(Untitled)

Aug 26, 2004 19:49

Today a judge declared that the partial-birth abortion ban in the United States is unjust. This is likely to be a long meandering thought process, so I've cut for those who don't care, or don't want to hear my opinion. :)

Abortion. )

religon: general, issue: politics and government, issue: abortion

Leave a comment

Comments 18

wishonpinkstars August 26 2004, 18:47:14 UTC
I totally, 1000% agree with you.
I think you're reasons for it are completely right. But I am against partial birth abortions as well. It is murder. Because at 9 months, if you can go thru with an abortion you're a murderer. You should have decided you didn't want it from the begining.
I totally agree with you

Reply

xtremeroswellia August 26 2004, 19:37:00 UTC
Right on :)

Reply


nypdbosco August 26 2004, 18:49:34 UTC
I pretty much agree with you on everything, and you've started to sway my opinion on matter A. However I've known too many sexually active females who've used abortion as their means of "safe sex". I think there should be some kind of limit or something...maybe females who have too many "whoops, it was an accident" abortions should...I don't know...have certain parts of their anatomy reconstructed or something :)

Reply

xtremeroswellia August 26 2004, 19:35:26 UTC
At the very least they should be -forced- to use birth control. :)

Reply

tylergrrls August 26 2004, 20:08:41 UTC
maybe females who have too many "whoops, it was an accident" abortions should...I don't know...have certain parts of their anatomy reconstructed or something :)

Can we lock them in rooms and make them practice putting condoms on bananas for like, 8 hours a day?

You'd think it wouldn't be that hard to learn...

Reply


huntersglenn August 26 2004, 18:53:24 UTC
Some of the biggest complaints against the 'partial-birth abortion' law were OB-gyns who had diagnosed serious deformities in the third trimester and the pregnancies were terminated in that way. Under the ban, the procedure couldn't be performed at all, no matter what the condition of the fetus was at the time. And, at the height of the discussion about the ban, I remember reading that the majority of the 'partial-birth' abortions were done for medical reasons and weren't being asked for by women who just didn't want to be pregnant.

Reply

xtremeroswellia August 26 2004, 19:33:39 UTC
Ok, just to clarify, when you said that the procedure "couldn't be performed at all, no matter what the condition of the fetus was at the time"...does that mean that even if the baby had actually died or was going to die, the procedure still wasn't allowed?

Reply

huntersglenn August 26 2004, 20:45:15 UTC
The problem is that the wording isn't clear on just what is acceptable and what is not, and that's what was worrying the OB-gyns. From one standpoint, it could read as if it was totally banned, no matter what. Some of the ban proponents said that that wasn't true, but they didn't try to change the wording, either. So, basically, the doctors were left with the possibility of facing charges if they did that procedure in legitimate cases (one case involved where the spinal cord was fully exposed at the base of the skull, or something like that)

Reply

xtremeroswellia August 26 2004, 20:47:28 UTC
Ok, thank you for clarifying. I understand what you're saying now.

Reply


monack August 26 2004, 19:40:27 UTC
I am incredibly pro-choice. My feelings are that whatever my personal feelings are regarding abortion, I don't have a right to push that belief onto others.

As I get older, I become more and more "pro-life" in my beliefs, but pro-choice in my feelings -- does that make sense?

I agree with you on partial-birth abortions -- because I agree -- if the baby can live outside of the mother's womb is where the line is drawn for me.

Reply

xtremeroswellia August 26 2004, 19:53:35 UTC
Yes, that absolutely makes sense to me, Mona. And honestly, as much as I don't want kids...I'm not sure I could have an abortion myself if I was in that position, so I get that.

Reply

huntersglenn August 26 2004, 20:48:56 UTC
The problem though, is with modern medical technology, preemies born at earlier and earlier stages of the pregnancy CAN surive outside of the womb. So then you have to get into deciding what it means to 'live outside the womb' -- the baby breathing on its own? I couldn't breathe on my own when I was born and I was a full-term baby. Granted, I didn't have to be intubated, but I was put in some sort of a machine that had forced air in it in order to help me breathe.

Reply


tylergrrls August 26 2004, 20:05:20 UTC
I am violently pro-choice and just as violently anti-abortion ( ... )

Reply

xtremeroswellia August 26 2004, 20:16:20 UTC
You know, I think you've just swayed my opinion somewhat. If we're talking about a matter of life or death (the mother's) rather than a choice that's much later in a pregnancy, I think I'm going to have to agree with you.

Reply

tylergrrls August 26 2004, 20:21:52 UTC
It's not something that they've made a big deal about... and I don't think most people know the scary details of the law unless they've been following the whole thing very, very closely.

If some woman can't decide before 7 months is up whether or not she wants to be pregnant... well, I don't think she should get to kill a baby that could live outside the womb. But if the baby is dying or deformed, or even if it's just going to kill her to have it... well, that's a whole different story.

Reply

xtremeroswellia August 26 2004, 20:23:04 UTC
Yes, it definitely is. I agree. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up