Senate Passes Bill Limiting Abortion

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Sava


Where exactly did you get your medical degree huh? Or is this opinion based on your years of experiences in obstetrics? Let me guess, abortion is just a leftist conspiracy

You know, for somebody who "guessed" that the number of non-necessary partial-birth abortions can be counted on "one hand", deriding the expertise of others is not a strong argument to make for someone in your position.

Just a friendly little debating tip!

[monkspider]

I second Sava's hysterics on this issue. This is a slippery slope indeed for congress to begin upon. I greatly fear what the next few years will bring.

[Sava]

There's a difference between guessing on the number of partial-birth abortions and making an asinine assertion like "Partial Birth Abortion is never nessecary to save the mother's life.".

The decision to perform an abortion is one a physician and a woman(and/or man) should make. Not George Bush, not you, and not a bunch of politicians. Doctors swear oaths to protect life and if the medical community says abortions aren't wrong, then I agree with them.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html

"In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his paper on this procedure at a Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are "purely elective." In a personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that "elective" does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion. He admitted to Fr. Frank that there does not seem to be any medical reason for this procedure. There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony). "

The main problem with the bill as provided is that it doesn't give a strict enough penalty for performing a partial birth abortion. The procedure is murder, and should be punished as murder in the first degree, meaning the penalties should be either life in prison or the death penalty.

A fetus isn't defined as a live human being for any other purpose, so unless you want to grant full civil rights to fetuses in utero, you have a bit of a problem. You also have a bit of an Establishment Clause problem, because it would be a bit tough to find a compelling reason for considering fetuses to be live human beings with full civil rights that is NOT based on a religious definition.

[Ben Kenobi]

Abortion isn't wrong... abortion isn't right. It's a medical decision that involves preventing the birth of a human being.

Lovely euphemism, Sava.

Did you read the description of partial birth abortion in the link, either provided by myself or Shi? Abortion is not 'preventing birth' but the active killing of a living human person.

Doctors swear oaths to protect life and if the medical community says abortions aren't wrong, then I agree with them.

Okay. If doctors have an oath to protect life, what about the unborn child? Why are they allowed to kill people for the convenience of others?

BTW Shi:

You've got cojones.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by monkspider
I second Sava's hysterics on this issue. This is a slippery slope indeed for congress to begin upon. I greatly fear what the next few years will bring.

Roe v. Wade needs to be modified anyway, since it uses a rather vague "viability" standard. Outlawing relatively rare late term abortion procedures isn't much of a slippery slope to an outright ban.

[Ben Kenobi]

MtG:

A fetus isn't defined as a live human being for any other purpose, so unless you want to grant full civil rights to fetuses in utero, you have a bit of a problem. You also have a bit of an Establishment Clause problem, because it would be a bit tough to find a compelling reason for considering fetuses to be live human beings with full civil rights that is NOT based on a religious definition.

Two points.

1. Why do we need to grant full constitutional rights? Do we grant the right to liberty to children who are minors? There is no compelling reason to grant unborn children full constitutional rights. However, there are compelling reasons to grant unborn children the right to life, such that no person has the right to kill the unborn child.

2.

full civil rights that is NOT based on a religious definition.

Unborn children are living human persons from conception onwards. They are living because living things can only come from other living things. They are human because their parents are human, the same as for puppies being canines or for any other species.

Legal personhood is the tricky term. Are they any other living human beings who are not considered legal persons? No. Therefore, if the unborn is both living and human, they should also be considered persons.

Where do you feel the line should be drawn MtG?

[Lincoln]

We were on a "slippery slope" long before this bill was passed by the Senate. The slope started (arguably) in 1973 when the USSC decided it could micromanage life in the womb. That slope did not end in partial birth abortions but in LIVE BIRTH abortions. It is no secret that doctors have been for years letting children die on the abortion table if they were accidently born alive. This bill is an attempt to get us off of the slope before doctors are allowed to stab any baby they choose if the mother doesn't like his looks. Peter Singer et al already encourage the culling of undesirable infants.

The so called "health of the mother" exception is a sham. "Health" is defined as anything from emotional distress to a hang-nail. Any woman anywhere at any time could claim her health was endanger and kill the full term infant if the doctor just kept the head mostly in the womb. These abortions are performed in the great majority of cases on healthy babies carried by healthy women. The exception in this bill is reasonable because it allows this procedure if the mother's life is in danger without the double talk about "health".

And Monkspider I cannot see how you can encourage Sava in his outrage over someone trying to save the life of the innocent. I thought you were a peace and love advocate? What kind of love is it when the innocent are violently killed by those who happen to be wielding power over them? This whole abortion issue has nothing to do with women's health. Anyone who believes that needs to look up some statistics. Abortions are for the convienience of the mother.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by obiwan18
MtG:



Two points.

1. Why do we need to grant full constitutional rights? Do we grant the right to liberty to children who are minors? There is no compelling reason to grant unborn children full constitutional rights. However, there are compelling reasons to grant unborn children the right to life, such that no person has the right to kill the unborn child.

Yes we do - the Constitution doesn't enter into private relationships (i.e. minority and parental consent), but minors may own property, may sue or be sued (there's no blanket immunity, although liability may extend to parents), they have due process rights in the legal system,

2.


Unborn children are living human persons from conception onwards. They are living because living things can only come from other living things. They are human because their parents are human, the same as for puppies being canines or for any other species.

Legal personhood is the tricky term. Are they any other living human beings who are not considered legal persons? No. Therefore, if the unborn is both living and human, they should also be considered persons.

Where do you feel the line should be drawn MtG?

They are living human zygotes, embryos, fetuses and then human beings - when born. Being genetically distinct won't be a valid distinction now that we're technologically at or very near the point of being able to clone humans.

At the moment of conception, you have a single celled organism not yet attached to the uterine wall from which it will draw nourishment for nine months, and from which it will be dependent for it's survival for five or six.

Since the genetically distinct argument won't distinguish cloned embryos, we either have to adopt a compound standard, (tricky, since physical distinction gets into issues that the embryo/fetus is physically dependent for survival to complex attachments to the mother's body.)

Absent a scientific (or at least secular) consensus defining a human person, it isn't permissible to adopt a standard based on a religious preference.

Given those parameters, I reject the notion of state interference at or near conception, but I think the fetal viability test of Roe v. Wade is wrong both because it involves a standard that can change with technology, so it's debateable (a weakness Justice Blackmun acknowledged), and it's too late in the fetal development.

For some time prior to viability, prenatal brain function is measurable (and largely indistinguishable from neonate dream state brain activity), the fetus engages in routine movement and neonate style "play" (making waves, sucking thumbs and toes) and all the gross anatomical features are in human form - just not fully developed or growing.

My son was born in November, 2000, and the earliest ultrasounds we have of him are at 16 weeks, and at that point, the movements and anatomical development were very clear, and unequivocally defineable as human. There was no reason to measure brain activity, but obviously it was there, and the structural development of the brain is complete, so to me, the standard has to be well before 16 weeks, say a maximum of 12-13 weeks.

At 7 weeks, there are still anatomical differences, and structures that are not in human form, and there's no question of any chance of survival independent of the uterine attachment. I don't know what the level or type of brain activity is at that stage, but assume some brain activity, but not yet consistent with late term fetus or corresponding to any neonate brain activity.

So right now, pending other scientific data or technological developments, I'd put the legal dividing line for the state asserting an interest in the fetus at somewhere between seven and 12-13 weeks.

The exact number (I'm not in a position to author abortion legislation, and Bush hasn't offered me a SCOTUS seat yet, so I haven't work it out to an exact number) would have to be refined within that range, based on some objective standard that applied to embryos and fetuses of normal development for their age in utero. In the case of severely deformed fetuses, I'd let the standard go a little later, but only if the magnitude of the deformity was such that the fetus had no probability of surviving to term or surviving infancy. i.e., if at 15 weeks you discover by ultrasound you have conjoined twins joined in such a way that expert opinion is that they can't be separated with either surviving, and they can't survive infancy, then abortion would be allowable that late.

However, non-lethal birth defects such as lack of an arm or some non-lethal deformity which doesn't threaten the survival of the mother or fetus, would not be considered adequate reason to extend the time period in which abortion would be allowable.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

let individual people choose - the state has no right limiting the choices of someone with what they do with their body.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln
We were on a "slippery slope" long before this bill was passed by the Senate. The slope started (arguably) in 1973 when the USSC decided it could micromanage life in the womb. That slope did not end in partial birth abortions but in LIVE BIRTH abortions. It is no secret that doctors have been for years letting children die on the abortion table if they were accidently born alive. This bill is an attempt to get us off of the slope before doctors are allowed to stab any baby they choose if the mother doesn't like his looks. Peter Singer et al already encourage the culling of undesirable infants.

IIRC, every state has a legal standard for live birth, such that if the baby/fetus/whatever is alive when removed from the womb, it is a live birth, and that killing it or letting it die thereafter would be homicide.

Also, although I've heard all sorts of "pro-life" advocates claim infanticide/"live birth" abortions, what I've seen for source material comes down to one woman who claimed to work for a lab that collected post-mortem fetal specimins, but she claimed to do this for thousands of fetal specimins over six states - apparently, she was the only employee this lab had, so they needed to send her over a nearly thousand mile range to collect thousands of specimins. Interesting that the lab that was that busy couldn't afford to hire anyone else (or maybe they just weren't organized, so they had everyone run around all over the midwest, from Kansas to Ohio ), and that despite all that time driving, and just being a specimin runner, she got invited into these anonymous doctor's offices to watch the drowning of live fetuses. She not only had time to do that, but she never bothered to report what she witnessed to law enforcement. Real credible source, that is. I don't remember her name, but I've seen her claims touted on at least three different anti-abortion sites - whether they borrowed material from each other, or whether she made the same claims to different organizations, I don't know.

On the other hand, "liberal" Massachusetts successfully prosecuted and issued a ten year sentence for voluntary manslaughter to Dr. Kenneth Edelin for performing an abortion on a 26 week fetus, in violation of Massachusetts law. The jury held that Edelin made no serious attempt to determine the age or viability of the fetus, and ignored indications it was more advanced in age than claimed, so he was criminally liable.

So I'd like to see some real evidence of "live birth" abortions being routinely practiced.

As far as one idiot advocating infanticide, (culling), there are idiots who decide life is so sacred, they should kill doctors. Neither is representative of the mainstream position.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
let individual people choose - the state has no right limiting the choices of someone with what they do with their body.

At some point in the process, there's more than one body. The debate is centered on which point in the process.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

as long as the baby isnt born, it is a part of the mother, and therefore isn't part of the country and thus cannot be restricted by the state.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Lincoln
This whole abortion issue has nothing to do with women's health. Anyone who believes that needs to look up some statistics. Abortions are for the convienience of the mother.

Such is life in our disposable culture. Everyone talks about "my rights" but most remain silent when it comes to "my responsibility" We teach our kids that pregnancy is a mistake that can be fixed with a simple medical procedure. No responsibility, no black marks and in a lot of cases, your parents don’t even have to know. No sense in taking responsibility for your body because modern American can fix all ills and keep you safe from the tyranny of the family.

I believe any attempt by the government to try and teach responsibility will end in failure. Some people (most people?) simply won’t take that responsibility. “Procedures” such as this are better left restricted.

BTW: the cries of the sky is falling from some people on this thread remind me of the gun nuts that are horrified at any kind of restrictions on their so called “right to bear arms” Two cases of people taking rights to the extreme and leaving responsibility on the floor behind them.

[JohnT]

You know, this might be the biggest non sequitor (sp), but I was wondering what people think about the following:

Up to what stage would you kill an unborn tiger merely for convenience, much less "for saving the life of its mother"? An unborn hippo? Horse? Dog*?

Just a'wondering.

By the way Sava, saying the odds are "less than 5 in 2,200" w/o any evidence to prove this still doesn't help you, no matter what you screech in regards to your opponent. "Less than 5" is pretty damn similar to "never", imo.

Since you totally ducked my other point, I'll consider that one conceded.

*Not my dog. Shelby isn't even pregnant.