'Partial-birth' abortion ban upheld

[Irvine511]

is it a sin to be gay?

it is only a sin to have sex outside of hetero marriage

people who are not married
are not entitled to have intimate relations

it is that simple
just don't sin (period)

but if we want to stop abortions, we need to encourage gay sex.

at least one sin (sodomy) won't beget another (abortion).

 

[absintheminded]

Excuse me but I'm a woman, and I do believe that Lies and Martha are women, and I just want to clarify that albeit I DO NOT BELIEVE giving birth to a baby and killing it (which I don't believe happens for any other reason than medically)
but I do believe that it's not right for Congress or any politician to decide what is medically allowable for me to have if my pregnancy calls for it.

IF a woman needs a late-term abortion, she needs it and it should be allowed medically and for medical purposes only, and I think that is MORE than 1 in five women here.

Thank you.

 

[Diemen]

Fantastic read:

http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-views-on-abortion.html

 

[financeguy]

i'm still waiting for the pro-lifers to come out and endorse the following:

1. gay adoption
2. comprehensive sex education
3. universal health care
4. free neo-natal care
5. free day care
6. job assistance/education/training for mothers and fathers
7. mandatory availability of maternity and paternity leave
8. financial assistance to mothers (aka, welfare)

so when all these conditions are met, maybe then we can start to discuss what it means to be pro-life and not just pro-birth.

(i also want to know why God aborts a large number of zygotes -- it seems that the female womb is a far more dangerous environment for these cellular children than any on earth)

I endorse all of the above, and guess what, most, if not all, of the above conditions already exist in most countries in the EU and yet Britain, Germany and several other European countries STILL have high abortion rates.

There comes a point in time, sooner or later, when even the most fervent pro-abortion advocates will have to realise and accept that sexual irresponsibility - and governments allowing and legislating for said irresponsibility (by permitting the get out clause of abortion) - plays a part in all of this.

But I'd certainly concede that there's an enormous level of hypocrisy in the mind set of some right wingers who demand that abortion be outlawed, but won't give any concessions in terms of sex ed, mandatory availability of maternity leave and those other issues you've outlined.

 

[A_Wanderer]

No individual choice is what plays a part; the government is not nor should be responsible for what consenting parties choose to do in terms of sex or with their bodies in terms of abortion and I think the enforcement of retrogressive social policy to roll back the gains of the sexual revolution is positively authoritarian.

People are irresponsible with sex, amazingly, since it's not not a moral action; it's just a biological action that feels good - the escape clause option might not give a woman that life crippling burden of an unwanted kid that she must obviously deserve.

 

[financeguy]

No individual choice is what plays a part;

Individual choice plays a part yes, but it's not the be all and end all. As with many other aspects of our lives, individual choice is (or should be) restricted, on moral/ethical grounds, for example, in cases where the unfettered exercise of individual choice may impinge on the rights of another individual (in this case, the foetus).

the government is not nor should be responsible for what consenting parties choose to do in terms of sex or with their bodies in terms of abortion and I think the enforcement of retrogressive social policy to roll back the gains of the sexual revolution is positively authoritarian.

Yes, I'd concede that restricting abortion rights is authoritarian.

Where individuals, or a certain percentage of them, are likely to abuse rights, democratically elected governments (elected by, duly appointed by, and acting on behalf of a collective of individuals) are entitled to restrict them.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But a foetus isn't an person, it is a potential person. The rights of the actual individual (the mother) take priority. Want to save the unborn children then perfect ectogenesis.

 

[financeguy]

But a foetus isn't an person, it is a potential person.

Yes, I think I would probably agree that the foetus isn't a person, in the sense that 'person' is generally understood.

Originally posted by A_Wanderer The rights of the actual individual (the mother) take priority. [/B]

Yes, I'd agree that the rights of the mother take priority.

But that isn't really a sufficient argument to justify legalised abortion on demand.

If we are going to agree that the mother enjoys superior rights to the foetus, the debate then becomes, to what extent (if any) can we assign rights to the foetus?

If you think the foetus has no rights whatever, then naturally you'd accept legalised abortion on demand.

This seems to me a remarkable point of view.

The pro-abortion on demand argument, as I understand it, goes roughly speaking as follows:

- The foetus is not a person, ergo, it qualifies for no rights whatsoever.

- BUT, once the foetus is borne (including presumably cases where it is borne prematurely) automatically, it qualifies for full rights. Purely by changing its physical location (i.e., by being borne) the foetus goes from the (metaphysically speaking) position of being a non-person, to, within a matter of seconds, assuming the position of being a person, fully entitled to all the rights of a person.

I think a detect a slight weakness in this argument.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The weakness in the argument you established is based on the mother being able to give birth and having the baby (once born) survive and thrive; something that is not the case for most of a pregnancy.

It takes time for a foetus to reach a stage where it can survive outside the womb, in that respect it's not much different from a brain dead individual on a respirator; and in those sorts of cases pulling the plug is a choice, usually of family members. Now if were talking about very late stages in pregnancy where the survival rate is reasonable as well as the quality of life if the foetus is delivered then the balance shifts; but if a woman carries until that stage "abortion on demand" doesn't make sense, it is medical neccessity where the life of the mother is at risk.

So define the stage at which abortion on demand is accessable which should be based on the medical evidence and some appraisal of the ethical dillema of balancing rights - which for most of the pregnancy I don't see as existent - and allow medical exceptions for periods after that and possibly some sort of review process for other instances.

Again I reiterate that if ectogenesis was perfected then it would shift the ethics of it; although the ethics of bringing parentless children into the world does get raised.

 

[Liesje]

Yes, I think I would probably agree that the foetus isn't a person, in the sense that 'person' is generally understood.




Yes, I'd agree that the rights of the mother take priority.

But that isn't really a sufficient argument to justify legalised abortion on demand.

If we are going to agree that the mother enjoys superior rights to the foetus, the debate then becomes, to what extent (if any) can we assign rights to the foetus?

If you think the foetus has no rights whatever, then naturally you'd accept legalised abortion on demand.

This seems to me a remarkable point of view.

The pro-abortion on demand argument, as I understand it, goes roughly speaking as follows:

- The foetus is not a person, ergo, it qualifies for no rights whatsoever.

- BUT, once the foetus is borne (including presumably cases where it is borne prematurely) automatically, it qualifies for full rights. Purely by changing its physical location (i.e., by being borne) the foetus goes from the (metaphysically speaking) position of being a non-person, to, within a matter of seconds, assuming the position of being a person, fully entitled to all the rights of a person.

I think a detect a slight weakness in this argument.

No, a braindead fetus has no rights, just like a braindead human pretty much has no rights. In either case, the family decided what to do.

 

[Golightly Grrl]

Where did you do your residency?


Afganistan?

Martha, did I ever tell you I love you?

 

[Golightly Grrl]

i'm still waiting for the pro-lifers to come out and endorse the following:

1. gay adoption
2. comprehensive sex education
3. universal health care
4. free neo-natal care
5. free day care
6. job assistance/education/training for mothers and fathers
7. mandatory availability of maternity and paternity leave
8. financial assistance to mothers (aka, welfare)

so when all these conditions are met, maybe then we can start to discuss what it means to be pro-life and not just pro-birth.

You're going to have to wait a very long time, as am I. And sadly, I'm not the most patient person in the world.

I asked one pro-life (on her blog, not in real life) if she's so pro-life why doesn't she adopt children caught up in the foster care system, or help pregnant women caught up in bad circumstances. Her answer? She doesn't need to adopt because she can have kids of her own (yep, being fertile is such an accomplishment), and why should she help sluts.

 

[martha]

Thanks for the love!

why should she help sluts.

It nearly makes me weep when women speak of each other in such self-loathing terms.

 

[INDY500]

Where did you do your residency?

Afganistan?

Martha, did I ever tell you I love you?

Just so we're clear.

Americans overwhelmingly support the ban of this procedure. Of that vast, vast majority of Americans -- very, very few subscribe to the Taliban's treatment of women.

And to even make such a comparison is stupefyingly ignorant.

 

[Golightly Grrl]

Re: Thanks for the love!

It nearly makes me weep when women speak of each other in such self-loathing terms.

Not to mention, she first got pregnant when she was in high school. Not that teen moms are sluts, but she was hardly virgin pure when she finally got married.

And I thought this article was interesting:
The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

 

[martha]

Just so we're clear.

Americans overwhelmingly support the ban of this procedure. Of that vast, vast majority of Americans -- very, very few subscribe to the Taliban's treatment of women.

And to even make such a comparison is stupefyingly ignorant.

Just so we're clear: An overwhelming majority of Americans supported racial segregation, miscegenation laws, and other discriminatory practices at one point as well.

To rely on the American will can be stupifyingly ignorant.

 

[Diemen]

Re: Re: Thanks for the love!

Not to mention, she first got pregnant when she was in high school. Not that teen moms are sluts, but she was hardly virgin pure when she finally got married.

And I thought this article was interesting:
The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

That was a great read, GG. Cognitive dissonance at its best (/worst).

 

[deep]

Religious group attacks religion in U.S. healthcare

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science EditorTue Apr 24, 6:11 PM ET

A coalition of religious leaders took on the Catholic Church, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Bush administration on Tuesday with a plea to take religion out of health care in the United States.

They said last week's Supreme Court decision outlawing a certain type of abortion demonstrated that religious belief was interfering with personal rights and the U.S. health care system in general.

The group, calling itself the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, said it planned to submit its proposals to other church groups and lobby Congress and state legislators.

"With the April 18 Supreme Court decision banning specific abortion procedures, concerns are being raised in religious communities about the ethics of denying these services," the group said in a statement.

"They are imposing their points of view," Barbara Kavadias, director of field services for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, told reporters in a telephone briefing.

She noted that the five Supreme Court justices on the majority in the 5-4 decision were all Catholic men -- Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia.

All were appointed by conservative Republican presidents who oppose abortion, including President George W. Bush.

The group also complained about Catholic-owned hospitals that refuse to sterilize women who ask for it, refuse to let doctors perform abortions and do not provide contraception.

"Doctors, pharmacists and nurses are also increasingly exercising a so-called 'religious or moral objection,' refusing to provide essential services and often leaving patients without other options," the group said in a statement.

CODIFYING RELIGION

"And now, to make it worse, the government is codifying these refusals, first through legislation and now with the recent Supreme Court decision, where five Catholic men decided that they could better determine what was moral and good than the physicians, women and families facing difficult, personal choices in problem pregnancies," it added.

The group includes ordained Protestant ministers, a Jewish activist, an expert on women's reproductive rights and several physicians.

"The threat comes from a few, but powerful, religions and a few ... powerful religious leaders who pretend to speak for all religions," said Larry Greenfield, executive minister of the American Baptist Churches of Metro Chicago.

"Health care decisions ought to be made freely, based on medical expertise and individual conscience," he added.

The group wrote up a series of guidelines and asked for all health care providers to implement them.

They include allowing doctors to use best medical practices, providing comprehensive counseling on sexual or reproductive health and an agreement to honor advance directives -- including "do not resuscitate" orders.

"Refusal to provide health care would be balanced by alternate service delivery so that no one would be victimized when another exercises his/her conscience," the guidelines read.

Marie Hilliard of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia said she had grave concerns about the report.

"There is no recognition of the true meaning of the separation of church and state, which mandates that the free exercise of religion, including that of the provider, be respected," she said.

"What we have tried to avoid is to be coercive ourselves," Greenfield said. "We have tried to allow for the freedom of conscience of every participant in the health care system."