Giuliani Voices Continued Support for Public Funding of Abortion

[jillian]

No I don't agree with it at all Bern but I think 3rd trimester abortions are only done if there mother's life is in danger...I don't think any sane woman would wait until 7+ months to have an abortion - and usually by that time the baby would be able to survive outside the womb, many women give birth to pre-mature babies.

D & E's are very, very rare and are only done when it is clear that the child or the mother isn't going to survive a birth and/or the child is so damaged that it isn't going to live long beyond birth. The vast majority of OB/Gyn's are very clear about wanting this procedure to be something arrived at between them and the mother based on their medical judgment, something legislators don't possess.

It's also a red-herring in the Roe v. Wade debate since it doesn't fall under the first trimester protection of Roe. It just gets mileage because it's good propaganda for the anti-choice crowd.

 

[Gunny]

D & E's are very, very rare and are only done when it is clear that the child or the mother isn't going to survive a birth and/or the child is so damaged that it isn't going to live long beyond birth. The vast majority of OB/Gyn's are very clear about wanting this procedure to be something arrived at between them and the mother based on their medical judgment, something legislators don't possess.

It's also a red-herring in the Roe v. Wade debate since it doesn't fall under the first trimester protection of Roe. It just gets mileage because it's good propaganda for the anti-choice crowd.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is also currently illegal except as a bonafide medical procedure within the parameters you described?

 

[jasendorf]

Why? Are you so mean you'd make people live with a mistake just to prove a point? What is the difference between the morning after pill, a condom, the pill or any other form of contreception? Weird....

Most conservatives don't even know the difference between the different forms of birth control and why the morning after pill is completely used to prevent conception... not end anything already conceived (in fact, it's designed so as to NOT end anything already conceived). They don't care; in fact... they only want to put their noses in women's crotches.

 

[jasendorf]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is also currently illegal except as a bonafide medical procedure within the parameters you described?

Yes. The 0.2% of abortions that used to use this procedure are now banned.

 

[Gunny]

Most conservatives don't even know the difference between the different forms of birth control and why the morning after pill is completely used to prevent conception... not end anything already conceived (in fact, it's designed so as to NOT end anything already conceived). They don't care; in fact... they only want to put their noses in women's crotches.

A lot of people ... not just conservatives, also don't understand the difference between the Morning After Pill and RU 486, the abortion pill. They think they are one and the same.

 

[Gunny]

Yes. The 0.2% of abortions that used to use this procedure are now banned.

I didn't know what the percentage was of people that actually had them. It is my understanding it was either locally illegal already, and/or most doctors would not perform them.

 

[jasendorf]

I didn't know what the percentage was of people that actually had them. It is my understanding it was either locally illegal already, and/or most doctors would not perform them.

It was a flashy issue which got lots of attention and made the Republicans APPEAR to care about the abortion issue. Unfortunately, it had virtually no impact on abortion... because, as usual, it didn't address the reasons women have abortions. It simply attacked symptoms. Just another "paint the cinder blocks, don't bother finding why the water is ruining the paint job" "solution" from the Republicans.

 

[jasendorf]

A lot of people ... not just conservatives, also don't understand the difference between the Morning After Pill and RU 486, the abortion pill. They think they are one and the same.

And that's exactly what the womb-to-heaven Republicans want.

 

[Bern80]

Yes I do. Abortion is accepting consequence and taking responsibility...you just choose not to see it that way.

oooookay, then in what context would somone not be taking responsibility for getting pregnant?

I disagree with what you said of course. There are a couple contexts in which abortion is the right choice like the life of the mother is at stake, but I can think of few others where the choice to abort is not the result of a bad decision. While you may think the person is taking responsibilty by aborting the child in some cases it doesn't change the fact that the person that ultimately pays for the consequences is the baby.

I believe that people should try to better themselves through the choices they make and continually letting people of the hook for making poor ones doesn't accomplish that.

I know you said that but your other arguments show otherwise. If you don't regard a bunch of cells as a human being, then what is your problem if a woman choses to abort those cells before it develops into a human???? You do realize that happens naturally all the time, right?

You already know where I stand on this as again I have stated it quite clearly. But here goes again anyway.

I think people should take responsibility for their actions. If a women chooses to abort a pregnancy before that group of cells becomes human, fine. I believe that's the wrong choice, but if it's not killing a human there are no legal grounds to stop them. If the abortion takes place after the cells become human, I believe that is something that should be legislated because again by any other definition that would be murder

 

[Puddles]

oooookay, then in what context would somone not be taking responsibility for getting pregnant?

How about in situations where a teenage girl gets pregnant and depend financially on her parents or the grandparents end up raising the child. Or the most common (and most acceptable) form, where a couple decides to have a baby, once the baby the baby is born they leave the kid at daycare where a stranger raises the baby...how is that taking responsibility? Because they're paying for someone else to raise the baby? See, I don't find that acceptable but that's my opinion, I won't force it on anyone.

I disagree with what you said of course. There are a couple contexts in which abortion is the right choice like the life of the mother is at stake, but I can think of few others where the choice to abort is not the result of a bad decision.

No offence but it's not up to you decide or judge what's a bad decision, and that's the point I've been making from the get go. It doesn't effect you so you (not you specifically) shouldn't feel the need to have an opinion on someone else's decisions and choices.

While you may think the person is taking responsibilty by aborting the child in some cases it doesn't change the fact that the person that ultimately pays for the consequences is the baby.

Ok again, we both just agreed that life doesn't begin at conceptions so you can't use this argument any longer because when the decision to have an abortion in 90% of the cases, it's not a baby yet.

I believe that people should try to better themselves through the choices they make and continually letting people of the hook for making poor ones doesn't accomplish that.

I completely agree. But what you seem to be doing is taking one scenario and using that to make it to all. Not all people who have abortions stupid or make bad decision...life happens. Having an abortion is probably not a very easy or quick decision to make...

You already know where I stand on this as again I have stated it quite clearly. But here goes again anyway.

Why are we both bothering to do so when we both understand each other's points of view and just don't agree? We're just going in circles now . We will never agree because I refuse to judge people or dictate when and why they can or can't have an abortion...and this is exactly what you're doing.

 

[Bern80]

How about in situations where a teenage girl gets pregnant and depend financially on her parents or the grandparents end up raising the child. Or the most common (and most acceptable) form, where a couple decides to have a baby, once the baby the baby is born they leave the kid at daycare where a stranger raises the baby...how is that taking responsibility? Because they're paying for someone else to raise the baby? See, I don't find that acceptable but that's my opinion, I won't force it on anyone.

Fine, but there is also a truth compenent in opinions. Some are verifiably true, some aren't. Use what you have observed a little. You probably know plenty of people that were raised under your scenario above. Did they turn out poorly? Are they the dregs of society? If not, that quite clearly your opinion is not true.

not directly no, but I believe it effects society, which I happen to be a part of and I don't want to live in a society that is risk free and void of tough consequences to the choices we make. I also happen to believe that is where our country is heading.

No offence but it's not up to you decide or judge what's a bad decision, and that's the point I've been making from the get go. It doesn't effect you so you (not you specifically) shouldn't feel the need to have an opinion on someone else's decisions and choices.

I guess I'm not sure where this concept of we're not suppossed to judge people came from. We judge people's actions all the time and for good reason. Judgeing someone is the same as haveing an opinion is it not? Sometimes we refrain from judgeing people mainly because we don't know the whole story. Sometimes we do know enough of the story to make a judgement as to whether someone's actions were good or reasonable.
Legally we judge people when their actions effect other's in some way.

I completely agree. But what you seem to be doing is taking one scenario and using that to make it to all. Not all people who have abortions stupid or make bad decision...life happens. Having an abortion is probably not a very easy or quick decision to make...

Just as I said women don't just find themselves pregnant, I don't believe life just happens. And especially in this case. Getting pregnant doesn't just happen. Subconciously everybody is aware no matter what precations they may take, there is the chance they will create a life. And being stupid and making bad decisions are very different things. I'm not stupid, but I've made bad decisions. Most everyone will do that at some point.

Why are we both bothering to do so when we both understand each other's points of view and just don't agree? We're just going in circles now . We will never agree because I refuse to judge people or dictate when and why they can or can't have an abortion...and this is exactly what you're doing.

Oh you do judge them. I promise you that. That is something non of us can keep ourselves from doing. Yes there are millions of scenarios and situations when a decision like this comes up, but you can tell me you would not form an opinion of someone who got an abortion solely because she didn't want stretch markes? (yes it has happened).

What you really mean is that you refuse to set to the consequences of someone's actions.

 

[jillian]

not directly no, but I believe it effects society, which I happen to be a part of and I don't want to live in a society that is risk free and void of tough consequences to the choices we make. I also happen to believe that is where our country is heading.

So it's about punishing women... just like I said.

I guess I'm not sure where this concept of we're not suppossed to judge people came from. We judge people's actions all the time and for good reason. Judgeing someone is the same as haveing an opinion is it not? Sometimes we refrain from judgeing people mainly because we don't know the whole story. Sometimes we do know enough of the story to make a judgement as to whether someone's actions were good or reasonable.
Legally we judge people when their actions effect other's in some way.

Actually, I think the concept of judge not belonged to Jesus...remember, "he among you who is without sin..."

Ultimately, you have every right to make your own personal judgments.... same as I do about people every day. But what you don't have the right to do is interfere in another's personal choices simply because *you* don't approve.

Just as I said women don't just find themselves pregnant, I don't believe life just happens. And especially in this case. Getting pregnant doesn't just happen. Subconciously everybody is aware no matter what precations they may take, there is the chance they will create a life. And being stupid and making bad decisions are very different things. I'm not stupid, but I've made bad decisions. Most everyone will do that at some point.

Yes. Everyone makes bad decisions. Does that mean they can't minimize the consequences of those bad decisions? We do that every day, too. We make a bad investment, so we try to make a better one that makes up for it. We trust the wrong person, so we end our association with that person and try not to make the same mistakes again. We take a bad job, so we leave it for a better one.

Oh you do judge them. I promise you that. That is something non of us can keep ourselves from doing. Yes there are millions of scenarios and situations when a decision like this comes up, but you can tell me you would not form an opinion of someone who got an abortion solely because she didn't want stretch markes? (yes it has happened).

I just love when anti-choicers use the extreme as a basis for denying others their rights. Do tell what percentage of abortions occur solely because the mother doesn't want stretch marks. I do hope you have a viable link because that's a pretty broad assertion.

What you really mean is that you refuse to set to the consequences of someone's actions.

Not your place to determine the consequences. The vast majority of people who have to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy take that decision very seriously... It's not one people do just for the heck of it except, possibly a small percentage. (and I say possibly because not a single woman I've ever met who had to make the choice had this attitude, but for argument's sake, let's assume it exists in some people.)

Ultimately, it comes down to when government has the right to insert itself into a personal decision.

 

[Bern80]

So it's about punishing women... just like I said.

How you derived that from what you quoted me on is beyond me. I guess it could be punishment if a law came about that aborting a baby when it clearly human was murder and sent to jail i guess that would be punishment. But that's really not what you mean. As far as what the punishment is you mean they are forced to carry the baby to term and be saddled with taking care of it? If that's the case that really isn't punishment. Not the way the word is actually defined anyway. It's taking full responsibility for your actions.

Ultimately, you have every right to make your own personal judgments.... same as I do about people every day. But what you don't have the right to do is interfere in another's personal choices simply because *you* don't approve.

I'm not interfering in any way, shape or form. While I disagree with it and beleive in some cases their should even be laws against it, I don't foresee myself going on a one man crusade to directly interfere with a woman haveing an abortion. But again that isn't what you mean is it? You mean interfere as far as the Government is concerned. Because that would be the only realistic way that anyone would be capable of interfering in such a decision.

Yes. Everyone makes bad decisions. Does that mean they can't minimize the consequences of those bad decisions? We do that every day, too. We make a bad investment, so we try to make a better one that makes up for it. We trust the wrong person, so we end our association with that person and try not to make the same mistakes again. We take a bad job, so we leave it for a better one.

Minimize the consequences? Up to a point I suppose. Again if it is done before the baby is actually human and capable of feeling, sure go ahead and 'minimize the consequences'. Legally there is nothing anybody can do about nor do I advocate making such a law, but it is a very irresponsible choice.

I just love when anti-choicers use the extreme as a basis for denying others their rights. Do tell what percentage of abortions occur solely because the mother doesn't want stretch marks. I do hope you have a viable link because that's a pretty broad assertion.

Nice spin. I never implied even remotely that this was the norm, though I have heard of it. It was a specific example to Puddles who claims she doesn't judge people. I gave a very specific example, rare as it may be, to prove otherwise.

Ultimately, it comes down to when government has the right to insert itself into a personal decision.

You're right and as I said before the government does not have the right to interfere in anyones personal decisions, until those personal decisions start to directly affect other people. When the baby becomes a human inside the womb then the decision to abort is no longer a decision that only effects the mother directly. It quite directly now affects the human inside her as well.

 

[mattskramer]

I just love when anti-choicers use the extreme as a basis for denying others their rights. Do tell what percentage of abortions occur solely because the mother doesn't want stretch marks. I do hope you have a viable link because that's a pretty broad assertion.

Reasons for abortions
In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1.0% of abortions. Another study, in 1998, revealed that women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other

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

 

[jillian]

Don't see anything about stretch marks.

thanks.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Ten percent of all after 3 months...150k per year in the US.

http://206.229.193.98/topics/articles/article_59.asp

D & E's are very, very rare and are only done when it is clear that the child or the mother isn't going to survive a birth and/or the child is so damaged that it isn't going to live long beyond birth.

D & E's? They can be done by any quack willing to do them:

http://www.abortion.com/abortion_clinics_late_term.php

And for any reason. Your abortion guru admits that on his site:

http://www.drtiller.com/elect.html

Choice, you know.

The vast majority of OB/Gyn's are very clear about wanting this procedure to be something arrived at between them and the mother based on their medical judgment, something legislators don't possess.

The vast majority are very clear about doing it for the $$$. SCOTUS really had some of that there medical judgement back in 1973, eh?

It's also a red-herring in the Roe v. Wade debate since it doesn't fall under the first trimester protection of Roe. It just gets mileage because it's good propaganda for the anti-choice crowd.

Yeah, what in the hell would a late-term abortion have to do with RvW?

Surely, you know they're still legal awaiting appeal, which you will lose this time:

Congress has banned this procedure in 2003. However, the ban is suspended while the Courts decide whether the ban is legal. Previous bans were not upheld by the Supreme Court.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200610/CUL20061024a.html

Would you lie to me baby if it wasn't true? And Giuliani's over.

 

[Puddles]

Jillian did an excellent job at answering your last reply to be so I won't bother.

But just want to touch on 2 things.

You accidentally quoted me as saying this, when it was actually your reply to me...just wanted to clarify.

Originally Posted by Puddles View Post
Fine, but there is also a truth compenent in opinions. Some are verifiably true, some aren't. Use what you have observed a little. You probably know plenty of people that were raised under your scenario above. Did they turn out poorly? Are they the dregs of society? If not, that quite clearly your opinion is not true.

No opinions are opinion, not facts. Nobody's opinion can really defined as right or wrong - opinions are based on perceptions, experiences, etc. Just because you don't agree with one's opinions, does not make it wrong.

I guess I'm not sure where this concept of we're not suppossed to judge people came from. We judge people's actions all the time and for good reason. Judgeing someone is the same as haveing an opinion is it not? Sometimes we refrain from judgeing people mainly because we don't know the whole story. Sometimes we do know enough of the story to make a judgement as to whether someone's actions were good or reasonable.
Legally we judge people when their actions effect other's in some way.

Of course we all judge whether we realize it or not but it's usually done in our minds/thoughts or through gossip, but judging a person and then condemning the for it? That's what you (and others) have done is judge others and dictate your opinion as being some sort facts. BTW, how do you think abortion laws/debate came about? By lawmaker's judgments and opinions that are supposed to be based on some type of morality.

How you derived that from what you quoted me on is beyond me. I guess it could be punishment if a law came about that aborting a baby when it clearly human was murder and sent to jail i guess that would be punishment. But that's really not what you mean. As far as what the punishment is you mean they are forced to carry the baby to term and be saddled with taking care of it? If that's the case that really isn't punishment. Not the way the word is actually defined anyway. It's taking full responsibility for your actions.

Forcing a woman to have a baby when she does not want one (whatever the reason) is a form punishment both for her and the potential child.

I'm not interfering in any way, shape or form. While I disagree with it and beleive in some cases their should even be laws against it, I don't foresee myself going on a one man crusade to directly interfere with a woman haveing an abortion. But again that isn't what you mean is it? You mean interfere as far as the Government is concerned. Because that would be the only realistic way that anyone would be capable of interfering in such a decision.

You're not directly interfering with it but you're also advocating that she not be able to make the choice she sees fit and thus keep the abortion debate going. There are many people who think like you and will protest against outside abortion clinics or lobby the government for abortion laws...that's interfering - not you specifically but people who think like you. Bottom line, it shouldn't be up for debate at all because it's really none of your business...but yet there always the centre of controversy.

Minimize the consequences? Up to a point I suppose. Again if it is done before the baby is actually human and capable of feeling, sure go ahead and 'minimize the consequences'. Legally there is nothing anybody can do about nor do I advocate making such a law, but it is a very irresponsible choice.

Ok again that's your opinion but I don't see what relevance of your opinion has to do with a woman's decision.

 

[Puddles]

Reasons for abortions
In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1.0% of abortions. Another study, in 1998, revealed that women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other

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

What is supposed to be the point of posting this?

Plus, I would hardly considere wikipedia to be a good source on any topic... you do realize anyone can willy nilly change info on there right? You need to use the source source for it to have any credibility.

 

[mattskramer]

What is supposed to be the point of posting this?

Plus, I would hardly considere wikipedia to be a good source on any topic... you do realize anyone can willy nilly change info on there right? You need to use the source source for it to have any credibility.

I was responding to Jillian’s challenge, though her challenge was directed to Bern80. Okay. You don’t like Wikipedia as a source. Do you like Guttmacher?

See http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.html

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child.

 

[jasendorf]

I was responding to Jillian’s challenge, though her challenge was directed to Bern80. Okay. You don’t like Wikipedia as a source. Do you like Guttmacher?

See http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.html

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child.

Those all sound like reasonable reasons to me.