Senator Kerry: Personal beliefs vs. legislation

[Liesje]

No, it's taking a life that is developing. Again, it is not a full-fledged baby from the moment it's conceived.

I know someone who was born over three months pre-mature and he lived a normal, healthy, and extremely athletic life. I've also seen images of aborted babies (rather, pieces of them) definitely developed enough to survive. Today I listened to a baby's heartbeat at 9 weeks.

 

[cydewaze]

I should know better than to let Jessica lure me into this subforum.

Abortion... eh, what an awful topic for debate.

Regardless of my personal views on abortion, I won't be the one to tell a woman that she has to carry her rapist's baby for nine months, at possible risk to her own life. Imagine if she and the baby are lost to complications at birth - a rape victim practically sentenced to death by the government.

One of the things that really bothers me about a ban on abortion is that it's really only a ban for the poor. Think about it. If Mr. Millionaire's daughter gets pregnant by her high school sweetheart, how fast do you think she'll be on the next plane to Canada? That's assuming the "family doctor" doesn't come in and do the deed himself. A ban on abortion would be a ban on poor people having abortions. Period.

Another thing that bothers me is the motive. The top brass in the republican party is against abortion for two reasons.

1) More votes! I have met SO many people who have either become republicans because of the abortion issue, or who hold their nose and vote republican because of it. That's a lot of free, guaranteed votes, just for saying you're against something.

2) More troops! When poor people can no longer have abortions, what happens to the resulting children? They join the military! Well, some of them do at least. Banning abortions provides a steady supply of troops for the US military.

Most of the replies here are a bit better than the usual abortion debate I've read through. At least most of the people on the other side agree that birth control is needed. I can't count the number of times I've spoken to "Pro-Life" people who are not only against abortion, but also against anything that might prevent unwanted pregnancies. It amounts to being opposed to any non-reproductive sex. Sorry, but I don't think humans are ready to give up their sex just yet.

 

[cydewaze]

I've also seen images of aborted babies (rather, pieces of them) definitely developed enough to survive.

Several years ago I went over to a friend's house to watch the superbowl. When I got there, his girlfriend (a nurse) was extremely upset.

As it turns out, several "Pro-Life" people were apprehended while sneaking into the hospital (in fake hospital clothing, no less) to photograph a pregnant woman who was killed in an auto accident, so that they could use pictures of the fetus on anti-abortion posters. Apparently someone at the hospital was helping them.

Whenever I see posters with pictures like that, I think about that day, and I realize that without context, the photos mean nothing. Unless you know the exact circumstance, there's no way to know whether something could have survived.

 

[Liesje]

Another thing that bothers me is the motive. The top brass in the republican party is against abortion for two reasons.

Just to make this crystal clear, my views on abortion have nothing to do with my political party, my religion, or my views on sexuality.

Whenever I see posters with pictures like that, I think about that day, and I realize that without context, the photos mean nothing. Unless you know the exact circumstance, there's no way to know whether something could have survived.

I'm aware that there are radial pro-lifers out there, just like there are radical pro-choicers out there. The images I saw were signed and stamped authentic documents.

 

[melon]

All I've got to say about fetus photos is that they are about as acceptable as posting photos of Iraqis killed by errant American bombs during Gulf War II.

I'll leave it at that. Personally, I'm no longer disgusted by anything, in terms of photography. I took a forensic science class a few years back and saw slides of decomposing bodies and a particularly gruesome murder-suicide. Interesting, but not for the squeamish, most assuredly.

Melon

 

[Got Philk?]

I would like to thank you all for only confirming my belief against women choosing to have an abortion.
First, you say it's taking the life that is developing. This only helps me since you even mention the one key word. Notice, it isn't the leg that is developing, or the nose, it is the LIFE!!!

Next, I always love the great reasons, financial, unplanned, etc. I recall learning at a public school in 7th grade that the only 100 % way to prevent pregnancy is by abstaining from sex. It is a choice and the consequences most likely are known. Sex is pretty much the only way to get pregnant (I said pretty much).

On to the tougher issues. Rape, incest, and possibly the hardest, complications w/ birth or deformations of a child.
This is so hard because you have to feel empathy for those who do get raped or have to decide whether or not their life is worth risking for their child.

I'll start with the complications. When one makes the choice to have a child, there are risks just like there are potential risks any time one undergoes a major procedure in a hospital. Not to mention, it is a life.

Rape or Incest: I often wonder; Is it fair to kill one life to help one deal with their pain? How far does this go then? I do not deny that rape is a horrible HORRIBLE thing. I hate it! But a life is a life and this child could still have a great one!

Someone said that in the beginning a fetus is just a lump of cells. So are we. We are just a lump of cells if you think about it. Yet, our LIVES have developed quite well I'd assume.

 

[melon]

As long as the anti-abortion crowd is against the death penalty, then I can effectively admire your lack of hypocrisy. For those who are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, connect the dots from the previous sentence.

Melon

 

[Liesje]

As long as the anti-abortion crowd is against the death penalty, then I can effectively admire your lack of hypocrisy. For those who are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, connect the dots from the previous sentence.

Melon

The death penalty is also rediculous.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

As long as the anti-abortion crowd is against the death penalty, then I can effectively admire your lack of hypocrisy. For those who are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, connect the dots from the previous sentence.

Melon

There is a huge difference between an innocent baby and a cold blooded murderer or a vicious serial killer. The death penalty is reserved for only the most heinous of murderous crimes. There has to be some kind of deterrant! No one who would take someone else's life on purpose deserves to keep their own. The baby has done nothing wrong, hasn't even had a chance!

 

[melon]

There is a huge difference between an innocent baby and a cold blooded murderer or a vicious serial killer. The death penalty is reserved for only the most heinous of murderous crimes. There has to be some kind of deterrant! No one who would take someone else's life on purpose deserves to keep their own. The baby has done nothing wrong, hasn't even had a chance!

See? Like I said before, the "pro-life" crowd generally only selectively values life. Jesus did not support the death penalty, and He was also a victim of it--an innocent man executed by the Roman state. I'm sure the Pharisees saw the value of such a deterrant too.

This is why I have little problem with liberal interpretations of Christianity, because the conservative interpretation makes just as many leaps in logic to suit their ideology.

Melon

 

[BluberryPoptart]

I do not label myself as pro-life, only opposed to abortion.

Do you label yourself as pro-choice? If you do, are you pro EVERY choice a person could make? If not, don't call anyone else a hypocrite, because you are the same. If you're going to get picky, it goes both ways.

Personally I find both labels ridiculous and inaccurate as well as hypocritical.

 

[pax]

The "choice" in "pro-choice" obviously refers to the "choice" to have an abortion or not, whereas "pro-life" has been co-opted to cover opposition to the death penalty, euthanasia, eugenics, etc. That's common parlance particularly among Catholics, who, if they are strict about following what the Vatican says, MUST be both anti-abortion and anti-death penalty.

Saying that someone who is pro-choice on the abortion issue must also be, say, pro-serial killing or pro-heroin because both are choices an individual could theoretically make is about as ridiculous as saying no pro-life person would ever step on an ant.

 

[Liesje]

I'll leave it at that. Personally, I'm no longer disgusted by anything, in terms of photography. I took a forensic science class a few years back and saw slides of decomposing bodies and a particularly gruesome murder-suicide. Interesting, but not for the squeamish, most assuredly.

Maybe it's b/c I'm a woman and have a natural mothering instinct, but no matter how many disgusting, disturbing things we see these days, images and death records of dismembered babies is just NEVER ok with me b/c there is no way anyone can convince me that that baby deserved what s/he got. Just b/c we see so many awful things these days doesn't make it any less sad.

Anyway, I agree, you can't be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.

Again, I do not "selectively" value life. The death penalty is just as horrid to me.

 

[Liesje]

See? Like I said before, the "pro-life" crowd generally only selectively values life. Jesus did not support the death penalty, and He was also a victim of it--an innocent man executed by the Roman state. I'm sure the Pharisees saw the value of such a deterrant too.

This is why I have little problem with liberal interpretations of Christianity, because the conservative interpretation makes just as many leaps in logic to suit their ideology.

Melon

Why does these keep returning to Christianity-bashing? Some of us are pro-life b/c abortion is wrong, period. Sure, Christianity may also share the same view, but that doesn't mean it's the reasoning behind our views. I know people who are not religious and still vehemently oppose abortion.

 

[Screaming Flower]

most people i know who are pro-life are anti-deathy penalty as well, so enough of the blanket generalizations.

 

[cydewaze]

This is why I have little problem with liberal interpretations of Christianity, because the conservative interpretation makes just as many leaps in logic to suit their ideology.

This is a big problem with religion in general. It's like a buffet. People pick and choose the things that help support their views, and leave the rest.

 

[BVS]

Why does these keep returning to Christianity-bashing? Some of us are pro-life b/c abortion is wrong, period. Sure, Christianity may also share the same view, but that doesn't mean it's the reasoning behind our views. I know people who are not religious and still vehemently oppose abortion.

I didn't see any Christianity bashing in that statement.

 

[Salome]

I still don't think I've ever heard it was determined that in the earliest stages of a pregnancy you can actually speak of a human life

I always thought some (professors and all) say it is, some say it isn't

so I have a problem when people state you're killing a baby
when as far as I know this isn't a fact

personally I can't fathom wanting an abortion or euthanesia or whatever you can be opposed to when it's about life and death
but as long as we don't have clean cut facts to base our opinions on then someone's own choice should count for something

 

[Leeloo]

Why does these keep returning to Christianity-bashing? Some of us are pro-life b/c abortion is wrong, period. Sure, Christianity may also share the same view, but that doesn't mean it's the reasoning behind our views. I know people who are not religious and still vehemently oppose abortion.

Why does that always have to be thrown into it? Why is it that people who believe abortion is wrong are always assumed to be Bible thumping right wing Christians? That is a stereotype. I don't even go to church and I think it's wrong. Wrong, not just for me, but for everyone because it is wrong. No one should be allowed to choose something that is wrong. There are laws to stop people with no heart and no conscience from doing certain things, and this should be among them. Roe vs Wade was always a weak, phantom interpretation of the Constitution and it should be overturned.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Because inevitably when you start talking about abortion you are discussing issues of life and death. When you have that there comes very serious ethical and theological questions which are inherently divisive. Basically if we were to work from a purely logical standpoint abortion would be permitted under particular circumstances however shouldnt be a common feature of a society. The debates themselves however lose logic and people begin to take their beliefs too far and enforce them with no compromise (Embryonic Stem Cell Research would be an example of this) this is the problem. I hate to say it but the world is grey, there is still right and wrong in this world however most situations are very murky. I say this, having a later abortion (I am not familiar with the timings or such things I know that there are obvious limits) on a fetus with no abnormalities and not a product of rape would not be a good thing. Hovever this is not to say that I would be in support of any blanket ban because that is simply short sighted and ignorant. When you have issues of rape and incest then abortion is most certainly an option that I don't think anybody here could legitimately argue against. If you have a fetus with severe abnormalities then it is also a legitimate option. If the quality of life for a child would be awful then I don't think that its a bad thing. There should be limits but fundamentaly you cannot attempt to enforce draconian blanket rulings on issues that have such far reaching social and ethical effects.

There are rights for all parties involved but I get a real problem when religious groups push their agenda upon society, if they do not want abortion to be practiced then by all means preach to the congregation not to (but be prepared for concequinces if such a policy winds up injuring or killing somebody). Abortion is not a good thing, it is a sad and traumatic thing that should only be done in certain circumstances where it removes undue suffering for the mother as well as the potential child so for the sake of the millions of women the world over who suffer because of pointless religious interference we must all ensure that it is allowed to go on and that the underlying problems within society that lead to high rates of abortion may be solved. Abortions of choice could be considered a solution to a problem, find another solution (such as stemming the problem) and you will find that the entire debate becomes more focused and legitimate.

 

[nbcrusader]

It shouldn't be taken away at all. Personally, I would agree that if a woman's going to have an abortion, it'd be better to do it early on in the pregnancy. But I also know that there's still things that can happen late in the pregnancy that would warrant her having an abortion, so the choice should remain open the whole 9 months.



No, it's taking a life that is developing. Again, it is not a full-fledged baby from the moment it's conceived.

Angela

Humans keep developing well after birth. A logical extension of your statements would allow a mother to kill their child anytime before they move out on their own.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

The whole 9 months? That's hard core. Damn. Babies can be viable outside the womb as soon as about 22 weeks, so you're are talking about actual murder here. Even most people who support first trimester abortion have problems with the whole 9 months. Most legal doctors won't even perform them, and the ones who do are nothing more than butchers. To me, any doctor who could perform such a 'procedure' or any 'woman' who would desire it are just as much murderers as someone who shoots or stabs someone to death. The baby is delivered alive, then killed. Tell me that's not murder most foul.

 

[A_Wanderer]

No way you can allow an abortion late in pregnancy unless there are very, very serious complications. I am pro-choice but that is essentially killing, again draw line there with necessity.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

nbcrusader, again, I was referring to the developing of organs and all that stuff. Screaming Flower corrected me some on that stuff, but that's still what I was referring to. All the necessary organs may be there that early, but they have 9 months in which they're in the woman's body, that means they still have a lot to go through before they're a full-fledged baby.

Also, I realize some people can be born premature and manage to have a healthy life, but there's lots of premature babies that do have health problems, and it's because they hadn't gotten a chance to fully develop into a baby.

No way you can allow an abortion late in pregnancy unless there are very, very serious complications. I am pro-choice but that is essentially killing, again draw line there with necessity.

Well, that's what I was getting at when I was referring to the situations that would warrant it. Personally, I agree that if that decision is to be made, it should be made very early on. But the choice still should be open the entire time for those who have something come up late in the pregnancy such as what you mentioned-the serious complications that could arise if they went through with the pregnancy. Sorry about any confusion there.

Angela

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes but no abortion because they decided that they just don't want to have a child that far into the pregnancy.

 

[Mrs. Edge]

There is a huge difference between an innocent baby and a cold blooded murderer or a vicious serial killer. The death penalty is reserved for only the most heinous of murderous crimes. There has to be some kind of deterrant! No one who would take someone else's life on purpose deserves to keep their own. The baby has done nothing wrong, hasn't even had a chance!

I agree that vicious serial killers and rapists should get what they deserve (ie a death worthy of the ones they have committed). It's only human to feel that way. BUT it has been proven over and over again that the death penalty is not a deterrant.

Pro-Death Penalty people never seem to address the issue of what happens when INNOCENT people are put to death! It's easier now with DNA tests, but there are still cases where innocent people go to jail and worse yet, face the death penalty. This should never under any circumstances happen. They are just as entitled to be alive as that collection of cells known as an embryo that you are so rabidly defending.

But even if they *were* all guilty....I thought the whole point of being pro-life was that you were supposed to be protecting ALL life at any cost and that every life has value? Because if we get to pick and choose then the same rules should apply to the embryo that threatens the life of an innocent rape victim for example.

I really wonder (and this is not directed at you, it's just a continuation of the thought), what some of the people in here who are soooooo principled - they wouldn't ever THINK about an abortion (especially if it doesn't affect them personally!) would do if someone they loved - a wife, daughter, sister - faced serious complications or death as a result of an unwanted pregnancy, or even a wanted one for that matter. Wouldn't they want to do anything to save her life?

Would they actually be able to believe that a collection of cells, perhaps those from a rapist, is ultimately more important than the love of their life...a fully fledged living, feeling woman?

If so, that really boggles my mind.

 

[wolfeden]

"Never Ever Ever Acceptable"

Okay, so you're saying a happily married mother of 3 kids should LET HERSELF DIE for, say, a misdeveloped product of gestation that can't even be called a fetus (a birth "defect" called a hyatidiform mole, where the genetic tissue does not form a human body), the birth process of which can cause the mother to bleed to death, or an anencephalic (developed without a brain or spinal chord) fetus with a complication of severe pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes?

Educate yourself on the reality of these things - the true hazards and complications of pregnancy, labor, and delivery, before you pronounce yourself judge, jury and executioner to these women.

And with your point of view, I hope you never have to go through it yourself, looking your own kids in the eye as you tell them Mommy's going to die because she doesn't believe in abortion.....

 

[nbcrusader]

nbcrusader, again, I was referring to the developing of organs and all that stuff. Screaming Flower corrected me some on that stuff, but that's still what I was referring to. All the necessary organs may be there that early, but they have 9 months in which they're in the woman's body, that means they still have a lot to go through before they're a full-fledged baby.

Again, why draw the line at 9 months of gestation?

 

[Mrs. Edge]

Not speaking for Angela, but you have to draw the line SOMEWHERE, and I would say there should be priority in lifesaving for a fully functioning adult over an up to 9 month old fetus/baby if necessary to save the mother's life!

Obviously the older the fetus gets, the worse the situation is. No one is saying it's a pleasant option. But the mother can have more children. Once the mother's gone, that's it.

 

[nbcrusader]

Saving a mother's life is a separate issue as it is a generally accepted defense to murder (even from Biblical times).

Killing for convenience still has no rational dividing line.