. I'll have to think about this.

[Ben Kenobi]

"The development of the brain and "sentience" is what I would use as the defining factor, which occures about midterm in the pregnancy."

"That's why I don't think late-term abortions should be done except to protect the life of the mother (which is pretty much the only instances in which they are done today). "

Nope- sorry Boris.

You are off on your fetal development.
Sometime after week 8, but before week 12, the nervous system of the fetus is responsive. I feel this counts at sentience- so to make sure you are not killing a person, you would need to ban all abortions after 8 weeks, unless the mother's life is in danger. This is why some abortionists recommend using anaestetic to avoid unnecessary pain for the unborn child during abortion.

In any case, why does sentience determine your personhood? Do I have a right to kill you while you are sleeping, just because you are not currently sentient?

As for late-term abortions,

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, "420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks." These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems. ["Why Do Women Have Abortions?," Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988.]

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Chris 62
First, I will say I'm pro-choice, and always have been.

As am I. (Better get that out before the usual assumptions about me based on my other viewpoints.)

Maybe you should all break out the "He's a puppet for big oil" stichk again, that's always good for laughs.

But... but, they're doing so well with the "he's an idiot" claim.

[Cyclotron]

Abortion due to rape, at least, seems unopposable. Think for example if you were abducted during the night and anesthetized, only to discover that you were lying in a hospital hooked up to some guy who had kidney failure. The man would die without kidneys, and (assuming dialysis/transplants are not an option) his only hope at life is to share somebody else's kidneys.

The man very well may have a "right to life," but his right to live does not give him access to your body; most people would reject that the man's right to life conferrs an obligation. It may be generous to let him use your kidneys, but it is certainly your choice and not his.

In this way, it seems obvious that abortions should at least be allowed in cases of rape, because the fetus' right to life does not convey an obligation to the mother.

Of course, once it becomes consensual this argument loses validity, but it seems morally bankrupt to say that rape victims should be prohibited form abortion.

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by obiwan18
I'm not going to defend abortion in the case of rape.

Having an abortion in the case of rape, is like having your car smashed up by a hit and run driver, and then smashing the car next to you in your frustration and anger. Is it right to hurt an innocent person because someone else has hurt you? No. The woman was violated, but abortion will not get rid of the rape.

We should offer all our support to any woman who has become pregnant through rape, to counsel her and to help her through these difficult times. Some woman have remarked that their child was the only good thing to come out of the rape. For those who do not wish to keep their child, adoption is available.

I know this is not popular, but we do not fix a wrong by committing another wrong.

You've got to be f*cking kidding me. a woman who has been raped should be counselled in the hope that she will bear the child to fruition? If she has been raped and impregnated, then I'm pretty sure the woman will not want the child and is perfectly entitled to abort. How you can even remotely compare the traumatic life shattering event of being raped to having your car damaged is beyond me. The "person", i.e. foetus is not innocent as it has been created from an act of evil. A woman who is forcedly reminded of that act every single day for 9 months is being tortured. She can't excise the psychological trauma if she has to face it every day.

Btw, you sound like a bloody politican with your second paragraph, the words you say are like a speech, they sound hollow and meaningless.

[orange]

Originally posted by obiwan18 Having an abortion in the case of rape, is like having your car smashed up by a hit and run driver, and then smashing the car next to you in your frustration and anger. Is it right to hurt an innocent person because someone else has hurt you? No. The woman was violated, but abortion will not get rid of the rape.

No, it's not nearly the same thing. If you were forcefully given a child to raise for at very least 9 months against your will, you should not be required to keep it. It isn't even a life, arguably, until it can live on its own outside the womb. Until that time (3rd trimester) it is not a life, but a parasite. I know that may offend some people, but by definition that's what it is - it can't live on its own.

I am against 3rd trimester abortions for this reason, but prior to that it's FAIR GAME in my opinion.

And if the above is really the way you feel, Obiwan, why do you support capital punishment (if you do - I think I remember you saying you do)

What does it solve? Nothing. What's a worse punishment? Making them live in jail for the rest of their lives. Will killing the murderer bring that person back - no. Pointless.

[Ben Kenobi]

Glad I waited to reply to all this criticism on not allowing abortion in the case of rape.

"It isn't even a life, arguably, until it can live on its own outside the womb."

orange, viability has nothing to do with the fetus, but everything to do with technology. With better neonatal care, we are now able to save babies as young as 20-21 weeks of age. It used to be at the end of the second trimester, around 26 weeks of age.

Also, are you viable at the north pole? Are you completely independent of other people?

orange - as for capital punishment, read my disclaimer. I'm a pacifist who does NOT support capital punishment even though I sometimes argue as a devil's advocate.

"The "person", i.e. foetus is not innocent as it has been created from an act of evil. "

-Demerzal

Is the child to blame for the sins of the father? Last time I checked, we don't stone women for being raped. Why should the child be different?

You assume that abortion is without consequences as well. Abortion can cause a great deal of harm, physical and psychological. Are you willing to counsel this women to abort her child even if she might be worse off afterwards?

BTW, politicians make you believe what they are saying.

That being said, if you know someone who needs help with keeping her baby, I'll help where I can. I know lots of people who she can get in touch with as well. Many generous folks out there, believe it or not.

cyclotron

"the fetus' right to life does not convey an obligation to the mother."

Do you have a responsibility to your parents? Do you have an obligation to respect them and to take care of them if they need help even though you had no choice in the matter?

If we accept your statement as true, you have just destroyed what a family is all about. Obligations and responsibilities arise from the fetus' right to life. Every right has a corresponding responsibility.

If there was another option for the mother, an incubator that could develop a child apart from the mother's womb, then pregnancy would not confer a duty on the mother. However, since we don't have said incubator, the child has no other place to grow or to develop.

In order to improve the kidney example, you'd have to change things around, like saying that the man is only hooked up to you for 9 months.

Also, the man would have to be really small so that you could still walk around and work. Some women do work during pregnancy, you know. It's not a sentence to bed for nine months.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Nope- sorry Boris.

You are off on your fetal development.
Sometime after week 8, but before week 12, the nervous system of the fetus is responsive. I feel this counts at sentience- so to make sure you are not killing a person, you would need to ban all abortions after 8 weeks, unless the mother's life is in danger. This is why some abortionists recommend using anaestetic to avoid unnecessary pain for the unborn child during abortion.

I think it is you who are a little off here. While electric impulses can be detected sometimes as early as 6 weeks, that is not remotely the same as brainwave activity nor remotely comparable to nervous systom neural activity.

At anyrate, I don't think the fetus is classifiable as human until the atman is developed, and I am doubtful that happens until late in the second trimester at the earliest.

In any case, why does sentience determine your personhood? Do I have a right to kill you while you are sleeping, just because you are not currently sentient?

Being asleep does not render one non-sentient. Find a better example.

As for late-term abortions,

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, "420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks." These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems. ["Why Do Women Have Abortions?," Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988.]

Well, the problem here is it starts at 16 weeks, which is under midterm. I wouldn't classify an abortion as truly late term until the 24th week or beyond, and this doesn't break down the numbers into the weeks beyond that. I'm very certain, given statistics I've seen, that abortions beyond the 24th week are quite small as a percentage of abortions as a whole.

That being said, I am not opposed to such abortions being strictly conditional on the health of the mother. The problem is that every bill the Republicans have offered to end late term abortions have not allowed for the mother's health to be considered, or have been worded in such a way as to potentially tie the hands of doctor for earlier procedures. If they tried for once to not play politics and present a bill banning late term abortions that allowed exceptions for the health of the mother, I guarantee you it would have passed and be law now. But instead they get to have their bill defeated and strut before pro-lifers as if they were staunch defenders of the prolife movement, while in reality they have used the issue as a political stunt.

Such stunts make me ill, just like Bush signing this two-faced proclamation.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
His argument centers on the distinction between innocent human persons, and those who are not. One can forfeit one's right to life, through killing someone else. Unborn children are by definition innocent, since they have not had a chance to hurt other people. Therefore, one should protect innocent human life, while allowing those who murder others to be punished.

Yes, embryoes and foetuses may be humans but they are not necessarily human beings. My skin cells are human too when you get right down to it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
However, we're getting off topic here - the real point of this thread was to laugh at GWB's hypocrisy re: anti-choice, but pro-death penalty and pro-war - and not to rehash the abortion argument.

Oh, I think we laughed at that before already.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
In any case, why does sentience determine your personhood? Do I have a right to kill you while you are sleeping, just because you are not currently sentient?

I am pretty sure a person who is dreaming still has the self-awareness.

Anyway, if sentience doesn't determine personhood, what does? DNA? In this case, would cutting myself considered as murder?

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris-
Even so, the unborn child is only temporarily non-sentient. The unborn child has the inherent capacity to attain sentience, and is therefore a human person as opposed to a cat or a dog. You once were a zygote, a fetus inside your mother's womb. Your definition has this disjoint where the unborn child is not human but later becomes one.

If it's not human in the womb, then what else could it be? Human beings produce other human beings.

I'm leery about the health exception for one reason.
Most times, the definition of health involves the UN definition which includes mental health. Doe v Bolton confirmed this perspective, therefore, all abortions were justified because pregnancy has a psychological effect. This is why I prefer life-threatening as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, or other rare cases.

"I'm very certain, given statistics I've seen, that abortions beyond the 24th week are quite small as a percentage of abortions as a whole."

True, but the point in question is why are late-term abortions done. You have not shown that late-term abortions are done solely for the health of the mother as opposed to more material concerns.