The Latest Attack on Women - "partial birth" abortion ban

[truthaddict11]

WASHINGTON (June 5) - A House vote to ban a controversial abortion procedure assured that the restriction will become law soon and set the stage for a Supreme Court decision that could affect the future of abortion rights.

President Bush has urged Congress to prohibit what abortion foes call ``partial birth'' abortion, and the 282-139 House vote Wednesday affirmed that the bill would be on his desk, possibly within weeks. The House must first work out minor differences with the Senate, which passed a near-identical bill in March.

The legislation, Bush said, ``will help build a culture of life in America. I urge Congress to quickly resolve any differences and send me the final bill as soon as possible so that I can sign it into law.''

``We have a chance today to make the world a little less cruel for the defenseless,'' said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, a proponent of the legislation.

There was wide disagreement over whether the bill would survive legal challenges, how often the procedure is performed and how many abortions the bill might prevent.

But both sides concurred that the act would influence the national debate on abortion.

The legislation is modest in that it would stop relatively few abortions, said Ken Connor, president of the anti-abortion Family Research Council. But ``it is monumental in that it represents the first real restriction on any form of abortion enacted into law in 30 years.''

Connor said it would add to the momentum toward overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that established abortion rights.

NARAL Pro-Choice America president Kate Michelman said, ``President Bush and anti-choice leaders in the Congress have crossed the Rubicon towards rolling back Roe.''

Several abortion rights groups said they would file suit as soon as Bush signs the bill into law.

``Medical decisions should be made by doctors in consultation with their patients, not by politicians who are not qualified to make medical decisions,'' said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation.

Partial birth abortion, as defined by the bill, is a procedure in which the fetus is killed after the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother or, in the case of breech presentation, ``any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.''

It is commonly linked to a procedure medically known as dilation and extraction, in which the skull is punctured to bring about the death.

Abortion rights groups say the procedure is rare, occurring mostly in the latter stages of pregnancy when the fetus is discovered to be lethally malformed. They cite one study estimating that this type accounted for less than one-tenth of one percent of the 1.3 million abortions performed in 2000.

But Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, chief sponsor of the bill, put the number at up to 5,000 a year, with some performed in the second trimester when both the fetus and the mother are healthy. ``It's horrific, it's barbaric, it's infanticide,'' he said.

Some 30 states have enacted versions of ``partial birth'' bans, but abortion rights groups said they had been successful in court challenges in about 20 states.

The most important court decision came in 2000, when the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down a Nebraska law similar to the bill moving through Congress. The court said the law was unconstitutional because it did not provide an exception to protect the health of the mother and put an ``undue burden'' on the mother because the broadly written language made it unclear which procedures were banned.

Chabot said his bill had answered those objections.

The legislation, which subjects a doctor to up to two years in prison for knowingly using the procedure, allows an exception when the life - but not the health - of the mother is at risk.

Another question is whether the high court will have the same members when it considers the issue. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens, who voted to strike down the Nebraska law, are considered among the most likely to retire soon, paving the way for Bush to nominate a more conservative justice.

Congress passed the measure twice and President Clinton, citing the lack of a health exception, vetoed it.

An alternative proposed by Reps. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and James Greenwood, R-Pa., to ban all abortions after a fetus is able to live outside the womb was defeated, 287-133. The measure would have provided exceptions to preserve the mother's life or to avert serious adverse health consequences, which opponents said would allow doctors to justify abortions.

The bill is H.R. 760.

06/05/03 09:08 EDT


Copyright 2003 The Associated Press

(Edited by truthaddict11 at 4:40 pm on June 5, 2003)

[Pete]

And I bet most of the "Yes" people where male and "No" where female.

[ratm545]

PRO-LIFE! rather i be a woman or a man, how can you delete somebody's life?! i thought leftism was full of caring people. i hate reading about how right pro-choice is. fuck pro-choice, why doesn't the future person have a choice?! you're all bastards if you think pro-choice is an answer

[Pete]

Such a statement ratm545 is assuming that all cases are the same.

[truthaddict11]

Quote: from ratm545 on 4:52 pm on June 5, 2003
PRO-LIFE! rather i be a woman or a man, how can you delete somebody's life?! i thought leftism was full of caring people. i hate reading about how right pro-choice is. fuck pro-choice, why doesn't the future person have a choice?! you're all bastards if you think pro-choice is an answer


its really sad you feel that way

[ratm545]

ok. explain to me the benefits of pro-choice vs. pro-life. because i see no logic what so ever in pro-choice.

[Pete]

Are you male? Will you get pregnant?

[ratm545]

my sex has no relevence. simply explain to me. why does some slutty irresponsible woman that doesnt make her man use protection have a right to simply delete a potential Che? Do you see what I'm saying? There's potential in these fetus's. Like in the story that CiaranB posted with Jeb Bush and all, I see that being OK. but still, I think there needs to be very strict abortion laws. we can't let it become an easy escape for women. Bethoven (sp?) technicly should have been aborted also, should the world been robbed of his talent? I know I'm rambling. But to sum it up, I see very few cases being OK, very many not being OK. In a socialist state would the state not take care of the baby if it were the product of a rape?

Somebody enlighten me.

[Pete]

The thing is who holds the right to the female's body. The man or the woman her self? A man judging on this issue is stating that he has control over 'her' body. Anyways having abortions being done in a clean hostiple is better than in an alley way with a hanger.

[ratm545]

you talk about the woman's rights, what about the fetus's? im not telling the woman what to do, But the fetus has no one to speak for him/her.

[truthaddict11]

why should a blob of cells have "rights" its a womens body and her choice what to do with it. she should have the right to abort a pregnancy in any circumstance, and it is completly relevant what your gender is. i really dont care about beethoven or mozart or any other person or leader who you can conjure up it really comes down to is womens rights not the "potential"and "rights" of a goddamned fetus.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

ratm, you must understand that a fetus is part of a woman's body. It in itself is not a living members of society, it's a developing cluster of cells. It is dependant on the woman's body, the woman created it, it has major and physical and emotional impacts on the woman, it is her responsibility, and therefore, it's her own choice. But the point is that nobody should be able to tell a woman what to do with her own damn body, do you understand now?

[Umoja]

Well at a certain point "those blob of cells" are able to live outside the womb, but are still able to grow inside it for a bit longer.....

Anyway, yeah it's stupid regardless. I think it's clamping down on rights... blah...blah... I'm only opposed to it morally, but blah blah the laws shouldn't restrict it.

That's my boring rhetoric.

[Sensitive]

This pisses me off too, but it is hardly surprising considering how blatantly fascist and authoritarian the US government is.

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from ratm545 on 11:55 pm on June 5, 2003
my sex has no relevence. simply explain to me. why does some slutty irresponsible woman that doesnt make her man use protection have a right to simply delete a potential Che? Do you see what I'm saying? There's potential in these fetus's. Like in the story that CiaranB posted with Jeb Bush and all, I see that being OK. but still, I think there needs to be very strict abortion laws. we can't let it become an easy escape for women. Bethoven (sp?) technicly should have been aborted also, should the world been robbed of his talent? I know I'm rambling. But to sum it up, I see very few cases being OK, very many not being OK. In a socialist state would the state not take care of the baby if it were the product of a rape?

Somebody enlighten me.


Your sex does have relevence. Let me tell you in all seriousness- if men could get pregnant there would be abortion clinics available on every block.

Read "If men could menstruate" by Gloria Steinem and you will understand what i mean.

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from ratm545 on 12:01 am on June 6, 2003
you talk about the woman's rights, what about the fetus's? im not telling the woman what to do, But the fetus has no one to speak for him/her.


It is only a fetus- not a person. It cannot think or live on its own. And my restricting abortion you are obviously controlling a womans body, you are telling her what to do.

Sorry to tell ya- abortion is a necessity. It is needed to save womyn's lives and to protect people from suffering. If a woman is poor and cannot afford a child why should she have it. The child would be in a horrible situation- no education, no money, no food, illnesses, etc. Do you support child living like this. There is no reason for that to be acceptable.

[ratm545]

I see most of your points on this. I guess I didn't realize it was a "just a cluster of cells". I don't know, you all are making a lot of sense and all. it's just something deep down inside me that feels like we're killing somebody.

But to this comment "The child would be in a horrible situation- no education, no money, no food, illnesses, etc. Do you support child living like this."- I completely agree, and to a case where the mother would be of harm physically.

BTW, when does it become a person? when it is delivered? certainly not because it is still dependent on the mother and basicly would not survive without the mother. when the heart starts breathing?

My sex has no relevence damnit! THAT BABY IS NO MORE THE WOMANS' THEN THE MANS'! because the woman has to carry it doesn't make it hers. egg+sperm=life. note the sperm in there.

I realize I'm about to get ridiculed, but take in what I said seriously, I want some answers. I'm going into this open minded. and by no means am i sexist what so ever

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

as far the fetus is inside the woman's womb, it is hers. Once it exists, it is an organism, it has life, it has rights.

[Conghaileach]

from ratm545:
My sex has no relevence damnit! THAT BABY IS NO MORE THE WOMANS' THEN THE MANS'! because the woman has to carry it doesn't make it hers. egg+sperm=life. note the sperm in there.

Shooting some sperm into a vagina does not make someone a father. The man's role is 5 mintues (or 30 seconds, or whatever), whereas the woman has to let the baby gestate within her for nine months.

Also, consider technological advancements like artificial incemination and as well as that you've got sperm banks and the like.

Men don't risks their lives with a pregnancy. Women do. Women have to protect the embryo as it grows and develops within them.

[Zombie]

Point well said by Ciaran

[truthaddict11]

My sex has no relevence damnit! THAT BABY IS NO MORE THE WOMANS' THEN THE MANS'! because the woman has to carry it doesn't make it hers. egg+sperm=life. note the sperm in there

are you willing to carry around a fetus for 9 months and risk your life and not have a choice about it?
I think not

[ratm545]

OK, you're all trying to prove me personally wrong and not what i'm saying like I thought. and truthaddict, don't tell me what I'd mind doing, yes the 9 months would suck, but to get such a beautiful creature at the end.....

and Ciaran, because the man doesn't go through the pregnancy doesnt mean it's not his.

you all are making me look like such a sexist :sad:

[truthaddict11]

you all are making me look like such a sexist :(

sadly you are with your abortion comments, its disturbing that people here claiming to be socialists or communists are so anti-women.

[Conghaileach]

from ratm545:
and Ciaran, because the man doesn't go through the pregnancy doesnt mean it's not his.

The baby could be the child of a rapist, but that doesn't make the scumbag the child's father.

Father is the person who takes a role in the development of the child after birth, who helps the child grow and learn.

Do you believe that people who supply sperm to those clinics should be considered fathers?

I believe you may find this link of interest..

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs...,883244,00.html (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,883244,00.html)

"[Health] Ministers found it difficult to accept that the actions of a sperm donor are comparable to the actions presently defined as those of fatherhood."

(Edited by CiaranB at 12:27 am on June 8, 2003)

[ratm545]

thank you for the link CiaranB. As a conclusion to all this, you've made me look at it from a different point of view more extensively (i'm being raised in a 'good christian' suburb, what do you expect). but anyways, i'm not completely convinced, but pretty close. I'd say i'm definitely for the government allowing it, maybe i just wouldn't take the road myself. -thanks

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from ratm545 on 10:18 pm on June 7, 2003
thank you for the link CiaranB. As a conclusion to all this, you've made me look at it from a different point of view more extensively (i'm being raised in a 'good christian' suburb, what do you expect). but anyways, i'm not completely convinced, but pretty close. I'd say i'm definitely for the government allowing it, maybe i just wouldn't take the road myself. -thanks

we're glad you've come around, ratm. Good to see a fellow comrade who's open-minded and seeks the truth instead of seeking only to defend his position.

[Severian]

Would it be OK to get back to the original topic - the "partial-birth abortion" bill - a bit?

Partial-birth abortion is a term developed by anti-abortion activists to get people worked up about how gruesome it sounds. It's not a medical term. It's not a medical definition.

The bills worked up to ban it usually have vague definitions, so it would be hard, while enforcing it, to be sure what was or wasn't banned.

There is a procedure called dilation and extraction (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction) which is sometimes used in late-term abortions. Late term abortions are not that common and are usually done for medical reasons - that is, something has gone wrong in the pregnancy, which threatens the woman's life or health, or sometimes because of likely serious birth defects.

There are increased moral questions later in pregnancy - though I think the individual woman is the one most qualified to decide these issues.

But regardless, there can be no moral reason to ban any particular procedure - the fetus is just as dead regardless of which procedure is used, whether D&X or, say, inducing labor, a procedure sometimes used in Europe for late-term but pre-viability abortions.

The decision on procedure should be made by women and their doctors based on the medical situation in each case, based on which procedure is safest for the woman. Not by Congress, as a blanket decision, based on hype by people who'd like to ban all abortion, and probably birth control if they could.

[Umoja]

We should just make artificial wombs. All our problems would be solved......

Secondly, I do think the government can in some ways tell you what "you can do" with your body. No one here complains that suicides is "illegal".

[truthaddict11]

actually i believe that only attempted suicide is illegal, you really cant jail or charge a corpse.

[Urban Rubble]

"why should a blob of cells have "rights""

That is such bullshit I'm physically mad. A baby with a head, heart, fingers, toes and lungs is not a blob of cells, it's a young child. This partial abortion thing is fucking sick, have a live baby pushed halfway out of your body, then cut a hole in it's head and kill it ? Ficking sick, how can people be for this ? I have mixed feeling on abortion and I realize it needs to be legal, but this shit is horrible.

I can see how very young girls or rape victims should have the right to abortion, but what ever happened to taking responsibility for you actions ? If you have sex for pleasure and get pregnant that' your fucking fault, you should of thought of this beforehand, now you're just going to kill the baby you were irresponsible enough to make ? Why don't we just make it legal to shoot your 5 year old in the face with a shotgun if he gets to be too much trouble ? People need to take responsibility and stop being so fucking lazy/stupid.

Like I said, there are cases where abortion in necesary, but some 25 year old couple who broke their condom should bot be allowed such a blatant cop out as murdering their own baby.

Where is the compassion we leftists are so proud of ? Since this baby isn't developed enough to come up with an arguement why he/she shouldn't be killed then they aren't worth keeping alive ? Thats sad.

[Umoja]

It seems rather pointless to abort a baby when it can survive outside of the womb anyway, so the entire concept of partial birth abortion makes no sense, unless the child has some horrible birth defect that will kill it almost instantly. So I really can agree when I see the problems with "Banning a useless practice" it could potentially be a sign of things worse to come.

[RedFW]

This partial abortion thing is fucking sick, have a live baby pushed halfway out of your body, then cut a hole in it's head and kill it ?

This is exactly the type of nonsense I am sick of encountering. Have you read anything that has been posted in this thread? So called 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term and does not refer to a specific abortion procedure- something several people in this thread have already pointed out. I would be interested to know where in the bill that was passed, as truthaddict reminded us, you located this description of 'partial birth abortion'?

I can see how very young girls or rape victims should have the right to abortion, but what ever happened to taking responsibility for you actions ?

Well, this law has taken it so far as to exclude women whose health is in danger or whose fetus may suffer if carried to term.

If you have sex for pleasure and get pregnant that' your fucking fault, you should of thought of this beforehand, now you're just going to kill the baby you were irresponsible enough to make ?

Ah, yes, anyone who has sex for reasons other than procreation deserves exactly what they get. LOL. To avoid redundancy, there is a fairly recent, extremely long thread that touched on the issues you raise. It is in 'Theory'.

[Spartacus2002]

if you dont want to have a baby then keep your fucking legs closed... if you raped then put it up for adoption and give it to a couple that cant have kids... next you guys will be like the "communists" in china and just kill babys whether they are born or not

[Urban Rubble]

"Ah, yes, anyone who has sex for reasons other than procreation deserves exactly what they get"

You're taking me out of context and you know it. This is what I mean, if you're are having sex, you should be prepared for the risks. I will never accept that it's o.k to abort a baby because you had sex without being ready to have a child. If a 16 year old girl is out having sex she damn well better be ready to care for a child because sometimes contreception doesn't work, unfortunately she can just choose to kill the child instead of owning up to her mistake.

[Soul Rebel]

If womyn arent supposed to have sex so they wont have an abortion- then i have some advice for you men: Keep Your Fucking Sperm To Yourself!!!!!! For all you anti-choice people: throw on a rubber or dont have sex if you feel it is the problem of womyn alone ("she should of thought about it first" crap)

Its horrible that people keep forgetting that men are involved in sex too. Womyn should not have "keep their legs closed." Womyn are sexual beings and should be allowed to act as so. It is the responsibility of both people involved- not just the woman. If a man refuses to throw on a rubber than that is his problem too, not just hers.

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from Spartacus2002 on 10:42 pm on June 9, 2003
if you dont want to have a baby then keep your fucking legs closed... if you raped then put it up for adoption and give it to a couple that cant have kids... next you guys will be like the "communists" in china and just kill babys whether they are born or not


That is the most absurd thing i have ever heard: to have a rapists child. Do you know the damage this would cause? Do you know how painful it would be? Damn- think about it. A child born of hatred and violence. Try to explain to a child that they were born because their mother was raped. Do you know how a child would feel knowing this. And you cant say that it doesnt have to know because it will know somehow. The mother would be resentful towards the child. It would be a constant reminder of that specific day- of the violence, the hatred of her (and of all womyn).

[ratm545]

Quote: from SenoraChe on 3:24 am on June 10, 2003

Its horrible that people keep forgetting that men are involved in sex too.


ahem ahem.... i was saying this earlier, but you all said no. even you senora

[Urban Rubble]

SenoraChe, I agree, rape victims should be able to abort. I think there are some special cases which it should be legal, but some young girl who is out having sex better be prepared to raise a child.

[RedFW]

if you dont want to have a baby then keep your fucking legs closed... if you raped then put it up for adoption and give it to a couple that cant have kids... next you guys will be like the "communists" in china and just kill babys whether they are born or not

So because I am a woman, unless I want to have sex with the aim of procreating I should not have sex? I think Redstar calls that punishing me, and other women, for being female. So, because biologically we cannot control when we conceive, we should be forced to remain pregnant and give birth? No, I am not buying that.

It is good to know what sort of people are out there to support women who are raped: You have been raped or completely degraded physically and emotionally as a person, you may be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, worrying about whether you have been infected with an STD/I, including HIV, trying to piece together what has happened to you and why, what you could have done differently and realising that any control you had over your body or self was taken and wondering if that control will ever be taken from you again and whether you will ever be able to go back to being the same person you were before the rape. You would also be worrying about going to the police, whether the rape would be taken seriously if you knew the person who raped you or whether the person would ever be caught if raped by a stranger. And on top of all this because you are a woman, you get to think about carrying a pregnancy to term and adoption.

I have argued before that adoption is not such a viable choice, particularly if the woman pregnant is not white. And the old myth that there are more happy, rich couples who want babies than there are babies is not going to be accepted either when one looks at just how many children and babies are in foster care, permanently, and how many are other than white. When these happy, rich couples are willing to pay the expenses for an expectant mother to give up her baby for adoption, they have been assured, more often than not, that the baby they are getting is white.

I would argue your position is more like those of 'communists' in China as you are both against giving women choice and control when it comes to reproduction. I want to see choice protected, and that includes all choices.


You're taking me out of context and you know it.

How am I taking you out of context?

You said If you have sex for pleasure and get pregnant that' your fucking fault, you should of thought of this beforehand, now you're just going to kill the baby you were irresponsible enough to make ?

Which I quoted and I sarcastically paraphrased what I thought you meant below.

You then said: This is what I mean, if you're are having sex, you should be prepared for the risks.

So from now on I should realise that what you say and what you mean are two different things, not very different, but still different? By saying 'if you have sex for pleasure' that seems to indicate a woman having sex for any other reason besides procreation. Which takes us back to Redstar's point about being punished for being female and having sex for pleasure.

I will never accept that it's o.k to abort a baby because you had sex without being ready to have a child.

Then don't have an abortion or do your best to find a woman who is as anti-choice as you; however, if you are going to impose what you think is or is not a valid reason for abortion onto other women, you damn well better be prepared to back up your reasons for it because I am certainly not going to relinquish control over my fertility that easily.

Is there a situation in which you would find abortion to be an acceptable choice?

a 16 year old girl is out having sex she damn well better be ready to care for a child because sometimes contreception doesn't work, unfortunately she can just choose to kill the child instead of owning up to her mistake.

Is it okay for an 18 year old, a 25 year old, a 33 year old, a 42 year old? At which age does abortion become justified and women become mature enough to make the decision that they cannot cope with pregnancy, childbirth or motherhood?

Contraception doesn't work and it is surprising how often it doesn't work, but what do you mean by contraception? Some of the most popular, effective long term forms of contraception are, in fact, abortive. If women take these, they are, in effect, aborting a fertilised egg by not allowing it to settle in the womb. Why is it okay for women to take abortive contraceptives but when these fail it is wrong to seek an abortion? I don't believe it is killing a child, but as Severian pointed out: 'There are increased moral questions later in pregnancy - though I think the individual woman is the one most qualified to decide these issues.' But I think this thread has gone off the topic of 'partial birth abortion' now.

Which mistake are you referring to, UR? The fact that she was born female and without contraception/abortion cannot choose when to become pregnant other than by not having sex at all? Doesn't sound like a choice most men would be fond of.

Womyn are sexual beings and should be allowed to act as so. It is the responsibility of both people involved- not just the woman. If a man refuses to throw on a rubber than that is his problem too, not just hers.

I agree with this.

ahem ahem.... i was saying this earlier, but you all said no. even you senora

I think there is a difference between sexual responsibility and claiming ownership to a fetus being carried by a woman and on that basis being allowed to give or deny reproductive choice to women. I think SenoraChe was speaking of sexual responsibility and the determination of some of the participants in this thread to situate all blame with women for contraceptive failure, not using contraception and simply being female when an unplanned pregnancy occurs.

I think there are some special cases which it should be legal, but some young girl who is out having sex better be prepared to raise a child.

Which cases? Why are you allowing there to be acceptable reasons for some women but unacceptable reasons for other women? Surely if abortion is wrong and is murder then it wouldn't be acceptable at all? Really, no matter what meaning you assign to it 'special cases', 'contraception', 'abortion', 'murder' it is the same end, isn't it? And who are you to decide who deserves to have reproductive choice and who doesn't? You say this hypothetical girl 'better be prepared to raise a child', the fact is, she may not be. And taking away reproductive choice will not make her any more ready to raise a child. A common argument I hear is that if abortion is totally banned women will 'think twice' about having sex (for pleasure?). What banning abortion makes women do, whatever age, when they are faced with an unplanned pregnancy, is find another way to have an abortion. Taking abortion away will not make women more ready to have children when they are faced with an unplanned pregnancy, it will make them more desperate to seek abortions even if these could potentially damage their bodies or kill them. And the women who can afford it will seek one elsewhere. In the end, all women suffer but those who suffer most and whose lives become more precarious are poorer women.

[truthaddict11]

many of the anti-choicers here take a look they are all male, give ridiculous reasons for banning or opposing choice. i am begginig to suspect a bit of male chuavanism in the left, sad sad.
Pretty soon some people may be quoting fundalmentalists with thier anti-women, anti-choice rhetoric. one such as "Men who suppport choice only do it to get with women" ridiculous isnt it?


Red FW ,SenoraChe excellent posts

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from ratm545 on 4:49 am on June 10, 2003

Quote: from SenoraChe on 3:24 am on June 10, 2003

Its horrible that people keep forgetting that men are involved in sex too.


ahem ahem.... i was saying this earlier, but you all said no. even you senora


What are you talking about? I have never said that a man is not involved in sex. I have stated many times though that because a man has sex he is not automatically a father. There is a difference in those two statements.

[Umoja]

I think the problem is that men are more involved in politics, at the current time.... Personally, I think technology can lead to better alternatives to this. Like having men become temporarily impotent or some weird crap like that.... but who knows. Technology created the issues of abortion, and it'll come up with other solutions as well.

[Urban Rubble]

"Why is it okay for women to take abortive contraceptives but when these fail it is wrong to seek an abortion?"

God, what a easy question to answer, BECAUSE A BUNCH OF SPERM AND EGGS IS NOT A BABY AND CANNOT FEEL PAIN. Do you really think there is not a difference between using birth control to sterilize the eggs and sperm and killing a developed baby with a heart brain and lungs ?

Let me ask you, straight up, do you think it's O.K for a couple who was irresponsible enough to get pregnant to kill their baby ? Why ? I don't get it.

You sit here and say all this stuff about how it's unfair to women that they can get pregnant accidentaly, I agree, but I don't think that justifies murder.

Do you not consider killing a fetus murder ? It's already been proved that they can feel pain within a couple months, long before they are usually aborted. So how can you rationalize killing a child ? Do you not consider it a child or do you just not care ?

I think it's a cop out and yes, if you are having sex for pleasure you should be aware of the risks. If I am out drinking should I not worry about the risks of driving. I could sit here and ***** "Man, humans got a shitty deal, alchohol impares our driving", no I wouldn't do that, I'd be careful.

Answer this, do you really think that because a girl get pregnant accidentaly that they should be allowed to kill a baby ? Yes or no. Because that is what abortion is, killing a baby. Don't sugarcoat it and say "It's a blob of cells" because a blob of cells does not have a brain. This is a human, make no mistake about it.

Also, Don't think I have no frame of refernce here. My girlfriend of 3 years had an abortion when she was 16, not with me, with her old boyfriend. Now that she has grown up a little she say it was the worst mistake she ever made. She knows she KILLED her child and she has serious depression issues over it.

Bottom line, if you aren't prepared to have kid, don't have sex. That's not to say you shouldn't have sex for pleasure, I do all the time, I just know that if we get pregnant than I know I have some responsibilities ahead. Thats the risk of the great joy of sex. Or at least it was, until you could just choose to kill your baby and go on without another thought.

[lenin25]

I'd have to agree with the pro-life people on this one.
Fair enough....if a rape victim wants to abort a baby it should be Ok I guess.. like many things there are exceptions

However I feel that claiming it is not killing, that you are only destroying a bundle of cells. What is important is not simply what kind of existence yo are taking away but what that 'bundle of cells' will become. Having an abortion takes away the entire potential for life, what may have been the foetus may become great in time whether or not what you destroying it before this is not justified.

I'm not saying that I'm against choice. I am not anti-choice merely anti-death. Is it really the mothers choice simply if she believes for example that she cannot look after the child well. Obviously there wil be exceptions but suppose a child which could have been aborted wasn't, I feel in most circumstances it would be grateful for its existance, however poor or ill it might be. The mother shouldn't choose to kill it, if she doesn't want it a child can always be adopted.

[truthaddict11]

She knows she KILLED her child and she has serious depression issues over it
Not all women feel "sorry" for "killing her baby" go to imnotsorry.org therse women's stories show relief after having an abortion like a burden has been lifted. You maybe can call it "Abortion Without Apology" an idea I am perfectly fine with.

You go on about "responsibilty" like any one who gets pregnant fucks without condoms or contraceptive. This is completly false.

I think it's a cop out and yes, if you are having sex for pleasure you should be aware of the risks oh yes lets not fuck just for fun sakes we all know those bodies are just for pro-creating, people do take precauations when "having sex just for pleasure" why do you think condoms and birth control exist?

[Urban Rubble]

Is your head so fucking thick that I have to repeat my self again ?

I never said don't have sex for pleasure, I said if you are having sex for pleasure (as I am) then be prepared to take responsibility for the things that could happen.

"therse women's stories show relief after having an abortion like a burden has been lifted"

Of course a burden has been lifted, I think that's the point. They no longer have to face the consequences of their actions.

Answer me these 2 questions, that's all I ask.

Do you consider it killing a baby when it has a brain a hear lungs and eyes. When they can feel pain ? Is this not considered murder to you ?

How is it O.K to kill a baby because you were having sex for pleasure ? I just don't get it, you go to bed with someone, say you are using a condom and it breaks. You get pregnant, now, you are actually claiming that because you don't want to take care of it that it's O.K to kill it ?

Again, I say, if you have a baby, and then a month later it gets to be too much trouble, you can't afford it, you don't have the time to watch it or whatever, is it O.K to kill it ? You can't actually claim that a fetus that is fairly well developed is much differnt that a month year old baby, can you ?

[Sensitive]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 9:29 am on June 10, 2003
many of the anti-choicers here take a look they are all male, give ridiculous reasons for banning or opposing choice. i am begginig to suspect a bit of male chuavanism in the left, sad sad.
Pretty soon some people may be quoting fundalmentalists with thier anti-women, anti-choice rhetoric. one such as "Men who suppport choice only do it to get with women" ridiculous isnt it?


Red FW ,SenoraChe excellent posts

I agree... it is a fucking shame to see such strong anti-choice rhetoric on a leftist forum.

[Skate in Sandals]

Wow, without even meaning to, I found Urban Rubble.

The deal with abortion, methinks, it's that it's a personal choice. It's not something the government or anybody else should have any say on whatsoever. The reasons why women have abortion are so varied that there is no way an appropriate law could be made. The fetus could either be a result from a rape, carelessness, or a flawed condom etc. etc. etc. How are we to know? And who are we to judge?

Legislation against abortion would create nothing more than more misery and loopholes, not to mention even more neglected kids forced to live a life where they're not wanted, where they're passed around from foster to home to foster home, or where they're on the streets, probably eventually going to be on and selling drugs, maybe committing crimes, but either way, living in poverty.

Whether their life is wonderful or miserable, it's not up to the government to decide on what the mother does with her body. That's the mother's choice, no one else's.

[RedFW]

Urban Rubble, I addressed all of the points you made in your post, please extend me the same courtesy by not picking and choosing which to ignore and which to address.

-----------------------------------------------------

My questions are in italics:

"Why is it okay for women to take abortive contraceptives but when these fail it is wrong to seek an abortion?"

God, what a easy question to answer, BECAUSE A BUNCH OF SPERM AND EGGS IS NOT A BABY AND CANNOT FEEL PAIN. Do you really think there is not a difference between using birth control to sterilize the eggs and sperm and killing a developed baby with a heart brain and lungs ?

I think you misunderstood the question. I was talking about contraception that is abortive- some of the most popular, long-term contraception is abortive, which means a fertilised egg/embryo (conception has occured) is not allowed to settle in the womb. These include IUD, Norplant and mifepristone (morning-after pill). So, my question still stands: Why is it okay for women to take abortive contraceptives but when these fail it is wrong to seek an abortion?

Let me ask you, straight up, do you think it's O.K for a couple who was irresponsible enough to get pregnant to kill their baby ? Why ? I don't get it.

You are presenting your opinion of a situation as fact, which it is not. I don't think women who have abortions are killing their babies. And you are also assuming that every woman who seeks an abortion was irresponsible, which I don't agree with. In fact, the British Pregnancy Advisery Service website argues that more women who seek abortion were using contraception at the time of conception than those who were not. So, labelling women as irresponsible, a common manouvre by anti-choicers, really doesn't hold up so well. This is not to say that quite a lot of women didn't use contraception. But affordable or free long-term contraception is not available to most women, and I don't think women should be punished for this failure, among many others, by their governments and private healthcare providers to make the needs of women including family planning/sexual health a priority.

You sit here and say all this stuff about how it's unfair to women that they can get pregnant accidentaly, I agree, but I don't think that justifies murder.

Quote me please. I didn't say it was unfair that women get pregnant accidentally. I did say that by presenting women with the option of getting pregnant or not having sex at all is punishing women for being female.

I don't believe it is murder. And, to borrow a question from Redstar, what should the punishment be for women who have abortions? As murderers they will receive either the death penalty or prison time if they are in the US. And will this also extend to women who use the type of contraception I mentioned? Now, what about women who miscarry? Shall we develop some sort of genetic testing to determine which women are more likely to be able to carry a pregnancy to term and which are not? And those who are unable to get pregnant the first time and carry it to term, shall we completely ban them from procreating altogether?

Do you not consider killing a fetus murder ? It's already been proved that they can feel pain within a couple months, long before they are usually aborted. So how can you rationalize killing a child ? Do you not consider it a child or do you just not care ?

No, I do not. Proven by whom? Prolife.com? And I notice you are very vague about when a fetus can begin to feel pain and also about when most abortions take place. If women use mifepristone they do so 49 days after the beginning of their last period (Planned Parenthood). And this is also the Planned Parenthood site for teens, Teenwire: 'The safest time to have an abortion is between 6 and 10 weeks from the last menstrual period. About 88 percent of the women who obtain abortions are less than 13 weeks pregnant. Of these women, 97 percent report no complications.'

And Planned Parenthood, addressing medical inaccuracies in the scaremongering film The Silent Scream addressed the myth that the 12-week fetus experiences pain: 'At this stage of the pregnancy, the brain and nervous system are still in a very early stage of development. The beginnings of the brain stem, which includes a rudimentary thalamus and spinal cord, is being formed. Most brain cells are not developed. Without a cerebral cortex (gray matter covering the brain), pain impulses cannot be received or perceived. Additionally, experts find that newborns at 26-27 weeks’ gestation (24-25 weeks’ fetal age) who survive have significantly less response to pain than do full term newborns.' Planned Parenthood also backs up this information with a statement from The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: 'We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain early in pregnancy.

We do know that the cerebellum attains its final configuration in the seventh month and that mylenization (or covering) of the spinal cord and the brain begins between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. These, as well as other neurological developments, would have to be in place for the fetus to receive pain.

To feel pain, a fetus needs neurotransmitted hormones. In animals, these complex chemicals develop in the last third of gestation. We know of no evidence that humans are different.'

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/...TM#Inaccuracies (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/silentscream.HTM#Inaccuracies)

I think it's a cop out and yes, if you are having sex for pleasure you should be aware of the risks. If I am out drinking should I not worry about the risks of driving. I could sit here and ***** "Man, humans got a shitty deal, alchohol impares our driving", no I wouldn't do that, I'd be careful.

What is a cop out? Your borrowed rhetoric? I agree that people having sex should be aware of the risks, the risks should be made known to them, the information should be easily accessible and should be relevant, unlike the rubbish under the rubric of 'Abstinance Education'. I also think that the very things that will enable people to address those risks should be made available to them cheaply or, better yet, completely free. Spare me your analogies. Sex, whether we like it or not, forms a very big part of the lives of people. And though it isn't the foundation of many relationships, it does play a part in these relationships. And once again, I never said that women got a shitty deal by simply being women. The shitty part came along when people decided women were property and that not allowing them to control their fertility was the perfect method of controlling them.

Answer this, do you really think that because a girl get pregnant accidentaly that they should be allowed to kill a baby ? Yes or no. Because that is what abortion is, killing a baby. Don't sugarcoat it and say "It's a blob of cells" because a blob of cells does not have a brain. This is a human, make no mistake about it.

I don't think abortion is murder, change the record. And I don't tell you how to respond, extend me the same courtesy please.

Also, Don't think I have no frame of refernce here. My girlfriend of 3 years had an abortion when she was 16, not with me, with her old boyfriend. Now that she has grown up a little she say it was the worst mistake she ever made. She knows she KILLED her child and she has serious depression issues over it.

Your girlfriend's experience does not speak for the experience of all women who have had abortions. Women have a right to feel whatever it is they feel, and this should be respected. Some will feel guilt, some will feel relief, some will feel nothing. Another point I would like to make about this is that women who use abortive contraceptives do not report feeling as though they have killed their children. I think there is a stigma attached to abortion and women the who seek it, as this thread quite easily proves, are demonised for choosing it. This is not attached in the same way to the contraceptives I have mentioned though they are also abortive. I think women are told exactly what they should feel.

I cannot even begin to name every film or television program I have seen in which a woman has an abortion and is portrayed suffering for the rest of her life for the 'mistake' she made. And as, I think truthaddict pointed out, this experience is just one of the many experiences women have with abortion. And yet it is only the one that presents women as impetuous and incapable of making the 'right' decision for themselves, one they will be happy with. So, while I respect whatever it is your girlfriend my feel about her abortion, I know her experience does not constitute the experience of all women, and I wonder how women would feel about abortion if they were not bombarded with messages about what they should feel. And perhaps being given unbiased support when making their decisions would also help women faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

-------------------------------------------------
Lenin25, I don't know if you have read this thread or the others about abortion, but some of the points you have raised have already been touched on.

However I feel that claiming it is not killing, that you are only destroying a bundle of cells. What is important is not simply what kind of existence yo are taking away but what that 'bundle of cells' will become. Having an abortion takes away the entire potential for life, what may have been the foetus may become great in time whether or not what you destroying it before this is not justified.

Why is it justified through the contraceptives I have listed? Why is it okay for couples using IVF to conceive to abort a fetus, often more than one, to ensure the survival of another? And attaching the idea that a fetus may become great or even grateful for its existence is neither here nor there because it may or it may not. If you are anti-death then what do you make of women who have a history of miscarrying being allowed to repeatedly get pregnant until they can actually carry a pregnancy to term? Should these women be banned from conceiving?

---------------------------------------------------

I never said don't have sex for pleasure, I said if you are having sex for pleasure (as I am) then be prepared to take responsibility for the things that could happen.

No, but what you said indicated two choices: having sex for pleasure or having sex with the aim of conceiving. By saying that women should not have sex if they are not prepared to raise a child you are automatically eliminating the option (for women) of having sex for pleasure. Thus, women can only ever have sex to procreate, which denies women the agency to be sexual beings who can have sex for pleasure because they are female and even with contraception can become pregnant when they have heterosexual sex.

Of course a burden has been lifted, I think that's the point. They no longer have to face the consequences of their actions.

So are you arguing that pregnancy is punishment for sex? What are they being punished for, being women?

Do you consider it killing a baby when it has a brain a hear lungs and eyes. When they can feel pain ? Is this not considered murder to you ?

This is neither here nor there, as I pointed out with the sources I provided. You are conflating the killing of baby (the result of a pregnancy carried to term) with the medical inaccuracy of a fetus feeling pain when aborted to give credibility to your argument. It isn't working.

Again, I say, if you have a baby, and then a month later it gets to be too much trouble, you can't afford it, you don't have the time to watch it or whatever, is it O.K to kill it ? You can't actually claim that a fetus that is fairly well developed is much differnt that a month year old baby, can you ?


You are presenting a fetus and a baby as one in the same, which they are not. And yes, I can claim that and have backed it up as well.




I agree... it is a fucking shame to see such strong anti-choice rhetoric on a leftist forum.

Sensitive, you expressed my feelings completely!

(Edited by RedFW at 10:54 am on June 11, 2003)

[vodun]

Excerpt from the testimony of Brenda Pratt Shafer before the Subcommittee on the Constitution Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives, on March 21, 1996:

I am a registered nurse... with 14 years of experience. In...September, 1993, Kimberly Quality Care [nursing agency] asked me to accept assignment at the Women's Medical Center, which is operated by Dr. Martin Haskell....

The mother was six months pregnant (26 1/2 weeks). A doctor told her that the baby had Down Syndrome and she decided to have an abortion. She came in the first two days to have the laminaria inserted and changed, and she cried the whole time. On the third day she came in to receive the partial-birth procedure.

Dr. Haskell brought the ultrasound in and hooked it up so that he could see the baby. On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beating. As Dr. Haskell watched the baby on the ultrasound screen....

Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms - everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus.

The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall.

The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I was really completely unprepared for what I was seeing. I almost threw up as I watched the doctor do these things.

Dr. Haskell delivered the baby's head. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw that baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he'd used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse and she said it was just "reflexes."

I have been a nurse for a long time and I have seen a lot of death... But in all my professional years, I had never witnessed anything like this.

The woman wanted to see her baby, so they cleaned up the baby and put it in a blanket and handed the baby to her. She cried the whole time, and she kept saying, "I'm so sorry, please forgive me!" I was crying too. I couldn't take it. That baby boy had the most perfect angelic face I have ever seen.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Typical sentimental rhetoric.
The woman obviously did not need the abortion.
she made a mistake and she payed for it.
Posting horror stories wil not convince us.
We are not gullible cretins.

[RedFW]

Yes, there are bits and pieces of Brenda Pratt Shafer's 'testimony' all over the internet. The content often varies slightly to suit the argument.

We seem to be bouncing back and forth between defending a woman's choice to have an abortion and the 'partial birth abortion' ban.

One of the problems I can see with the testimony is that, as the ACLU points out in its fact sheet about 'partial birth abortion', it is common/good practice to allow women to 'ask for a procedure that yields an intact fetus so that they may hold it, grieve its loss, and bury it' when the abortion is performed late and is the pregnancy is being terminated due to health problems relating to the woman or the fetus. So, I would wonder first if this is more anti-choice garbage as what is described is not common/good practice (something that may happen if abortion were to be totally banned). Secondly, I would wonder if such a horror story illustrated not the need to push through a vague ban that would endanger the lives of women and eliminate a safe form of abortion for women when a termination is late in the pregnancy due to health problems, but instead illustrates a need to focus on what the needs of women are who do have abortion and ensuring that their feelings and wishes are at all times repsected and that every provision is made to make them comfortable and help them with whatever emotions they may be feeling.

I think it is also crucial to keep in mind that this is not the testimony of either the woman or the doctor. So when the nurse remarks: 'That baby boy had the most perfect angelic face I have ever seen' it doesn't actually prove the fetus did not have a birth defect and the woman 'needlessly' had an abortion. I think the testimony is very carefully worded to ensure that it doesn't say the fetus was found to have no birth defect because it is possible, if it were to say this, that this could be disproved and damage the credibility of the nurse's narrative. But even if the face of the fetus indicated it didn't have a birth defect, does this then make a need to eliminate abortions that are safe and legal for women who may have themselves or may be carrying a fetus with serious health problems? Which I would think to be the reactionary stance. Or would it simply illustrate the need for rigorous testing before informing women of potential defects or health risks?

This is from an ACLU page which addresses the myths of 'partial birth abortion':

Myth: "Partial-birth abortion" bans are necessary to prevent elective, "late-term" abortions.

Fact: "Partial-birth abortion" bans are not confined to any stage of pregnancy, and third-trimester abortions are not elective.


Aren’t "partial-birth abortion" bans "late-term" bans?

No. Of the bans on safe abortion procedures enacted in 31 states, only three refer to any particular stage of pregnancy. Because the others are written so broadly, they prohibit an array of safe and common abortion procedures used throughout pregnancy.

Don’t women seek elective third-trimester abortions?

No. Women do not carry healthy pregnancies for seven or eight months and then abort on a whim. On those rare occasions when women have third-trimester abortions, they do so because their fetuses have severe or fatal anomalies or because the pregnancy endangers their lives or health.

Don’t doctors provide elective third-trimester abortions?

No. Only a handful of doctors in the United States perform third-trimester abortions, and these few do so only when the fetus is severely or fatally impaired or when the woman’s health or life is seriously at risk.

Doesn’t the law permit elective third-trimester abortions?

No. Long-standing, unchallenged statutes in 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit elective abortions by any method after fetal viability (the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb, usually at the beginning of the third trimester). For the most part, these laws conform to constitutional principles establishing that women have the right to choose abortion before fetal viability, but that states may regulate and even proscribe abortions after viability except where necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health.

Myth: "Partial-birth abortion" bans target one procedure.

Fact: "Partial-birth abortion" bans prohibit safe and common abortion procedures performed throughout pregnancy.


Isn’t "partial-birth abortion" an actual medical procedure?

No. "Partial-birth abortion" does not identify any particular abortion procedure. It is a term invented by anti-choice activists.

Don’t "partial-birth abortion" bans target the D&X abortion by stating that a physician cannot deliver a living fetus feet-first up to the head and then collapse the skull to complete the delivery?

No. The bans do not specify feet-first or breech delivery. They do not refer to delivery of an intact fetus up to the head. And they do not mention collapsing the skull to complete the delivery. Instead, most of the bans prohibit "partially vaginally delivering a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery." In most common and safe abortion procedures, the physician may deliver part of a living fetus into the vagina before causing fetal death and completing the procedure. Therefore, the bans would prohibit an array of safe and common abortion procedures used throughout pregnancy.

But if the bans did target D&X, wouldn’t they prohibit a particularly barbaric procedure?

No. In fact, some women, especially those who end wanted pregnancies because of their own or their fetus’s health problems, ask for a procedure that yields an intact fetus so that they may hold it, grieve its loss, and bury it. Moreover, intact fetuses facilitate testing for genetic anomalies, allowing women to make more informed decisions about the risks associated with becoming pregnant again.

Myth: "Partial-birth abortion" bans won’t harm women’s health.

Fact: The bans gravely endanger women’s health.


Don’t "partial-birth abortion" bans target a single procedure that no woman really needs?

No. As most courts considering the constitutionality of these statutes have found, the bans broadly prohibit safe and common abortion procedures used throughout pregnancy. If allowed to go into effect, the bans threaten to outlaw safe abortion, returning women to the perils of the back-alleys.

Don’t the bans have exceptions to protect women’s health?

No. Most bans have no health exception whatsoever and only a dangerously inadequate exception to save a woman’s life.

But if the bans were limited to D&X abortions, wouldn’t they protect women from an unsafe procedure?

No. Although statistical comparisons are unavailable, the D&X has certain safety advantages and may be the most medically appropriate procedure for some women. A D&X may reduce the risk of lacerating the uterus and cervix; reduce the possibility that fetal tissue will remain in the woman’s body, where it can cause infection; and reduce the length of time a woman is under anesthesia.

Shouldn’t legislatures prevent the use of unproven medical procedures?

No. If legislators prevent doctors from developing new surgical procedures or improving on existing ones, they will impede medical progress. Legislatures have no business micro-managing surgical technique.

[Urban Rubble]

RedFW, that was a really long post and I don't feel like writing 3 pages to argue. Unless you really want to continue I don't feel like arguing about this anymore. It depresses me and I don't think I'm changing anyone's mind. I think the reason alot of people justify abortion is because they feel they are not ending the life of a child, as you do. I disagree, I feel that something that has developed eyes, a face, a brain, lungs, a heart, arms and legs should be considered a human. I am not against the morning after pill and things like that because that truly is "a blob of cells", I don't feel that is a baby. I feel that something that has a heartbeat is a baby.

Like I said, this topic makes me sad, reading some of these posts I actually had slight tears in my eyes. I think it's murder.

If you really want me to respond to all your points send me a PM or something, I just don't feel like it.

[RedFW]

Urban Rubble, it is up to you whether you want to continue or not. My post is there for you to respond to if you do. I wasn't asking for a three page response, just an acknowledgement of my points.

I am not here to change anyone's mind, I would find the whole experience disappointing. But I believe reproductive rights should be protected, and I think finding an anti-choice position to be a credible position within the left can only alienate women from the left and any talk of empowerment of the working class will exclude them.

[Umoja]

What about the story of the woman, who was assualted by her husand, and he hit her in her womb, and managed to kill her baby (which was close to term). The man wasn't charged with murder, only assault, does that seem just? I'll try and pull up the story.

[Urban Rubble]

Maybe I will when I have more time.

As for now, I don't think abortion is a left or right wing issue, it's an issue for humans, that's enough. I also don't think it has anything to do with empowerment or the working class.

I have sex all the time with my girlfriend, neither of us want a kid or are nearly ready for. However, we accept this risk. If we knew she was pregnant we would try the morning after pill. But if by some chance she got pregnant and we didn't know until the only option left was abortion, we both have already said we'd have to keep it. Not because we want a baby but because it is the responsible thing to do. Saying women shouldn't have sex for pleasure is ridiculous, but if you can't accept some responsibility, get your tubes tied, or have your guy get a vasectomy, I just think it's a cop out to kill a human, and I believe if it has a brain and a heart it's a human.

[sglb]

How I think about it, abortion is killing a bunch of cells. It isn't inhumane or cruel. However some situations are more appropriate than others. A rape victim for example. Or someone who lives in poverty, where the person is likely to starve anyway. But I am pro choice.

[truthaddict11]

i think it all comes down to this rubble, do you believe a women should have the right to an abortion? regardless of your stance on the issue.

[kidicarus20]

Good information. Personally I don't think there is any room for anti-abortionists in communism. The people's government isn't there to regulate personal decisions, it's like trying to ban abortion in anarchy, you can't. The only thing the minority (anti-choicers) can do is try to convince the majority it's wrong so less people have them--but they can't do that because the facts are weighted against them. (IN communism people are more educated so the anti-choicers would really be in toruble)

[Urban Rubble]

sglb, so by your definition, we're all just a "bunch of cells". How can you possibly classify something that has the ability to think and breath a bunch of cells ? I agree that women who have been raped or possibly conceived through incest should be allowed to abort the babies, but women who simply think it would be easier if they killed their babies should not be allowed to.

TruthAddict, if they get pregnant from having sex for fun, then no, they shouldn't be able to choose, they should have to take responsibility for their actions.

KidIcarus, where the fuck do you get off saying there is no room for me in communism ? What does this have to do with communism ? Killing a baby is not a personal decision, it affects more than just you, it affects the baby you have just killed. You said in communism people are more educated so they will have to allow abortion, well I guarentee I'm more educated on the subject of abortion than alot of people, that is why I am so against it. This isn't a issue of whether communism accepts it, that's ridiculous.

[RedFW]

I now realise why you did not want to answer my post, Urban Rubble.

Initially, I could empathise with finding the discussion tedious, because it can be. But you are carrying on the argument without addressing the points I made earlier in relation to your argument. Maybe hoping if you ignore them they may go away? So, now you are saying you believe once a fetus has a brain it is a human. Why do you get to choose at which stage it is a human and isn't? Your previous argument was that the fetus could feel pain and it was this that made it a human and abortion murder. It may have a brain, but, if you look at the information I posted, the brain is incredibly different from that of a newborn baby. And although a brain may exist it doesn't mean it is functioning, concious or can feel pain.

You also said that some of the things you have read in this thread have brought tears to your eyes. I am assuming it is the description from the Shafer 'testimony'. Let's not conflate that testimony with the 88% of abortions that are carried out before 13 weeks of pregnancy. And also, I think it would be helpful to remember that late term abortions are not elective; they are (were?) for women whose lives were in danger or had been informed of potential suffering to the fetus if carried to term. So, if we are talking about a late term abortion and the mother's life is in danger or there will be potential suffering to the fetus if carried to term, then what is your stance? Should women whose lives are in danger be forced to carry the pregnancy as far as they can before they either die or become debilitated?

And if we are talking about abortion before the 13 week, and the fetus cannot feel pain, is not conscious and its brain is not developed to the level of a fetus in this sixth month of pregnancy (like the one described in the 'testimony') what is your argument against it? If you are going by heartbeat, then is it only a baby when the heartbeat is audible? And some women, still within the time 88% of abortions take place, find they are unable to hear a heartbeat for several different reasons, is it okay for these women to abort because a heartbeat cannot be 'detected' yet?


As for now, I don't think abortion is a left or right wing issue, it's an issue for humans, that's enough. I also don't think it has anything to do with empowerment or the working class.

I couldn't disagree with you more. What do you mean it is an issue for humans? Do humans not make up the right and left, make up politics? What I was trying to say was that if the left (meaning generally socialists, communists, anarchists) find anti-choice to be a credible position, this will inevitably lead to the alienation of women from the left and subordination of women to men .

If they are denied sexual agency (going back to what you have said about having sex for pleasure), are denied the right to control their fertility and regardless of whether they have access to contraception or not (another point you avoided) are forced to be pregnant AND consistently form the group of people that work the longest hours including both inside the home and outside AND get paid significantly less than men AND receive less benefits, promotions and pensions AND live longer on average than men then when anti-choice is an acceptable postion to hold from within the left, women and the left will have reached an impasse. Any talk of empowerment of the working class will exclude women because there can be no empowerment for women until they are firmly in control of their reproductive rights, so the 'working class' really just means men workers.

I agree that women who have been raped or possibly conceived through incest should be allowed to abort the babies, but women who simply think it would be easier if they killed their babies should not be allowed to.

Who is going to decide who 'deserves' and abortion and who does not? You? And once again you are arguing that abortion is murder, if it is murder, then why are you thinking of allowing anyone to have one, regardless of their situation?

TruthAddict, if they get pregnant from having sex for fun, then no, they shouldn't be able to choose, they should have to take responsibility for their actions.

So now it is sex for fun? You constantly present a facade of two choices when you are really only offering one, which is have sex and get pregnant. Women, without contraception and abortion cannot have sex for fun or pleasure unless they want children or more children. You are also using your definition of responsibility as being universal, which it isn't. Some people might argue that women in poverty have responsibility to not have children they cannot take care of, that their governments have a responsibility to ensure contraception/family planning/sexual health information and resources are available to everyone. Using pregnancy as punishment for the enjoyment of sex, when women do not have all the resources they need and women and children make up most of the world's poor is cruel and is a form of control.

What does this have to do with communism ? Killing a baby is not a personal decision, it affects more than just you, it affects the baby you have just killed.

I think it has quite a lot to do with it and with women as property. I was looking through some of the older abortion threads, and I found this quote from Redstar, which I think sums it up nicely: 'There was a time when woman's fertility was male property. That time is coming to an end. Some men don't like that...they want their property back, to do with as they wish. They are doomed to failure.' Keeping women pregnant, presenting them with one choice, which is being pregnant, behind the facade of two choices sex for pleasure/fun or sex for procreation is ensuring that women remain subordinate, dependent and remain the property of men.

You said in communism people are more educated so they will have to allow abortion, well I guarentee I'm more educated on the subject of abortion than alot of people, that is why I am so against it.

As for being more educated about abortion, you are the person in this thread who has produced the most myths and presented them as your argument.

(Edited by RedFW at 10:46 am on June 12, 2003)

[Urban Rubble]

First off, the reason I didn't respond in full to your post is because it was really long, I also planned to stop posting in this thread. Then I read the other few replies and they were short so I replied.

I feel like the this topic is repetitive. You make good points, but I have also heard most of them. It's a complicated issue and the reason I can take the stance I do is because I'm not the one making the laws. I feel alot of people are irresponsible and take the easy way out, abortion. I don't think that is right. Contreception is fine, I use it, but I think that you should assume responsiblility if it fails.

Either way, sorry if I pissed everyone off, it's just how I feel.

[RedFW]

It's a complicated issue and the reason I can take the stance I do is because I'm not the one making the laws.

But your stance isn't so different from the people who do make the laws.

And saying you feel abortion is wrong and presenting myths to prove it is wrong are two different things. You started with the latter and are ending with the former. I certainly wouldn't argue with your feelings, and I wouldn't denigrate them. There are certain things people are just uncomfortable with, abortion being one of them. But presenting myths which work to demonise women who do seek abortion (pain suffered by fetus during abortion) and conveniently setting arbitrary limits to decide when abortion becomes murder as well as saying abortion isn't an issue the problematises women's relationship to the left is, in my opinion, not a credible position.

And for anyone who is uncomfortable with abortion, instead of endangering the lives of women by supporting a ban on it why not support policy that will enable women to care for children they do have and prevent pregnancies they don't want. When reading through the Planned Parenthood website (I will find it if anyone would like to read it themselves) I came across a page saying that abortions have decreased, which was attributed to better information and access to family planning/sexual health measures in the 90s. But this also came with a caution that the most effective and and useful programs have lost funding or are being replaced by 'Abstinence (mis?)Education', and abortions are likely to increase because of this. Another important point is that the same people, at least in the US, who are working so hard to ban abortion completely are the same people who insist on cutting programs to help the poorest women and children in the US. Which, IMO, casts doubt on whether those who say they are fighting for the protection of the 'angelic' unborn 'babies' 'murdered' by women who seek abortion are only really offering a life of poverty and dependence- always convenient for maintaining class differences.

[ChiTown Lady]

I did not bother to read this entire post – cuz you all make me tired.

However, I am female and I am totally Communist minded in my thinking, and as a reult of this - from both a scientific and Christian point of view – I do NOT agree with mass murder and/or genocide on ANY scale – and certainly not in terms of annihilating our own children. Please – let us get away from this stance as an inherent platform. This isl NOT what we should stand for from my perspective.

There are so many other fronts to stand on that ALL have to do with SAVING lives. Why be so adamant about standing for a front that stands for taking the MOST innocent of lives? Seriously – is this what we stand for as a group?

Of course I do believe in support for the families or ladies who find themselves with unplanned children – this goes without saying – but murder and genocide is NEVER the answer to the ultimate problem in my eyes and NEVER will be.

I am totally with everything Che has stood for and will fight for it till I die - and genocide never entered into his ideology from where I have stood ever.

Jesus is also a very good example of purity.

Jesus and Che are to be learned from – and killing unborn babies in not the answer to the problem – seriously - this is not the real deal.

We need to think about saving the children.

I want to save humanity – and mass murder will not do it for me – this is my final word on that matter. I will fight for the rights of those who cannot fight for themselves - and the unborn child is the utmost victim in this realm. He/she will not be victimized in front of me without my objection to this ideology specifically.

The right-wing also hates me for being a Communist – cuz I AM – Totally Communist!!! You got that?

I am for saving humanity - and totaly against the mass murderers among us.

Pease stop mixing apples with oranges. Please.


(Edited by ChiTown Lady at 4:57 am on June 13, 2003)

[kidicarus20]

Yah, it is a left-right issue, anti-choice does equal control, and it's hard for anti-choicers to be consistent.

I think as long as we any form of capitalism abortion should be covered under some form of healthcare plan. This gives the poor options as well, and the ability to enjoy love without consequences or punishment.

Chitown, are you really communist or are you just saying you're communist? I've been to a few punk message boards where some supposed "punks" have speaken out against choice, I wonder if they are just saying that so they think we'll take them more seriously.

It isn't "mixing apples and oranges", being pro-life and communist is what's inconsistent. The goal of communism is to INCREASE human rights, not to hinder them. Also, Che was against suppression of women, he wanted to ban bosses from dating their secrataries, he saw this as a form of oppression, it's not such a bad idea, it's sad to see women who sleep with their bosses so they can get ahead--it's disgusting.

You talk about murder, well a woman being forced to carry a fetus after being raped only to find out it's a risk to her life and eventually dying from it is murder by the state if they are the ones that kept her from having it.

That's just as bad, or worse actually, than the government coming into your house and putting 20 bullets in your head.

[Urban Rubble]

Kid Icarus, stop trying to say people aren't communists because they oppose abortion. It really shows how little you know.

[redstar2000]

Kid Icarus, stop trying to say people aren't communists because they oppose abortion. It really shows how little you know.

No, it shows how much he knows and how little people who call themselves "communists" and oppose reproductive freedom for women know.

Women are not property.

That's simple, isn't it?

Their reproductive organs are not property.

Equally simple, isn't it?

No one has any "right" to control a woman's reproductive organs but herself.

What part of this is so difficult to understand?

I am for saving humanity...

That's nice. But what about the people who make up that enormous collective noun? What good does it do to "save humanity" when you would condemn half of that enormous collective noun to being slaves of their own biology.

Just exactly why shouldn't pregancy and childbirth be voluntary?

And how could anyone who called themselves a communist have any other position?

:cool:

[WUOrevolt]

im a member of pro life america

[truthaddict11]

is that something you are proud of leftistmarleyist?

[Urban Rubble]

So RedStar, is I oppose abortion, am I not a communist ?

Not saying I oppose ALL abortion, I simply think it should be better regulated. Some girl who was out having sex for fun should not be allowed to kill her child when she gets preganant, that's just what I believe.

Tell me again how this excludes me from being a communist ? I never said everyone should think like me, far from it, I just believe people should take responsibility for their actions.

"Just exactly why shouldn't pregancy and childbirth be voluntary?"

It IS voluntary, I just think that you should be ready to get pregnant if you are having sex. Bottom line.

Disagree if you want, but saying I can't be a communist because of this belief is not only stupid it's untrue.

[truthaddict11]

rubble, take the senario you and a random girl have sex, for fun, she gets pregnant, she wants an abortion. according to you she shouldnt have one. how would you stop her from having one? by showing your male-dominance?

[truthaddict11]

here is a theory post from redstars website entitledl: PEOPLE ARE NOT PROPERTY the anti-choicers please take a look

http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/theorycont...nes&start_from= (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/theorycontents.php?subaction=showfull&id=1054140620&archive=1054467213&cnshow=headlines&start_from=)


If the anti-abortion people really believe that "abortion is murder", then why do they not follow the "logic" of that position? Any woman getting an abortion should go to prison for life without parole or be executed...those are the customary penalties for first degree murder.

The reason for that waffling is, I think, simple. They don't want to kill or imprison millions of women; they want to regain control of "their" property. There was a long period of history when women's fertility was property...in Western Europe and North America, that property has been lost. They want it back!

[Blackberry]

Urban Rubble:

Not saying I oppose ALL abortion, I simply think it should be better regulated. Some girl who was out having sex for fun should not be allowed to kill her child when she gets preganant, that's just what I believe.

Contraceptives don't always work. What if they fail, and the woman gets pregnant?

If you think that the woman should not have abortion, even though she used contraceptives, then I would find that quite uncommunist.

Denying people the right to participate in sex for 'fun' is quite authoritarian. Not only do humans do it for 'fun', but also dolphins. Let's stop the dolphins from having sex for 'fun', shall we? I would like to know how you propose to do that.

And without fully viewing your views, what about if the woman cannot afford a child? Do we let her put out her child in the streets to die? What is to stop her from doing so?


"Just exactly why shouldn't pregancy and childbirth be voluntary?"

It IS voluntary, I just think that you should be ready to get pregnant if you are having sex. Bottom line.


See what I said above.


Disagree if you want, but saying I can't be a communist because of this belief is not only stupid it's untrue.


See above.

[redstar2000]

So RedStar, if I oppose abortion, am I not a communist ?

That's correct. Being against women's reproductive freedom is an anti-communist position.

In fact, it's damn near pre-capitalist...it's based on the idea of women and their fertility as property that goes all the way back to the transition from hunter-gatherer societies to nomadism and private property in animals.

Some girl who was out having sex for fun should not be allowed to kill her child when she gets preganant, that's just what I believe.

You, of course, would never have sex "for fun." I assume you're being fitted for a chastity belt even as we're speaking.

No? Then you're not only not a communist, you are a hypocrite!

I just believe people should take responsibility for their actions.

Who doesn't? You just don't like the particular way that women with unwanted pregnancies "take responsibility" by having abortions.

Let us suppose that you decided to engage in some active sport "for fun" and injured yourself. Would you think it right to be refused medical treatment for your condition "because people have to take responsibility for their own actions"? -- by which you clearly mean suffer.

I just think that you should be ready to get pregnant if you are having sex. Bottom line.

Why? Even unprotected sex results in pregnancy only about 1 out of every 80 events, or so I've read. And up to half of the resulting pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage.

So unwanted pregnancy is really a bit of bad luck for the young woman in question; the odds were 160 to 1 in her favor.

Disagree if you want, but saying I can't be a communist because of this belief is not only stupid it's untrue.

It is not "stupid" and it is true.

You, like some others on this board, have the notion that the human mind is divided up into "independent compartments" that have little or no effect on each other. So you can have "communism" in one compartment and oppression of women in another compartment and, for all I know, religion in still another compartment...all of the compartments are ignorant of each other's existence and have no influence on each other.

That's not how it works.

If you have "progressive" and "reactionary" ideas in your head at the same time, a mental "struggle" takes place between them. In "isolation", the "progressive" idea "ought" to win...it's the "better" idea. But we don't live in mental "isolation"...reactionary ideas receive overt and covert strengthening from the environment. The social environment that we presently live in, despite a nominal committment to female equality, is rampant with anti-female prejudices of all sorts...as you would know if you were paying attention.

The anti-woman "communist", the racist "communist", the religious "communist", the pro-imperialist "communist" are all caught in an impossible contradiction...which, in practice, must be resolved. Either you act in support of your reactionary ideas or in support of your progressive ideas.

When you post attacks on women's reproductive freedom, you have taken your reactionary idea out of your head and brought it into the real world...as an attempt, whether you realize it or not, to influence the real world...in a reactionary direction.

Real communists don't do that.

You did it, therefore you are not a communist.

:cool:

[lenin25]

I think the point that the pro-life people here are trying to make is not that women are property but quite the opposite. We're just saying that the unborn child isn't property eithe,r its not a thing you can just kill when you feel like it.

If a woman gets pregnant she should be prepared to support the child or at very least get it adopted....admittedly t might cause her a lot of trouble but surely its better than killing an unborn child.

Making abortions illegal in circumstances where a woman just got pregnant by accident (e.g not raped) may limit her choice but would merely be a realistic resrtiction on her choice in order to save a life. As an extreme example theres a law against murder...so it limits your choice not to kill, you get less choice but only for the good of the wider community, being against abortion may limit choice but does that make it against communism..i dont think so

[Urban Rubble]

"rubble, take the senario you and a random girl have sex, for fun, she gets pregnant, she wants an abortion. according to you she shouldnt have one. how would you stop her from having one? by showing your male-dominance?"


Actually Captain Jump to Conslusions, I've been in this EXACT situation. A girl I had been dating somewhat seriously when I was 17 got pregnant as a result of our "Sex for pleasure". I begged her to keep it, she almost did, she decided not to keep it and I said "If that's what you have to do then there is no way to stop it". Even though there was a way to stop it, there are laws in this state, I didn't because it's her body and she can make that choice.

I don't think abortion should be illegal, I think people should just have the mindset that they don't need to use it unless it's a special situation.

"You, of course, would never have sex "for fun." I assume you're being fitted for a chastity belt even as we're speaking"

I would think that a man as smart as you wouldn't make such retarted assumptions. I have sex all the time, however I know that if the worst happens and we get pregnant I'll be a man about it and raise our child. So no, I'm not a hypocrite.

"Would you think it right to be refused medical treatment for your condition "because people have to take responsibility for their own actions"? -- "

No, I wouldn't, and by the way, that's a really shitty analogy. I would go get help because for them to fix my leg I don't have to take a life. Killing a child is not my idea of "taking responsibility". Sure, it costs a few bucks, but that's a cop out.

Where you guys get this shit that I'm anti women baffles me, I'm not. You people keep saying that I don't think women should have sex for pleasure which I've already said is bullshit. Birth Control works %99 of the time, %99 PERCENT ! Now, when you take your pill then go to bed you should make the decision, "I've got less than a %1 chance of becoming pregnant, if I do, am I going to have the baby or kill it".

I don't think that is restricting womens rights and I KNOW that I'm not anti women.

You still have failed to corelate my stance on abortion to my stance on communism. I'm not against women, I'm against the slaughter of innocent babies.

[truthaddict11]

you completly contradict yourself in posts rubble, earlier you said
TruthAddict, if they get pregnant from having sex for fun, then no, they shouldn't be able to choose, they should have to take responsibility for their actions

but in a later post you say Even though there was a way to stop it, there are laws in this state, I didn't because it's her body and she can make that choice.

after the fact you deny the women of a choice of an abortion.

and denying a women sexual freedom is very anti-women and it is something you constantly support. name me one communist or socialist party that does not support reproductuive freedom or abortion rights? by being anti-abortion and limiting choiceand availibility of access to abortions is very anti-communist and leftist. PERIOD

[redstar2000]

I don't think abortion should be illegal, I think people should just have the mindset that they don't need to use it unless it's a special situation.

Well, it is a "special situation", isn't it? What could be more "special" to a woman than an unwanted pregnancy? Do you really think women react to this situation with a "Coke or Pepsi" mindset? Women generally agonize over this decision, as you ought to know.

...however I know that if the worst happens and we get pregnant I'll be a man about it and raise our child.

That's a funny way to put it. Even you admit that an unwanted pregnancy is the "worst" thing that can happen. Then, you say "if...we get pregnant"--certainly an experience unique in biological science. Then you say "I'll be a man about it" which suggests some rather interesting notions of what masculinity entails...how does making a woman go through an unwanted pregnancy and delivery "make you a man"? And what kind of a man does it make you?

Admittedly, I'm an "old-fashioned" kind of guy, but it seems to me that a man does not force his preferences on women and children...that's just wrong.

You still have failed to corelate my stance on abortion to my stance on communism. I'm not against women, I'm against the slaughter of innocent babies.

What babies? Why do you nutballs keep claiming that foetuses are "babies"? Babies can live outside the womb; foetuses can't.

The logic of your position is that pregnant women who smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol should be prosecuted for felony "child" abuse.

Even worse, in severe medical emergencies, doctors would have to "save the baby" even if the mother's life was forfeit...this was actually the unwritten practice in Catholic hospitals in the U.S. as late as the 1950s. The "innocent life" comes "first".

And you claim not to be anti-woman? When everything you say suggests that a woman is a "child-bearer" first and an autonomous human being (like men) second?

Do you think that communism is a "men-only" club?

That's why you are not a communist...though, to be fair about it, I don't deny that, in some respects, you may be pro-communist.

Redstar2000's "Stalinist" dogma: reproductive freedom for women is a fundamental right, not simply an "option", for communists.

If you are about to have sex with a young woman "for fun", minimal decency demands that you inform her of your views on this subject...and don't just spring them on her when she asks you to help pay for the abortion.

:cool:

[Severian]

Okay, here's a couple good sites on the "partial-birth abortion" myth. (Excuse me if I don't want to join the more general argument, which I've had many times before.)

Late-term confusion, partial-birth lies. (http://web.archive.org/web/20000816023328/prochoice.about.com/newsissues/prochoice/library/bllatetermconfusion.htm)

A long, extremely factual and informative article, originally from about.com's "pro-choice views" section. I had to dig it up from archive.org as it unfortunately doesn't exist on the original site any more.

"Partial-birth" abortion bans: what courts and physicians have said. (http://archive.aclu.org/issues/reproduct/pba_quotes.html)

An ACLU page.

[ChiTown Lady]

Quote: from kidicarus20 on 5:52 am on June 13, 2003


Chitown, are you really communist or are you just saying you're communist? I've been to a few punk message boards where some supposed "punks" have speaken out against choice, I wonder if they are just saying that so they think we'll take them more seriously.

It isn't "mixing apples and oranges", being pro-life and communist is what's inconsistent. The goal of communism is to INCREASE human rights, not to hinder them. Also, Che was against suppression of women, he wanted to ban bosses from dating their secrataries, he saw this as a form of oppression, it's not such a bad idea, it's sad to see women who sleep with their bosses so they can get ahead--it's disgusting.

You talk about murder, well a woman being forced to carry a fetus after being raped only to find out it's a risk to her life and eventually dying from it is murder by the state if they are the ones that kept her from having it.

That's just as bad, or worse actually, than the government coming into your house and putting 20 bullets in your head.


Am I really Communist or am I just saying I’m Communist?

Let’s analyze this topic for a few minutes if we may – please.

I can’t stand the fact the multibillion-dollar corporate interests are controlling every facet of our lives and the lives of most people walking the face of the earth today. People who are obsessed with money and power and also those who sit in awe of those who are holding the money and power all make me sick to my stomach, because they are the problem – not the solution. And those cobrones out there who insist on paying high prices to wear the logos of many of these huge corporations on their chests and asses annoy me more than any single group walking the face of the planet today (Nike, Gap, Osh Gosh, Tommy Boy, Old Navy, the list goes on and on and on and on…….).

These are the people the Capitalist Imperialist Governments are working for, as well as the Big Oil Conglomerates (like those currently profiting by the Iraqi Massacre). Our Capitalist Government is also working for huge clothing, manufacturing and junk food conglomerates like Nike, Gap, Osh Gosh, Ford Motors, Pay Less Shoe Source, Mc Donalds, Taco Bell, Burger King, Kentucky Freid Chicken, Pizza Hut, Subway etc. etc. etc.

I don’t buy their products and I lobby others to boycott these places – but it is difficult since they have stores almost every 6 blocks – and in foreign countries they are also trying to dominate the communities with their garbage. Most of these products are produced in slave labor sweatshops in third work countries, so these people are paying almost nothing to third world peasants under inhuman work conditions while at the same time the idiot Capitalist working class sheep are actually paying to buy products that they are also in turn advertising to the pubic by wearing the logos of the oppressors on their chests and asses. I just don’t get this concept of why people would even want to wear this and also pay to advertise it like that.

Why are people doing this?

Either they are so bloodthursty and primitive as to not give a shit about it or they have not been enlightened as to what is actually going on here. And of the people I have met in my life – I have to say that the split is 50/50 – half the people I know are bloodthursty assholes who really don’t give a shit who they step on and/or ruin in order to make a buck and/or “get ahead” (which means to make more money than the next guy at any and all cost) – And I also know many people who are only interested in having enough money to live without starving and also of course with a modest roof over their heads – but they want to make a difference and fight against the Capitalist Imperialist oppressors.

I belong to the latter group – the one that is only interested in having enough money to live without starving, with a modest roof over my head, and I will be spending more than 50% of my time formally fighting against the Capitalist Imperialist oppressors very soon. They make me sick and so I plan to wage a real attack.

I will be able to early-retire from my job next month (July 2003) at essentially a poverty income, but I can live on what I am eligible to get “at my age” in Costa Rica. I am only 44-years old so I will take a huge cut in the amount I will get per month, but the reason I can even do this is because I have worked at this place for 24 years. They of course don’t offer such retirement programs to people any more – the only reason I can get it is because the year they cut it out you had to be at least 40-years old and have at least 10 years with the company to keep the old plan. I was EXACTLY 40-years old that year and had much more than 10 years at that place – so I kept the plan where I would qualify to early-retire once my age plus my years of service equaled 65 (this is when you are first eligible to early-retire under the old plan which does not exist any more). BUT since I have this opportunity to do this - I plan to do it.

My time will be against Imperialism and devoted to not only being a mom to my 10-year old daughter who spends most of her time in child care now – but I will be studying and speaking exclusively about getting rid of the Capitalist Imperialists who are oppressing the globe.

This is my mission – to get rid of these bastards who are fucking with anyone and everyone who lies in their path. They are nothing but vultures and vampires and they must be stopped.

People act like sheep in this society, and from many perspectives – Why? Because they have been conditioned and brainwashed to do so. This is the mold and shell you MUST fit into in order to belong to this group or that – or in order to have this ideological view or that.

It is not as simple as that = it is all very complicated, particularly if you are a deep thinker or someone who thinks three-dimensional.

Please excuse my very long dissertation – I’m a Libra and also a little high at the moment. But based on this - am I Communist or what “label” would you put on me?

Let’s just agree to disagree on this point – ok?

I am not prepared to be militant on this single point at the moment – not until or unless the powers that be were to make abortion mandatory for those who are poor and are viewed as those who are not in a position of affording to have children – THEN I would become EXTREMELY Militant. YES! There has been this sort of oppressive tactics in places – we need to guard against this specifically too.

The whole issue can swing both ways bro – and of course I have my personal views on the topic – even if we are only talking about the scientific point.

Plus – even many of the pro-choice people draw the line at the latter stages of the babies development – those stages where the child could survive if born. This is specifically when the “Partial Birth” stage would be. This is an advanced stage of the pregnancy when the child is nearly or actually fully developed into an actually human being. Hello! This is a whole separate topic than the argument that says the fetus is not human etc. etc. etc. (which I also think is full of shit). Ohhhhhhhhh – if the fetus of a human is not human – then WTF is it?

Never mind all that – this is what I say about everything. I’m out.

ChiTown Lady


(Edited by ChiTown Lady at 3:54 am on June 15, 2003)

[Soul Rebel]

I am amazed that people keep saying "if a girl gets pregnant she should have to deal with the consquences." you dont think abortion is a consquence of this. do you think abortion is a day in the park- a ton of fun. no, its not. most womyn dont find out they are pregnant and then just decide to go get one- "well, i might as well get an abortion." it takes a lot of time and thinking. they have to think of their own future, the future of the possible child, their family, their friends, how society will punish them, etc. You really want to see what womyn go through in deciding if they need (not want because nobody wants one- its a necessity, its needed) an abortion? i suggest you read "In a Different Voice," by Carol Gilligan to understand the true process of coming to a conclusion on abortion. Its not an easy choice- but it is a life altering or life saving decision.

[Urban Rubble]

"Admittedly, I'm an "old-fashioned" kind of guy, but it seems to me that a man does not force his preferences on women and children...that's just wrong. "

RedStar, now you're just being a dickhead. I never said that bullshit AND YOU KNOW IT. If you re-read my earlier posts (go ahead, right now) you'll see that I said me AND my girlfriend made this decision.

"Why do you nutballs keep claiming that foetuses are "babies"? Babies can live outside the womb; foetuses can't. "

Wrong again. This partial abortion is sometime done 6 months into the pregnancy, a baby CAN and HAS lived outside of the womb after 6 months. And even if they couldn't live outside of the womb, they are still babies.

"The logic of your position is that pregnant women who smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol should be prosecuted for felony "child" abuse"

That may be going a little far, but tell me, do you think it's O.K for a woman to do these things ? I mean sure, it only hurts the fetus, but it later grows into a baby. Oh wait I forgot, you think the fact that cigarrettes kill you is made up capitalist propaganda.

"If you are about to have sex with a young woman "for fun", minimal decency demands that you inform her of your views on this subject...and don't just spring them on her when she asks you to help pay for the abortion. "

I have already informed my girlfriend, she shares my view. She, unlike most women, doesn't want to have a child but will if she gets pregnant. It's something called responsibility, something the human race is lacking.

And I AM a communist, well, socialist actually. Just because I think women should have their babies (when possible) instead of killing them does not mean I am not a socialist.

[redstar2000]

Now you say this...

RedStar, now you're just being a dickhead. I never said that bullshit AND YOU KNOW IT. If you re-read my earlier posts (go ahead, right now) you'll see that I said me AND my girlfriend made this decision.

But before you said this...

I've been in this EXACT situation. A girl I had been dating somewhat seriously when I was 17 got pregnant as a result of our "Sex for pleasure". I begged her to keep it, she almost did, she decided not to keep it and I said "If that's what you have to do then there is no way to stop it". Even though there was a way to stop it, there are laws in this state, I didn't because it's her body and she can make that choice.

So it would appear that I mis-stated your position somewhat. You did not "force" her to have the baby, even though there were laws that you "could" have used to do that...all you did was "beg her not to do it"--the amount of psychological pressure you put on her is unknown to us. You didn't stop her, you just made the ultimate decision a lot harder for her to make.

Well, I suppose that's fair enough, all things considered. That is, it could have been much worse for her had you wished to use those laws against her and carried out that wish.

(That such laws, whatever they might be, are an outrage appears to have escaped your notice.)

But if you desire children so badly, is it really too much to ask that you find a lady with parallel desires and hook up with her? The matter of abortion never arises when a child is wanted and welcomed, except in cases of rare genetic abnormalities.

Instead you gamble your girlfriend's future on a roll of the sexual dice...ready to have fun but likewise ready to "beg" her to have a baby even if she doesn't really feel ready for that responsibility.

Sorry, but that doesn't meet my minimal definition of "manhood".

And even if they couldn't live outside of the womb, they are still babies.

A completely absurd statement. What you're really saying is that anything I label a "baby" is a "baby"..."because I said so".

Sure, and the guy who yells the loudest in the barroom is the guy who's always right.

It's something called responsibility, something the human race is lacking.

But you and your current girlfirend, being "more than human", actually possess this remarkably rare characteristic.

May I then ask why you "godlike entities" can't keep your extramundane noses out of the affairs of us mere mortals? Cannot you celebrate your "divine perfection" and let us sinners and fuckups find our own way to perdition...unmolested by your celestial nagging?

And I AM a communist, well, socialist actually. Just because I think women should have their babies (when possible) instead of killing them does not mean I am not a socialist.

Ah, progress is being made. If a gormless twit like AK47 can support U.S. imperialism in Iraq and call himself a "socialist", then there's absolutely no reason why you can't view women as baby-making machines first and human beings second and still call yourself a "socialist".

There are all kinds of "socialists" who have and who now support or oppose all kinds of things without any attempt or even interest in theoretical or practical consistency or integrity.

You are just as entitled as anyone else to this tattered and stained cloak.

Wear it in good health.

:cool:


(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:33 am on June 16, 2003)

[Urban Rubble]

"But if you desire children so badly, is it really too much to ask that you find a lady with parallel desires and hook up with her? The matter of abortion never arises when a child is wanted and welcomed, except in cases of rare genetic abnormalities.

Instead you gamble your girlfriend's future on a roll of the sexual dice...ready to have fun but likewise ready to "beg" her to have a baby even if she doesn't really feel ready for that responsibility."

Why do you feel the need to make assumptions about me and put words in my mouth ? We made a decision TOGETHER that if she were to get pregnant we would keep it. How in the fuck are you making it sound like I'm "forcing" anyone to do anything ? Where do you get this shit ?

"May I then ask why you "godlike entities" can't keep your extramundane noses out of the affairs of us mere mortals? Cannot you celebrate your "divine perfection" and let us sinners and fuckups find our own way to perdition...unmolested by your celestial nagging? "

Fuck you. That's really all I can say. You're patronising me and making things up about me. How am I saying I'm "godlike" ? Because I would choose to let a "fetus" live rather than kill it should I accidentaly conceive one ? Is that really that hard to do ? If that's godlike than call me Allah.

You're being a dogmatic prick here RedStar. Half the things you make up about me I never say. Why you feel some need to patronize me and look like some barbaric cheauvenist is beyond me. I have never forced anyone to do anything, I have never made anyone's choices for them, nor have I made them any harder. Is it really so bad that I wanted to save the life of my child ? Man, I'm such a bad person for that.

Let me ask you this, only in semi recent times have women been able to have aboritons. So are you trying to claim that women have been "enslaved" for all of time ?

P.S, I'm not talking anything but abortion here. I don't want a thesis on how women HAVE been enslaved.

[redstar2000]

We made a decision TOGETHER that if she were to get pregnant we would keep it. How in the fuck are you making it sound like I'm "forcing" anyone to do anything ? Where do you get this shit ?

Because it is an "abstract" decision that is irrelevant until (or if) she actually becomes pregnant. Saying what you "will do" in a hypothetical situation is not the same as having to make a decision in the real situation.

Were the real situation to arise, she could change her mind and you would "beg her" (use psychological pressure) to stick to the original decision.

At that point, she ceases to be human and instead her "primary" role of incubator takes precedence...at least that's what I take your meaning to be.

How am I saying I'm "godlike" ?

Well, you said it like this: "It's something called responsibility, something the human race is lacking." The reasonable inference is that you must be "more than human" as you claim to possess this rare and unusual quality to the exclusion of all the rest of us miserable sinners.

Let me ask you this, only in semi recent times have women been able to have abortions. So are you trying to claim that women have been "enslaved" for all of time?

"Claim" isn't the word; clear statement of self-evident fact is the right way to put it.

I know it's difficult for guys to imagine it, but try. Imagine what your life would be life if at any time you could become pregnant without any conscious input into the event at all...just "nature taking its course". The more or less random convergence of chance and circumstance and wham!...there's the ordeal of preganancy and the next 15 or more years of your life down the toilet.

There are extant Egyptian recipes at least 5,000 years old for concoctions that claim they will end an unwanted pregnancy. I'm sure that women have tried to escape the "chains of their biology" long before literacy was invented. Who wouldn't?

(I might add that there are even more fertility recipes from ancient times...when a woman's status revolved around her ability to conceive male heirs from her owner/mate, she could get pretty desperate .)

To be the "plaything of chance" is, to sensible humans, an extremely undesirable fate (we used to invent "gods" so that random events had "purpose" and "meaning"...foolish but understandable). Sensible women have always tried to achieve control of their fertility. Now that objective is within reach.

Except that guys like you are still telling them it's "wrong". And you call submission to random bad luck "accepting personal responsibility", as if there is something "noble" about it.

Funny thing. Oppressors always consider submission to their fate by the oppressed to be a "noble act".

The oppressed look at things differently.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:32 am on June 16, 2003)

[rumblefish86]

This attempt to ban partial birth abortion is just another tool used by the government to oppress womens rights.

Contraceptives dont always work and there is only so many precautions you can take. If a woman becomes preganant and she feels that she cannot raise it or does not want then it should be her choice weher she has it or not.

You make abortion sound as if its something easy to do when in fact its one of the hardest choices a woman ever has to make in her life. I know women who have had abortions because their circumstances were not suitable for raising a child and what they did haunts them very badly even though they did the right thing.

Adoption is a bad idea too, how many people do you see out on the streets and in prison that were raised in care homes? When a child finds out its been fostered it destroys them totally. I recently read a magazine article about a boy who found out he was adopted and managed to track down his real mother. She told him that she didnt want to know him, he then went on to commit suicide. Surely its better for unwanted children to be aborted than to be destroyed by learning they wernt wanted?

At the end of the day, as a woman its my body and i can do what i want with it and no man is going to tell me what i can and cant do.

[Urban Rubble]

"Because it is an "abstract" decision that is irrelevant until (or if) she actually becomes pregnant. Saying what you "will do" in a hypothetical situation is not the same as having to make a decision in the real situation."

There you go again, telling me what would happen in my own life. No, it's not an "abstract" decision. We've talked about this many times, we've both been in the situation before, we KNOW what we will do. I know my girlfriend very well and I know how much pain her abortion caused, she won't go through it again. Why do you continue to make these assumptions RedStar ? It pisses me off so fucking bad that you can be so much of an arrogant prick to actually think that you know what we would do.

Some people have responsibility AND some people stick to what they say they are going to. Now, just because you don't posses either of those qualities doesn't give you authority to start prediciting our demise.

Also, when I said we had responsiblity and that the human race was lacking it, trying to act as if I was saying I was godlike is ridiculous and stupid, much like your arguement. If most of the human race doesn't like to eat broccoli, but I do, is that also claiming that I'm "godlike". I mean, I that would be a rare and unusual quality, wouldn't it. Try a little harder to insult me.

"Imagine what your life would be life if at any time you could become pregnant without any conscious input into the event at all...just "nature taking its course". "

Godamn, what a statement. There is ALWAYS input before a woman gets pregnant, it's called a penis entering your body. I'd say that's a fair amount of input. You act as if women just walk around and all of the sudden "Whoops, I'm pregnant". I hate to tell you Red, it takes a bit more than that, maybe I'll explain later. And yes, getting pregnant IS nature taking it's course, what the fuck else would it be ? Seriously, are you actually trying to claim that a girl getting pregnant isn't nature taking it's course ?

Let me ask you this, hypothetical situation. Some random chick is at a bar, Joe Sleezeball starts hitting on her, they go home and do the deed. He wears a condom, but it doesn't work. Now she is pregnant. This girl is fairly well off, nice house, clothes, she could afford a baby. The thing is, she doesn't WANT a baby, so she heads down to the abortion clinic. She gets her abortion and goes about her day.

Now is that O.K to you ? This woman obviously could have had the baby, she just didn't want to. Now in my mind, that's irresponsibility, she could have had the kid, she just didn't feel like it. I think these kinds of abortions should be made illegal. It was her fault, she made the decision to lay down with the guy, now they BOTH should have to deal with it.

Also, let's add a twist, she didn't find out till about 6 months into it. The baby has a brain, eyes, lungs, a heart (which they do at 6 months). At this point she can only have a partial birth abortion. Now keep in mind, a baby at 6 months has about a %25 to %50 chance of living, even after only 6 months. Is it still O.K ?

See, that's the kind of abortion I'm against, abortion of conveinance. Now abortion where the woman was raped or where it may kill her to have it or even that it may be born into extreme poverty, those are a different matter. I am against women who made the decision to have sex and that simply don't feel like having the baby.

Call me an oppressor of women if you must, I'm not. Say I'm not a communist, I am. You are making exagerated points, taking me out of context and trying to insult me.


Rumblefish, I would respond to your post, but seeing as how you think that adoption is a bad choice, I think I won't. If you really think it's better to kill a fetus than have it and let it be adopted, you are sad. Do you really believe that a foster home "destroys" a person ? That is such bullshit that I'm actually laughing. I have at least 5 friends that were born into foster families, none of them have any kind of mental issues. 3 of them are black and their foster parents are white. Add to the fact that they all live in a small farming community where racism runs rampant, even with cops, you'd think they must've had a pretty hard childhood, by your definition they should be out on the streets. Nope, one was an honor student in high school, popular, on the football team. The other 2 are just as happy, going to the University of Washington.

When a child finds out they are in a foster home it does NOT destroy them. Sure, maybe it happens, but on a scale large enough to justify letting them be aborted instead of born ? No. If you were in control I'd have 4 less friends and no girlfriend because they never would have been born. Saying abortion is a better choice than adoption is not only irresponsible, it's stupid and it's just plain wrong.

[WUOrevolt]

truthaddict11 I am really sorry. I made a mistake I am really a member of pro choice amreica

[redstar2000]

Let me ask you this, hypothetical situation. Some random chick is at a bar, Joe Sleezeball starts hitting on her, they go home and do the deed. He wears a condom, but it doesn't work. Now she is pregnant. This girl is fairly well off, nice house, clothes, she could afford a baby. The thing is, she doesn't WANT a baby, so she heads down to the abortion clinic. She gets her abortion and goes about her day. Now is that O.K to you ?

Of course it's "ok to me"...not that it's any of my business to begin with. Or yours!

Also, let's add a twist, she didn't find out till about 6 months into it. The baby has a brain, eyes, lungs, a heart (which they do at 6 months). At this point she can only have a partial birth abortion. Now keep in mind, a baby at 6 months has about a %25 to %50 chance of living, even after only 6 months. Is it still O.K ?

I am admittedly not an expert on female biology, but I find your scenario a bit "far-fetched"...how is it possible for a woman not to be aware that her periods have stopped? For six months???

My understanding is that while it is sometimes possible to keep six and seven month foetuses alive, it requires rather elaborate and expensive medical technology and the survival rates are poor.

When you contrast this to the fact that in the advanced capitalist countries--where such technology is even available--millions of living children don't even receive basic medical care (particularly in the United States, of course), it seems to me at best that your scenario is skewed in the wrong direction.

If saving children is really important to you, why not save the millions that are living and wanted first?

Your scenario involves pumping resources into saving one marginal foetus (unwanted) that could benefit dozens or even hundreds of living children (wanted).

But to give you a straight answer: yes, it's still "ok with me" and it's still none of my business...or yours!

Some people have responsibility AND some people stick to what they say they are going to. Now, just because you don't posses either of those qualities doesn't give you authority to start prediciting our demise.

Goodie for you. I, of course, have already admitted being a miserable sinner, unfit to challenge your moral superiority.

I just don't think it gives you any right to tell other people how to conduct their sex-lives...especially women.

Call me an oppressor of women if you must, I'm not. Say I'm not a communist, I am.

Well, your own words indicate that you think women should "let nature take its course"...that sounds like oppressing women to me. And your evident hostility to reproductive freedom for women sounds like an anti-communist position to me.

So I will regard you as an oppressor of women and, at best, another incoherent "socialist" (not a communist) until you show me that you've changed your mind and are willing to defend reproductive freedom for women as an absolute right.

I can't help it if you think that's "insulting". I think it's the plain truth.

:cool:

[Urban Rubble]

I don't think what you said in that post was insulting, I think making assumptions about my beliefs and patronizing me to the point of saying I think I am "godlike" is insulting.

"I just don't think it gives you any right to tell other people how to conduct their sex-lives...especially women. "

When did I tell anyone what to do ? I never did, I simply entered a thread and stated my beliefs. I don't go around telling people what to do, show me where I have and I'll apologize. I believe abortion is wrong, sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but generally I'm against it. That doesn't mean I tell people what to do any more than you do by being for abortion. I don't protest it or anything of the sort. In fact, I wouldn't even make it illegal if I could because I'm sure the laws would be twisted and contorted therefore fucking women even worse, I just wish people would choose not to do it.

"So I will regard you as an oppressor of women and, at best, another incoherent "socialist" (not a communist) until you show me that you've changed your mind and are willing to defend reproductive freedom for women as an absolute right. "

Oh please let me change what I believe so the almighty RedStar can accept me into his narrow view of what a communist should be.

I'm not anti women, say it till you're blue in the face, it won't make it true. If I was I think it's fairly obvious that I would not have a girlfriend or any female aquaintances, after all, my views are so rabidly anti-women, but I have both of those things. I don't oppose women or birth control, I just wish people would think more before having sex.

[truthaddict11]

Quote: from leftistmarleyist on 7:48 pm on June 16, 2003
truthaddict11 I am really sorry. I made a mistake I am really a member of pro choice amreica

its ok

[redstar2000]

... I just wish people would think more before having sex.

Well, this strikes me as a considerable departure from your previous statements. Perhaps I have indeed drastically misunderstood your views.

Is it fair to say that while you do not approve of abortion, you nevertheless recognize any woman's right to have one if she decides she wants one?

In other words, are you willing to confine your disapproval to your own person...and otherwise let folks go their way as they see fit?

I don't mean to suggest that you don't have the "right" to attempt to talk someone out of what you perceive to be a bad decision (hell, I do that all the time on this board). I don't think that is a good thing for men to do in this situation...but some will certainly try on both sides. If you or others who are against abortion under nearly all circumstances succeed in persuading a young woman to bear a child that she really doesn't want, I think that says something less than complimentary about her and bodes ill for the child.

But to each their own, I suppose. I think you will discover that a growing number of women will not be tolerant of male interference in these matters...and rightfully so.

Now, let's look at the statement: exactly why should one think "more" before having sex, and what would you have them think about?

One could, I suppose, say the same thing about eating, smoking, drinking...and a great many activities that humans pursue for pleasure.

Note that word pleasure. Perhaps it is a matter over which rationality has only limited utility. If one deliberately avoids all pleasures, one will, no doubt, increase one's life expectancy substantially...perhaps as much as decade or two, dying at 85 instead of 65.

Is it "worth it"? Only each person can decide that.

I suppose by your standards I was, when I was younger, something of that "Joe Sleazeball" that you referred to in an earlier post...that is, I never passed up the opportunity to have sex with an attractive, willing female, with no intention whatsoever of ever becoming a father. Had one of those ladies become pregnant, I would have urged abortion without a second thought (and would have paid for the procedure and gone with her to the clinic).

And, I suppose, if she had insisted on having the baby, I would have had to stay with her and help raise the kid...though I would have been deeply and profoundly pissed off at the stupid randomness of "nature".

You see, I don't believe in just letting "nature take its course." If there are negative consequences to our pleasures, I don't believe we should therefore give them up; I believe we should intervene and remove those consequences as best we can.

Our technology is still very primitive, of course...and our interventions are often ineffective. That will change...as indeed it has changed over the last couple of centuries.

But I don't believe we should have to carefully weigh the risks and advantages of every pleasurable opportunity; I think we should simply enjoy our pleasures and have as many of them as we can.

For whether we abstain or indulge, we are all worm shit in the end.

:cool:

[Urban Rubble]

"For whether we abstain or indulge, we are all worm shit in the end."

Well, I can agree with that.


"Now, let's look at the statement: exactly why should one think "more" before having sex, and what would you have them think about?

One could, I suppose, say the same thing about eating, smoking, drinking...and a great many activities that humans pursue for pleasure. "

I woul dhave them think about the consequences of what might happen. I mean, even if you are planning on abortion in the case of pregnancy, you should still think about this because let's face it, abortion is no "treat", plus it costs money, so yes, I think you should definately think about it. Sex is alot bigger of a deal than eating, smoking and drinking.

"Is it fair to say that while you do not approve of abortion, you nevertheless recognize any woman's right to have one if she decides she wants one?"

Basically, ya. I don't advocate taking that right away from women for a few reasons, there would almost undoubtedly be some kind of stipulation or some way to fuck it up. I don't advocate more stupid laws because they are seldom what they seem.

I realize I have no right to tell any woman what to do, I simply believe abortion is wrong. Now, am I going to go march in a pro life rally ? Am I going to go bomb an abortion clinic ? Fuck no, pro lifers are for the most part idiots, I would'nt want abortion to be illegal anyways. As for the bomb, I'll just save that pipe bomb for NikeTown.

As I said before, I jsut wish people would think things through instead of fucking up and looking for the quick fix.

(Edited by Urban Rubble at 5:32 am on June 18, 2003)

[Moskitto]

Quote: from SenoraChe on 3:28 am on June 10, 2003

Quote: from Spartacus2002 on 10:42 pm on June 9, 2003
if you dont want to have a baby then keep your fucking legs closed... if you raped then put it up for adoption and give it to a couple that cant have kids... next you guys will be like the "communists" in china and just kill babys whether they are born or not


That is the most absurd thing i have ever heard: to have a rapists child. Do you know the damage this would cause? Do you know how painful it would be? Damn- think about it. A child born of hatred and violence. Try to explain to a child that they were born because their mother was raped. Do you know how a child would feel knowing this. And you cant say that it doesnt have to know because it will know somehow. The mother would be resentful towards the child. It would be a constant reminder of that specific day- of the violence, the hatred of her (and of all womyn).


An old school teacher of mine had a friend who was conceived during a rape.

[Moskitto]

Quote: from Umoja on 11:10 pm on June 11, 2003
What about the story of the woman, who was assualted by her husand, and he hit her in her womb, and managed to kill her baby (which was close to term). The man wasn't charged with murder, only assault, does that seem just? I'll try and pull up the story.


In the UK that would be a serious criminal offense.

[Moskitto]

Even worse, in severe medical emergencies, doctors would have to "save the baby" even if the mother's life was forfeit...this was actually the unwritten practice in Catholic hospitals in the U.S. as late as the 1950s. The "innocent life" comes "first".

I believe you are refering to a "terminal pregnancy", they are not an exclusively catholic practice, they can occur if fathers request them and the mother agreed prior to death.

[Moskitto]

Wrong again. This partial abortion is sometime done 6 months into the pregnancy, a baby CAN and HAS lived outside of the womb after 6 months. And even if they couldn't live outside of the womb, they are still babies.

I know 2 people like that, one of them is a high-level international athlete.

[Severian]

Quote: from Moskitto on 12:02 pm on June 18, 2003

Even worse, in severe medical emergencies, doctors would have to "save the baby" even if the mother's life was forfeit...this was actually the unwritten practice in Catholic hospitals in the U.S. as late as the 1950s. The "innocent life" comes "first".

I believe you are refering to a "terminal pregnancy", they are not an exclusively catholic practice, they can occur if fathers request them and the mother agreed prior to death.


No. The point is not birth after death.

The point is when a medical procedure might save the mother but kill the fetus, they refuse to do it.

[Severian]

Quote: from Moskitto on 11:27 am on June 18, 2003

Quote: from Umoja on 11:10 pm on June 11, 2003
What about the story of the woman, who was assualted by her husand, and he hit her in her womb, and managed to kill her baby (which was close to term). The man wasn't charged with murder, only assault, does that seem just? I'll try and pull up the story.


In the UK that would be a serious criminal offense.


It should be considered an attack on the woman, not on the fetus. Part of the damage to her was causing her to miscarry.

That's part of establishing who is the person here.

[Severian]

Quote: from ChiTown Lady on 9:41 am on June 15, 2003
[quote]Quote: from kidicarus20 on 5:52 am on June 13, 2003
Plus – even many of the pro-choice people draw the line at the latter stages of the babies development – those stages where the child could survive if born. This is specifically when the “Partial Birth” stage would be. This is an advanced stage of the pregnancy when the child is nearly or actually fully developed into an actually human being.


No. The anti-"partial-birth" laws do not specify a stage of pregnancy, but rather a procedure.

I'd encourage you to read the links I posted earlier.

(Edited by Severian at 6:29 pm on June 20, 2003)

[Moskitto]

No. The point is not birth after death.

The point is when a medical procedure might save the mother but kill the fetus, they refuse to do it.


ooops, sorry, i misunderstood the practice described, yes i agree that is a disgusting practice (killing the woman to save the fetus.)

[Moskitto]

It should be considered an attack on the woman, not on the fetus. Part of the damage to her was causing her to miscarry.

That's part of establishing who is the person here.


Yes that is the way it works, if the assault kills the fetus (a wanted one) it is a more serious than just a normal assault.

[Moskitto]

No. The anti-"partial-birth" laws do not specify a stage of pregnancy, but rather a procedure.

I'd encourage you to read the links I posted earlier.

(Edited by Severian at 6:29 pm on June 20, 2003)


yes they do specify a proceedure, I am still wondering why anyone would consider this proceedure, surely a lethal injection is far more effective, isn't this basically how matadors kill bulls anyway?

(Edited by Moskitto at 1:18 pm on June 22, 2003)

[Severian]

Quote: from Moskitto on 10:07 pm on June 21, 2003

No. The anti-"partial-birth" laws do not specify a stage of pregnancy, but rather a procedure.

I'd encourage you to read the links I posted earlier.

(Edited by Severian at 6:29 pm on June 20, 2003)


yes they do specify a proceedure, I am still wondering why anyone would consider this proceedure, surely a lethal injection is far more effective, isn't this basically how matadors kill bulls anyway?

(Edited by Moskitto at 1:18 pm on June 22, 2003)


You don't understand why? Possibly because that's because you're not a doctor.

In some cases, it's the medically safest procedure, according to people who are doctors. There can be no moral question about whether one or another surgical procedure is used, for an abortion at the same stage of pregnancy.

And if they start banning surgical procedures because they're gross and yucky, where does that stop?

[Moskitto]

The reason given for using the "partial birth" method was that it left a corpse for the mother, however a lethal injection would leave a far more intact corpse and be far less cruel than ramming a pair off scissors through the medulla, opening them before sucking the brain out with a glorified vacuum cleaner.

[Severian]

Quote: from Moskitto on 10:33 pm on June 22, 2003
The reason given for using the "partial birth" method was that it left a corpse for the mother, [quote]

WTF? Who wants to take their aborted fetus home with them? Where do you get this stuff?

Again, read the links. If want to be ignorant, I can't help you be otherwise.

[quote]however a lethal injection would leave a far more intact corpse

Which is precisely why it would be unsafe. The reason the fetal skull is collapsed during dilation and extraction (again, there's no such thing as "partial birth") is to make the extraction easier. Esp. since its often used w/ hydrocephalic (large head, almost no brain) fetuses.

And where do you get this lethal injection stuff from? Is there somebody who uses this as an abortion method? Or are you just inventing new methods? Don't you think some medical knowledge is required to do that?

If you read the about.com link, she points out that the alternative, used in Europe, is simply to induce labor. Before viability, no special procedure to kill the fetus is required. Post-viability abortions are rare, and can already be regulated under Roe v. Wade.

[redstar2000]

The "godly" up to their usual "good works"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3009692.stm

:cool:

[truthaddict11]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:38 am on June 23, 2003
The "godly" up to their usual "good works"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3009692.stm

:cool:

I have heard of people like this before, really sad when you have to board a ship in order to recieve an abortion when you should be able to get one at a clinic or hospital in your country or area.