don't let anti-choice extremists win the fight

[Actuary 3]

Ice and Jeff:we are so far apart on this that its not even constructive to debate.If I think an unborn child is just as sacred as the mother, then we can't really get anywhere, can we?If you think the living mass of tissue can be removed like a benign tumour, then nothing I say will matter.It's not a privacy/choice issue to me. It's a human life issue. I cannot choose to kill aonther human...and I see an unborn baby as a human.And if we can't agree on what the issue is, then the discussion is moot, right?so I"ll will leave it at that.

[TheIceman05 0]

Ice and Jeff:we are so far apart on this that its not even constructive to debate.If I think an unborn child is just as sacred as the mother, then we can't really get anywhere, can we?If you think the living mass of tissue can be removed like a benign tumour, then nothing I say will matter.It's not a privacy/choice issue to me. It's a human life issue. I cannot choose to kill aonther human...and I see an unborn baby as a human.And if we can't agree on what the issue is, then the discussion is moot, right?so I"ll will leave it at that.

1) Look up moot in the dictionary. I think you'll be surprised.2) I was not trying to change your mind... I wasn't trying to tell you that you're wrong (even though I think you are). I was just telling you that the people you elected to serve your interests might be fighting for the same result, but for a different reason.3) How do you feel about the Death Penalty?Ice

[Actuary 3]

moot can mean irrelevantI see it aslo means other things.I care about the motivations of politicians; however, it has not relvance to me in this issue. I'll be aware of the "slippery slope" if they start telling me I can't sleep with my wife when she "has an issue". I generally am for the death penalty, if we can have overwhelming proof of the guilt. And I'm aware of mistakes and that is aweful.Not 1.5 MM though.

[Jeff 0]

Ice and Jeff:we are so far apart on this that its not even constructive to debate.If I think an unborn child is just as sacred as the mother, then we can't really get anywhere, can we?If you think the living mass of tissue can be removed like a benign tumour, then nothing I say will matter.It's not a privacy/choice issue to me. It's a human life issue. I cannot choose to kill aonther human...and I see an unborn baby as a human.And if we can't agree on what the issue is, then the discussion is moot, right?so I"ll will leave it at that.

I think you have made our point. Thankfully today you still have that choice. Others disagree with you. Why force your notion of morality on someone else? Let others choose what they want to do. If you are so appalled at the murder that you cannot let it stand, what about all the other wrong doings, death in the inner cities, and social injustices that are happening in the country. why put so much energy into this when that energy can be channeled for so many other positive things?

[renaedawn 1]

3) How do you feel about the Death Penalty?Ice

This is always an interesting question to pose in discussions like this. I wonder what the answer will be. (I think I might already know.)*Edit, guess I should have read on before posting that. Further reading confirms my suspicion. I love how people clamor to stop the killing of an unborn fetus but have no qualms about killing a person who's already here living and breathing.

[Actuary 3]

renaedawnit's easy.One is innocent.My problem with the Death Penalty only stems from not being 100% certain of the guilt. Now, there I see an issue. But equating Jefferey Dahmer with an unborn "fetus" is lunacy.Jeff: So if the law said you can choose to shoot your 2 yr old...I should not stop you?I look at a "fetus" as a human, living animal.Call me whacky.But that is why your arguments don't make sense in this paradigmJust like, I assume, you want laws against killing 4 yr old; I want laws against abortion. See?

[renaedawn 1]

But by your own admission life is sacred. Innocence or guilt isn't part of the issue. Life is life.Most interpretations of the 10 commandments say thou shalt not kill. It doesn't say thou shalt not kill except in the case of mass murdering fuckheads.You can't ride both sides of the fence on this one.

[Actuary 3]

are you suggesting God is against Capital punishment?I don't know.But many who know/follow the Bible better than me are pro-death penalty, much more strongly than me. I would gladly give up the Death Penalty issue. I struggle with it. Generally I want them to stay behind bars forever.I have trouble with this logic:Pregnant women should not be allowed to smoke crack because it might harm the fetus. But they can have its brain sucked out.We have laws protecting animals. I just think of a fetus as a higher form of life than a dog.

[renaedawn 1]

I'm not suggesting that God is against capital punishment. I would never presume to speak for God (if he exists). I am merely saying that if life is sacred then life is sacred. It is hypocritical to say that life is sacred when it is a fetus but not sacred when it is Jeffrey Dahmer.And whether or not a fetus is a higher life form than a dog is the entire issue that 2 parties on opposite sides will never agree upon.Since it cannot be agreed when life begins, this argument will never be resolved.I just find it interesting and a bit telling that people in general seem to think it's okay to apply principles where they want them but not across the board. And that goes for both sides of the issue.

[Actuary 3]

I like your style.we'll agreee to disagree on this issue of abortionyour hypocrisy points are valid.I should stick Strategy, debating moral issues is kinda fruitless.

[Jeff 0]

Jeff: So if the law said you can choose to shoot your 2 yr old...I should not stop you?

The 2 yr. old is outside in the workd. no government has any business inside any woman's vagina. Those issues are between a woman and her gynecologist.Further, no person has the right to impose their view of morality on me and try to make it law.

[Jeff 0]

I'm not suggesting that God is against capital punishment.  I would never presume to speak for God (if he exists).  I am merely saying that if life is sacred then life is sacred.  It is hypocritical to say that life is sacred when it is a fetus but not sacred when it is Jeffrey Dahmer.And whether or not a fetus is a higher life form than a dog is the entire issue that 2 parties on opposite sides will never agree upon.Since it cannot be agreed when life begins, this argument will never be resolved.I just find it interesting and a bit telling that people in general seem to think it's okay to apply principles where they want them but not across the board.  And that goes for both sides of the issue.

Quite frankly I don't know if it is an issue of when life begins for me. It is more of an issue of when a person has rights, or when the state can protect a person. I don't think this can happen while it is inside another person. Further I don't know why this is such a strong cause of the fundamentalists. Clearly I see the other side of the issue. But why does it have to be legislated? Pro Choice allows the freedom for both sides to follow their beliefs. I am on the side of more freedom.

[Actuary 3]

Jeff:I see your point.Do you see mine?I'm not asking, if you understand why I would believe it, but do you understand what I'm saying???I think the baby in your wife's vagina should have rights of protection.Just like I think your 2 yr old should. Its about when the rights of the child begin. I say at conception...you say at birth.am I correct? (in assessing your opinion)Don't extract 1 line from this, please.

[Jeff 0]

I do see your point and do understand what you are saying. I guess that is what I am say... that the person should be protected at birth.

[TheIceman05 0]

Jeff:I see your point.Do you see mine?

I actually don't see Jeff's point at all. The argument you're making, Jeff, really doesn't make sense. To be pro-choice, you HAVE to believe that a fetus doesn't constitute life. I happen to feel that way, though I am against late-term abortion in general, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Hell, I don't feel all that GOOD when I argue from the pro-choice corner... I don't think anybody should. There's a moral gray area there, and as a man (nominally, at least) I realize this REALLY isn't a situation I'm totally fit to judge. Hence part of the reason for my pro-choice standpoint. I could NEVER feel comfortable telling a woman, "You're going to bear that child whether you like it or not!"I second Renae's insightful death penalty arguments. She made the points I was going to make (but I was gonna be more verbose and dumb about it). Cheers, Renae.Ice

[jtwoms 0]

Let me take a crack at this:For those who are Pro-Choice, myself included, we feel that the abortion issue is about a lot more than just abortion. For me, I don't want my government telling me what I should and should not do with my life. I hate the statistics about how many fetus' are killed, it really makes me sad, but anti-abortion legislation would just be the tip of the iceberg. Such legislation could bring around a new era of government, based upon strict morality. So in closing, for all of you Pro-Lifer's, I commend you, do everything you can to save any form of life that you can, but stop pushing the morality issue down everyone's throats.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Let me take a crack at this:For those who are Pro-Choice, myself included, we feel that the abortion issue is about a lot more than just abortion. For me, I don't want my government telling me what I should and should not do with my life. I hate the statistics about how many fetus' are killed, it really makes me sad, but anti-abortion legislation would just be the tip of the iceberg. Such legislation could bring around a new era of government, based upon strict morality. So in closing, for all of you Pro-Lifer's, I commend you, do everything you can to save any form of life that you can, but stop pushing the morality issue down everyone's throats.

Our whole system of laws are based on morality. It is immoral to steal or rape so it is against the law. It just a matter of who sets what the morality standards are. Should it be up to a Supreme court ruling that pulls rights out of thin air our should it be decided by the people through their duly elected government bodies?For me it is a simple equation. A unborn fetus is a child. Killing it is wrong. A woman made her choice when she chose to have sex (but then there is the whole rape thing witch isn't as straight forward.)BTW I am very impressed with how this thread has bean conducted with respect for others views.

[nealdo17 0]

Don't Let Anti-Choice Extremists Win the Fight for the Supreme Court For the first time in over a decade, there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Unless we act quickly and forcefully, the Bush administration will make sure it's filled by a right-wing activist bent on ending a woman's right to choose.Send a message to your U.S. senators right now urging them to block the nomination of a right wing conservative supreme court judicial nominee who will overturn Roe v. Wade

Dont worry with John Roberts! I am totally against you and wish Bush would have chosen Edith, bu the vote will still be 3-6 and a law that has been wrong for many years will not be made right. . .yet.

[Jeff 0]

Jeff:I see your point.Do you see mine?

I actually don't see Jeff's point at all. The argument you're making, Jeff, really doesn't make sense. To be pro-choice, you HAVE to believe that a fetus doesn't constitute life. I happen to feel that way, though I am against late-term abortion in general, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Hell, I don't feel all that GOOD when I argue from the pro-choice corner... I don't think anybody should. There's a moral gray area there, and as a man (nominally, at least) I realize this REALLY isn't a situation I'm totally fit to judge. Hence part of the reason for my pro-choice standpoint. I could NEVER feel comfortable telling a woman, "You're going to bear that child whether you like it or not!"I second Renae's insightful death penalty arguments. She made the points I was going to make (but I was gonna be more verbose and dumb about it). Cheers, Renae.Ice

Clearly a late term fetus it alive. It smiles, sucks its thumb, I'm not sure when it becomes alive. It is probably not during the first trimester. To me it is not an issue of the fetus, but an issue of the mother.

[mk 11]

I'd like to add that the term "partial-birth abortion" is NOT a term that is recognized by the medical community, but rather one that was invented by conservative politicians. In fact, it is not defined in any medical textbook. It was invented in order to compromise Roe v. Wade and is seen as a first step in banning abortion altogether. No democratic congressman or democratic party supporter is "in favor" of the so-called partial birth abortion, but they continue to vote against the bans because the language is often so general that doctors could be in violation of the law for performing standard abortions.Myth: "Partial-birth abortion" bans prohibit only abortions performed late in pregnancy.Fact: "Partial-birth abortion" bans prohibit safe and common abortion procedures performed throughout pregnancy.Aren't "partial-birth abortion" bans "late-term" bans?No. When the United States Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's so-called "partial-birth abortion" ban, it did so in part because it found the ban's language encompassed the most common method of second-trimester abortion. Don't "partial-birth abortion" bans apply only to a particular stage of pregnancy?No. Of the more than 30 bans enacted since 1995, only three refer to any particular stage of pregnancy. All the others apply throughout pregnancy."Partial-birth abortion" bans prohibit only one particular abortion procedure."Partial-birth abortion" bans prohibit an array of safe and common abortion procedures performed throughout pregnancy.Isn't "partial-birth abortion" an actual medical procedure?No. The term "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 only DX abortions?No. When the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's so-called "partial-birth abortion" ban, it did so in part because it found the law banned the most common method of second-trimester abortion. "Even if the statute's basic aim is to ban DX," the Court held, "its language makes clear that it also covers a much broader category of procedures." (Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 939 (2000).)"Partial-birth abortion" bans won't harm women's health."Partial-birth abortion" bans gravely endanger women's health.Don't the bans have exceptions to protect women's health?No. Almost all the bans have no health exception whatsoever and only a dangerously inadequate exception to save a woman's life.Isn't a health exception unnecessary?No. When the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's ban, it did so in part because the ban failed to include a health exception. The Court has long held that laws restricting abortion access must contain an exception to protect women's health.But if the bans were limited to DX abortions, wouldn't they protect women from an unsafe procedure?No. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists a DX "may be the best or most appropriate abortion procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman." (ACOG Statement of Policy: Abortion Policy, September 2000.) Likewise, although the Supreme Court established that Nebraska's ban was broad, it held that even if a "partial-birth abortion" ban were targeted narrowly at DX, "a statute that altogether forbids DX creates a significant health risk." (Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 938 (2000).)Shouldn't legislatures prevent the use of new, unproven medical procedures?No. If legislators prevent doctors from developing new surgical procedures or improving existing ones, they will impede medical progress. Legislatures will inevitably endanger patients if they micromanage surgical techniques from the state house."Partial-birth abortion" bans are necessary to prevent elective abortions late in pregnancy."Partial-birth abortion" bans are not confined to any stage of pregnancy, and third-trimester abortions are not elective.Don't women seek 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. Moreover, women do not carry healthy pregnancies for seven or eight months and then abort on a whim. On those extremely 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.Congress drafted the current federal "partial-birth abortion" ban so that it reaches only one procedure and safeguards women's health.The most recent federal "partial-birth abortion" legislation is still a broad and dangerous ban.Isn't the current federal ban limited to abortions performed late in pregnancy? Hasn't Congress limited the current federal ban to one procedure?No. The ban applies throughout pregnancy. Far from describing one discrete abortion procedure, the ban's definition, like that in the Nebraska law, sets forth steps that physicians take routinely in performing a variety of safe, common abortion procedures throughout pregnancy. Doesn't the current federal ban have an exception to protect women's health?No. Contrary to the Supreme Court ruling that a law restricting women's access to abortion must contain a health exception, the current federal ban lacks any exception.