Do-It-Yourself - Abortion.

[bushidomartialarts]

I think you hit the nail on the head. The Republican Party, for coming on to thirty years, has aggressively courted the conservative Christian vote.

Take for example the 2004 election. I don't buy into the voter fraud conspiracy theories, but I do believe this. If all the conservative Christian voters who came out just to oppose gay marriage had stayed home, it would be Kerry & Edwards running for re-election next year.

Since they rely on that group for their power base, Republicans have to court certain issues that have no place in government at all, less still the federal government.

 

[crushing]

So if the "pro-lifers" win here, will they be satisfied, or will the next step be pressure to make vasectomies and tubal ligations illegal?

Wow, that is an incredible jump. I think most pro-lifers recognize the difference between abortion and contraception. Some of the pro-lifers that are also relgious may have separate doctrine regarding contraception, but the two things shouldn't be confused.

The problem as I see it, is that the pro-life side wants to protect the child fully until it is born. Then, it can go to hell for all they care.

I've heard similar claims before, but I haven't seen that at all. Where have you seen this situation?

 

[crushing]

I think you hit the nail on the head. The Republican Party, for coming on to thirty years, has aggressively courted the conservative Christian vote.

Take for example the 2004 election. I don't buy into the voter fraud conspiracy theories, but I do believe this. If all the conservative Christian voters who came out just to oppose gay marriage had stayed home, it would be Kerry & Edwards running for re-election next year.

Since they rely on that group for their power base, Republicans have to court certain issues that have no place in government at all, less still the federal government.

Not necessarily. Only a few states had the anti-gay marriage proposals, and two of the states where such proposals passed also went to Kerry/Edwards. Unfortunately, one of those states that passed an anti-gay marriage proposal is my home state of Michigan.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Wow, that is an incredible jump. I think most pro-lifers recognize the difference between abortion and contraception. Some of the pro-lifers that are also relgious may have separate doctrine regarding contraception, but the two things shouldn't be confused.

Probably extreme, but look at the sources. Many pro-lifers come from religions that also oppose contraception. If they get their way on this issue, why wouldn't they push further? That's just human nature.

I've heard similar claims before, but I haven't seen that at all. Where have you seen this situation?

Much of the pro-life movement aligns heavily with the conservative elements on the political spectrum. Those same elements often support the death penalty and push to cut funding to social programs, education and welfare.

I'm not saying I disagree with those sentiments, but you can see how the poster's statement isn't entirely without merit.

 

[Kreth]

Wow, that is an incredible jump. I think most pro-lifers recognize the difference between abortion and contraception. Some of the pro-lifers that are also relgious may have separate doctrine regarding contraception, but the two things shouldn't be confused.

I don't think it's that big of a jump. If we're going to legislate a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, why not legislate surgical contraception? It's as slippery a slope as gun control. If abortion is illegal, then will we have investigations into women who deliver stillborn, due to poor health? After all, that baby might have survived had she taken better care of herself. :idunno:

 

[shesulsa]

If abortion is illegal, then will we have investigations into women who deliver stillborn, due to poor health? After all, that baby might have survived had she taken better care of herself. :idunno:

And before anyone thinks that *this* is a slippery slope, pay attention to all the chubby kids who are being taken from their parents by the authorities and charging their parents with neglect because they're overweight or obese.

Your rights and tax dollars ... down the friggin' bowl ....

 

[Tez3]

I think you hit the nail on the head. The Republican Party, for coming on to thirty years, has aggressively courted the conservative Christian vote.

Take for example the 2004 election. I don't buy into the voter fraud conspiracy theories, but I do believe this. If all the conservative Christian voters who came out just to oppose gay marriage had stayed home, it would be Kerry & Edwards running for re-election next year.

Since they rely on that group for their power base, Republicans have to court certain issues that have no place in government at all, less still the federal government.[/quote]

Are they doing this because they share beliefs or are they cynically going for votes regardless of what they believe in? If it's the latter it could actually be hard to tell who is manipulating who!

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Tez, it's probably a little bit of both (kinda like any relationship...I'm in good shape because I like to be in good shape...at the same time, I'm in even better shape because my wife likes me to be in good shape). But the result is the same...legislation of issues that have no place in the political realm.

 

[Catalyst]

As I understand it, from the debate podium's, there was not one candidate who would have taken a different position. A pregnant woman will, apparently, be able to terminate her own pregnancy without fear of criminal jeopardy. But, any person skilled and knowledgeable with human health care will not be able to assist, without fear of criminal charge and punishment.

Something just doesn't seem right about that.

If I understand it correctly, I would have to agree with you.

The doctor/health professional is not the decision-maker, they're just the means to the end.

If someone hires a hitman to rub out a spouse, business partner, etc. for life insurance money; they're just as guilty as the person who pulled the trigger.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, I don't see what would make the circumstances of the abortion any different the hired hitman example.

Rudy Giuliani (albeit a different candidate) possessed fanatical zealotry in going after the Mafia Bosses who ordered killings, not just the Mafia Hitman who pulled the trigger.

Maybe I'm missing something ?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Full Disclosure - I did not watch the Republican Party, CNN, YouTube Debate.

The vast majority of the Republican Party has consistantly supported over-riding the Supreme Court's Roe-V-Wade decision which federalized protections for a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy. One of the conundrums' of this position is, what to do with those who terminate a pregnancy, if the law is repealed. What is the appropriate punishment for an agent who breaks the law?

If (or When according to their Party position) Roe-v-Wade is overturned, and a woman chooses to terminate, who is the criminal?

This question came up in the YouTube / CNN debate this past week. Senator Thompson's response was



The interesting phrase here, is "whoever it might be" ... as long as that whoever is not a doctor. Medical Doctors will be charged and held as criminals if they carry out the wishes of their patients, but the patient will not be held responsible for the "crime". Also, according to Senator Thompson, it will not be criminal for a parent to terminate the unwanted pregnancy of his or her daughter.

"[W]hoever it might be" would probably also mean that the life sentence of Geraldo Flores would be overturned. A couple of years ago, young Mr. Flores punched his girlfriends' abdomen repeatedly to terminate her unwanted pregnancy. He was convicted of two counts of capital murder, for the two induced miscarriages.

As I understand it, from the debate podium's, there was not one candidate who would have taken a different position. A pregnant woman will, apparently, be able to terminate her own pregnancy without fear of criminal jeopardy. But, any person skilled and knowledgeable with human health care will not be able to assist, without fear of criminal charge and punishment.

Something just doesn't seem right about that.

Two things:

(1) The phrase, "whoever it might be", at least in the context of the quote you provided, seems to just be one of those things you add in when you're speaking on-the-spot; I don't think it had any substance to it. Presuming for the moment that Roe v. Wade is overturned, I expect that they would punish the aborting doctor for the same reason they punished Dr. Kavorkian: the act is illegal, and the doctor in question is ultimately responsible for it being performed, no matter what the patient's wishes were.

(2) As for the at-home abortions, whether they be through means similar to the Geraldo Flores case or through the use of a wire-hanger, I don't see why they would be treated any differently then they were already with the Flores situation. Perhaps with Flores, they were simply punishing him for the consequences of his assault, but even if it were the pregnant woman herself who was performing the abortion, I don't know quite why she'd get a free pass. Maybe I missed something.

All that said, I'd vote against anyone who tried to mess with the Roe v. Wade decision. It doesn't even say abortion's alright, it simply sets limits on state laws that attempt to legislate abortions. Any attempts to go beyond the limitations of Roe v. Wade in making abortion illegal smacks of dogmatism.

 

[Kacey]

The problem as I see it, is that the pro-life side wants to protect the child fully until it is born. Then, it can go to hell for all they care.

I actually know several women this happened to, over the course of a couple of years; they had made the very difficult decision to end an unwanted pregnancy, and had gone to a local Planned Parenthood office to arrange for the procedure. As each left the planning appointment (which included counseling, to be sure that they did not want to carry the pregnancy to term and give the child up for adoption) they were accosted by people who spent hours convincing them not to terminate the pregnancy, and more, to keep the unwanted child following the birth. Three of them were convinced to do so (the fourth had a spontaneous miscarriage at 2 1/2 months, while the pro-lifers were still attempting to convince her to complete the pregnancy). The pro-lifers provided money for prenatal care, helped with birthing classes, and held baby showers for each one of them - even drove one of them to the hospital for the birth. Once the babies were born - nothing. No support - emotional, financial, assistance with child care - nothing. Once the child was born, they were no longer interested; their aim was accomplished.

If you don't approve of abortion - don't have one, but don't tell me what I can or cannot do with my own procreative system. Likewise, if you are going to allow your religious/moral convictions to lead you into talking women out of abortions, then accept that you have just made yourself responsible for the child(ren) you save, from that moment until the child(ren) are self-supporting. If you cannot, or will not, accept that responsibility, then mind your own damn business.

I recognize that others will have different experiences and opinions than the ones I expressed above - and that's your right, just as it is my right to hold the opinion I do. As a teacher in a low-income area, I have had to teach far too many unwanted children, children who are clearly aware that they are unwanted - I see no reason to add to the problem by legally restricting abortions from those who want them. I do not agree with those who use abortion in place of birth control - I see a moral/ethical difference between preventing conception and ending it - but that does not mean I have the right to force my moral/ethical code on others simply because their life experiences have given them a different perspective - and neither does anyone else, when it relates to a person's control over her (or his) own body.

 

[Doc_Jude]

So if the "pro-lifers" win here, will they be satisfied, or will the next step be pressure to make vasectomies and tubal ligations illegal?

No, I think it's more of a "when does human life begin?" situation, not a "whether human life should begin" issue.

 

[Makalakumu]

Why would someone vote for a Republican Candidate when the principles of that Party are in conflict with the principles of Government they hope to serve?

Good point. If the government can control a person's uterus, what else can they control?

 

[Makalakumu]

Take for example the 2004 election. I don't buy into the voter fraud conspiracy theories...

Then you have not done enough research and have listened to too many talking heads. The electoral system in this country has been compromised.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Then you have not done enough research and have listened to too many talking heads. The electoral system in this country has been compromised.

Actually I've done enough research to dismiss most of the hysteria out of hand.

Does our system of government adequately represent the will of the people? Not by a long stretch. But this isn't because of back-alley shenanigans. It's because of how the system is built.

It's not compromised. It's just not doing the job you want it to do.

 

[crushing]

Good point. If the government can control a person's uterus, what else can they control?

No one cares what a woman does with her own uterus. This isn't about a hysterectomy. The concern comes in is when the action affects another person.

If Susan Smith drove her car into a lake, and her 'unwanted' kids were not in it, no one would have really cared, except for maybe the insurance company when she claimed it was stolen.

You can do with your fists and feet whatever you want, hit a heavy bag, do a hyung, but the laws tell you not to use them as weapons against innocent people. Is that not also the government controlling your body in a similar fashion?

I do find Thompson's response curious, to say the least.

Then you have not done enough research and have listened to too many talking heads. The electoral system in this country has been compromised.

If we haven't done anything about it since the compromise in 1960, do you think anything will ever be done?

 

[Doc_Jude]

The primary concern of Pro-Lifers: they're afraid of their "Christian Nation" being out-bred by the Muslims.

 

[kaizasosei]

abortion is truly a classic amongst difficult topics. Very difficult subject.

Being an active parent or someone that has become aware, it becomes apparent what a great influence our action and even opinions can have on our surroundings. i think that in a similar way, all the different sources of spiritual or moral guidance, are in a similar position.

Why should other people worry whether I'm going to hell or not?

this is funny... i guess if someone really cared about your spiritual wellbeing, it would be a noble thing. however, i'm pretty sure most are just using it as an excuse to maintain their powertrip.

so for example if we make marijuana legal, many people will take to smoking and much will change- ultimately, certain types of people will flock in the smoking areas and many more otherdrug-users will also gather there. so at first whilst we thought it was alright to legalize marijuana begin wondering about the subsequent reprocussions. stuff escalates. that is why lawmaking is truly a facinating subject in itself. the initial potheads turned into an acceptable culture clouded by still graver elements of the drugworld.

my personal take on abortion is, the mother should decide and have some degree of controll over her situation.
i mean, i'm not saying i am disagreeing with the catholic 'life is too holy' spiel, actually, i agree more than i don't. however, i dislike hateful and hasty kinds of extremism. after all, suicide is not permited in the catholic church. however, it would be impossible to try to keep someone alive if they didn't want to live.
Is an unborn baby a life that needs to be protected? yes. i do think so. however, it is the child of an individual that has the responsibility to govern his own world.

lawmakers will continue to face much opposition whatever guidelines they offer or laws they impose.

i think people need too spend less time making laws and more time helping on another. with all the killing, starving and death in the world, it is not as big as an issue as some would have you believe. however, human life is holy and everyone may play their part. but it doesnt help when leaders and great establishments of authority take up extreme positions,,,that is where this 'problem' originates from. - no piece of cake to send it back to where it came from.

with all the messed up medical procedures out there, i think it would be silly taking up a religious standpoint on even this most holy subject of unborn life. those that claim they love life and claim that they are protecting it, should also find the heart to reach out and help those around them by supporting them and guiding them to the wisest decision. not by judging them on whatever evil.

so when is it ok to abort? well, it is when your children come to you? when you yourself are in trouble, it suddenly all changes.

well, just for the record, if i were a woman, the chance that i would abort would probably be under 1 percent. if my wife or girlfriend would be pregnant, i would never ask for an abortion no matter what. also, most likely i would be happy. der mensch denkt, gott lenkt. 'mankind sneers but god steers'- if my girlfriend or wife were to get pregnant and want to abort, i would probably beg her not to-maybe even get angry, but i don't think i could have any real control over the situation-even as the wouldbe father.

if people realized the imortality of having children and just how precious their own blood is, then i guess they would be less likely to want to abort.

it's like asking someone? do you want to spar? do you want to go hiking? do you want to have a baby? - so often times, in my eyes, abortion is a sign of weakness and stupidity. ok stupidity might be to strong and judgemental a word.

basically, one shouldnt judge anothers situation that one hasnt studied indepthly..and that's only the beginning.


j

 

[MBuzzy]

A few things...

so for example if we make marijuana legal, many people will take to smoking and much will change- ultimately, certain types of people will flock in the smoking areas and many more otherdrug-users will also gather there. so at first whilst we thought it was alright to legalize marijuana begin wondering about the subsequent reprocussions. stuff escalates. that is why lawmaking is truly a facinating subject in itself. the initial potheads turned into an acceptable culture clouded by still graver elements of the drugworld.

Here's another perspective on this....I am assuming that you are using this as a metaphor for the downward spiral that Abortion may taken. Degenerating into basically birth control for some people (If I'm putting words into your mouth, please correct me!). But my opinion is that our world seeks balance. Look at the animal world. Without human intervention, things will balance out. Over time, a proportion will become apparent where there are just the right number of predators and prey. There may be a population explosion, but then, as more resources are consumed and the predators can't keep up, the larger population will shrink for lack of resources. Same with predators, if there isn't enough prey, either the extra predators will die and the stronger faster ones will live or more prey will emerge to compensate (due to not as much hunting) and it circles in repetitive iterations until balance exists. (stay with me, I'm getting to a point)

Take the drug example. If Marijuana were suddenly legalized....at first, there would be a HUGE population explosion. Many people who didn't smoke before would, those who do now would smoke more and more groups would start to form. But there are some underlying psychological and societal changes that would start. Part of the appeal is that it IS illegal. The ones who smoke now obviously don't care and the ones who start will be doing it for opportunity. But after the initial shock, a balance would start to form. Those who were doing it just because they never could would get their chance to try it and either continue or stop completely. Those who were doing it anyway would now be able to do it in public or in special areas - no longer taboo, nothing special. Is there rampant marijuana smoking in Amersterdam? You'd never know. Those who do it stay where they belong, do it responsibily and don't bother anyway (The other problem with this example is that people who are high are NOT violent and generally are not hurting others). Eventually, a balance begins to exist. Just like drinking in Germany....there nearly as big of a problem with alcoholism or drunk driving or addiction. Because its just always legal. It isn't an issue, they are taught responsibility from an early age. There's nothing special about it.

Now I'm not saying that people are having abortions because it is taboo and not allowed, but if it was no longer an issue, a balance would emerge. Right now, the predators and prey are fighting for dominance. If the issue was removed, people would find a way to create balance. If the legal issues and moral pressure was removed, there would probably initially be many more people doing it. But look at economic laws of supply and demand....demand increases, the first thing that happens is prices gradually start going up, then more suppliers emerge to fill the gap and the start ups get the money, then other compensate. Eventually a balance is reached. The same happens with the moral, people will be raised with the possibility and it not being controversial. Parents who believe it is wrong will teach their children. They will group up without a question in their minds. Parents who do not, will not influence their children. Eventually both groups will become mature thinkers and make decisions for themselves and a balance would emerge.

my personal take on abortion is, the mother should decide and have some degree of controll over her situation.
i mean, i'm not saying i am disagreeing with the catholic 'life is too holy' spiel, actually, i agree more than i don't. however, i dislike hateful and hasty kinds of extremism. after all, suicide is not permited in the catholic church. however, it would be impossible to try to keep someone alive if they didn't want to live.
Is an unborn baby a life that needs to be protected? yes. i do think so. however, it is the child of an individual that has the responsibility to govern his own world.

lawmakers will continue to face much opposition whatever guidelines they offer or laws they impose.

This is the real root of the arugument...An unborn baby's life must be protected because it cannot protect itself. But at what cost? At the cost of the mother? At the cost of society? At the cost of the child later in life? A lot of these babies being protected are in reality being doomed. Not to sound cold, but some would be better off aborted. I am of course referring to a situation where the pregnancy was accidental and the mother KNOWS that she cannot support the child and does not want the child. I mean, if my wife accidentally got pregnant, we wouldn't get an abortion, we wouldn't need. We can support the child, we eventually want children, it would be unexpected, but welcomed. Now....two years ago, it would be different. Unmarried, not making enough money to support the kid, a life style that isn't condusive to kids (military without the option of getting out - we couldn't take a kid to Korea). In that case, it may have been a good choice. Of course, I don't know because I wasn't in the situation....so I don't presume to know what I would have done. But if the option wouldn't have existed the child would be the one punished. Life is precious, but a choice must be made for some people. Have a kid, not be able to afford it, not want the child, the child has no money, a bad home life, has severely reduce opportunities in life....and it goes on.

i think people need too spend less time making laws and more time helping on another. with all the killing, starving and death in the world, it is not as big as an issue as some would have you believe. however, human life is holy and everyone may play their part. but it doesnt help when leaders and great establishments of authority take up extreme positions,,,that is where this 'problem' originates from. - no piece of cake to send it back to where it came from.

Exactly - if the government would stop worrying about this and using it as an election tactic and take care of the people we already have the issue wouldn't be as big of a deal. If they want abortion to stop, don't make it illegal, give those people who need it options. Take care of them, before they have the child AND after. Nothing is solved by making an anti-abortion law. It will just go underground. Did drugs stop being used when they were made illegal? Nope, it got much much worse. Laudinum (an opiate) used to be sold over the counter and people would get high on it. It was commonplace, but not a major problem. It was legal. There was no war on headaches. Making things illegal complicates the problem. Soon we're going to be having wars on illegal abortion clinics and wars on amateur abortors.......more of a tax on the legal system and law enforcement.

Lets face it, Abortion is an election tactic. Politicians DON'T CARE - face it. They want elected, if telling people that they'll make killing legal would get them elected, it would be a new election platform. Its just about power. Period. All they are doing it parroting their party's ideals and pretending they care - just like every other issue.

 

[MBuzzy]

No one cares what a woman does with her own uterus. This isn't about a hysterectomy. The concern comes in is when the action affects another person.

If Susan Smith drove her car into a lake, and her 'unwanted' kids were not in it, no one would have really cared, except for maybe the insurance company when she claimed it was stolen.

You can do with your fists and feet whatever you want, hit a heavy bag, do a hyung, but the laws tell you not to use them as weapons against innocent people. Is that not also the government controlling your body in a similar fashion?

There's a fine line here. The concern comes in when the action affects other people - this is a true statement, but what happens when either alternative affects others.

It is very tidy to have an opinion on this issue when it does not affect you (this is not directed at any individual, no offense intended), but when you are in the situation, things get different. The problem with those on the "anti" side of the issue, in large part, have not considered the consequences of their actions. As it has been said - we make a law, they are all happy and stop protesting and walk away.....and then they go find some other issue to protest.

But what is left behind.....a bunch of women with unwanted children. And more importantly, a bunch of children who are unwanted. I feel that those who support abortion are much more concerned about the people and their lives. I feel that they need to consider this.....What will happen to those unwanted children AFTER they are born???


Oh.....and when answering that question, no being idealistic! Can't say that the mother will find a way. Or that the community will support them. That's easy to say now, but in reality, she may not find a way, the community might not care, the child MAY end up homeless and start committing crime.....just like on Dr. Phil....."Because my parents didn't love me enough." (I know....logical fallacy....emotional appeal)