Yep. And there’s always been murder, thievery, etc too. But we seem to be able to at least enact laws that says depriving someone of life or property without due process is a crime.
From my point of view, all that I want out of “partial birth abortion” legislation is to criminalize any act that has at it’s primarly purpose, the killing of an unborn child that has achieved a physical maturity sufficient to give it a good chance to survive without an umbilical cord.
In other words, a strong case for really building up an effective sex education program in schools and increasing the availability of birth control methods.
You want to save innocent lives? Try ending the sanctions against Iraq. 6,000 children a month die there from malnutrition and lack of basic medical care. And don’t say the sanctions are there to hurt Saddam Hussein and teach him a lesson. If that were true, why is he still in power 10 years after the Gulf War?
This isn’t an attempt to divert the discussion, I’m just pointing out that there are millions of children already born whose quality of life could stand major improvement and whose fates should be a priority concern over those of the unborn.
[semi-hijack]
The sanctions against Iraq are meant to prevent Saddam from rebuilding his military and again turning it on his neighbors. Wanna start a “Why are we starving Iraq’s children” thread?
[/semi-hijack]
You get no argument from me (or anyone that I would consider rational) about there being hoards of children that could use better lives. The discussion at hand is whether to allow (semi-)viable children (a.k.a. babies) into the pool.
This is where I see the fundamental inconsistency. You dismiss the havoc wrought on children’s lives in one instance by defending intent, but rage against the ‘murder’ of innocents in another.
Why is the price of a child’s life acceptable when a foreign government wishes to actively intervene in its own interests, but not acceptable when a mother wishes to exercise her freedom to choose?
As for the other suffering children…tell me something I don’t know, Olentzero. What point were you trying to get across there, exactly?
Children are gonna suffer and die. Babies are gonna suffer and die. The alive but unborn, along with the alive and semi-viable are gonna suffer and die. That doesn’t mean I have to like it.
This may but I don’t see how people can justify abortion by saying that its the womans body and she can do with it what she wants. If someone kills a pregnant woman and the baby dies, then he/she is charged with a double murder. But if the woman “Chooses” to end her pregnancy its OK? Anyway you look at it murder is murder fokes. Quit fooling yourselves and give it some serious thought. No one said that a woman doesn’t have the right to choose what direction she wants her life to go. That’s why they make birth control. You hit the nail on the head when you said “they so irresposibly…”. As far as better judgement goes, perhaps they should have put that steller judgement to use before they decided to have sex unprepared for the possible concequences.
My point was excellently illustrated by SouthernStyle. He stated that he would rather save one innocent life, etc. I asked, what of the innocent lives in Iraq? His response:
[quote]
**The sanctions against Iraq are meant to prevent Saddam from rebuilding his military and again turning it on his neighbors.
[quote]
**
A facile dismissal. If he was concerned about saving innocent lives, he should be equally as concerned about the effects of the sanctions on Iraq as he is about the restriction of an infrequent medical procedure. He isn’t; neither are any number of anti-abortion folk I’ve spoken with. Which shows me that your concern for innocent lives pretty much ends the moment the infant is out of the womb.
Actually, not necessarily; if you kill a woman with a fertilized egg in her uterus, you don’t get charged with double murder. I’m not sure exactly what the law says on this matter–where the cutoff point is–but I suspect it’s up to the time of viability, same as is considered acceptable for abortion. Heck, even the Bible has more lenient punishment for someone who causes a woman to miscarry than for someone who murders a person.
DB, I wouldn’t say it’s particularly absurd. I enjoy asking abortion foes how many children they’ve adopted from women in crisis pregnancies. Average answer: Zero
Mr. Z.: You just made my eyeballs melt. I would never have expected that answer from you! Congrats to you, sir, for defying my expectations.
DBCooper: How is it absurd? Why should we only be concerned with children at one stage of life in one country, instead of all children the world over?
I have not met one abortion opponent who has not shown their concern to be limited to unborn American babies. They’ve all said the same thing about Iraqi children: they defend the effects of the sanctions with the intent. It’s OK to let them die because Saddam is a tyrant; it’s not OK to let a woman here in the U.S. exercise the choice to terminate a pregnancy.
On another note - I wonder how many abortion opponents also support welfare cuts because Black women are having too many babies and sucking up all the funds?
Phil, I still remember our clash over neo-Nazis and the KKK; Mr. Zambezi, I believe we’ve butted heads before as well on an issue or two. Which does make it all the more pleasant to see we’re not completely opposed on everything.
That’s it, folks. That’s all there is to see. When Olentzero, pldennison, Mr. Zambezi, and matt_mcl all agree about one topic, the debate is obviously at an end.
Olent, that is a problem with being both a fiscal and social conservative. You can’t take away birth control programs AND complain that the problem with the poor is failure to control the timing and number of their children.
Fiscally, one can take away welfare, but it should go hand in hand with freedom to change, or at least control, one’s lot in life. It is the governments job to stay out of our way so that we may be successful, not to erect barriers to success.
pld: you have suprised my several time with your opinions. I thought it was my turn to return the favor.
Abortions do not exist because people who are against them don’t want to take care of everyone else’s children. Aside from cases where the life of the mother is truly threatened, abortions exist because people don’t want to take responsibility for their behavior.
I know some will say it’s more responsible to not bring a child who is unwanted into the world, but just because you don’t want it, doesn’t mean that it’s life isn’t worth anything, or that you have the right to kill it.
I told my mom’s story before in another abortion thread, so I don’t want to rehash the whole thing, but in a nutshell, she was 16 when I was born and told by doctors to have an abortion. I’m glad she chose not to.
There is someone else besides the mother that you need to think of when discussing abortion.
This is just a little off the mark. If I have made a terrible mistake and can do something to avoid that mistake possibly ruining my life, I should be able to take that action.
By analogy, I go camping, get drunk and leave food all over the place including in my tent. A bear comes and begins to tear up my tent.
Did I make a stupid mistake? yes. IS it wrong to kill an endangered species? yes. Do I have to let myself get mauled in the name of taking responsibility for my behavior? I should hope not.
You want responsibility for behavior, teach sex education in schools and initiate a comprehensive program making birth control devices more freely available.
**
Most abortions are performed long before the fetus becomes viable outside the womb. It’s not killing.
**
Your mother was very lucky to have that choice in the first place. Women everywhere should have that same choice.
She does. But it’s her decision on whether or not she feels capable of raising a baby well, or even if she wants it. There is no denying that this is a highly personal and emotional decision and it is not done in a cold, calculating manner. But I unreservedly support a woman’s right to make that decision no matter how far along she is in her pregnancy.
I don’t oppose abortion, especially in cases where the mother’s life is at stake, which seems to be the case with intact d & e. I do have a medical question, though.
Previous posts have suggested d & e is sometimes used as a safer alternative to a Caesarean section when the fetus is in breech position.
But breech deliveries aren’t so uncommon, are they? They’ve occurred throughout history. Do they always[/] preclude a natural childbirth, and before Caesareans and d & e were available, did they always (or even usually) result in the death of the fetus?
Is there no way to turn the fetus around to the head-first position before attempting delivery? I think I read a James Herriot story once where he did this to a pregnant cow, but of course, it’s easier to get your arm up into a cow’s uterus…
Having a baby doesn’t have to ruin your life. If you really don’t think you can handle raising the child, then at least let it have a chance at life and put it up for adoption. I know some will jump all over me for saying that, but I lived it and it can work.
Sorry, but I’m not buying your analogy. First, the bear came in on its own…the baby did not. Second, abortion is not self-defense.
