The one thing I hope is that those lunatics that drive the trucks around with enormous photos of aborted fetuses take this as a huge victory and stop ruining my lunch around election time.
I'm tired of all the people on both sides of this issue that think it's massively important. It seems pretty beastly to voluntarily do a partial birth procedure but it is disconcerting that we need to pass laws about medical procedures.
I am pro-choice but I'm pretty damn sick of abortion being a major issue. It's the proverbial "what's that on your shirt?" oh... got your nose move. There are real issues to concern ourselves with that government should be dealing with.
Posts: 3062 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-04-02
Originally posted by aminator2002: I'm tired of all the people on both sides of this issue that think it's massively important. It seems pretty beastly to voluntarily do a partial birth procedure but it is disconcerting that we need to pass laws about medical procedures.
I am pro-choice but I'm pretty damn sick of abortion being a major issue. It's the proverbial "what's that on your shirt?" oh... got your nose move. There are real issues to concern ourselves with that government should be dealing with.
Well it is a real issue Ami, hence all the posts on this thread. I don't know your personal circumstances. However, take a look at it like this. What if you, or someone close to you was to be denied the choice of ending a pregnancy? Both sides here argue about the morality of ending a life, and also when that life begins.
It's not simply enough to say that you are pro- choice, and so lets stop arguing about the matter. If you dont speak up, then in the future you don't get choices.
So. Since the carrying of the fetus to term is biologically and unarguably and irrevocably the responsibility of the woman, and since that biological task cannot possibly be shared by the man, the necessary balance is not possible.
That is why I believe that the woman has a special right to refuse to carry to term a fetus she does not want to rear.
Hi Gang:
I get it ,I get it,I get it.
If the woman wants the child ...it's a baby .
But ,if the woman doesn't want the child... it's a fetus.
If it's a fetus ,it's ok to crush its skull or stick a knife into its head ,'cause its only a fetus.
But if it's a baby ...that act is murder.
I get it,I get it,I get it.
Thanks for explaining it all to me.
hippolips
Edited to correct page distortion caused by lengthy line.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Karrow,
No, Lips. It grieves me to have to tell you that you definitely do not get it. Not even near.
See, the thing is, first and foremost the male's claim to the right to determine the fate of the fertilized egg is economic. It is not inherent.
That may seem unfair or even insulting to you, but I cannot help that.
See, once Jack ejaculates, each of his millions of sperm cells is on its fatal path. Vastly more sperm will degrade and die in the female genital tract, or be naturally ejected from it, that will ever combine with an egg and produce a zygote.
This is, if you will, god's plan. If he loved sperm, he would have designed it so that each ejaculate produced millions of offspring.
But in fact, of all the ejaculations you may produce in your lifetime, the vast, vast majority will be fruitless.
The main reason is that in order for the sperm to have even the opportunity to become fruitful, it must be deposited into the genital tract of a female. And let's face it, Lips, that has not been the depository of most of your ejaculate, has it?
The centerfold of a glossy magazine does not produce viable offspring.
Also the female must be in a fertile state, meaning she must have released an egg and it must be still in her fallopian tube (or, rarely, in her uterus).
Furthermore, even if it is deposited into the genital tract of a female, the sperm must be deposited into the genital tract of a female of your own species. Armadillo, goats, chickens, Five-fingered Mary, and non-female recipients don't count.
Now I must reluctantly sadden you with a biological fact. The sad fate, namely, death, of all but one of these millions of sperm cells (per ejaculate) is not the result of some feminist or women's libbers' evil and manipulative machinations.
No. No, really, it isn't.
It's how nature works. (Or how god works, if that is your preferred model.) It is how nature has worked for Lo! these many millions of years. Long before human females got the vote. Long, long before Wade vs. Rowe.
Now I have to break another distressing fact to you. I know that you, being a terribly sensitive man, whose heart bleeds for the fate of unwanted or under-nurtured children, so much so that most of your income, save for a tiny fraction which you use to support your basic needs for minimal sustenance and shelter, is devoted to the feeding and care of these same starving orphan or unwanted children.
Unless you are prepared to become a sort of male Mother Theresa, and sacrifice yourself to the support of the unwanted, you should just shut up, and stop preaching.
Posts: 6550 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
Originally posted by Valor D: I take it you're not an advocate of adoption, babthrower?
Good gracious Aunt Matilda I'm all in favor! It just seems that with fetal alcohol syndrome and other similar problems, potential adoptive parents are more cautious about the medical history of potential adoptees. And not many adoptive parents want to take those who are physically or mentally challenged. And let's face it, many children are put up for adoption because they have problems.
Plus, not all incompetent parents seem to realize that they are incompetent until their children are removed from their care by the courts. And by that time, they may have passed the adjustment stage: they may present many more problems as they advance into their teen-age yea rs than does the average child.
No, the notion of desperate sterile couples wanting society's rejects is a bit naive.
Posts: 6550 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
'...it’s often women who don’t even want an abortion who end up needing this procedure when things go horribly wrong. Maybe a sonogram in the fifth month reveals that the fetus’ brain is outside its body. Or maybe the woman has developed a dangerous heart condition. These women are often bereft that the pregnancy has to be ended. In a later stage abortion, D&E is often the only safe procedure because the uterus could easily be punctured during a standard abortion. And that would be the end of all future pregnancies as well.
But — and here’s the worst part — the justices ruled that there are NO cases except imminent death of the mother in which a D&E abortion can be legally performed now. Not to preserve her health. Not to save her uterus. The justices have replaced your doctor’s judgment with their own.'www.recordonline.com
Originally posted by babthrower: No, Lips. It grieves me to have to tell you that you definitely do not get it. Not even near.
Unless you are prepared to become a sort of male Mother Theresa, and sacrifice yourself to the support of the unwanted, you should just shut up, and stop preaching.
I've said this before, I think abortion is wrong. If women get the right to end a pregnancy, then a man should get the right to choose to be responsible for the child. Don't be coming to me with these pro-choice thoughts, then when the child is born, coming up to me and saying I have to pay child support. Thats a load of bull. Why is it you womens choice to have the baby since it's pro choice, but as soon as it's born, the man has an obligation to pay. If you want pro-choice, then I should have a choice to take care of the kid or not. Don't persue me on child support then, don't persue me to have anything to do with the kid.
Listen, I believe if you play, you pay. I've never turned my back on any woman who claimed I got them pregnant. I took care of them, went to every doctors visit, and handled every responsibility that comes to being a potential father.
I heard partial birth abortion was where after they remove the baby from the womb they crack it's skull to kill it. Thats motherfreakin horrible. Whats the difrence between doing that and me going out and crackin skulls because I don't wantr that person around. Because I don't want somebody around, I should just eliminate it? I should just stomp on it's head and kill it's brain and stop it's heart. Abortion is murder, and whats even sadder about it, is you're killing your own damn seed.
Posts: 2705 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-07-02
[quote]Well it is a real issue Ami, hence all the posts on this thread. I don't know your personal circumstances. However, take a look at it like this. What if you, or someone close to you was to be denied the choice of ending a pregnancy? Both sides here argue about the morality of ending a life, and also when that life begins.
Just to be clear. I am for an amendment stating that a woman's health decisions should be between her and her doctor. I think this is the only way to stop the politicizing of this issue and will bring this country back to being able to deal with important issues rather than trying to govern morality.
And my comment was intended more as "I'm so sick of this country I could scream." rather than "just shut up." I do think the extreme views on both sides are highly irritating. Being overly emotional about it certainly doesn't effect any change.
Posts: 3062 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-04-02
Whats the difrence between doing that and me going out and crackin skulls because I don't wantr that person around.
'...it’s often women who don’t even want an abortion who end up needing this procedure when things go horribly wrong. Maybe a sonogram in the fifth month reveals that the fetus’ brain is outside its body. Or maybe the woman has developed a dangerous heart condition. These women are often bereft that the pregnancy has to be ended. In a later stage abortion, D&E is often the only safe procedure because the uterus could easily be punctured during a standard abortion...'
The difference is that it's an emergency medical procedure, and is not carried out just because somebody doesn't want the baby around.
"If women get the right to end a pregnancy, then a man should get the right to choose to be responsible for the child."
I would fight for your right not to support the child you generated if a board-certified medical doctor would testify that to support the child was a threat to your life or your health or your mental health.
Posts: 6550 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
with all due respect babthrower,I get what your saying. Mostly what I hear from these protests is women saying it's my body my choice. While I would normally agree with that, I don't agree with when they say that is that 50% of whats in that womans body is my seed. Along with that, the fact that women always cry child support. Thats one of my problems with the whole thing. I like said earlier, if it's really your choice, don't come to me for child support then. I've always seen abortion as an easy way out of a problem. I would have been super pissed if any women I slept with got an abortion. Whether it was my child or not.....
Posts: 2705 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-07-02
Originally posted by SeattleRon: Thats a load of bull. Why is it you womens choice to have the baby since it's pro choice, but as soon as it's born, the man has an obligation to pay.
You do have a choice, Ron. Choose not to have sex. Once you make the choice to have sex, you have to deal with all of the consequences that accompany it.
And, as has been mentioned, this particular procedure is extremely rare and performed only in extreme cases, as newnickname so succinctly laid out.
Abortion is never an easy decision for a woman and if you expect every woman you've ever slept with to keep every parasite that starts growing inside her, you definitely need to have a "before we have sex" contract where she pledges to honor and obey your every whim. Otherwise, you are most certainly going to be "super pissed" from time to time.
I don't not believe that abortion should be used as a method of birth control, but I also know that it's none of my damn business what another woman and her doctor (and, hopefully but not necessarily, her partner) decide is the best option for her.
Posts: 4607 | Location: Rochester, NY, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Seattle Ron, overwrought at the thought that our system wants parents to be responsible for the children they bring to birth, explains his position thus:
quote:
Along with that, the fact that women always cry child support. Thats one of my problems with the whole thing.
I think you'll find it's not only 'women' who want both parents to share the cost of bringing up the child. I think you'll find that most men also would rather that the responsible male pay a share. That is so their tax dollars won't go to supporting some other guy's children.
quote:
I would have been super pissed if any women I slept with got an abortion.
Why? You have no concern for the child. Do you think sleeping with a woman gives you rights over the rest of her life?
You are an embarrassment to your sex.
Posts: 6550 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
Not surprisingly, this thread, while rooted in the Supreme Court's upholding of a law passed by Congress several years ago, has provided an opportunity for people to express their abortion opinions and vent their abortion frustrations.
The Mrs. and I have been able to peacefully discuss the abortion issue over the years, although we are on different sides. Her view: if you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. Mine: if you think it's a human being, then don't get one.
We must accept that legitimate, well-reasoned arguments abound on both sides. There have been too many years of fussing and fighting without reasonable dialogue to resolve the matter.
Posts: 8084 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
The "less government" republicans have written and approved a law that overrides medical judgment; that makes medical decisions instead of letting a doctor, in life-threatening circumstances, make it. Like the Terry Schiavo debacle, those same people who find the current congress' attempt to end a disastrous war "micromanaging" and making decisions generals should make -- those people are perfectly ok with playing doctor. As usual, in pursuit of a particular religious agenda, they are happily willing to suspend principle; they are legislating which medical procedures are ok and which aren't. If that's ok, then why have doctors? Let Tom Delay decide if your gallbladder needs to come out.
Posts: 1505 | Location: Puget Sound, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
You would “take it”? You would force a woman to carry the fetus to term, go through the pain and trauma of delivery, and then be so kind as to step in and take it? Rather than allow a woman to make the choices that are best for her, you would decide for her. She cannot be trusted with the choice whether or not to keep the fetus, but you can be automatically trusted to know what is best and to raise a child? It may be a “life,” but it is not a viable life for some time and it is dependent upon the woman in whom it is lodged. If she did not want to carry it to term just to give it to you, I wouldn’t blame her.
Posts: 4607 | Location: Rochester, NY, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I've had friends, people my own age, in the medical profession that told me stuff about 'the old days'. There were always ways to get around the intrusion of community standards or religious prejudices or even medical ethics.
For example, one bias was that pain-killers were somehow immoral. One elderly doctor used to say that it was god's will that people suffer for their sins, and to give more painkiller than was necessary to subdue the patient was 'playing god' and deciding how much pain the patient should have. (By that I mean that he would anesthetize a patient for a surgical procedure, because if he didn't the patient would not allow the surgery; but then not order post-operative pain med.) So one nurse told me she would steal pain medication and administer them to any patient who was in real distress. This doctor had quite a few patients, by the way, and was respected because he didn't 'baby' people. The nurse would have been fired and disqualified if it had ever come out; but people protected her. And she was otherwise very ethical, would not, for example, give people drugs to administer to themselves.
A doctor told me the way they got around the 'anti-euthanasia' prejudice with newborns was if a newborn was really terribly defective, especially if born to a poor family so that there was little prospect the newborn could be given the lifelong support needed, they would lie the baby on a marble slab and its body would chill; they would give it no sustenance, not even water, and it would die naturally. Then they would tell the mother it had been stillborn. One deciding factor was whether the baby was too weak to cry. Major deformities and that degree of weakness meant the child's suffering would only be prolonged if it was cared for. Of course this neglect was morally, if not legally, murder -- the unlawful taking of life. But certainly actionable under civil law. So there was quite a lot of mutual trust among staff members.
The third case was when a patient was very elderly, or terminally ill, and suffering; then it was just an overdose of sedative.
And some doctors performed abortions out of compassion. They were not 'abortion' doctors, who would do abortions indiscriminately just for the fee; they did it when in their opinion it was the right thing to do, and the patient wanted it.
One doctor tied a woman's tubes without her consent. (I got this story from the woman.) She was R. Catholic and at age 32 had 12 children, the last three by cesarean. He had warned her that the next pregnancy might be fatal to her and her child, because of the three previous incisions. "You'll leave your children motherless," he said. But she told him she and her husband would go to hell if they agreed to the ligation. So after the next (12th) birth, when she woke up, he said, "Well, you don't have to dread becoming pregnant any more, I've tied your tubes." When three years went by, and no more babies, the priest questioned them. They told him the truth. The priest ordered her and her husband to sue, but they would not. "We could not sue that good man," she told me. The priest let it go, and did not follow through with excommunication, which he had threatened.
Thus medical staff can sometimes save us from the 'god-fearing goodness and virtue' of the super-righteous.
Posts: 6550 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
