The Great Abortion Compromise!

[Dr Grump]

The sad thing is they cant even see how hypocritical and backwards it is.

I mean you can be pro abortion - pro DP - you are conistant, always for death

You can be pro life - anti - DP - again constistant

You can be pro life - pro DP - still completely consistant to protect the innocent and punish the guilty

But how can you be pro abortion and anti dp? it just doesnt make any sense. You want to kill the innocent kids but think killing serial killers is evil? its just like what the heck are you thinking?

For a start they are not children. When they are born they become children.

Nothing wrong with killing serial killers, but until you can convince me that every person put to death is guilty, then you have to be careful. There are certain folks that were 100% guilty - Gacy, Bundy and Dahmer come to mind - and they deserve what they got. Then there are those guys stuck on death row, who are there under circumstantial evidence. Yet another case of people just generalising "oh, you must be against the DP because you think it's disgusting to kill another human". Er, no, I think it's disgusting to kill an innocent man and then people - totally uninvolved in the case or have nothing to gain or lose because it has nothing to do with them - say shit like "mistakes happen". IOW, they don't give a shit because it hasn't happened to them, or somebody they love. But I bet if it is was their father or son or whatever in the firing line, they'd be screaming blue murder...

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You either think killing children is alright or you think its not. there is no middle ground on the issue.

Actually it's more along the lines of "either you think two cells mashed together is a child, or you think somewhere later along the developmental cycle is a child."

 

[dilloduck]

no, I'm just not as passionate about you about those two subjects.

Never the less you couldn't resist an opportunity to just irritate conservatives. Sort of like the obstructionist secular progressives.

 

[nt250]

For a start they are not children. When they are born they become children.

Nothing wrong with killing serial killers, but until you can convince me that every person put to death is guilty, then you have to be careful. There are certain folks that were 100% guilty - Gacy, Bundy and Dahmer come to mind - and they deserve what they got. Then there are those guys stuck on death row, who are there under circumstantial evidence. Yet another case of people just generalising "oh, you must be against the DP because you think it's disgusting to kill another human". Er, no, I think it's disgusting to kill an innocent man and then people - totally uninvolved in the case or have nothing to gain or lose because it has nothing to do with them - say shit like "mistakes happen". IOW, they don't give a shit because it hasn't happened to them, or somebody they love. But I bet if it is was their father or son or whatever in the firing line, they'd be screaming blue murder...

You've described my objections to the death penalty perfectly. If anybody wants a good example of someone wrongfully convicted just Google the name Scott Hornoff. He was sentenced to live without parole, and not death, but that's only because Rhode Island doesn't have the death penalty. Here is a man who was a Warwrick police office, and his own department bungled the investigation so badly that he ended up convicted of first degree murder and if the real killer had not come forward and confessed, he'd still be in prison.

He spent 7 years in prison for a cirme he didn't commit. Here was a white, middle class, police officer whose only crime was having an adulterous affair with the victim, and if the real killer had not had an attack of the guilts, Scott Hornoff would have spent the rest of his life in prison. If we had the death penalty? Maybe the killer would have confessed before that sentence was carried out, but who knows?

 

[nt250]

The sad thing is they cant even see how hypocritical and backwards it is.

I mean you can be pro abortion - pro DP - you are conistant, always for death

You can be pro life - anti - DP - again constistant

You can be pro life - pro DP - still completely consistant to protect the innocent and punish the guilty

But how can you be pro abortion and anti dp? it just doesnt make any sense. You want to kill the innocent kids but think killing serial killers is evil? its just like what the heck are you thinking?

I object to the death penalty, and am radically pro-abortion. Here are my reasons:

Abortion is a privacy issue. What someone does with their own body is none of anybody elses business. There is no other medical procedure, that does not involve the public health, that anybody even tries to outlaw except abortion, and they only do it because they can't mind their own fucking business when it comes to controlling what a woman does with her own body.

I object to the death penalty for two reasons: the reasons Dr Grump mentioned, that is the putting to death of the wrongfully convicted, and I object to the death penalty for the obviously guilty because I think it's just too good for them.

Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, and their ilk should rot in a prison cell for life. Death gave them an easy way out. And if I were Queen and made the rules? I'd survey every inmate on death row today and any of them that have "found god" since their convictions would automatically have their sentences converted to life without parole. At hard labor. No way would I want them to go to their deaths at the states hands thinking that they'll go to Heaven because God or Jesus has forgiven them. Let them live a good long time in misery. And no TV.

 

[5stringJeff]

I have to admit... I find it hilarious that the people resorting to ad hominems and personal insults ALREADY have the gaul to accuse me of generalizing.


Im hoping that American history isn't is such a sad state that some of us would rather forget the significant reality of Franklin's trip to France just because of the silly freedom fry fiasco... alas, I seem to have found my answer to the state of American "unity".


Carry on then. enjoy waving your team flag. You will either come to terms with the reality of liberty in America or find yourself rationalizing your own method of killing. After all, who knows how many more Eric Rudolphs are left in America.. Who knows what happens if one of your SCOTUS aces turns out to be a David Souter. Choose to live by the sword.. you are not the only people with swords. Choose to marginalize.. you don't have a monopoly on marginalization. Choose to hate. You will be hated. Who needs to invade America or launch a nuke when your attitudes garentee another civil war within 25 years?


the ironic part is that I don't have the slightest interest in the Abortion arguement. My test revolved only around your reaction and behaviour to an evenly debated issue. I'm sure the attack dogs will bite that idea and then blame me for growling at em... Somewhere along the timeline consideration beyond sporting the team jersey conveys a sanfransicso ACLU baby hating evil boggeyman?


and IM the one spouting generalization?


WOW.



depart from me, i don't know you... get used to hearing that.

Talk about smug, condescending arrogance. It's one thing to debate an issue with someone who wants to debate. It's another to waste time talking to someone trying to do a psychology experiment online. Tell you what, how about you take your damn egotistical, self-important "test" and shove them right up your ass? :finger:

 

[nt250]

Talk about smug, condescending arrogance. It's one thing to debate an issue with someone who wants to debate. It's another to waste time talking to someone trying to do a psychology experiment online. Tell you what, how about you take your damn egotistical, self-important "test" and shove them right up your ass? :finger:

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Talk about smug, condescending arrogance. It's one thing to debate an issue with someone who wants to debate. It's another to waste time talking to someone trying to do a psychology experiment online. Tell you what, how about you take your damn egotistical, self-important "test" and shove them right up your ass? :finger:

Dittos on that.

His "test" is why Shogun was so determined to get me out of the discussion. My so-called "extreme" viewpoint was going to get in the way of his "test". I challenged the very premise of his post....that there could even be a "compromise". My contention was that there could be no compromise on the matter of life or death.

This is how a Far Left member or communist operates. They will allow discussion among the people, but they will control the rules for discussion. In this particular discussion, if you agreed to participate in Shogun's little "test", you would have already agreed, by default, that the idea of abortion is OK....only the specifics of the abortion were to be discussed and "compromised" on. It's a great method to get people acclimated and incrementally accept ideas because they are couched in such "reasonable" terms.

Like Avatar4321 said, "The second you start entertaining evil, you start embracing it".

 

[Bonnie]

I've got an idea for a compromise, Shogun. It's going to sound pretty radical, but here goes:

How about if we classify reproductive issues as , "the conduct of one's everyday life, and therefore none of central government's business"? We could let the PEOPLE decide - through their duly elected state representatives! I know that sounds off-the-wall, but a collection of fellows who came to be known as our founding fathers thought it a pretty good plan for governance.

What a national policy on abortion amounts to is central government overflowing its constitutional banks, and creating - out of whole cloth - a "right" to consequence-free sex. What LUNACY! Our inalienable rights are OURS - given to us by God - not handed down by governments.

Roe vs. Wade is atrocious law. It absolutely cannot withstand rationality. It will wilt before any reasonable standard of constitutionality. It's a dead man walking. You know this, don't you? That's why you're talking about a "compromise".

Yup MM!!

 

[Bonnie]

Talk about smug, condescending arrogance. It's one thing to debate an issue with someone who wants to debate. It's another to waste time talking to someone trying to do a psychology experiment online. Tell you what, how about you take your damn egotistical, self-important "test" and shove them right up your ass? :finger:

Thank you for articulating so well what I was thinking!!

 

[Bonnie]

I'm for the DP (under certain circumstances) and against abortion. There goes that theory...I'm just not that passionate about either issue...

Well then perhaps you should state what your opinions are upfront before you throw the deflective lets see what happens if I throw cliche answers out there and see who bites...If one were to analyze it would give the appearnce you like doing that in some weird attempt to be dishonest for your own jollies, so you can say look at how all the board conservatives jump all over me??

 

[theHawk]

Greetings!

None of you are familiar with me since I lurk on this board more than I post so forgive me for coming out of left field. I wanted to run an idea past a group of people with mixed political identity rather than my usual left leaning stomping grounds. I hope that a similar thread has not already been posted; i've read the rules and am not trying to step on toes... Here goes..

If voting Americans can agree on nothing else I am confident that we all can all feel what kind of polarized society we are. Pro this, Con that. 49%-51%. I will admit that I have enjoyed many, MANY rounds of debate (or arguement rather) and understant what it means to pick a team and go down with the ship so to speak. My question today is What can we do to develop a compromise on starkly polarized issues? You know what they say about opinions and, uh, elbows, right? Can we respect the opinon of someone else even if it is not our own? Can we agree to disagree knowing that, even if we win the election, we are ALL on the same boat? These are questions that I ask myself while trying to find common ground. Often it is easier to wrap ourselves up in a team jersey than it is to reach out and find common ground. I want to find common ground on theissue of abortion.

here is my compromise:


Is it a human when the sperm touches the egg or when the fetus is delivered from the vagina? While I don't believe that a fertalized egg is a human it is a human I think it is rediculous to hand out a blank abortion check that a late term baby must pay for. We can argue about souls on another thread. It seems to me that the brain cannot function without circulating bloodflow. THUS, I am willing to allow the criminalization for all abortion procedures performed on a fetus that has developed a heartbeat unless, of course, there is an issue of death for the mother. going further, I am willing to require that any doctor that allows an abortion past this stage not only loses their medical license but also serves the same jail time that manslaughter on a pregnant woman will deliver (no pun intended). IF there is a health concern for the mother then two second opinions are necessary in order to validate the claim.

In return, we pass a constitutionl amendment that clarifies the right of individual privacy to ensure that personal choice is not litigated by public morals, frank and honest sex education programs in public school (which can be opted out of course), access to every form of birth control available including the morning after pill. children under the age of 18 must still notify their legal guardian or parent since they are not autonomous legal enteties.

The point IS to minimize aborted children and not decide whose sexual behavior is acceptable, right? I guess what im looking for in feedback is not so much "ra ra abortion sucks" or "ug ug limitless abortion" as "Ill agree with this if we adjust that". Mutual respect under mutual democracy. The Golden rule...

UNITED WE STAND....

As soon as an egg has been fertilized, it has its own unique human dna...that is the basis for determining life in my opinion. Of course liberals will tell you that a strand of hair has human dna too, but of course nothing else will grow into a complete human being other than the fertilzed egg.

Good luck with any kind of compromise, especially if the Dems take over the House and Senate. Not that it matters much, at this point no one can even make a law concerning abortion thanks to Roe v Wade. If and when it is overturned, it will simply allow states to pass laws concerning abortion. Abortion will still be live and well, I doubt it will ever be eleminated completely on a national level. Some of the more conservative states would probably pass laws to make it tough or even impossible to get an abortion, while the more liberal states will probably allow abortion-on-demand.

Of course liberals abhor the idea of letting citizens practice democracry in electing politicans that would pass laws curbing abortion in any way. Even though liberal states would of course keep abortion 100% legal, the main priority of liberalism is to impose their beliefs on others, namely the more conservative states in this case. Liberals only believe in democracy so long as it serves their main purpose.

 

[nt250]

As soon as an egg has been fertilized, it has its own unique human dna...that is the basis for determining life in my opinion. Of course liberals will tell you that a strand of hair has human dna too, but of course nothing else will grow into a complete human being other than the fertilzed egg.

Good luck with any kind of compromise, especially if the Dems take over the House and Senate. Not that it matters much, at this point no one can even make a law concerning abortion thanks to Roe v Wade. If and when it is overturned, it will simply allow states to pass laws concerning abortion. Abortion will still be live and well, I doubt it will ever be eleminated completely on a national level. Some of the more conservative states would probably pass laws to make it tough or even impossible to get an abortion, while the more liberal states will probably allow abortion-on-demand.

Of course liberals abhor the idea of letting citizens practice democracry in electing politicans that would pass laws curbing abortion in any way. Even though liberal states would of course keep abortion 100% legal, the main priority of liberalism is to impose their beliefs on others, namely the more conservative states in this case. Liberals only believe in democracy so long as it serves their main purpose.

We have something called the Constitution of The United States, and in that document there is the express right to privacy from interference by the government in matters that should remain private. There is no more private issue than the medical decisions a person makes. That's what Roe v Wade decided. I agree it was rotten law because they went way too far in detailing what should and shouldn't be allowed, they should have just left at the privacy decision. They only gave more ammo to the Right To Life crowd to argue with the basic right to privacy issue by getting into the timeline of when an abortion could be allowed.

That's that only reason right to lifers latched onto the whole "partial birth abortion" issue. Partial birth abortion is a medical procedure that is only used in cases when the fetus has already died. It prevents a pregnant women from having to go through labor and give vaginal birth to a baby that will obviously be stillborn. Many, many, women have had to endure just that. There was one poster on my last message board who told the story of how that happened to her. Two weeks before her due date she found out that her baby had died in the womb. Her only option was to induce labor but the doctor was booked solid and couldn't schedule it for more than a week. That poor woman had to wait a week to have her labor induced, then she had to go through hours of labor, and finally had a stillborn baby. Reading her story was enough to break your heart.

There is not a doctor in this country who would perform a partial birth abortion on a healthy, live fetus, but you wouldn't know that because the right to lifers get too much mileage out of using that to promote their agenda.

 

[Bonnie]

We have something called the Constitution of The United States, and in that document there is the express right to privacy from interference by the government in matters that should remain private. There is no more private issue than the medical decisions a person makes. That's what Roe v Wade decided. I agree it was rotten law because they went way too far in detailing what should and shouldn't be allowed, they should have just left at the privacy decision. They only gave more ammo to the Right To Life crowd to argue with the basic right to privacy issue by getting into the timeline of when an abortion could be allowed.

That's that only reason right to lifers latched onto the whole "partial birth abortion" issue. Partial birth abortion is a medical procedure that is only used in cases when the fetus has already died. It prevents a pregnant women from having to go through labor and give vaginal birth to a baby that will obviously be stillborn. Many, many, women have had to endure just that. There was one poster on my last message board who told the story of how that happened to her. Two weeks before her due date she found out that her baby had died in the womb. Her only option was to induce labor but the doctor was booked solid and couldn't schedule it for more than a week. That poor woman had to wait a week to have her labor induced, then she had to go through hours of labor, and finally had a stillborn baby. Reading her story was enough to break your heart.

There is not a doctor in this country who would perform a partial birth abortion on a healthy, live fetus, but you wouldn't know that because the right to lifers get too much mileage out of using that to promote their agenda.

Gee I hope your right about that?? Two sources here one pro-life the other more pro-abortion

Partial-Birth Abortion is a procedure in which the abortionist pulls a living baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal (vagina), except for the head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix (the opening to the womb). The abortionist punctures the base of the baby’s skull with a surgical instrument, such as a long surgical scissors or a pointed hollow metal tube called a trochar. He then inserts a catheter (tube) into the wound, and removes the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now-dead baby.

According to Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (1997), and other sources, it appears that partial-birth abortions are performed 3,000 to 5,000 times annually. (Even those numbers may be low.) Based on published interviews with numerous abortionists, and interviews with Fitzsimmons in 1997, the “vast majority” of partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, on healthy babies of healthy mothers.

Under state laws, a “live birth” occurs when a baby is entirely expelled from the mother and shows any signs of life, however briefly -- regardless of whether the baby is “viable,” i.e., developed enough to be sustained outside the womb with neo-natal medical assistance. Even at 4½ months (20 weeks), perinatologists say that if a baby is expelled or removed completely from the uterus, she will usually gasp for breath and sometimes survive for hours, even though lung development is usually insufficient to permit successful sustained respiration until 23 weeks. Thus, the term “partial-birth” is perfectly descriptive.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/pbafacts.html

Definition
Partial birth abortion is a method of late-term abortion that terminates a pregnancy and results in the death and intact removal of a fetus. This procedure is most commonly referred to as intact dilatation and extraction (D & X).

Purpose
Partial birth abortion, or D&X, is performed to end a pregnancy and results in the death of a fetus, typically in the late second or third trimester. Although D&X is highly controversial, some physicians argue that it has advantages that make it a preferable procedure in some circumstances. One perceived advantage is that the fetus is removed largely intact, allowing for better evaluation and autopsy of the fetus in cases of known fetal anomalies. Intact removal of the fetus may also confer a lower risk of puncturing the uterus or damaging the cervix. Another perceived advantage is that D&X ends the pregnancy without requiring the woman to go through labor, which may be less emotionally traumatic than other methods of late-term abortion. In addition, D&X may offer a lower cost and shorter procedure time.

Precautions
Women considering D&X should be aware of the highly controversial nature of this procedure. A controversy common to all late-term abortions is whether the fetus is viable, or able to survive outside of the woman's body. A specific area of controversy with D&X is that fetal death does not occur until after most of the fetal body has exited the uterus. Several states have taken legal action to limit or ban D&X and many physicians who perform abortions do not perform D&X. This may restrict the availability of this procedure to women seeking late-term abortion.

Description
Intact D&X, or partial birth abortion first involves administration of medications to cause the cervix to dilate, usually over the course of several days. Next, the physician rotates the fetus to a footling breech position. The body of the fetus is then drawn out of the uterus feet first, until only the head remains inside the uterus. Then, the physician uses an instrument to puncture the base of the skull, which collapses the fetal head. Typically, the contents of the fetal head are then partially suctioned out, which results in the death of the fetus, and reduces the sizes of the fetal head enough to allow it to pass through the cervix. The dead and otherwise intact fetus is then removed from the woman's body.

Preparation
Medical preparation for D&X involves an outpatient visit to administer medications, such as laminaria,to cause the cervix to begin dilating.

In addition, preparation may involve fulfilling local legal requirements, such as a mandatory waiting period, counseling, or an informed consent procedure reviewing stages of fetal development, childbirth, alternative abortion methods, and adoption.

Aftercare
D&X typically does not require an overnight hospital stay, so a follow up appointment may be scheduled to monitor the woman for any complications.

Risks
With all abortion, the later in pregnancy an abortion is performed, the more complicated the procedure and the greater the risk of injury to the woman. In addition to associated emotion reactions, D&X carries the risk of injury to the woman, including heavy bleeding, blood clots, damage to the cervix or uterus, pelvic infection, and anesthesia-related complications. There is also a risk of incomplete abortion, meaning that the fetus is not dead when removed from the woman's body. Possible long-term risks include difficulty becoming pregnant or carrying a future pregnancy to term.

Normal results
The expected outcome of D&X is the termination of a pregnancy with removal of a dead fetus from the woman's body.

Resources
PERIODICALS
Epner, Janet E., et al. "Late-term Abortion." JAMA 280, no. 8 (26 August 1998): 724-729.

http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/abortion-partial-birth

 

[Dr Grump]

Well then perhaps you should state what your opinions are upfront before you throw the deflective lets see what happens if I throw cliche answers out there and see who bites...If one were to analyze it would give the appearnce you like doing that in some weird attempt to be dishonest for your own jollies, so you can say look at how all the board conservatives jump all over me??

Then again, maybe you should not jump to conclusions...Nothing weird about it at all. I explained my position (at least in regard to the DP)) further on...

 

[theHawk]

We have something called the Constitution of The United States, and in that document there is the express right to privacy from interference by the government in matters that should remain private.

Sir, please tell us ALL, where in the Constitution is this express "right to privacy" stated?


And furthermore, who exactly determines what "should remain private"? A small panel of Judges, or the citizens of the US?

 

[Bonnie]

Then again, maybe you should not jump to conclusions...Nothing weird about it at all. I explained my position (at least in regard to the DP)) further on...

Fair enough..and touche'

 

[musicman]

This is how a Far Left member or communist operates. They will allow discussion among the people, but they will control the rules for discussion. In this particular discussion, if you agreed to participate in Shogun's little "test", you would have already agreed, by default, that the idea of abortion is OK....

Excellent point, SE. And, along those same lines, a discussion geared toward which compromises we're willing to make in regard to national abortion policy assumes - wrongly - that there should even BE a national abortion policy. These people have to play word perversion games, because plain talk terrifies them. Plain talk exposes their ideological bankruptcy.

The good news here is that the pace of life is fast, and Americans are generally pretty busy people. We have to "cut to the chase"; we need to make decisions quickly. What more and more of us are deciding - to the everlasting dismay of leftist wordsmiths - is that anyone who has to talk in circles is lying.

 

[nt250]

Gee I hope your right about that?? Two sources here one pro-life the other more pro-abortion

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/pbafacts.html


http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/abortion-partial-birth

Right. While the pro-life source is a little more biased, they both describe the procedure correctly.

The point is that it's a private medical decision and if a woman decides that she would rather let the birth take place and is willing to endure it, and let the baby suffer once it's "born", then it's up to her. I think it's cruel to allow a baby to be born that will only take a couple of breaths before "dying", but that's my opinion and I have no right to impose it on others.


Edited to add:

That part about it being performed 3000-5000 times on "healthy" babies is a fucking lie.

 

[nt250]

Sir, please tell us ALL, where in the Constitution is this express "right to privacy" stated?


And furthermore, who exactly determines what "should remain private"? A small panel of Judges, or the citizens of the US?

That's such a stupid question I am not going to even bother. It's pretty much the only reason we even have a Constitution to begin with.

Any lawyers here want to help Hawk out with this one? I don't have the patience.