Bush Administration proposes new law to protect Anti-Abortion Doctors

[HotShotX]

If passed, it basically says a doctor can refuse to perform an abortion on moral grounds.

Anyone else sense a direct violation of the hippocratic oath? I understand a pregnancy is not a life-threatening illness, but neither is a broken arm, and doctors are still bound to supply care for that.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/21/abortion.doctors.ap/index.html

~HotShotX

[RAMSTORIA]

i have no problem with this.

cmon now, how are you going to compare an abortion to a broken arm.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

If passed, it basically says a doctor can refuse to perform an abortion on moral grounds.

Anyone else sense a direct violation of the hippocratic oath? I understand a pregnancy is not a life-threatening illness, but neither is a broken arm, and doctors are still bound to supply care for that.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/21/abortion.doctors.ap/index.html

~HotShotX

Apples and oranges.

A broken arm is an emergency that has to be fixed in a day or two.

An abortion is an inconvenience that can be "resolved" within a few months.

I don't think abortions should be illegal, but I don't think a doctor should perform a procedure he or she has moral qualms about. Of course, a hospital or clinic doesn't need to retain the services of a doctor with qualms about certain procedures.

[Koggit]

I'm very, very pro-choice (hell, I'm borderline pro-abortion) and even I support this. I file it under protection of religious beliefs (and I'm agnostic).

I think people who believe abortion is wrong because the church tells them it is are idiots, but those idiots are entitled to their religious freedom. An abortion is not life threatening: if a religious doctor doesn't want to do it, find a doctor who will. Protecting the religious freedom of the doctor is worth the inconvenience imposed on the pregnant chick, IMO.

[JolietJake]

I'm not sure about this, but pharmacists that refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control piss me off. If they don't want to dispense any type of medication, they shouldn't be pharmacists.

[Koggit]

If they don't want to dispense any type of medication, they shouldn't be pharmacists.

I think beliefs should be protected though.. if I were a painter and some dbag asked me to cover his house in swastikas I'd like to be able to say no. Not the best analogy but still.

[DarkSageRK]

Why the fuck should a doctor be protected from not doing his job?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Why the fuck should a doctor be protected from not doing his job?

Because there is no separation of church and state?

[Ikohn4ever]

don't we have more important things out there to worry about than this. I mean Bush is a lame duck, does he really need to appeal to his base with this little time in office left. I have no problem if there are other doctor willing to do the procedure. But say you are the only doctor in your area, then you should not be able to pass the buck.

[Xevious]

This is not the only legislation that Bush is pushing forth..I believe he wants to ban contraceptives at government funded clinics. Its a bit of news that you wont find in the front page but it is slowly creeping in under the radar.

I doubt he will be able to pass legislation in California though. He's a lame duck..

[62t]

IF a doctor is anti abortion why would he or she become an abortion doctor in the first place?

[Koggit]

abortion doctor

lol

[dopa345]

Not a big deal, it already happens. Catholic hospitals refuse to do abortions and even refuse to give out contraception based on moral grounds. In some OB/GYN residencies, training in performing abortions is optional.

[camoor]

So does he really believe this shit then?

I thought he was just pandering to the religious right.

Every time I think he can't get any dumber...

[dtcarson]

Well, since I think a fetus is a living creature, the hippocratic oath would be *supported* by not killing unborn babies.
I think an OB should be trained in it, because even if we get rid of retroactive birth control abortion (I'm sorry, "choice"), there could still be the life-endangering pregnancies that would better justify an abortion. Aren't there hundreds of planned parenthood locations that provide abortions?
Oh this is funny: I went to pp.org to see how many locations they have... Big old headline. "Help Keep Politics Out of the Exam Room!" Why start now? They're all about politics in the exam room.
It's not like there's a monopoly on doctors, the hospital could decide to hire/fire based on what they require their contractors to do, and there are still plenty of doctors who will kill fetuses.

Refusing to give out contraception or proactive birth control, I'm definitely much less supportive of that. To me that would be like not giving out water, just dealing with dehydration when it occurs (silly example but I hope it gets my point across.) I would think people who are very pro-life would be supportive of most contraception. Using a condom or a BCP is much better than a bunch of unwanted babies to be adopted, aborted, or "punish"ing the mother (B. Obama, 2008.)

[Heavy Hitter]

Obama will have no comment as this sort of thing is above his pay grade.

[RAMSTORIA]

IF a doctor is anti abortion why would he or she become an abortion doctor in the first place?

you dont train to be an 'abortion doctor'...

Obama will have no comment as this sort of thing is above his pay grade.

i lol'd

I don't expect to change any minds but...

I used to be very liberal when it came to abortion (re pro choice) until I read a book that had a chapter on abortion, marriage & family etc and talked about how far numbers have dropped as far as marriages go, the decline in family and "traditional values and the decline in population growth over the last 40 years while things like crime, abortion, divorce & single parent households have sky rocketed.

Quite frankly I find the numbers disgusting having read them and reading about the development stages of the fetus. over 40 million abortions since it become legal, that's about 3,000 a day (average it's higher today), and rising. Less than 10% of abortions are because of rape/incest or medical reasons. 50% of facilities that perform abortions do so after the 12th week of pregnancy.

This is how most 1st Trimester abortions are performed.

Suction-aspiration: In this method, the abortionist must first paralyze the cervical muscle ring (womb opening) and then stretch it open. This is difficult because it is hard or "green" and not ready to open. He then inserts a hollow plastic tube, which has a knife-like edge on the tip, into the uterus. The suction tears the baby’s body into pieces. He then cuts the deeply rooted placenta from the inner wall of the uterus. The scraps are sucked out into a bottle. The suction is 29 times more powerful than a home vacuum cleaner.


This is a common way an abortion is performed during the 2nd trimester

A pliers-like instrument is used because the baby’s bones are calcified, as is the skull. There is no anesthetic for the baby. The abortionist inserts the instrument up into the uterus, seizes a leg or other part of the body, and, with a twisting motion, tears it from the baby’s body. This is repeated again and again. The spine must be snapped, and the skull crushed to remove them. The nurse’s job is to reassemble the body parts to be sure that all are removed.

Another way if there are multiple fetuses is...

At about 4 months a needle is inserted through the mother’s abdomen, into the chest and heart of one of the fetal babies and a poison injected to kill him or her. This is "pregnancy reduction." It is done to reduce the number or to kill a handicapped baby, if such is identified. If successful, the dead baby’s body is absorbed.

This is how 3rd Trimester or Partial Birth Abortions are performed.

(Keep in mind at this point the majority of children would live outside the mother)

This is like a breech delivery. The entire infant is delivered except the head. A scissors is jammed into the base of the skull. A tube is inserted into the skull, and the brain is sucked out. The now-dead infant is pulled out.

After reading about those and then reading about how the fetus develops... Well I've changed my mind on the whole thing. I think contraceptives are great, I think RU-486 is good for "micro-abortions", and for the most part I think an abortion, if done very early (before the 2nd trimester generally speaking), is acceptable. For the record 90% +- 3% (;)) of abortions are performed before the 2nd trimester. Of course rape/incest and medical reasons are an exception, but again that's going to be less than 10% of abortions performed. Anyway, here are the stages of development of the fetus so you can see how disgusting an abortion actually is.


Stages of Fetal Development

1st Trimester

1st and 2nd The first two weeks represent the period before you actually get pregnant; sperm fertilizes the egg
3rd Fertilized egg implants in uterus
4th Placenta starts forming
5th Development of the primitive streak
6th Heart starts to beat, aorta, eyes, liver, gall bladder, lungs, pancreas, arm buds, stomach, intestines start forming
7th Eye lenses, jaws and tongue start developing; arms and legs develop into paddles
8th Development of the cerebellum, hand and foot plates, wrist and elbow areas, eye pigments, teeth buds, windpipe, and voice box takes place
9th Cartilage, bones, sex organs, fingers and thumb start taking shape
10th Ear lobes, upper lips, toes, palate, taste buds acquire a shape
11th Body starts straightening; sex organs form, muscle structure starts varying
12th Gall bladder, pancreas get fully developed; brain takes complete shape; finger nails start developing
13th Vocal chords forms; intestines move to abdomen and form folds
14th Breathing, sucking, swallowing motions practiced; hands become more functional

2nd Trimester

15th Neck forms; hair pattern defined
16th Toe nails grow; head, neck grow straighter
17th Reflexes like blinking, swallowing, sucking develop; all structures develop further
18th Finger prints develop; fecal waste develops
19th Primitive egg cells in baby girl develop
20th Scalp hair, eyebrows begin developing
21st Muscle and bones get stronger
22nd Hair, eyebrows now visible
23rd Middle ear bone hardens
24th Heart beat gets stronger
25th Capillaries develop; nostrils open
26th Muscular breathing starts, air sacks develop

3rd Trimester

27th Development of brain patterns
28th Eyelids open
29th Senses develop, eyes move
30th Body stores nutrients
31st Internal organs mature
32nd Iris reacts to light
33rd Baby may suck fingers
34th Immune system starts developing
35th Descent of testes complete in male child
36th Dimples on elbows, knees, neck
37th End of development
38th Waste accumulates in intestines
39th Baby settles in pelvis
40th Be ready to welcome your newborn

/rant

[DarkSageRK]

I need look no further than this thread to realize the Republican Party has been taken over by its parasitic neo-con (or statist, I guess you could say) elements. This is government control of the economy plain and simple.

For all you bible-thumpers, and the easily influenced (Woah, I just read Fight Club - BRB destroying all my consumer goods), I heard bleach tastes quite good. Try it and see. (god called me and he totally agrees with me.)

[elprincipe]

Well, since I think a fetus is a living creature, the hippocratic oath would be *supported* by not killing unborn babies.

Bingo.

I don't expect to change any minds but...

I used to be very liberal when it came to abortion (re pro choice) until I read a book that had a chapter on abortion, marriage & family etc and talked about how far numbers have dropped as far as marriages go, the decline in family and "traditional values and the decline in population growth over the last 40 years while things like crime, abortion, divorce & single parent households have sky rocketed.

Even simpler than reading about how abortion is killing a living child, all you need do is look at the pictures of children murdered and horrifically mutilated through abortion to realize it is something truly despicable.

[RAMSTORIA]

For all you bible-thumpers, and the easily influenced (Woah, I just read Fight Club - BRB destroying all my consumer goods), I heard bleach tastes quite good. Try it and see. (god called me and he totally agrees with me.)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not a bible thumper, I haven't been to church in years. I didn't read that information in a work of fiction, the stages of the fetus and how abortions are done didn't come from 5,000 year old men, the number of abortions done every day isn't something I learned from someone at a pulpit. Those are hard numbers and scientific fact.

[DarkSageRK]

I wasn't necessarily calling you a religious zealot. I may have been implying, however, that you're a thoughtless twat. You know, the kind of person who watches a PETA video and becomes a vegan. A blind supporter of whichever ideology shoves its propaganda down your throat the furthest. Don't get me wrong, I think you're a great guy. And people like you are what help keep our country great. I mean, where would we be without the mindless masses? We wouldn't have anyone to sell things like DVD rewinders to, and that would be a damn shame.

[RAMSTORIA]

I wasn't necessarily calling you a religious zealot. I may have been implying, however, that you're a thoughtless twat. You know, the kind of person who watches a PETA video and becomes a vegan. A blind supporter of whichever ideology shoves its propaganda down your throat the furthest. Don't get me wrong, I think you're a great guy. And people like you are what help keep our country great. I mean, where would we be without the mindless masses? We wouldn't have anyone to sell things like DVD rewinders to, and that would be a damn shame.

Maybe instead of throwing out thought provoking insults you can maybe argue your side of the issue.

[DarkSageRK]

*The government should stay the fuck out of the economy.
*This is thinly-veiled pandering to pro-life Christians in a deliberate gesture to demonstrate that church and state are not separate.
*There's more important shit going down than doctors not being allowed to slack off at their jobs. All this amounts to is a nice little distraction by an unpopular government.

[SpazX]

For the record over 80% of abortions are performed before the 2nd trimester.

That over 80% is actually about 95%. 60% of which are within the first 8 weeks (at the end of which the fetus is a little more than half an inch long) and 90% during the first 12 weeks (when the fetus is about 2 inches long) so I think your graphic, emotionally-loaded descriptions are just a bit over the top.

If you think life is life then whatever, but you don't have to spin it to try to make a case.

EDIT: And as for the OP, it's a somewhat difficult case. Performing abortions is a bit more involving than simply filling a prescription, so I don't think anyone should be forced to do it. On the other hand, if there is only one doctor in an area qualified to do it, and they refuse, it could present a pretty serious problem for women who want/need an abortion. I think generally I'd say that doctors shouldn't have to perform any procedures they don't want to unless there's risk to someone's health.

[RAMSTORIA]

That over 80% is actually about 95%.

87% ;)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm

I know I know, it was very ranty of me. I was just in the zone, ya know.

*The government should stay the fuck out of the economy.

I agree. What does this have to do with abortion?

*This is thinly-veiled pandering to pro-life Christians in a deliberate gesture to demonstrate that church and state are not separate.

What part of the medical profession falls under 'state'? The fact that the the government has to step in to protect doctors is a little absurd.

*There's more important shit going down than doctors not being allowed to slack off at their jobs. All this amounts to is a nice little distraction by an unpopular government.

Yes there are many more important issues, but how is that an argument for abortion?

[DarkSageRK]

I specifically left abortion out because I'm not arguing for abortion (though I wholeheartedly support it). I'm arguing against this proposal. If you are still unable to understand my post, I'll gladly explain it to you, but please look at it in the context of a response to the proposal itself.

[SpazX]

87% ;)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm

I know I know, it was very ranty of me. I was just in the zone, ya know.

That's the first 12 weeks, the first trimester is the first 14 weeks :-P. I'm probably a little off since it groups 13-15 together so let's just say that somewhere on the high end of 87.6-93.9% of abortions are done within the first trimester ;).

[RAMSTORIA]

Fair enough spaz.

I specifically left abortion out because I'm not arguing for abortion (though I wholeheartedly support it). I'm arguing against this proposal. If you are still unable to understand my post, I'll gladly explain it to you, but please look at it in the context of a response to the proposal itself.

I read your post. I asked you to explain your opinion on abortion after you called me among other things; "thoughtless twat", "blind supporter" and "mindless".

[DarkSageRK]

You want to me to explain my opinion on abortion rather than on this proposal? Ok...well, there's not much for me to say about it. I support a person's right to choose what the hell they do with their body. In this case, the fetus is part of the woman's body, and I could care less if she reached up into her body, ripped it out, and ate it.

Mind defending why this proposal is so amazing without using moral indignation at abortion as your basis? That IS what this thread is about, after all.

[RAMSTORIA]

Mind defending why this proposal is so amazing without using moral indignation at abortion as your basis? That IS what this thread is about, after all.


So you want me to defend the proposal without using the basis for it. There's nothing wrong with using moral indignation in the proposal. The bill is to protect people's jobs. If you become a doctor or a nurse, you shouldn't be obligated to perform procedures that conflict with your beliefs.

[rickonker]

Is there anyone here who seriously supports this kind of government interference, whatever your views on abortion may be?

[musha666]

Whats the big deal? If the law is just protecting those doctors who wish not to abort a baby there is nothing wrong with that. There are plenty others out there who will gladly perform the abortion and collect the money for doing so.

In fact, forcing someone who doesnt believe in abortions to do it would be the messed up thing. And this is from someone who thinks the world would be better if there were MORE abortions.

[DarkSageRK]

The bill is to protect people's jobs. If you become a doctor or a nurse, you shouldn't be obligated to perform procedures that conflict with your beliefs.

Then Burger King employees should be protected by not being obligated to serve burgers if they're vegetarians and don't believe in people eating meat. And science teachers should not be obligated to teach evolution, that the Earth revolves around the sun, or the periodic table of the elements if they don't believe in it. This is bullshit no matter which way you look at it.

It's part of the job description. If you take a job as a doctor, there's going to be some shit you don't want to do, but have to. It's like every other job in the world. Have some moral problems with it? Don't be a doctor. It's that simple.

[mykevermin]

Is there anyone here who seriously supports this kind of government interference, whatever your views on abortion may be?

Yes. Those people would be the "small government" Republicans.

:rofl:

On topic, I don't like this, but it has a nice indirect effect. Now you KNOW who the doctors who are anti abortion are. They'll simply refuse to treat you. Good, you didn't want to go to them anyway.

Imagine the potential problems that would happen from a doctor who disagrees with abortion but is forced to perform on you!

EDIT: I agree with DarkSage's "do your fucking job or get another one, you wimp!" rationale. Do your job or get another one, simply. Why are the Defenders of Adam Smith's Legacy of Capitalist Theory so quick to defend the worker in this case?

As for all this abortion is gross-looking talk, let's get back on the level: if you people are allowed to parade around the emotive-grasping "dead babies aren't cute therefore it's murder" talk, then let's get some more photos into the public arena of just a small portion of the tens of thousands of innocent dead Iraqis. Let's have vivid, adjective-wrought descriptions of what happens from the moment a bullet is fired to the moment a person's senses stop working altogether. What happens when their heart stops beating. Let's talk about ALL that is wrong in the world, and not ignore-via-yellow-ribbon-support the murder of one group of people we're distant from and don't care about, and then act pious about those we want to protect.

And let's be clear about those you want to protect: the fetus. Not people; cuz once they're born, you couldn't give a fuck. You bitch about their parents in Reaganesque mythologies about "welfare mothers," decry their lack of a two-parent household as if it's the child's fault (which it could be, in a way), bitch about the money that goes to WIC, TANF, and other funds (if you want your household contribution back, it's about $70/year; hope that's worth the increase in crime that would necessarily result from abandoning aid).

So, again, fuck your piousness. Y'all just have a fetus fetish. You don't give a fuck about humans. You don't give a fuck about life. So cut it out, will ya?

[camoor]

This is how most 1st Trimester abortions are performed.
Suction-aspiration: In this method, the abortionist must first paralyze the cervical muscle ring (womb opening) and then stretch it open. This is difficult because it is hard or "green" and not ready to open. He then inserts a hollow plastic tube, which has a knife-like edge on the tip, into the uterus. The suction tears the baby’s body into pieces. He then cuts the deeply rooted placenta from the inner wall of the uterus. The scraps are sucked out into a bottle. The suction is 29 times more powerful than a home vacuum cleaner.
...
Awwww guys.

I just found out how totally yucky organ transplants are!

They use knives on your body and put an organ in there that belongs to someone else and should be buried with him - so you know our Christian God didn't approve!

Blood is, like, going everywhere and stuff and puss and infections can happen!

We need to stop this yucky stuff immediately!

[camoor]

Even simpler than reading about how abortion is killing a living child, all you need do is look at the pictures of children murdered and horrifically mutilated through abortion to realize it is something truly despicable.

All I have seen are dead fetusii.

[rickonker]

Yes. Those people would be the "small government" Republicans.

:rofl:

On topic, I don't like this, but it has a nice indirect effect. Now you KNOW who the doctors who are anti abortion are. They'll simply refuse to treat you. Good, you didn't want to go to them anyway.

Imagine the potential problems that would happen from a doctor who disagrees with abortion but is forced to perform on you!

EDIT: I agree with DarkSage's "do your fucking job or get another one, you wimp!" rationale. Do your job or get another one, simply. Why are the Defenders of Adam Smith's Legacy of Capitalist Theory so quick to defend the worker in this case?

As for all this abortion is gross-looking talk, let's get back on the level: if you people are allowed to parade around the emotive-grasping "dead babies aren't cute therefore it's murder" talk, then let's get some more photos into the public arena of just a small portion of the tens of thousands of innocent dead Iraqis. Let's have vivid, adjective-wrought descriptions of what happens from the moment a bullet is fired to the moment a person's senses stop working altogether. What happens when their heart stops beating. Let's talk about ALL that is wrong in the world, and not ignore-via-yellow-ribbon-support the murder of one group of people we're distant from and don't care about, and then act pious about those we want to protect.

And let's be clear about those you want to protect: the fetus. Not people; cuz once they're born, you couldn't give a fuck. You bitch about their parents in Reaganesque mythologies about "welfare mothers," decry their lack of a two-parent household as if it's the child's fault (which it could be, in a way), bitch about the money that goes to WIC, TANF, and other funds (if you want your household contribution back, it's about $70/year; hope that's worth the increase in crime that would necessarily result from abandoning aid).

So, again, fuck your piousness. Y'all just have a fetus fetish. You don't give a fuck about humans. You don't give a fuck about life. So cut it out, will ya?

mykevermin, you've addressed the typical Republican hypocrites (were there any in this thread?), but what about actual capitalists who don't like wars? They wouldn't support this either.

[Heavy Hitter]

I was wondering when someone would play the "dead Iraqi" card. Didn't take long.

[usickenme]

Bingo.



Even simpler than reading about how abortion is killing a living child, all you need do is look at the pictures of children murdered and horrifically mutilated through abortion to realize it is something truly despicable.


can we apply the same visual gross out test to firearms? Heck, I'd even limit it to just accidents.

[mykevermin]

I was wondering when someone would play the "dead Iraqi" card. Didn't take long.

Oh, a life's not a life, I take it?

[Heavy Hitter]

That's not at all what I said - but nice try.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Oh, a life's not a life, I take it?

Not when it is a damn dirty ape ... I mean German ... I mean Japanese ... I mean Iraqi ... I mean Russian.

[mzbagel]

This is how 3rd Trimester or Partial Birth Abortions are performed.

(Keep in mind at this point the majority of children would live outside the mother)

This is like a breech delivery. The entire infant is delivered except the head. A scissors is jammed into the base of the skull. A tube is inserted into the skull, and the brain is sucked out. The now-dead infant is pulled out.


Having recently become a father and knowing the joys of having a baby, reading this part broke my heart. The doctors and nurses who do this type of work must be very desensitized by the whole process. I'd lose my mind if this was my job.

On topic: I think the core of the problem lies here...
The rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.

The government is getting involved because they are partially funding the work being done. As such, they feel have a right to "meddle". Do I agree with their stance...not really. Hell, I disagree with how government spends money and does things in general. I think doctors and nurses should be protected from legal ramifications if they refuse to perform an abortion. I don't think their jobs should be protected if they refuse to perform a job function that they fully knew they may be called on to perform when they accepted employment with an institution. Part of their terms of employment should specifically spell out whether they will be required to perform abortions (or not) and they can make their employment decision based on that. As a result they would not be "forced" to do anything that runs contrary to their morals or belief system.

[RAMSTORIA]

[/INDENT]Awwww guys.

I just found out how totally yucky organ transplants are!

They use knives on your body and put an organ in there that belongs to someone else and should be buried with him - so you know our Christian God didn't approve!

Blood is, like, going everywhere and stuff and puss and infections can happen!

We need to stop this yucky stuff immediately!

:roll:


So, again, fuck your piousness. Y'all just have a fetus fetish. You don't give a fuck about humans. You don't give a fuck about life. So cut it out, will ya?

C'mon now. That's a pretty big assumption for just talking about how revolting abortion is. If you read my entire I post I go on to say that I support contraceptives, the morning after pill and even abortions in the first trimester (the legality of it at least).

I'm not sure how you equate anti-abortion with being anti civilian death or anti-welfare, or how you could assume that someone who is anti-abortion doesn't give a damn about a child's welfare outside of the womb. (I'm not trying to say there aren't those people out there, but you can't just jump to that conclusion, well at least without sounding like an ass).

Look, a doctor shouldn't be forced to perform an abortion and they shouldn't have to worry about their job security for their refusal to do so. As I said earlier, doctors don't train to be "abortion doctors". We shouldn't even need a law like this, refusal to perform an abortion should be protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Having recently become a father and knowing the joys of having a baby, reading this part broke my heart. The doctors and nurses who do this type of work must be very desensitized by the whole process. I'd lose my mind if this was my job.

Quite disgusting, but only about 2% of abortions are performed this way, however that's still roughly 20,000 a year in the US alone.

[DarkSageRK]

refusal to perform an abortion should be protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


:-s

:-k

:-?

#-o

[mykevermin]

That's not at all what I said - but nice try.

So, tell me, then, what are you saying?

Either there's an underlying argument to your statement, or we take it at face value for what it literally says - which, at that point, it doesn't contribute much to the discussion at hand. It's akin to standing near an interstate and pointing at a car and saying "Hey, look! A car!"

So either tell us what your underlying message is (or, rather, continue to deny anything suggested by it until such time that you can decide which underlying message you'd like to use or agree with ;)), or admit your post is the equivalent of a toddler's awareness of the world.

[rickonker]

So, tell me, then, what are you saying?

Either there's an underlying argument to your statement, or we take it at face value for what it literally says - which, at that point, it doesn't contribute much to the discussion at hand. It's akin to standing near an interstate and pointing at a car and saying "Hey, look! A car!"

So either tell us what your underlying message is (or, rather, continue to deny anything suggested by it until such time that you can decide which underlying message you'd like to use or agree with ;)), or admit your post is the equivalent of a toddler's awareness of the world.
Hey, aren't you the guy who brought Iraq into this? :D

[RAMSTORIA]

:-s

:-k

:-?

#-o

Cute, but it's not a rebuttal. Maybe you should read Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

[Msut77]

Having recently become a father and knowing the joys of having a baby, reading this part broke my heart. The doctors and nurses who do this type of work must be very desensitized by the whole process. I'd lose my mind if this was my job.

Last I checked much of the time when the procedure is performed after the usual time frame it is for medical reasons such as extreme hydrocephalus.

On topic: I think the core of the problem lies here

I believe the the problem is that a group of politicians are attempting to legislate against a doctors judgment (without even using a name that is accepted by doctors, instead using one crafted for political purposes) when for the most part those politicizing it really have no idea what they are talking about.

[Heavy Hitter]

So, tell me, then, what are you saying?

Either there's an underlying argument to your statement, or we take it at face value for what it literally says - which, at that point, it doesn't contribute much to the discussion at hand. It's akin to standing near an interstate and pointing at a car and saying "Hey, look! A car!"

So either tell us what your underlying message is (or, rather, continue to deny anything suggested by it until such time that you can decide which underlying message you'd like to use or agree with ;)), or admit your post is the equivalent of a toddler's awareness of the world.

The "underlying message" is that I said that because in many discussions I have seen/heard that concern abortion (in any kind of context), the "dead Iraqi" card gets thrown out sooner or later - in this case, sooner. I think it's in the Lib Playbook any more.

We of course won't agree, so feel free to respond with belittling terms - and make sure to throw a few fucks and "chrissakes" in for good measure. Jazzes it up.

[mykevermin]

So we disagree - why is it, then, that you don't care for (as much) dead civilians over aborted fetuses?

[DarkSageRK]

Cute, but it's not a rebuttal. Maybe you should read Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Maybe you should read it. You don't get fired for being a Christian. You get fired for not doing your job. Otherwise, they wouldn't be trying to pass this law.

[RAMSTORIA]

Maybe you should read it. You don't get fired for being a Christian. You get fired for not doing your job. Otherwise, they wouldn't be trying to pass this law.

:-s:dunce::oldman:#-o:???::whee:

[trq]

The government is getting involved because they are partially funding the work being done. As such, they feel have a right to "meddle". Do I agree with their stance...not really. Hell, I disagree with how government spends money and does things in general. I think doctors and nurses should be protected from legal ramifications if they refuse to perform an abortion. I don't think their jobs should be protected if they refuse to perform a job function that they fully knew they may be called on to perform when they accepted employment with an institution. Part of their terms of employment should specifically spell out whether they will be required to perform abortions (or not) and they can make their employment decision based on that. As a result they would not be "forced" to do anything that runs contrary to their morals or belief system.

I think the distinction of being protected from legal ramifications versus having your job protected is a good one. Nobody is "springing" abortions on these doctors. Once they've agreed to employment knowing full well that the job entails abortions, case closed. Don't like it? There are plenty of jobs that don't require that procedure. Hell, if you're morally opposed to abortions, become a cardiologist or a neurologist or an oncologist. There are plenty of options out there for anti-choice doctors. Picking and choosing the parts of the job they knowingly trained for and contractually accepted shouldn't be one of them.

Good post.

[camoor]

The government is getting involved because they are partially funding the work being done. As such, they feel have a right to "meddle". Do I agree with their stance...not really. Hell, I disagree with how government spends money and does things in general. I think doctors and nurses should be protected from legal ramifications if they refuse to perform an abortion. I don't think their jobs should be protected if they refuse to perform a job function that they fully knew they may be called on to perform when they accepted employment with an institution. Part of their terms of employment should specifically spell out whether they will be required to perform abortions (or not) and they can make their employment decision based on that. As a result they would not be "forced" to do anything that runs contrary to their morals or belief system.

You nailed it. This bill has everything I hate.

Theocrats, red tape, fed govt bullying in on states rights issues.

Disgusting.

[camoor]

:roll:

Cute, but it's not a rebuttal. Maybe you should realize that just because something seems "yucky" to a layperson that it's rather routine for a medical professional.

'Course I don't know, maybe you're one of those people who prays over a sick kid and if they die then it's your God's will.

[RAMSTORIA]

Cute, but it's not a rebuttal. Maybe you should realize that just because something seems "yucky" to a layperson that it's rather routine for a medical professional.


There's nothing to rebute. You're comparing a transplant to an abortion. If you think that blood and the mess is what's disgusting then you missed the point. Abortions being routine doesn't make it any more pleasing.

[Heavy Hitter]

So we disagree - why is it, then, that you don't care for (as much) dead civilians over aborted fetuses?

No. What I meant was that I figured that someone would throw the "dead Iraqi" card in. It's what I've seen/heard lately in other discussions related to abortion. We both know why it's done.

And saying that I "don't care for (as much) dead civilians over aborted fetuses"? Nice misrepresentation-bait, but I'm not taking it. If you want to make up some more stuff I supposedly said, go ahead.

[rhymetimesfine]

I honestly thought doctor's already had the choice of performing abortion's or not, without any real legal ramifications. Hell, I KNOW that doctors were threatened with violence for performing them. I don't see this legislation helping anti-abortion doctors and health workers as much as detracting from clinics and other places where they bite the bullet and contractually obligate their employees to perform abortions.

[mykevermin]

No. What I meant was that I figured that someone would throw the "dead Iraqi" card in. It's what I've seen/heard lately in other discussions related to abortion. We both know why it's done.

And saying that I "don't care for (as much) dead civilians over aborted fetuses"? Nice misrepresentation-bait, but I'm not taking it. If you want to make up some more stuff I supposedly said, go ahead.

Hey, look! A car!

[elprincipe]

can we apply the same visual gross out test to firearms? Heck, I'd even limit it to just accidents.

It's not gross, it's heartbreaking. I don't find dead people in Iraq gross (or of no concern) either, by the way...although why that has anything to do with abortion is beyond me.

What is also beyond me is how "capitalism" and "do your job" are used as an argument to try to force people to do something they're not comfortable with. If you were to look at this from a purely capitalist perspective (hard to do with something so much an issue of morality), the market would determine whether people would want to visit those doctors who offered abortions as part of their services and those who did not. I don't see why a capitalist perspective would demand the government force people to offer certain services; in fact, that seems the opposite of laissez faire to me.

[KingBroly]

If doctors don't want to perform abortion operations, why don't they say we don't perform this service here. A doctor isn't a one stop shop for all your medical needs.

[trq]

What is also beyond me is how "capitalism" and "do your job" are used as an argument to try to force people to do something they're not comfortable with.

Surely we have a higher standard for excusing people from their professional responsibilities than "I'm not comfortable with it"? Because there are lots of things that make some people uncomfortable, including dealing with people of different races, religions, or sexual orientation. Do they get to shirk their duties too?

Performing abortions is a well-known function of certain branches of the medical field -- if the prospective doctor isn't comfortable with that, he doesn't need to go into the fields where that procedure is required of him, and he's already a doctor, he certainly doesn't have to take the job where it's in the description.

In India, people of high castes don't pick up the trash or work in morgues. Devout Sikhs don't become butchers. Jehovah's Witnesses don't become politicians. What they also don't do is take those jobs and then act like they're surprised when they have to actually, you know ... do them.

So what other response is there to someone who'd rather try to make everyone else cater to their personal preferences rather than living up to their "moral" code when they had the chance?

"Do your job" pretty much sums it up.

[rickonker]

It's not gross, it's heartbreaking. I don't find dead people in Iraq gross (or of no concern) either, by the way...although why that has anything to do with abortion is beyond me.

What is also beyond me is how "capitalism" and "do your job" are used as an argument to try to force people to do something they're not comfortable with. If you were to look at this from a purely capitalist perspective (hard to do with something so much an issue of morality), the market would determine whether people would want to visit those doctors who offered abortions as part of their services and those who did not. I don't see why a capitalist perspective would demand the government force people to offer certain services; in fact, that seems the opposite of laissez faire to me.

From a capitalist perspective, it would be perfectly acceptable for there to be some doctors who offer abortions and some who don't. Since the government essentially controls the medical profession, I guess they feel like they might as well interfere some more.

[rickonker]

Surely we have a higher standard for excusing people from their professional responsibilities than "I'm not comfortable with it"? Because there are lots of things that make some people uncomfortable, including dealing with people of different races, religions, or sexual orientation. Do they get to shirk their duties too?

Performing abortions is a well-known function of certain branches of the medical field -- if the prospective doctor isn't comfortable with that, he doesn't need to go into the fields where that procedure is required of him, and he's already a doctor, he certainly doesn't have to take the job where it's in the description.

In India, people of high castes don't pick up the trash or work in morgues. Devout Sikhs don't become butchers. Jehovah's Witnesses don't become politicians. What they also don't do is take those jobs and then act like they're surprised when they have to actually, you know ... do them.

So what other response is there to someone who'd rather try to make everyone else cater to their personal preferences rather than living up to their "moral" code when they had the chance?

"Do your job" pretty much sums it up.

This goes to the core of the issue. You speak of doctors as if they are government employees, and this is understandable given the amount of control the government exercises over the medical profession. If circumstances were different, this wouldn't even be an issue.

[rhymetimesfine]

So apparently, this legislation is coming down the chute because of the OPINION of the American College of Ob./Gyn.'s ethics comittee.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88650797

This rule seems to be aimed at keeping groups, hospitals, etc. from contractually obligating physicians to perform abortions. This is unnecessary pro-life legislation.

[rickonker]

So apparently, this legislation is coming down the chute because of the OPINION of the American College of Ob./Gyn.'s ethics comittee.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88650797

This rule seems to be aimed at keeping groups, hospitals, etc. from contractually obligating physicians to perform abortions. This is unnecessary pro-life legislation.
It is unnecessary, but physicians who don't want to perform abortions are at a disadvantage without it, since the government also supports the institutions that would be on the other side of those contracts. This is just another case of the government being on two sides of the same issue.

[rhymetimesfine]

It is unnecessary, but physicians who don't want to perform abortions are at a disadvantage without it, since the government also supports the institutions that would be on the other side of those contracts. This is just another case of the government being on two sides of the same issue.

No, the physicians who don't want to perform abortions already don't have to. They don't have to refer the patients to another doctor, either. The ACOG's ethics committee opined that they should do these things, but they will not be refused certification for not performing these duties, yet. I can look at this as a pre-emptive strike against that possibility, but I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe this rule is warranted.

If the people (us) can work it out amongst themselves, than what's wrong with the government not favoring one side over the other?

[rickonker]

If the people (us) can work it out amongst themselves, than what's wrong with the government not favoring one side over the other?

I'm all for that, but whether or not this law is passed, that's not about to happen.

[mykevermin]

It's not gross, it's heartbreaking. I don't find dead people in Iraq gross (or of no concern) either, by the way...although why that has anything to do with abortion is beyond me.

What is also beyond me is how "capitalism" and "do your job" are used as an argument to try to force people to do something they're not comfortable with. If you were to look at this from a purely capitalist perspective (hard to do with something so much an issue of morality), the market would determine whether people would want to visit those doctors who offered abortions as part of their services and those who did not. I don't see why a capitalist perspective would demand the government force people to offer certain services; in fact, that seems the opposite of laissez faire to me.

Like I said in the first post, the indirect effect this would have (not that, I think, it changes much of what the status quo is) is that you'd not be likely to have an abortion performed on you by someone who wouldn't want to - and thus, who is more likely than someone who will do the procedure to intentionally screw it up, or to not read up on research techniques and maintain good physician's standing with it. In other words, you DON'T want to go to terminate a pregnancy and have a doctor who doesn't want to do it, do it. If this gives them right of refusal, then that may be a good thing overall.

But I expect more out of you than to argue what you have above. Doctors aren't entrepreneurs, they're employees of hospitals. It shouldn't be the doctor's decision, but the hospital's. Like it's not the dishwasher's decision to not serve Big Macs at this particular McDonald's. It's not even the manager's, as a matter of fact.

WHEN YOU TAKE A JOB, YOU TAKE ALONGSIDE IT ALL THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THAT JOB. IT'S CALLED "TAKING A FUCKING JOB."

The only concession to not performing the service would be to ensure that these refusing physicians provide direct referrals to those who do. Which would be another bitchy thing anti-choice doctors wouldn't want to do (it's part of the anti-choice "LALALALALAICANTHEARYOU" approach to any debate) - anything that isn't directly related to preventing an abortion is a complicit indictment to "murder."

[Ruined]

I'm very, very pro-choice (hell, I'm borderline pro-abortion) and even I support this. I file it under protection of religious beliefs (and I'm agnostic).

I think people who believe abortion is wrong because the church tells them it is are idiots, but those idiots are entitled to their religious freedom. An abortion is not life threatening: if a religious doctor doesn't want to do it, find a doctor who will. Protecting the religious freedom of the doctor is worth the inconvenience imposed on the pregnant chick, IMO.

Agree across the board.

[mykevermin]

Sweet. I'm going to convert to Islam and then take a job at a liquor store.

Or stay Catholic and take a job at Planned Parenthood.

Then, in either case, refuse to do a single thing based on my religious beliefs.

But if I get fired, sue for discrimination on religious bounds.

I have, I suspect, your full support.

[camoor]

There's nothing to rebute. You're comparing a transplant to an abortion. If you think that blood and the mess is what's disgusting then you missed the point. Abortions being routine doesn't make it any more pleasing.

This arguement is useless because you aren't thinking, you're simply emoting.

I remember when "Three Kings" came out and people were "outraged" that the movie dared to show what happens inside the human body when a bullet passes through it. Hey morons - you don't like it, then don't vote for war mongers.

The fact is that most people have a natural distaste (even gag reflex) to seeing the insides of the human body (to put it simply for you Ram - they can't handle the sight of blood and guts, and in this thread you're that annoying girl who gets on a chair and screams her head off when she sees a simple field mouse). Many of the anti-abortion Jesus freaks know this and use the blood-and-guts images as a cheap attempt to win converts via medical ignorance and squeamishness.

Let's focus on the real debate - does a fetus count as a human? Fact is, you guys don't want to match swords on an even playing field because every rational arguement is against your position.

[elprincipe]

But I expect more out of you than to argue what you have above. Doctors aren't entrepreneurs, they're employees of hospitals. It shouldn't be the doctor's decision, but the hospital's. Like it's not the dishwasher's decision to not serve Big Macs at this particular McDonald's. It's not even the manager's, as a matter of fact.

Forgive my ignorance as to the business structure of hospitals and their relationship with doctors. When I wrote what I wrote, I was thinking of a doctor in his own practice being forced to perform abortions because he was a specialist in a certain area of medicine. Obviously, if you take a job that has certain responsibilities and you knew that when you took the job, you've got no standing to argue. OTOH, if the government says it violates the Hippocratic Oath to refuse to perform abortions, we have a problem. But yeah, if you're Hindu, maybe you shouldn't work for a company that slaughters cows. Although I would think hospitals would not want to lose good employees because of their objections to as barbarous a practice as abortion.

[thrustbucket]

I used to be very liberal when it came to abortion (re pro choice) until I read a book that had a chapter on abortion, marriage & family etc and talked about how far numbers have dropped as far as marriages go, the decline in family and "traditional values and the decline in population growth over the last 40 years while things like crime, abortion, divorce & single parent households have sky rocketed.



Just quoted part of your post, because it was long, but it describes me as well. I've been around the map on abortion, and now I'm with you...

But you have to understand one thing when discussing this with people that love abortion, and champion it as a center-piece of gender driven choice empowerment(most people here, it seems), even if you were ever to scientifically prove that any particular abortion was actually taking a human life, they ultimately don't give a shit.

Because you are dealing with the same people that vehemently believe the world is super overpopulated and zillions of children would be better off dead than in poverty anyway, so ultimately they don't care if it's killing humans or not. As long as the abortion is socially acceptable, they are for it as population control irregardless of it's moral implications. Human lives, to these people, are now measured in carbon footprints. All the people that would have been but were "taken out" are simply applauded as the very least we should be doing to help poor abused mother earth cope with the viral human species and appease her angry mood-swigs (climate). Argue with anyone super pro-choice long enough and all this becomes obvious.

And comparing murdered babies to murdered Iraqi's is an idiotic prepubescent partisan level of this discussion. Murder is murder is murder. Either taking innocent life is wrong or it isn't, and in a supposedly civilized society, the how's and where's of murder shouldn't matter a whole lot. (Yes I am arguing against killing innocent iraqi civilians, and consider it murder as well)

As for the OP, I am against any government interference, but since abortion is already a contradiction of the hypocratic oath, whatever....

[Koggit]

Sweet. I'm going to convert to Islam and then take a job at a liquor store.

I think a more apt analogy would be an Islamic waiter who refused to serve alcohol -- not a perfect analogy, but certainly closer.

[JolietJake]

I'd like to know why these people even got into medicine if they're so adverse to performing abortions. Granted, some of them may be old enough that they were practicing before it became legal, but still.

I think the refusal of pharmacists to dispense birth control is even more amazing. They're essentially refusing to do their jobs. It's what they do, fill prescriptions. If they refuse to do that, for any medication, they should be fired.

You might as well open a catholic pharmacy if you aren't going to fill birth control prescriptions. You can take all the condoms off the shelf too and just make it completely ridiculous.

[Koggit]

It's just a job -- it's just one small aspect of a job.

"Damn yourself in the eyes of your god" trumps "do your god damned job."

[DarkSageRK]

It's just a job -- it's just one small aspect of a job.

"Damn yourself in the eyes of your god" trumps "do your god damned job."

Then quit. Fuck. You can't expect to have everything handed to your prissy ass on a silver platter.

[Koggit]

Then quit. Fuck. You can't expect to have everything handed to your prissy ass on a silver platter.

Your backwards view violates separation of church and state -- the government (or government funding) cannot discriminate based on religion. You're essentially supporting barring religious OBGYNs from all hospitals and medical centers. That's absolutely ludicrous.

Move to N. Korea if you hate freedom so much.

[DarkSageRK]

Your backwards view violates separation of church and state -- the government (or government funding) cannot discriminate based on religion. You're essentially supporting barring religious OBGYNs from all hospitals and medical centers. That's absolutely ludicrous.

Move to N. Korea if you hate freedom so much.

It's not discriminating based on religion. It's getting rid of people who don't do their jobs. If it's in the job description, and you don't do it, get the fuck out. No. Your religion doesn't matter. You signed up for something you knowingly couldn't do. You shouldn't get preferential treatment.

Considering the government's stepping in specifically for Christians (I'm pretty sure Pastafarians don't have a problem with abortion), that's the only thing violating the separation of church and state.

I'm half sure you're just pretending to be an idiot, with an advanced combination of ironic statements and sarcastic remarks masquerading as the ravings of an ignorant buffoon. If so, I applaud you, sir. Your imitation of a man completely out of touch with reality is amazing. Were you a professional actor, I would nominate you for an oscar.

[Jesus_S_Preston]

I'm totally pro-choice, but I guess it makes sense. I mean, yeah, if someone believes it's wrong, they don't get to stop other people from doing it, but we can't make THEM do it.

2 cents.

Also, I was always under the impression that, like, abortion doctors were their own special brand of doctor. Huh.

[camoor]

Oh it's real easy to be outraged and wear the cute baby feet badges at protests when you don't have to think about what you're doing to other people's lives.

[camoor]

Just quoted part of your post, because it was long, but it describes me as well. I've been around the map on abortion, and now I'm with you...

But you have to understand one thing when discussing this with people that love abortion, and champion it as a center-piece of gender driven choice empowerment(most people here, it seems), even if you were ever to scientifically prove that any particular abortion was actually taking a human life, they ultimately don't give a shit.

Because you are dealing with the same people that vehemently believe the world is super overpopulated and zillions of children would be better off dead than in poverty anyway, so ultimately they don't care if it's killing humans or not. As long as the abortion is socially acceptable, they are for it as population control irregardless of it's moral implications. Human lives, to these people, are now measured in carbon footprints. All the people that would have been but were "taken out" are simply applauded as the very least we should be doing to help poor abused mother earth cope with the viral human species and appease her angry mood-swigs (climate). Argue with anyone super pro-choice long enough and all this becomes obvious.

I give your little story a D-, frankly a good yarn from the other side such as "Logan's Run" is alot more entertaining.

Back to the real world, look at the stats on how many fetuses with predictive markers for debilitating medical conditions make it to term. Amazingly it doesn't match up at all with the statistics on people who self identify as pro-life vs pro-choice (it's actually quite startling)

Truth is, whether you admit it or not, deep down inside every run-of-the-mill pro-lifer there's a part that's glad the choice still exists. Because it gives you safe refuge when someone you care about gets put in that postiion.

[thrustbucket]

Truth is, whether you admit it or not, deep down inside every run-of-the-mill pro-lifer there's a part that's glad the choice still exists. Because it gives you safe refuge when someone you care about gets put in that postiion.


You mean like the safe refuge the second amendment affords those that oppose it? That's like saying deep down, anti-gun people are glad some good people carry them, because some day they might save their life, or deal justice that wouldn't be otherwise. But I wouldn't say that, because, like your assertion, that's absurd.

But hey - I will concede that everyone that has ever lived on this planet, at some point, pushed hard enough, can justify killing to solve non-life threatening problems or undoing mistakes. We just all happen to draw the lines in slightly different places, occasionally successfully coaxing the law to side with us. Of course, this is usually the part where your side argues that killing a fetus isn't the same as killing a person. That may be. But had you been killed when you were a fetus, you wouldn't be here to defend it, and that's where the argument ends for me.

[GTzerO]

So what do you all suppose a pregnant woman who doesn't want a child do?

I say kill it. Maybe I'm an idiot for wanting a woman to not ruin her life for a child she didn't have to have. And please, nobody say " hold it for 9 months and then put it up for adoption". From the standpoint of the mother who just wants to get rid of this kid, that's unproductive and unnecessary when you can just cut the middle man.

[rickonker]

So what do you all suppose a pregnant woman who doesn't want a child do?

I say kill it. Maybe I'm an idiot for wanting a woman to not ruin her life for a child she didn't have to have. And please, nobody say " hold it for 9 months and then put it up for adoption". From the standpoint of the mother who just wants to get rid of this kid, that's unproductive and unnecessary when you can just cut the middle man.

Incredible. Just incredible.

[Koggit]

The abortion debate is stupid. For rational people, it boils down to "when does life begin?" which is not a question anybody can even pretend to know the answer to.

Pro-lifers will then say "if you're unsure, shouldn't you err on the side of caution?" and to that I say I don't care. Humans can't think until well after birth. Without religion, thought defines life. I have no problem swatting a fly because it lacks consciousness. A 2-month old fetus, to me, is a fly. Alive? Perhaps.

Of course, if you're religious, things are different. That fetus has a soul, etc, etc.


The debate is really, really pointless. Nobody will ever win.

[The Crotch]

From the standpoint of the mother who just wants to get rid of this kid, that's unproductive and unnecessary when you can just cut the middle man.Oh, that's gonna come back to bite you in the ass.

Possibly in the form of a half-assed hypothetical situation.

[GTzerO]

Incredible. Just incredible.

The people on this forum seem to be obsessed with belittling others rather than answering legitimate questions.

The joke, I bet, is that I'm so dumb that I'd be better off aborting the child anyway.

Oh, that's gonna come back to bite you in the ass.

Possibly in the form of a half-assed hypothetical situation.

Yup. I think just posting that was a mistake, because a pro-lifer could easily argue the exact same thing against me, with abortion being unproductive to the continuation of the species and unnecessary in general.

[RAMSTORIA]

This arguement is useless because you aren't thinking, you're simply emoting.

I remember when "Three Kings" came out and people were "outraged" that the movie dared to show what happens inside the human body when a bullet passes through it. Hey morons - you don't like it, then don't vote for war mongers.

The fact is that most people have a natural distaste (even gag reflex) to seeing the insides of the human body (to put it simply for you Ram - they can't handle the sight of blood and guts, and in this thread you're that annoying girl who gets on a chair and screams her head off when she sees a simple field mouse). Many of the anti-abortion Jesus freaks know this and use the blood-and-guts images as a cheap attempt to win converts via medical ignorance and squeamishness.

Let's focus on the real debate - does a fetus count as a human? Fact is, you guys don't want to match swords on an even playing field because every rational arguement is against your position.

I'm quoting myself, because you seemed to have missed my response to you a couple of pages ago...

You're comparing a transplant to an abortion. If you think that blood and the mess is what's disgusting then you missed the point.

When I said disgusting, I didn't mean that it's messy. I meant the act is disgusting as in "To offend the taste or moral sense of; repel." Why on Earth would you bring up Three Kings?

Look, you do make a point at the end, does the fetus count as a human? The reason I bring up the graphic nature of abortion isn't to gross someone out. It was intended to go hand in hand with my first post, which laid out the development stages of the fetus. I didn't mean to say that vacuuming the fetus out of the woman might get a little messy. I'm trying to say that the "mess" could have a beating heart, organs, a brain. See the difference?

Now the whole "it's your job" argument. Look, having to perform an abortion isn't like getting a job at Taco Bell and then not wanting to clean the bathrooms when you close. There's a difference. There just is. If you don't see the difference, well there's no way that you will change your mind on the matter.

[elprincipe]

The abortion debate is stupid. For rational people, it boils down to "when does life begin?" which is not a question anybody can even pretend to know the answer to.

Not true at all. We know quite clearly when life begins. The question is, when does HUMAN life begin? Since said life definitely is human within a matter of months, why would it be a reasonable argument that the exact same life is not human a few months earlier when it is smaller? Just one of the many inconsistencies and rationalizations of those who excuse abortion.

Pro-lifers will then say "if you're unsure, shouldn't you err on the side of caution?" and to that I say I don't care. Humans can't think until well after birth. Without religion, thought defines life. I have no problem swatting a fly because it lacks consciousness. A 2-month old fetus, to me, is a fly. Alive? Perhaps.

Of course, if you're religious, things are different. That fetus has a soul, etc, etc.

Religion certainly defines things for many people, but not all (I am an example).

Saying humans can't think until "well after birth" is simply completely inaccurate. But as you say, you don't care anyway, so why make up an excuse? You probably feel mothers should be able to kill their children 'well after birth" because they "can't think"?

The debate is really, really pointless. Nobody will ever win.

I disagree. Look at the change in opinion over the last 15 years. We have gone from a country solidly in support of legalized baby killing to one that is 50/50. I'm hopeful more progress can be made. Even if it can't, attempting to stop the slaughter of innocents is hardly pointless.

[GTzerO]

Luckily, whether it's legal or not, people will continue to kill the innocent babies for their benefit. That helps me sleep at night.

[mykevermin]

elp, you're usually a solid foundation of middle-of-the-road reason in the vs forums, even when we disagree.

To say your wording and points here are letting me down is a grievous understatement.

[camoor]

You mean like the safe refuge the second amendment affords those that oppose it? That's like saying deep down, anti-gun people are glad some good people carry them, because some day they might save their life, or deal justice that wouldn't be otherwise. But I wouldn't say that, because, like your assertion, that's absurd.

First of all - I did say "run-of-the-mill pro-lifers" - not all pro-lifers. 90% of fetuses with severe medical conditions get aborted, so obviously there's 10% of pro-lifers that actually will act according to their stated position. However it's a far cry from the ~50% that self-identify as pro-life in public polls. When the chips are down, when decision time comes, the vast majority of people are pro-choice.

But hey - I will concede that everyone that has ever lived on this planet, at some point, pushed hard enough, can justify killing to solve non-life threatening problems or undoing mistakes. We just all happen to draw the lines in slightly different places, occasionally successfully coaxing the law to side with us. Of course, this is usually the part where your side argues that killing a fetus isn't the same as killing a person. That may be. But had you been killed when you were a fetus, you wouldn't be here to defend it, and that's where the argument ends for me.

I think your last sentence is interesting but for me it doesn't ring true. Because if your father had worn a spermicidal condom you wouldn't be here either. Are contraceptives therefore just as evil?

People who disagree with abortion tend to think there's something magical (sacred, miraculous, etc) that happens when a sperm touches an egg. When talking about legislation - when talking about things you are authorizing the executive branch to forcibly forbid and punish for - I think it's very, very important to stop talking in terms of "miracles" and instead take a rational, scientific viewpoint. And when you do that, a sperm and egg together are just incrementally more sophisticated then a sperm and egg that are separate pieces. To me that doesn't count as a human life, it's just a multi-cellular organism with the potential to become human. And last I checked there's no clause stating "We the multi-cellular organisms..." ;)

[camoor]

The debate is really, really pointless. Nobody will ever win.

The winners will set public policy. I don't call that pointless.

[camoor]

Look, you do make a point at the end, does the fetus count as a human? The reason I bring up the graphic nature of abortion isn't to gross someone out. It was intended to go hand in hand with my first post, which laid out the development stages of the fetus. I didn't mean to say that vacuuming the fetus out of the woman might get a little messy. I'm trying to say that the "mess" could have a beating heart, organs, a brain. See the difference?

This is a description of a type of tumor:

A dermoid cyst is a cystic teratoma that contains developmentally mature skin complete with hair follicles and sweat glands, sometimes luxuriant clumps of long hair, and often pockets of sebum, blood, fat, bone, nails, teeth, eyes, cartilage, and thyroid tissue. Because it contains mature tissue, a dermoid cyst is almost always benign. The rare malignant dermoid cyst usually develops squamous cell carcinoma in adults; in babies and children it usually develops endodermal sinus tumor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermoid_cyst

Of course some of these things need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. The longer you go the greyer the question of abortion gets for sure. But it would be a mistake to forbid abortion outright. All sorts of horrible things could happen from conception to childbirth - I for one see no problem with keeping all medical options on the table.

[mykevermin]

New to me, anyway: http://religionandpolitics.ytmnd.com/

[fatherofcaitlyn]

New to me, anyway: http://religionandpolitics.ytmnd.com/

Um, what?

[graf1k]

New to me, anyway: http://religionandpolitics.ytmnd.com/

That was awesome. Good find.

As for what Bush is proposing, I have mixed feelings on the subject. On the one hand, despite being pro-choice (or pro-death or anti-life as some people call it, makes no matter to me) I do think that someone in the medical field that is morally against abortion should not be forced to do one. I was brought up to respect the beliefs of others (and before anybody goes off on a "what about bigots and racists?" rant, I mean within reason) whether I agree with them or not. On the flip side of the same coin, I think a hospital should be able to ask an applicant doctor or medical practitioner if they do have a moral conflict with performing an abortion and if they do, the hospital should have the right to deny them the position based on that answer if they think having doctors that would not perform an abortion may adversely affect their bottom line, and they should have the freedom to do so without interference from the government.

[thrustbucket]

elp, you're usually a solid foundation of middle-of-the-road reason in the vs forums, even when we disagree.

To say your wording and points here are letting me down is a grievous understatement.
This discussion tends to bring out the least logical in everyone. But it's stll an oldie but goodie. ;)


I think your last sentence is interesting but for me it doesn't ring true. Because if your father had worn a spermicidal condom you wouldn't be here either. Are contraceptives therefore just as evil?
Not comparable. Saying every single sperm must be protected because it's a potential human is a stretch. Saying that a small human with a brain, bones, organs and a heart-beat that WILL be a human like you and I in a few months must be protected is
(should be) a no-brainer.

To me that doesn't count as a human life, it's just a multi-cellular organism with the potential to become human. And last I checked there's no clause stating "We the multi-cellular organisms..." ;)

Then, by your own definition, you yourself aren't a human life (no offense meant). What I mean by that is, I think everyone is defined by that statement. When does a multi-celled organism become a human? That's highly debatable, as we see here. But when does a human stop becoming a multi-celled organism? Imo never.

Furthermore, this discussion leads into trying to define what being human means. Which complicates it, because if being human, in this case, ends up being defined by something worth saving, I think upon observing people - the majority of people the majority of the time probably should just be called multi-celled organisms. But unfortunately, in our society, even the very worst of humans, still get to retain the title of human; thus having more protection and rights than our "multi-celled" younglings.

[camoor]

Not comparable. Saying every single sperm must be protected because it's a potential human is a stretch. Saying that a small human with a brain, bones, organs and a heart-beat that WILL be a human like you and I in a few months must be protected is (should be) a no-brainer.

An embryo does not have a working brain, bones, organs and a heart-beat. So again it comes down to whether you believe a "miracle" happens the instant the sperm joins with the egg. Calling an embryo a human is like calling a blueprint and a concrete foundation a house.

Then, by your own definition, you yourself aren't a human life (no offense meant). What I mean by that is, I think everyone is defined by that statement. When does a multi-celled organism become a human? That's highly debatable, as we see here. But when does a human stop becoming a multi-celled organism? Imo never.

Furthermore, this discussion leads into trying to define what being human means. Which complicates it, because if being human, in this case, ends up being defined by something worth saving, I think upon observing people - the majority of people the majority of the time probably should just be called multi-celled organisms. But unfortunately, in our society, even the very worst of humans, still get to retain the title of human; thus having more protection and rights than our "multi-celled" younglings.

Yes, a human is sophisticated multi-cellular entity. When I used the term multi-cellular entity I was talking about the simplest types of these entities.

All humans develop from simple multi-cellular entities however all simple multi-cellular entities do not develop into humans. I propose we treat all simple multi-cellular organisms with one set of rules, and humans with another.

[Koggit]

Not true at all. We know quite clearly when life begins. The question is, when does HUMAN life begin? Since said life definitely is human within a matter of months, why would it be a reasonable argument that the exact same life is not human a few months earlier when it is smaller? Just one of the many inconsistencies and rationalizations of those who excuse abortion.



Religion certainly defines things for many people, but not all (I am an example).

Saying humans can't think until "well after birth" is simply completely inaccurate. But as you say, you don't care anyway, so why make up an excuse? You probably feel mothers should be able to kill their children 'well after birth" because they "can't think"?



I disagree. Look at the change in opinion over the last 15 years. We have gone from a country solidly in support of legalized baby killing to one that is 50/50. I'm hopeful more progress can be made. Even if it can't, attempting to stop the slaughter of innocents is hardly pointless.

How do you know when life begins?

There's no defining "this is no longer part of the mother, this is a human being of its own" moment.

If you had an apple tree, could you define the moment you went from zero apples to one apple?

It's a gradual process, and it's gray.

I'd even consider a 9mo old fetus to be part of the mother, not its own being.

[SpazX]

Not comparable. Saying every single sperm must be protected because it's a potential human is a stretch. Saying that a small human with a brain, bones, organs and a heart-beat that WILL be a human like you and I in a few months must be protected is
(should be) a no-brainer.

Well there's no guarantee it WILL be human, since somewhere up to 25% or so on average will die regardless (depending of course on the age/health of the mother, the environment, and dumb luck), but I know that's not your point.

Is it cool to kill it when it doesn't have a brain, bones, organs, and a heart beat? Or is it just the meeting of the egg and sperm or the attachment of the egg/sperm combination to the uterus that then makes it immoral (since it's from then that it has a pretty good chance of being born)? I'm asking seriously. You say that "every sperm is sacred" is a stretch, and of course I don't think that every sperm is sacred either, but any criteria you use for the beginning of the time when the blastocyst/embryo/fetus is considered human is going to be somewhat arbitrary unless you take an extreme position.

My arbitrary criteria is thus:

Firstly, I'm not vegan.

I routinely kill/participate in a system of killing forms of life that are far more aware than a clump of cells/embryo/fetus (up to a point). Unless I become vegan, I don't think I can, in good conscience, say that I'm "pro-life." So up until the fetus has some distinctive human traits (like more advanced brain function), I don't have a moral problem with ending its life. I don't think that I can justify it the other way around that is more logical/less arbitrary. Until the third trimester I think the decision should be up to doctors/mothers, and then there should be some kind of health/life regulation (which is essentially what the roe v. wade decision was). Women generally don't wait that long so I don't think it's much of a problem.

Further than that is the tried and true "it might be better off aborted" argument. It doesn't sound nice, but that's life. If a child isn't adopted pretty quickly (and it's pretty difficult for a mother to give a child up for adoption, I'd imagine), it probably won't be, and its life will more than likely suck. In that case I'd say that if a woman got pregnant and knew she didn't want to/couldn't take care of the child, then she has an important decision to make, and abortion and adoption should both be options. I know there are plenty of people who want to adopt babies, but that doesn't keep a lot of kids from ending up in foster care, so I don't think it's a legitimate reason to outlaw abortion outright. I'd rather have someone be adopted than aborted, but I don't think the state should make that decision.

Also, I think that women are much more burdened in the process than a "9 month inconvenience" so I don't think that's good reasoning either, although I also don't think there is an argument for abortion based entirely on that. Many times the same people who want to outlaw abortion are also the "small government" people (ironic, of course) who also would rather not provide the mother with any kind of state help during the pregnancy nor after it, so they're entirely dependent on the good will of others when they're not able to work. That's not an argument for abortion either, but if you were to argue that the state shouldn't allow women to get abortions, I think it's a pretty terrible idea to then also make sure that they have as few resources as possible to take care of the child the state forced them to have. Of course there would probably also be no state foster care system in that scenario, so the unadopted and unwanted child would have even lower prospects, but this is all a digression.

You probably don't agree with my reasoning, since, of course, it's arbitrary, but that's what it is. Maybe I should just make this a text document so I can just copy/paste into any future abortion threads...

[mykevermin]

This discussion tends to bring out the least logical in everyone. But it's stll an oldie but goodie. ;)

No kiddin'.

[elprincipe]

elp, you're usually a solid foundation of middle-of-the-road reason in the vs forums, even when we disagree.

To say your wording and points here are letting me down is a grievous understatement.

Er, I guess thanks and that's the way it is. I wouldn't describe my views on abortion as "middle of the road." That would be restricting abortion but keeping it legal - such as making third-trimester abortions illegal but allowing others, or at least allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest. This happens to be an issue where I believe logic dictates killing babies should be illegal in every case except when it is a case of the mother dying or the baby (in that case, only one of them can possibly make that decision).

I guess this is one issue where I'm very much on the right. On others I am very much on the left, still others dead center, what can I say. Obviously you disagree vehemently, but this is an issue I'm sure you can understand I feel strongly about.

[elprincipe]

How do you know when life begins?

There's no defining "this is no longer part of the mother, this is a human being of its own" moment.

If you had an apple tree, could you define the moment you went from zero apples to one apple?

It's a gradual process, and it's gray.

I'd even consider a 9mo old fetus to be part of the mother, not its own being.

Life begins even before an egg is fertilized. Sperm are alive as well. Are they separate from the mother/father? Obviously not, until the egg is fertilized. Even then, all we have are the two building blocks of human life put together. It's not until a few days later when this concoction is implanted and growing on his/her own that we have a unique human being.

Saying a 9-month-old in the womb is not a human is crazy. Any healthy 9-month-old fetus can survive outside the womb. Why is a thin layer of tissue between the child and the outside world keeping the child from being human? That makes no sense whatsoever. What makes a child inside the womb one minute magically transform into a human being the next minute, when it is delivered?

[thrustbucket]

An embryo does not have a working brain, bones, organs and a heart-beat. So again it comes down to whether you believe a "miracle" happens the instant the sperm joins with the egg. Calling an embryo a human is like calling a blueprint and a concrete foundation a house.

Well, everything you are saying is sort of assuming the majority of abortions occur in the state of just being a few cells, which I don't think is the case. Crushing brain and bones and sucking it out is what I'm talking about.

Higher brain functions? Hmmm. I can think of several political leaders, and even co-workers, that I wouldn't put in that category, that's actually an appealing slippery slope now that I think about it....



I'd even consider a 9mo old fetus to be part of the mother, not its own being.

Wow. Well, why stop there? Why not allow killing it the day it's born if it turns out to be ugly? You could also make a pretty good case for a mothers right to kill it at any point in it's first few months/years of life by saying the little organism is still completely dependent on it's mother.... So why not still make it a womans right to kill it if she decides the choice to keep it ends up too much a pain in the ass?

In fact, if this debate is really about womens rights, I'm all for just allowing a mother to legally kill her child at any stage in life as her moral and social responsibility. Hell, why not? Gotta trust mothers intuition, right?


Is it cool to kill it when it doesn't have a brain, bones, organs, and a heart beat? Or is it just the meeting of the egg and sperm or the attachment of the egg/sperm combination to the uterus that then makes it immoral (since it's from then that it has a pretty good chance of being born)? I'm asking seriously. You say that "every sperm is sacred" is a stretch, and of course I don't think that every sperm is sacred either, but any criteria you use for the beginning of the time when the blastocyst/embryo/fetus is considered human is going to be somewhat arbitrary unless you take an extreme position.

Well you just outlined the real crux of the whole abortion debate. At some point, that "thing" is as human as you and me. So where do you slide the ruler to say the "thing" has any rights? And furthermore, who can dictate such? Just thinking outloud.... I don't have all the answers.

My arbitrary criteria is thus:

Firstly, I'm not vegan.

I routinely kill/participate in a system of killing forms of life that are far more aware than a clump of cells/embryo/fetus (up to a point). Unless I become vegan, I don't think I can, in good conscience, say that I'm "pro-life." So up until the fetus has some distinctive human traits (like more advanced brain function), I don't have a moral problem with ending its life. I don't think that I can justify it the other way around that is more logical/less arbitrary. Until the third trimester I think the decision should be up to doctors/mothers, and then there should be some kind of health/life regulation (which is essentially what the roe v. wade decision was). Women generally don't wait that long so I don't think it's much of a problem.

I'm more or less ok with this. But why is the third trimester an issue if the other two aren't? The whole problem with this debate is it's amorphous scientific bump in a rug of explanations.

Further than that is the tried and true "it might be better off aborted" argument. It doesn't sound nice, but that's life. If a child isn't adopted pretty quickly (and it's pretty difficult for a mother to give a child up for adoption, I'd imagine), it probably won't be, and its life will more than likely suck. In that case I'd say that if a woman got pregnant and knew she didn't want to/couldn't take care of the child, then she has an important decision to make, and abortion and adoption should both be options. I know there are plenty of people who want to adopt babies, but that doesn't keep a lot of kids from ending up in foster care, so I don't think it's a legitimate reason to outlaw abortion outright. I'd rather have someone be adopted than aborted, but I don't think the state should make that decision.

You can use the same logic to say that someone, or society itself, is better off with the death of multiple undesirable people. The question is: should we?

You are essentially arguing that the state shouldn't protect people's lives if they are undesirable enough by those responsible for them. If that's the road we want to go down, then we are just a hair away from legalizing holocaust.

I'm pretty sure if you conducted a survey of kids that had grown up in even the worst foster care scenarios, and asked them if they'd have preferred death, I doubt you'd even get one "yes". I think it's a universal truth that most people, no matter how bad it gets, still like being alive. And those that don't, usually take care of the problem on their own.

But the day we allow the state to have a formula for figuring out if a child's prospects at life are "Good Enough" to allow it to live, we have really lost the right to call ourselves civilized beings.

Also, I think that women are much more burdened in the process than a "9 month inconvenience" so I don't think that's good reasoning either, although I also don't think there is an argument for abortion based entirely on that. Many times the same people who want to outlaw abortion are also the "small government" people (ironic, of course) who also would rather not provide the mother with any kind of state help during the pregnancy nor after it, so they're entirely dependent on the good will of others when they're not able to work.

I'm really not sure who you are talking about, and I totally disagree. I think nearly everyone that is staunch anti-abortion would be happy to have the state take over the financial care of that child, even in the womb, if there were legislation that made that the option instead of abortion. The child would then become a ward of the state in the womb, if the mother signed said rights over during gestation.

That's not an argument for abortion either, but if you were to argue that the state shouldn't allow women to get abortions, I think it's a pretty terrible idea to then also make sure that they have as few resources as possible to take care of the child the state forced them to have. Of course there would probably also be no state foster care system in that scenario, so the unadopted and unwanted child would have even lower prospects, but this is all a digression.
Like I said, I would be perfectly happy with the state taking over the financial burden, even in the womb, if the mother decides she doesn't want it. In fact, that's probably the most clear cut case of justifiable welfare I can think of. And I don't think you'd get much of an argument out of the pro-life lobby.

You probably don't agree with my reasoning, since, of course, it's arbitrary, but that's what it is. Maybe I should just make this a text document so I can just copy/paste into any future abortion threads...

I enjoyed reading your reasoning. I agree with some of it. But I think you are making extreme assumptions about the people that are "small government" and also anti-abortion.

I do not think abortion should be totally illegal. But I think it should be difficult to obtain, and nearly impossible to be used as simple birth control.

[Koggit]

Life begins even before an egg is fertilized. Sperm are alive as well.

Epic copout

[SpazX]

I'm more or less ok with this. But why is the third trimester an issue if the other two aren't? The whole problem with this debate is it's amorphous scientific bump in a rug of explanations.

Well yeah, that's just my criteria. The "third trimester" thing is just a convenient timeframe, but what I'm saying is when the fetus has distinctively human traits - and especially when it's possible it could live outside of the mother - then that's when I consider it human and so it shouldn't be aborted unless it's necessary.


You can use the same logic to say that someone, or society itself, is better off with the death of multiple undesirable people. The question is: should we?

You are essentially arguing that the state shouldn't protect people's lives if they are undesirable enough by those responsible for them. If that's the road we want to go down, then we are just a hair away from legalizing holocaust.

I'm pretty sure if you conducted a survey of kids that had grown up in even the worst foster care scenarios, and asked them if they'd have preferred death, I doubt you'd even get one "yes". I think it's a universal truth that most people, no matter how bad it gets, still like being alive. And those that don't, usually take care of the problem on their own.

But the day we allow the state to have a formula for figuring out if a child's prospects at life are "Good Enough" to allow it to live, we have really lost the right to call ourselves civilized beings.

Well I agree, you can't take someone's life unless it's in defense and absolutely necessary. I just don't apply that to a fetus, which changes things. If you have a dog and it has been abused or it will never have a home, it's put down. And similar to what I was saying, dogs are far more aware than a fetus. It's not preferable to me, I'd rather have a child be born and adopted by someone who wants it and will love it and take care of it, but I think that's a decision that should be left up to the mother. It's kind of a one shot thing - this is your one shot to end it before it begins, if you don't do it then the child will be born and what happens happens.

I'm sure you'd find some people who would rather be dead, there are many who kill themselves every day - but I know that they would be few. I don't think that the state or anybody else should be able to decide if someone's life is good enough, but it's still something to think about when a woman is considering the prospects of a child they clearly don't want.


I'm really not sure who you are talking about, and I totally disagree. I think nearly everyone that is staunch anti-abortion would be happy to have the state take over the financial care of that child, even in the womb, if there were legislation that made that the option instead of abortion. The child would then become a ward of the state in the womb, if the mother signed said rights over during gestation.

Like I said, I would be perfectly happy with the state taking over the financial burden, even in the womb, if the mother decides she doesn't want it. In fact, that's probably the most clear cut case of justifiable welfare I can think of. And I don't think you'd get much of an argument out of the pro-life lobby.

The anti-abortion crowd is largely a conservative crowd. I'm not saying that the two ideas go together, I'm saying that there is overlap and also, practically, if abortion were outlawed, it would be done by a Republican administration, which would also be staunchly against welfare, as they've always been. In that case you'd have to have a Republican administration willing to both outlaw abortion and expand welfare. I don't see those going together. You may find it justifiable, but I don't think it's an idea that would sell well to the conservative crowd.

It's somewhat similar to the idea that both birth control and abortion should be outlawed - a horrible idea, but some people still have it (though fewer than the number of people who are both anti-welfare and anti-abortion, I'm sure). Then there is a large number of people who are opposed to teaching kids about birth control and also opposed to abortion, which is also a horrible idea.

Anyway, I think you underestimate the number of people opposed to both abortion rights and welfare (in any case).


I enjoyed reading your reasoning. I agree with some of it. But I think you are making extreme assumptions about the people that are "small government" and also anti-abortion.

I do not think abortion should be totally illegal. But I think it should be difficult to obtain, and nearly impossible to be used as simple birth control.

I don't think that abortion is regularly used or easily obtained as a simple birth control. I mean there's nothing legally stopping a woman from using it as a simple birth control, but I don't think most women would be willing to do that (emotionally) and would have easy access to other birth control methods anyway, which are much cheaper and easier to use.

The number of abortions has been dropping pretty steadily for years and from the CDC report in 2003 there were a little under 850,000 legal abortions. About how many times did women have sex in that year without wanting a child? I think if women were regularly using abortion as birth control that number would be huge - in the tens of millions, at least. Condom sales are in the hundreds of millions per year, not to mention birth control pills and other less popular devices.

[mykevermin]

Er, I guess thanks and that's the way it is. I wouldn't describe my views on abortion as "middle of the road." That would be restricting abortion but keeping it legal - such as making third-trimester abortions illegal but allowing others, or at least allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest. This happens to be an issue where I believe logic dictates killing babies should be illegal in every case except when it is a case of the mother dying or the baby (in that case, only one of them can possibly make that decision).

I guess this is one issue where I'm very much on the right. On others I am very much on the left, still others dead center, what can I say. Obviously you disagree vehemently, but this is an issue I'm sure you can understand I feel strongly about.

I can respect that. Obviously, indeed, we disagree on where we stand.

That said, I wish we could focus on ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies in order to reduce the need for abortions.

A day without abortions is a joyous one, undoubtedly, for anyone involved. But that day will come not when abortion is outlawed (then only outlaws will have abortion ;)) - but the day when unwanted pregnancies are reduced to statistical insignificance.

[thrustbucket]

I can respect that. Obviously, indeed, we disagree on where we stand.

That said, I wish we could focus on ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies in order to reduce the need for abortions.

A day without abortions is a joyous one, undoubtedly, for anyone involved. But that day will come not when abortion is outlawed (then only outlaws will have abortion ;)) - but the day when unwanted pregnancies are reduced to statistical insignificance.

That day likely won't come through billions spent in handing condoms out and putting condoms on cucumbers in elementary school.

That day will likely not come until there is a way to cheaply and safely medically "turn off" reproductive abilities in male or females, with a way to safely and cheaply turn it on again - and have it almost required to do so. I think it will happen in our lifetime.

[RAMSTORIA]

But that day will come not when abortion is outlawed (then only outlaws will have abortion ;)) .


nice.

[mykevermin]

That day likely won't come through billions spent in handing condoms out and putting condoms on cucumbers in elementary school.

I agree. Good thing we don't do that, y'know?

Good thing we don't teach them abstinence onl...oh. Yeah. That's right.

That day will likely not come until there is a way to cheaply and safely medically "turn off" reproductive abilities in male or females, with a way to safely and cheaply turn it on again - and have it almost required to do so. I think it will happen in our lifetime.

Which kinda contradicts the whole "we spend ka-jillions teaching sex ed to students!" disdain in the first part of your post.

[thrustbucket]

Which kinda contradicts the whole "we spend ka-jillions teaching sex ed to students!" disdain in the first part of your post.

I'm not sure why. Human behavior is incredibly hard to change, especially on a grand scale. But people love quick fixes, and just like magic weight loss pills (that still don't exist), if there was a surgical procedure or implant that was 100% effective with no side effects, I don't know who would be against mass installation.

I'm usually a small gov guy, as you know. But I would not be adverse to discussing ways to install mandatory reversible birth control in everyone, maybe even at birth. The downside to that would then be the temptation to take it a step further and require "proof" you can support a kid to the state before it's reversed. And on the surface I don't care for that either. But I'd prefer exploring such things over rampant abortion.

[trq]

Wow. Well, why stop there? Why not allow killing it the day it's born if it turns out to be ugly? You could also make a pretty good case for a mothers right to kill it at any point in it's first few months/years of life by saying the little organism is still completely dependent on it's mother.... So why not still make it a womans right to kill it if she decides the choice to keep it ends up too much a pain in the ass?

In fact, if this debate is really about womens rights, I'm all for just allowing a mother to legally kill her child at any stage in life as her moral and social responsibility. Hell, why not? Gotta trust mothers intuition, right?

I think adding "biologically" in front of "dependent" changes much of the meaning. And saying it's about "women's rights" kind of makes it sound like "equal wages" and "voting." It's also about the government telling you what you can and cannot do with your body. The fact that at some point, your body *contains* another living thing is what makes it a complicated issue. But I'd think a small gov guy like yourself might understand it better by thinking about what your reaction would be if the government told you there were certain things that you were flat out prohibited from doing with your own body. Should it be illegal for pregnant women to smoke, too? What about smoking in general, then? And so on and so forth.

You can use the same logic to say that someone, or society itself, is better off with the death of multiple undesirable people. The question is: should we?

We do it all the time, at least in states where we still have the death penalty.

But I think it should be difficult to obtain, and nearly impossible to be used as simple birth control.

Well, I've yet to meet the woman who prefers getting her reproductive organs scraped and vacuumed with surgical instruments to having her man put on a condom, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Of course, making it difficult to obtain only increases the probability that the abortions that do happen will be late-term. So which is preferable?

That day likely won't come through billions spent in handing condoms out and putting condoms on cucumbers in elementary school.

But since there ain't any better ways at the moment . . .

Anyway (and this is no longer directed toward thrust) , what I find especially troubling is "the regulation ... explicitly allows workers to withhold information about such services and refuse to refer patients elsewhere." In fact, the whole point of this regulation is because "two professional organizations for obstetricians and gynecologists [that he said] might require doctors who object to abortions to refer patients to other physicians who would provide them." Notably, it also covers all medical professionals and pharmacists.

Quotes from: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/21/ST2008082103218.html

So no, it ain't just about "I get to pass on performing abortions" -- it very literally and intentionally allows these people to impose their morals on you -- to say that because THEY are opposed to birth control, YOU don't get to have it.

I mean, let me make this clear: if you are a woman who goes to pick up your birth control prescription and your pharmacist doesn't like that, he can pull the prescription and not give it back to you, like this douche-nozzle: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040607-644153,00.html, or this one: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/23/eveningnews/main657435.shtml, or this one: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0405-23.htm. And in the case of a woman who needs to grab some morning after pills, the need is quite urgent, and *cannot* be delayed ... else you're looking at a woman who needs one of those abortions they also oppose.

Further, the proposed rule isn't limited to abortion. That's one given example. But there's nothing that says abortions are the only procedures that can be refused.

"The fourth conscience provision, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(d), provides that “[n]o individual
shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program
or research activity funded in whole or in part under a program administered by [the Department] if his performance or assistance in the performance of such part of such program or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions."

Think about that. All those "crazy" hypotheticals that people have been listing about not treating gays or blacks? Yeah, that shit's protected. And the nutjobs are completely aware of what they can get away with now (from WaPo again):

"Both supporters and critics said the language remains broad enough to apply to contraceptives, as well as many other areas in medicine.