[quote] By by no means do you have the right to impose your beliefs upon others against their will, by legislation or otherwise. <hr></blockquote>
Of course you do. What a ridiculous, non-thinking statement of nonsense.
If is your will to steal my car, guess what legislation is going to be imposed upon you, against your will to stop you. What are laws but our societally agreed upon beliefs of what is right and wrong.
As for the abortion debate.... people are just getting up in arms because some very much needed and reasonable restrictions are going to occur. To slippery-slope choice people anything that doesn't go their way causes an alarmist scream of abortion rights ending.
Partial birth abortion is just plain infanticide. You pull the practically full term fetus out 5 more inches and you would go to prison. Instead because the head is sitting in the birth canal it is allowed to be killed in a very inhumane, painful method.
I would love to see the abortion rights group argue that the inmates on death row should be put to death in the same manner. Any court in the country would declare it cruel, inhumane, torture.
that just might work. the only problem with this is that as technology gets better, that survival date keeps shifting earlier and earlier. so what would have been just a fetus 3 years ago would now be a child.
should your status as a living being be based on the ability of medical science? the fetus of 3 years ago is just as human as the now viable baby of today. why kill of the one from 3 years ago then?
i have a problem using the limitations of medical technology to measure the "humanity" of a life in question.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I said without additional help. That means no tubes, no drugs, et cetera. If the fetus pops out early and can't survive without anything more than breastmilk, that's the basis of the cutoff. Thus, medical technology has nothing to do with it.
<strong>hmm, so what about premature babies? are they given full rights as human beings, or not until they can live without the machines?
an interesting take on the issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is indeed quite interesting. I'll just let the other talking heads tackle that one because I need to sleep.
Edit: Fine...I had to chime in. I would say that if a premature baby is wilfully born, it should be given honorary human status until it reaches the cutoff point.
"if i want you, you're a human being, if i don't want you, you're nothing".
the only difference now is that they would both be outside the womb, instead of inside. as the law stands today, if they're outside the womb they're a child, whether they're desired or not.
"if i want you, you're a human being, if i don't want you, you're nothing".
the only difference now is that they would both be outside the womb, instead of inside. as the law stands today, if they're outside the womb they're a child, whether they're desired or not.
does location really change their humanity?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I said honorary human status. That doesn't mean they are human yet.
Whoah. Make sense, please. No one argues that car theft is not wrong, even the thieves themselves. On the other hand, the majority believes that (in the least first trimester, which is what Roe v Wade covers) abortion should be the choice of the mother, though unfortunately, the majority are not currently in Congress and in the Supreme Court.
I did make sense. You can't have it both ways. You statement is silly nonsense. It is the exact opposite of the U.S. belief system. In the U.S. everyone believes they have the right to create the law. When they don't think you see their viewpoint, they sue you. We have hundreds of thousands of people everyday attempting to impose their viewpoint on others via lobbying, lawmakers, publicity campaigns, protests, lawsuits, you name it.
Also plenty of thieves don't think it wrong. They will justify their actions in any number of ways. Likewise there will be those who argue that he/she didn't do anything wrong, they were just disadvantages and making use of the only opportunities they could find.
Meanwhile..speaking of majority rule...
[quote] Public opinion on abortion has remained stable over the years. A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey found 38 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances, 42 percent believe it should be available in a few circumstances, such as to save the mother's life and 18 percent say abortion should never be legal. That is almost unchanged in the past 15 years. <hr></blockquote>
In case you couldn't add that is 60 percent that believe abortion should be illegal or available with severe restrictions. The belief that abortion should not be available except to save the mother's life is very prolife in most corners. It also clearly supports the Republican congressional agenda.
[quote]No. As has been pointed out, the Republican Party very clearly intends to overtrhrow Roe v Wade, which I'm sorry to report is the bottom of the slope. There is no implied reasonability there. <hr></blockquote>
Perhaps if you linked to an article that was more than Democratic presidential hopefuls speaking at a NARAL conference you might get a slightly more balanced view.
[quote]The biggest hurdle for anti-abortion activists remains the closely divided Senate, where slightly more than a majority is on record in support of Roe v. Wade. The National Right to Life Committee says 53 senators support the court ruling, while NARAL claims that only 33 senators are "fully pro-choice."
Anti-abortion activists say Congress will probably move quickly to ban certain late-term abortions that opponents call "partial-birth" abortions. The legislative activity could make it a crime to evade certain parental notification laws and make it a crime to hurt a fetus during an assault on a woman. <hr></blockquote>
I was dead on because I read more than the talking points and press releases from the NARAL conference. Roe v. Wade has to be overturned by the Supreme Court and then all it would do is kick that decision back to the states. Frist is planning votes on issues he can impact like partial birth abortion, notification and assault of a pregnant woman.
[quote]I don't disagree with you. But this is not a debate about partial term abortion. Under Roe v Wade, states have every right to legislate against partial term abortion. Don't cure the cold by means of decapitation. <hr></blockquote>
And don't assume that because you have a cold, your head is going to fall off. People support funding restrictions on abortion, parential notification and restrictions on late term abortions.
[quote]You're so off topic it's insulting.<hr></blockquote>
Only if the topic happens to be mischaracterizing the Republican congressional agenda. If the topic is the agenda, then I have quoted it and discussed it dead on.
[quote]I said honorary human status. That doesn't mean they are human yet.<hr></blockquote>
so what would that mean? this is something i never understood on the pro abortion side of things. why should location dicatate whether or not you are a human being.
inside the womb=not human
outside the womb=human
same age, same time, same baby for that matter. (of course, you can go far enough back in time until it no longer looks like a baby.)
i would say that at 9 months pretty much everyone would think the above is true. it's stupid to have location dictate whether or not you're human. at 1 month? most people would say the above statement is wrong, and that outside the womb they wouldn't be human anyway.
so then where to draw the line? the only way you don't run into a stupid, arbitrary classification of when someone is a human being is by stating either:
life begins at conception, and is a human being the entire time.
or
life begins at birth, and not before then.
the U.S. currently uses the second definition. i think that's wrong. location should have nothing to do with whether or not you're a human being, which is what that second defintion is all about.
trumptman & tonton re: the Republican Congress and abortion:
From <a href="http://www.rnc.org/GOPInfo/Platform/2000platform4.htm"; target="_blank">the GOP platform</a>: [quote]We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment?s protections apply to unborn children.<hr></blockquote>Yes, Republicans want to overturn Roe. Whether they'll try to actually do it or not is another question, but it is their stated agenda.
same age, same time, same baby for that matter. (of course, you can go far enough back in time until it no longer looks like a baby.)
i would say that at 9 months pretty much everyone would think the above is true. it's stupid to have location dictate whether or not you're human. at 1 month? most people would say the above statement is wrong, and that outside the womb they wouldn't be human anyway.
so then where to draw the line? the only way you don't run into a stupid, arbitrary classification of when someone is a human being is by stating either:
life begins at conception, and is a human being the entire time.
or
life begins at birth, and not before then.
the U.S. currently uses the second definition. i think that's wrong. location should have nothing to do with whether or not you're a human being, which is what that second defintion is all about.</strong><hr></blockquote>The US does not currently use the second definition. Roe v. Wade said there's a growing state interest in protecting the life of the baby as it develops and gets closer to birth. That seems very reasonable to me (although I wish it would be done through legislation rather than a court ruling). And it's not just about when life begins, it's about laws and politics - when does the mother have primary rights and when does the state have a right to pass a law protecting the baby. The question of who has legal rights - a woman over her reproduction or a state to protect a baby insider her - does not necessarily reduce down to status as a human being.
[quote]The US does not currently use the second definition.<hr></blockquote>
i would beg to differ. although i could be wrong on this, i don't follow the issue closely.
i thought the main reason that partial birth abortions were so abhorrent to people was the legality of it. the baby is ready to be born, they turn it around then suck the brains out of the skull while it's still inside the mother. as long as the head stays inside, it's not a baby.
if the baby were to come out, it would be a human being and they wouldn't be able to do that.
so you've got 5 inches of birth canal dictating whether or not it's a fetus or a baby in legal terms.
i believe that's exactly what's happening. wouldn't you say that's an example where physical location, nothing more, is dictating whether or not a baby is a "real" human being or not?
<strong>so you've got 5 inches of birth canal dictating whether or not it's a fetus or a baby in legal terms.
i believe that's exactly what's happening. wouldn't you say that's an example where physical location, nothing more, is dictating whether or not a baby is a "real" human being or not?</strong><hr></blockquote>I'd still say it's a balance between the rights of the mother and the baby. Right now, states are allowed to outlaw it unless the health of the mother is at stake. The procedure would normally be used if the mother is going to die if she gives birth and the baby won't live if born anyway. And in fact, "partial birth abortion" is against the law in most of the country today - most states have outlawed it. The debate is about the federal law, which has very little real impact anyway.
The basic principle that we're under now (Roe v. Wade) is that early in the pregnancy the mother controls what happens, and later in the pregnancy the state can regulate what happens. That sounds to me like a balance between the "right to life" and the "right to choose," rather than a blanket "unborn babies are not human."
<strong>I'd still say it's a balance between the rights of the mother and the baby. Right now, states are allowed to outlaw it unless the health of the mother is at stake. The procedure would normally be used if the mother is going to die if she gives birth and the baby won't live if born anyway. And in fact, "partial birth abortion" is against the law in most of the country today - most states have outlawed it. The debate is about the federal law, which has very little real impact anyway.
The basic principle that we're under now (Roe v. Wade) is that early in the pregnancy the mother controls what happens, and later in the pregnancy the state can regulate what happens. That sounds to me like a balance between the "right to life" and the "right to choose," rather than a blanket "unborn babies are not human."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Answer me this one. In regards only to Partial birth abortion. How is killing the baby just before the head pops out going to save the life of any mother? She has already passed over 60% of the baby through her birth canal. How is killing it and then finishing the delivery going to save her life? Bogus if you ask me...
[quote]The basic principle that we're under now (Roe v. Wade) is that early in the pregnancy the mother controls what happens, and later in the pregnancy the state can regulate what happens. That sounds to me like a balance between the "right to life" and the "right to choose," rather than a blanket "unborn babies are not human."
<hr></blockquote>
to which my question would be where and how do you draw the line? at what point do a mother's rights no longer outweigh the baby's rights? how do you pick a point in time that isn't completely arbitrary? it wouldn't matter as much if it weren't a instance of life and death. you're talking about a death sentence for an infant. that's not something to be taken lightly. (i'm not saying that anyone is, just that it makes me want to err on the side of caution for the child, rather than err on the side of a mother's rights.)
<strong>Answer me this one. In regards only to Partial birth abortion. How is killing the baby just before the head pops out going to save the life of any mother? She has already passed over 60% of the baby through her birth canal. How is killing it and then finishing the delivery going to save her life? Bogus if you ask me... </strong><hr></blockquote>Hydrocephalus. The baby's head is enlarged and will never live. The head cannot be delivered, so the fluid from the head is drained, which kills the baby.
so what would that mean? this is something i never understood on the pro abortion side of things. why should location dicatate whether or not you are a human being.
inside the womb=not human
outside the womb=human
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that you are not understanding what I mean by honorary human status. Until the fetus live outside the womb without any extra help, I don't consider it to be human. If someone has a premature child and wants to keep it, it can be given honorary human status by the parent. Again, I still don't consider it to be human but if the parent so wishes, the parent may treat it like one. I also would have no problem taking a premature baby off life support if the parent so wishes. Inside our outside, I do not consider it human until it can survive on its own.
Honorary - Held or given as a mark of honor, especially conferred as an honor without the usual adjuncts: an honorary degree.
<strong>Hydrocephalus. The baby's head is enlarged and will never live. The head cannot be delivered, so the fluid from the head is drained, which kills the baby.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds to me like the idea of denying all late term abortions is bogus.
Comments
Of course you do. What a ridiculous, non-thinking statement of nonsense.
If is your will to steal my car, guess what legislation is going to be imposed upon you, against your will to stop you. What are laws but our societally agreed upon beliefs of what is right and wrong.
As for the abortion debate.... people are just getting up in arms because some very much needed and reasonable restrictions are going to occur. To slippery-slope choice people anything that doesn't go their way causes an alarmist scream of abortion rights ending.
Partial birth abortion is just plain infanticide. You pull the practically full term fetus out 5 more inches and you would go to prison. Instead because the head is sitting in the birth canal it is allowed to be killed in a very inhumane, painful method.
I would love to see the abortion rights group argue that the inmates on death row should be put to death in the same manner. Any court in the country would declare it cruel, inhumane, torture.
Nick
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
that just might work. the only problem with this is that as technology gets better, that survival date keeps shifting earlier and earlier. so what would have been just a fetus 3 years ago would now be a child.
should your status as a living being be based on the ability of medical science? the fetus of 3 years ago is just as human as the now viable baby of today. why kill of the one from 3 years ago then?
i have a problem using the limitations of medical technology to measure the "humanity" of a life in question.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I said without additional help. That means no tubes, no drugs, et cetera. If the fetus pops out early and can't survive without anything more than breastmilk, that's the basis of the cutoff. Thus, medical technology has nothing to do with it.
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
an interesting take on the issue.
<strong>hmm, so what about premature babies? are they given full rights as human beings, or not until they can live without the machines?
an interesting take on the issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is indeed quite interesting. I'll just let the other talking heads tackle that one because I need to sleep.
Edit: Fine...I had to chime in. I would say that if a premature baby is wilfully born, it should be given honorary human status until it reaches the cutoff point.
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
"if i want you, you're a human being, if i don't want you, you're nothing".
the only difference now is that they would both be outside the womb, instead of inside. as the law stands today, if they're outside the womb they're a child, whether they're desired or not.
does location really change their humanity?
<strong>and then it's circled back to
"if i want you, you're a human being, if i don't want you, you're nothing".
the only difference now is that they would both be outside the womb, instead of inside. as the law stands today, if they're outside the womb they're a child, whether they're desired or not.
does location really change their humanity?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I said honorary human status. That doesn't mean they are human yet.
<strong>
Whoah. Make sense, please. No one argues that car theft is not wrong, even the thieves themselves. On the other hand, the majority believes that (in the least first trimester, which is what Roe v Wade covers) abortion should be the choice of the mother, though unfortunately, the majority are not currently in Congress and in the Supreme Court.
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: tonton ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did make sense. You can't have it both ways. You statement is silly nonsense. It is the exact opposite of the U.S. belief system. In the U.S. everyone believes they have the right to create the law. When they don't think you see their viewpoint, they sue you. We have hundreds of thousands of people everyday attempting to impose their viewpoint on others via lobbying, lawmakers, publicity campaigns, protests, lawsuits, you name it.
Also plenty of thieves don't think it wrong. They will justify their actions in any number of ways. Likewise there will be those who argue that he/she didn't do anything wrong, they were just disadvantages and making use of the only opportunities they could find.
Meanwhile..speaking of majority rule...
[quote] Public opinion on abortion has remained stable over the years. A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey found 38 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances, 42 percent believe it should be available in a few circumstances, such as to save the mother's life and 18 percent say abortion should never be legal. That is almost unchanged in the past 15 years. <hr></blockquote>
In case you couldn't add that is 60 percent that believe abortion should be illegal or available with severe restrictions. The belief that abortion should not be available except to save the mother's life is very prolife in most corners. It also clearly supports the Republican congressional agenda.
[quote]No. As has been pointed out, the Republican Party very clearly intends to overtrhrow Roe v Wade, which I'm sorry to report is the bottom of the slope. There is no implied reasonability there. <hr></blockquote>
Perhaps if you linked to an article that was more than Democratic presidential hopefuls speaking at a NARAL conference you might get a slightly more balanced view.
Try this one.. also CNN.<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/21/abortion.law.politics/index.html"; target="_blank">Roe v Wade 30 years.</a>
In it we find these gems.
[quote]The biggest hurdle for anti-abortion activists remains the closely divided Senate, where slightly more than a majority is on record in support of Roe v. Wade. The National Right to Life Committee says 53 senators support the court ruling, while NARAL claims that only 33 senators are "fully pro-choice."
Anti-abortion activists say Congress will probably move quickly to ban certain late-term abortions that opponents call "partial-birth" abortions. The legislative activity could make it a crime to evade certain parental notification laws and make it a crime to hurt a fetus during an assault on a woman. <hr></blockquote>
I was dead on because I read more than the talking points and press releases from the NARAL conference. Roe v. Wade has to be overturned by the Supreme Court and then all it would do is kick that decision back to the states. Frist is planning votes on issues he can impact like partial birth abortion, notification and assault of a pregnant woman.
[quote]I don't disagree with you. But this is not a debate about partial term abortion. Under Roe v Wade, states have every right to legislate against partial term abortion. Don't cure the cold by means of decapitation. <hr></blockquote>
And don't assume that because you have a cold, your head is going to fall off. People support funding restrictions on abortion, parential notification and restrictions on late term abortions.
[quote]You're so off topic it's insulting.<hr></blockquote>
Only if the topic happens to be mischaracterizing the Republican congressional agenda. If the topic is the agenda, then I have quoted it and discussed it dead on.
Nick
so what would that mean? this is something i never understood on the pro abortion side of things. why should location dicatate whether or not you are a human being.
inside the womb=not human
outside the womb=human
same age, same time, same baby for that matter. (of course, you can go far enough back in time until it no longer looks like a baby.)
i would say that at 9 months pretty much everyone would think the above is true. it's stupid to have location dictate whether or not you're human. at 1 month? most people would say the above statement is wrong, and that outside the womb they wouldn't be human anyway.
so then where to draw the line? the only way you don't run into a stupid, arbitrary classification of when someone is a human being is by stating either:
life begins at conception, and is a human being the entire time.
or
life begins at birth, and not before then.
the U.S. currently uses the second definition. i think that's wrong. location should have nothing to do with whether or not you're a human being, which is what that second defintion is all about.
From <a href="http://www.rnc.org/GOPInfo/Platform/2000platform4.htm"; target="_blank">the GOP platform</a>: [quote]We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment?s protections apply to unborn children.<hr></blockquote>Yes, Republicans want to overturn Roe. Whether they'll try to actually do it or not is another question, but it is their stated agenda.
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
<strong>inside the womb=not human
outside the womb=human
same age, same time, same baby for that matter. (of course, you can go far enough back in time until it no longer looks like a baby.)
i would say that at 9 months pretty much everyone would think the above is true. it's stupid to have location dictate whether or not you're human. at 1 month? most people would say the above statement is wrong, and that outside the womb they wouldn't be human anyway.
so then where to draw the line? the only way you don't run into a stupid, arbitrary classification of when someone is a human being is by stating either:
life begins at conception, and is a human being the entire time.
or
life begins at birth, and not before then.
the U.S. currently uses the second definition. i think that's wrong. location should have nothing to do with whether or not you're a human being, which is what that second defintion is all about.</strong><hr></blockquote>The US does not currently use the second definition. Roe v. Wade said there's a growing state interest in protecting the life of the baby as it develops and gets closer to birth. That seems very reasonable to me (although I wish it would be done through legislation rather than a court ruling). And it's not just about when life begins, it's about laws and politics - when does the mother have primary rights and when does the state have a right to pass a law protecting the baby. The question of who has legal rights - a woman over her reproduction or a state to protect a baby insider her - does not necessarily reduce down to status as a human being.
i would beg to differ. although i could be wrong on this, i don't follow the issue closely.
i thought the main reason that partial birth abortions were so abhorrent to people was the legality of it. the baby is ready to be born, they turn it around then suck the brains out of the skull while it's still inside the mother. as long as the head stays inside, it's not a baby.
if the baby were to come out, it would be a human being and they wouldn't be able to do that.
so you've got 5 inches of birth canal dictating whether or not it's a fetus or a baby in legal terms.
i believe that's exactly what's happening. wouldn't you say that's an example where physical location, nothing more, is dictating whether or not a baby is a "real" human being or not?
<strong>so you've got 5 inches of birth canal dictating whether or not it's a fetus or a baby in legal terms.
i believe that's exactly what's happening. wouldn't you say that's an example where physical location, nothing more, is dictating whether or not a baby is a "real" human being or not?</strong><hr></blockquote>I'd still say it's a balance between the rights of the mother and the baby. Right now, states are allowed to outlaw it unless the health of the mother is at stake. The procedure would normally be used if the mother is going to die if she gives birth and the baby won't live if born anyway. And in fact, "partial birth abortion" is against the law in most of the country today - most states have outlawed it. The debate is about the federal law, which has very little real impact anyway.
The basic principle that we're under now (Roe v. Wade) is that early in the pregnancy the mother controls what happens, and later in the pregnancy the state can regulate what happens. That sounds to me like a balance between the "right to life" and the "right to choose," rather than a blanket "unborn babies are not human."
<strong>I'd still say it's a balance between the rights of the mother and the baby. Right now, states are allowed to outlaw it unless the health of the mother is at stake. The procedure would normally be used if the mother is going to die if she gives birth and the baby won't live if born anyway. And in fact, "partial birth abortion" is against the law in most of the country today - most states have outlawed it. The debate is about the federal law, which has very little real impact anyway.
The basic principle that we're under now (Roe v. Wade) is that early in the pregnancy the mother controls what happens, and later in the pregnancy the state can regulate what happens. That sounds to me like a balance between the "right to life" and the "right to choose," rather than a blanket "unborn babies are not human."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Answer me this one. In regards only to Partial birth abortion. How is killing the baby just before the head pops out going to save the life of any mother? She has already passed over 60% of the baby through her birth canal. How is killing it and then finishing the delivery going to save her life? Bogus if you ask me...
<hr></blockquote>
to which my question would be where and how do you draw the line? at what point do a mother's rights no longer outweigh the baby's rights? how do you pick a point in time that isn't completely arbitrary? it wouldn't matter as much if it weren't a instance of life and death. you're talking about a death sentence for an infant. that's not something to be taken lightly. (i'm not saying that anyone is, just that it makes me want to err on the side of caution for the child, rather than err on the side of a mother's rights.)
<strong>Answer me this one. In regards only to Partial birth abortion. How is killing the baby just before the head pops out going to save the life of any mother? She has already passed over 60% of the baby through her birth canal. How is killing it and then finishing the delivery going to save her life? Bogus if you ask me...
<strong>
so what would that mean? this is something i never understood on the pro abortion side of things. why should location dicatate whether or not you are a human being.
inside the womb=not human
outside the womb=human
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that you are not understanding what I mean by honorary human status. Until the fetus live outside the womb without any extra help, I don't consider it to be human. If someone has a premature child and wants to keep it, it can be given honorary human status by the parent. Again, I still don't consider it to be human but if the parent so wishes, the parent may treat it like one. I also would have no problem taking a premature baby off life support if the parent so wishes. Inside our outside, I do not consider it human until it can survive on its own.
Honorary - Held or given as a mark of honor, especially conferred as an honor without the usual adjuncts: an honorary degree.
<strong>Hydrocephalus. The baby's head is enlarged and will never live. The head cannot be delivered, so the fluid from the head is drained, which kills the baby.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds to me like the idea of denying all late term abortions is bogus.
<strong>
Sounds to me like the idea of denying all late term abortions is bogus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No reason required up to the statistical cutoff point I mentioned earlier. Health of the mother afterwards. It's just that simple.
<a href="http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=21673§ion=NEWS&year=2003&month=1 &day=22" target="_blank">Players in body politics</a>
According to a Gallup poll:
85 percent support abortion rights when the woman's life is endangered.
77 percent support abortion rights when the woman's health is endangered.
76 percent support abortion rights when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest.
55 percent support abortion rights when there is evidence the baby's physical or mental health may be impaired.
35 percent support abortion rights when the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child.