Abortion In The News

[Luke T.]

Late term abortion ban challenged.

In the outlawed procedure, generally performed in the second trimester and occasionally in the third, a fetus is partially delivered before its skull is punctured. An estimated 2,200 to 5,000 such abortions are performed annually in the United States, out of 1.3 million total abortions.

Three lawsuits in three cities
The National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and a handful of doctors sued in San Francisco, New York and Lincoln, Neb., to overturn the law.

Critics of the law say its language could criminalize more common types of abortion and could be a step toward abolishing abortion. Supporters contend it applies only to a procedure done late in pregnancy that is never necessary to protect the health of the mother.

1.3 million abortions every year. That's a lot of incest and rape.

In other news, U.S. Senate takes up "Unborn Victims" bill.

Displaying photos of fetuses and graphically describing such attacks, backers said the bill would discourage assaults on women and recognize the loss and grief when a wanted pregnancy was violently ended by a criminal act.

The measure has cleared the U.S. House of Representatives and President Bush has promised to sign it into law.

The anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee strongly backs the legislation. But the American Civil Liberties Union has called it a "thinly veiled attempt to create fetal rights and further erode women's reproductive rights."

Opponents said the bill could undermine or at least complicate abortion rights or block stem cell research by treating the fetus as a person from conception. Sponsors say they drafted the legislation to explicitly exclude abortion.

I guess if the pro-abortion people had their way, you could beat a pregnant woman until she miscarried, and only be charged with assault. Something for every guy out there who doesn't want to be a dad to cheer about.

 

[corplinx]

The thing that disturbs me is that somehow the unborn victims of crime act is being portrayed as a win for the religious reich. I think its a win for mothers and moderate people.

 

[Tmy]

Who said anything about rape or incest? Why does that make a difference anyway.

Partially delivered?? Again why does that make a difference if you poke him whiles hes inside mom or 1/2 way out.



Why is it that slippery slope arguments are fine in abortion discussions but are sort of taboo in gay marriage discussions?

 

[c0rbin]

It is difficult to fathom fine details in an issue that many perceive as black and white.

One thing is for sure, my opinions on abortion changed the day my first son was born.

 

[CFLarsen]

Almost 60% more abortions per capita in the US than Denmark.

Why so many in the US? We have completely free abortion here, have had it for 30 years. Add to that, a much more relaxed attitude towards sex.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Perhaps an example to follow?

 

[Luke T.]

Who said anything about rape or incest? Why does that make a difference anyway.

I was being somewhat facetious. Whenever a politician comes out against abortion, some reporter is usually quick to ask "What about in cases of rape or abortion?" I just like to point out the vast, vast number of abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest. Sort of like a leaky faucet on a street where a dam has burst.

The article went out of its way to point out the small number of partial birth abortions. And out of those, probably a small percentage, if any, are necessary to save the mother's life.

The pro-abortion camp will make any argument and throw up any smokescreen ("what about rape and incest or when the mother's life is in jeopardy") to protect their "right" to the 1.3 million abortions taking place every year.

Partially delivered?? Again why does that make a difference if you poke him whiles hes inside mom or 1/2 way out.

Exactly. It is murder either way.

Why is it that slippery slope arguments are fine in abortion discussions but are sort of taboo in gay marriage discussions?

Because there is a slippery slope. In both directions.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Perhaps after the right-wing wack jobs and religeous reich succeed in outlawing abortions, we can further refine the law to include the mandatory wearing of burkas (speling?) by our better half.

Charlie (don't legislate women's bodies!) Monoxide

 

[Suezoled]

(snipped)




Exactly. It is murder either way.



Because there is a slippery slope. In both directions.

Documentation please? and Documentation again?

 

[Suddenly]

I was being somewhat facetious. Whenever a politician comes out against abortion, some reporter is usually quick to ask "What about in cases of rape or abortion?" I just like to point out the vast, vast number of abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest. Sort of like a leaky faucet on a street where a dam has burst.

Actually, the purpose of the "rape or incest" gambit is not to suggest that is when most abortions happen, but rather to put the "abortion is murder" position holder in a tricky position. If abortion in indeed murder just like shooting someone on the street, then how can abortion in cases of rape or incest be permissible?

The "Abortion is Murder" proponent must either somehow either soften the claim or hold his/her ground and take the unpleasant but consistant position that these abortions are also murder. Unplesant as it will result in babies with severe birth defects, and also unplesant as it in effect allows a rapist to force a woman to carry his child.

The "abortion is murder" proponent can counter this gambit as far as "cases of rape" go, but the incest part is a bit dodgier, except that it largely becomes a euthenasia type argument where the difference of opinion bases itself in basic presumptions people hold about the nature and purpose of life.

So in the end this gambit, like most rhetorical gambits, only bear fruit or score points when used on the unwary.

 

[American]

The type of girl who chooses not to have an abortion doesn't seem to need the choice, but I'd like them to have it because they're typically good women.

The type of feminist who demands total abortion access is usually not going to get pregnant anyway, and if she does then it's a win-win situation. They're reproducing less if they choose to abort (=very good for humanity), and they're stuck with a baby they have to care for and can go slutting around like a whore every weekend. I'm more than happy to take that choice away from the worthless human beings that are the liberals in this world.

Someone once made a very good point that feminists averaging one child in their late 30s (presumably aborting their earlier pregnancies) does wonders for Darwinism. Assuming you turn out like your parents, that's a LOT of little feminists not being born, thank god.

 

[Luke T.]

Documentation please?

Read the article. "Late term abortions" are performed when the baby is a viable human being.

In the outlawed procedure, generally performed in the second trimester and occasionally in the third, a fetus is partially delivered before its skull is punctured.

and Documentation again?

Again, read the article. The pro-abortionists are the ones making the slippery slope argument in this case.

Critics of the law say its language could criminalize more common types of abortion and could be a step toward abolishing abortion.

 

[Luke T.]

Actually, the purpose of the "rape or incest" gambit is not to suggest that is when most abortions happen, but rather to put the "abortion is murder" position holder in a tricky position. If abortion in indeed murder just like shooting someone on the street, then how can abortion in cases of rape or incest be permissible?

The "Abortion is Murder" proponent must either somehow either soften the claim or hold his/her ground and take the unpleasant but consistant position that these abortions are also murder. Unplesant as it will result in babies with severe birth defects, and also unplesant as it in effect allows a rapist to force a woman to carry his child.

The "abortion is murder" proponent can counter this gambit as far as "cases of rape" go, but the incest part is a bit dodgier, except that it largely becomes a euthenasia type argument where the difference of opinion bases itself in basic presumptions people hold about the nature and purpose of life.

So in the end this gambit, like most rhetorical gambits, only bear fruit or score points when used on the unwary. [/B]

Well, allow me to end another gambit...

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
(don't legislate women's bodies!)

Pro "choice." The gambit of saying a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body fails when you ask, "Should a perfectly healthy woman be allowed to kill herself? Or inject herself with a needle of a drug of her choice? Or mutilate herself?"

The only "choice" they want is the choice to kill/inject/mutilate the baby in their womb. It isn't pro-choice. It is pro-abortion.

 

[Tmy]

Pro "choice." The gambit of saying a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body fails when you ask, "Should a perfectly healthy woman be allowed to kill herself? Or inject herself with a needle of a drug of her choice? Or mutilate herself?"

-people mutilate themselves all the time. (plastic surgery, tatoos ect.)

-Ive never haerd of someone charged with attempted murder after a failed sucide attempt.

-Lots of people take drugs oftheir choice. Alcohol, caffiene, overthe counter, script drugs, vitamins ect..

 

[Cleon]

Pro "choice." The gambit of saying a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body fails when you ask, "Should a perfectly healthy woman be allowed to kill herself? Or inject herself with a needle of a drug of her choice? Or mutilate herself?"

Uh, why does it fail? Did I miss something?

Yeah, I favor drug legalization. I also favor allowing women to "mutilate" themselves if they so choose. (Here in GA they're in the middle of passing legislation that would outlaw clit piercings. I'm opposed to that legislation. Is that ok with you?)

The only "choice" they want is the choice to kill/inject/mutilate the baby in their womb. It isn't pro-choice. It is pro-abortion.

Or the choice NOT to. Or the choice to abstain from sex. Or the choice to use a morning-after pill. Hence the concept of "choice." It's up to a woman to choose. Calling it "pro-abortion" is just silly propaganda.

I'm always mystified by the people who think they defeat the entire pro-choice argument by saying "it's a good thing your mother was pro-life!" Well, my mother is pro-choice. Always has been, always will be. So's my dad, for that matter. The thing is, she--and my dad--CHOSE to have kids. Twice, they made this choice. That's why I'm here to piss you off today.

It's not even a matter of being "pro" or "anti" abortion. There are plenty of people who are pro-choice who are anti-abortion; it is not logically inconsistent by any means to oppose abortion yourself but allow other rational people the right to disagree and make that choice for themselves.

 

[Valmorian]

Pro "choice." The gambit of saying a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body fails when you ask, "Should a perfectly healthy woman be allowed to kill herself? Or inject herself with a needle of a drug of her choice? Or mutilate herself?"

Why does it fail? I personally think a perfectly healthy woman should have the right to do all of those things if she wishes. Why not?

The only "choice" they want is the choice to kill/inject/mutilate the baby in their womb. It isn't pro-choice. It is pro-abortion.

It is pro-choice, because nobody is advocating that abortion SHOULD be done, but rather that it be available as a legal choice.

You DO understand that, right?

 

[Luke T.]

-people mutilate themselves all the time. (plastic surgery, tatoos ect.

-Ive never haerd of someone charged with attempted murder after a failed sucide attempt.

I've never heard of Planned Parenthood defending Jack Kevorkian, either.

And insurance policies don't pay off if you commit suicide, do they?

-Lots of people take drugs oftheir choice. Alcohol, caffiene, overthe counter, script drugs, vitamins ect..

Is Planned Parenthood or the NAACP for the legalization of cocaine?

 

[Luke T.]

Uh, why does it fail? Did I miss something?

Yeah, I favor drug legalization. I also favor allowing women to "mutilate" themselves if they so choose. (Here in GA they're in the middle of passing legislation that would outlaw clit piercings. I'm opposed to that legislation. Is that ok with you?)

I don't think most "pro-choice" people would favor suicide or drug legalization. That would be the Libertarian Party you are thinking of.

It's not even a matter of being "pro" or "anti" abortion. There are plenty of people who are pro-choice who are anti-abortion; it is not logically inconsistent by any means to oppose abortion yourself but allow other rational people the right to disagree and make that choice for themselves.

So you oppose abortion for yourself personally, but favor abortions for others. That is still pro-abortion.

 

[Cain]

Isn't this covered territory? If the argument against "partial birth" abortion -- a propaganda term, by the way -- is that you're killing a "viable human being," then nobody should have a problem with abortion in the first trimester, the time frame in which the overwhelming number of abortions are performed. Let's at the very least concede that elementary point.

Secondly, perhaps more importantly, what makes a "viable human being" rights-bearing? Earlier, Luke, I asked you why a fully grown chimp, who possesses higher cognitive abilities and greater emotional capacity than a fetus, does not have rights.

What's the ethical standard?

Pre-emptive strike: If you say being human, then I charge that is completely arbitrary and morally irrelevant. No different than sexism, racism, nationalism, and other historically oppressive us-vs-them belief systems.

Michael Shermer has a somewhat useful, if slightly misguided approach in my opinion, approach to the issue in _The Science of Good and Evil_.

 

[plindboe]

Almost 60% more abortions per capita in the US than Denmark.

Why so many in the US? We have completely free abortion here, have had it for 30 years. Add to that, a much more relaxed attitude towards sex.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Perhaps an example to follow?

Good point. The funny thing is that the number of abortions dropped significantly after we got free abortion, and it has been dropping ever since.

 

[toddjh]

Read the article. "Late term abortions" are performed when the baby is a viable human being.

I'm afraid you'll hit a brick wall on this point. No one can agree on what counts as a "human being." You seem to think that viability is the sole criterion. You're in good company with that, but I disagree. Viability is in the eye of the beholder -- in the near future, it may be possible to bring any fetus to term in an incubator, so even a fertilized egg could be considered viable.Also, viability itself doesn't prove anything -- after all, animals are viable but we don't think twice about killing them for convenience.

To me, the only relevant factor is whether the fetus should be considered different from any other animal, and as far as I can tell, what sets us apart from other animals is our brains. So, the criterion I would use for determining humanity is brain development. In fact, that's even better for you -- a fetus begins showing distinctly human-like brain activity at around 20 weeks, in most cases well before they would normally be considered viable.

However, let me ask you this: do you support women having access to abortions in the first trimester, before both brain activity and viability are even close to being considerations? Why or why not?

Jeremy