Recent Decision

[BrassFusion]

Here I present a brief reiteration of key points, italicized for emphasis:

This new law = same number of dead babies.

This new law = more dead mommies.

Roe V. Wade = still good, so quit your bitching and move on to something that might positively affect ALL members of society and not just the "spiritual" ones.

There. From the extreme left side of the fence.

[Steven]

How does any of what you just said have ANYTHING to do with this particular law?

I was talking about how ineffectual this law is: how much it's a snow-job: and how the Catholic Bishops and the Republican party used ridiculous and deceptive and insulting tactics to get it passed in the first place.

The first case you mentioned was about a misdiagnoses and the second case you mentioned was about a woman who (for whatever reason) remained completely ignorant and irresponsible concerning her own body and whose boyfriend apparently was just as ill-informed.

Neither of these issues has anything to do with this law.

The only reason I mention motivation is because many of those who pushed for this law have painted women who may make the choice to have this procedure performed with the same wide brush of judgment. I have no doubt that if certain groups were to hear about your friend's personal story: it would be plastered all over their newsletters and put on posters and mentioned at their fake "clinics" to scare the shit out of the women who go there: edited, of course.

With all the explanations: I still have no idea why you support this ban.

It would not effect either of the case studies you mentioned; you simply assert that the "risk should be with the mother" so that a health exception is not needed because a woman has already lived her life so her life doesn't mean as much AND that since there are other ways of performing an abortion, subtracting one procedure is no big deal.

All other arguments and examples have been completely irrelevant to this law.

Answer to argument one:

1) Who are you to decide whose life is more valuable, and what about cases where both the fetus and the mother will likely die if a similiar procedure is not performed? Doesn't this law set a dangerous precedent since it is the first abortion restriction that doesn't include a health exception?

2) The particular procedure that is being banned (as Brassfusion pointed out) could actually be the safest for the mother and inflict the least suffering on the fetus: so why ban it?

The only possible real effect this decision and this law could possibly have is to allow abortion restrictions that do not have an exception for the health of the mother...which South Dakota has actually tried already. THAT has everything to do with tying the hands of doctors and patients in extreme situations.

Long Post - short answers:

I suggested to you that you may incorrect that the majority of the late term abortions take place for sound medical reasons. Yes my friend was irresponsible, as was her boyfriend. ANd I beleive there are many more irresponsible people out there, I have seen them in my own Latino and or low income sub sets. My only point in this regard was an effort to refute what you seemed to have introduced as factual: that the majority of late term abortions take place for purely medical reasons. I do not beleive that at all. And again - Im not at war with you.

You also seem to have a thing for placing blame on specific conservative groups. Why thats so important to you I do not know. How many democrats jumped ship from pro life to pro choice as it suited their platforms? Names like and Gore, Leiberman come to mind. Respected names from the other side of the fence. But even that - does not matter to me. People vote in as a whole, what they value.

I am anti abortion in general. therefore I have posted what I have posted from that particular personal point of view.

As for the wide brushtroke painting: my wife has had two abortions. Her choice, her repurcussions. I may not be as agressive as you think. In fact I may not be trying to brushstroke anybody. I'm simply talking about what I beleive in. I support the ban, simply because I dont think we need yet another method fo killing babies. Its really that simple and small minded and crude for me. I do not want to support or condone baby killing. So I do not. Its pretty simple. And to me it all ties in togethor and is relevent.

1) who am I? I'm just some uneducated taxpaying, voting, mentoring, veteran, non goth schmuck named Steven Urenda. Unfortunately I have as much societal value as you do. Sorry bout that.

2) I allready answered question number two a few times.

its a nice day outside. let's not waste it over invalidating one another. You get to choose yoru side. go for it. So do I.

[Scary Guy]

"abortions send babies to god faster"

your an even dumber ass now.

K, I may be an even dumber ass, but at least I'm not a close minded sheep.

[Marblez]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252878,00.html

[sinmantyx]

You also seem to have a thing for placing blame on specific conservative groups.

...because this was their fault and they have somehow convinced a great many people that this has something to do with protecting unborn babies in the late term. It doesn't.

Brassfusion broke it down pretty simply.

Specific conservative groups = the Catholic Bishops and Republicans a few years back who were specifically the groups that pushed this through: as written. Why shouldn't I be prompted to blame the people responsible?

The precedent here is that it is OK to outlaw a medical procedure without an exception to preserve health or human life. South Dakota already tried to ban abortion without any regard to the health of the mother. If certain groups get their way: procedure by procedure, choices will be taken away with pretty damned horrifying results.

At the same time, sensible and legal abortion restrictions are NOT enacted (federally) so that suitably visceral and sensational stories and images can be paraded in front of the voting masses.

I just don't understand why you are cool with that.

[sinmantyx]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252878,00.html

Non-anecdotal information about the survivability of extremely premature babies and the ethics surrounding their treatment.

Here.

Just so you know.

[Marblez]

Ok, the reason that I posted the above link was to point out the viability of some of these babies that are being aborted. I do not believe that abortion should be outlawed. I believe in the freedom of choice. I also believe that aborting a viable human baby should be discouraged. If that discouragement comes in the form of potential physical risk to the mother then so be it.

It does bother me to think that this would also risk the mothers of babies with severe deformity, perhaps this puts them in the category of "non-viable fetus" and an exception could be made in these cases.

This way the potential parents of simply "undesired" babies continue to be encouraged to make their decision of whether to become parents either before or shortly therafter conception. Otherwise they might need to make the difficult decision to risk the mother or choose adoption.

By the way, I have had an abortion (at 7-8 weeks) and feel that I did the responsible thing at the time. I would not want that decision taken away from me. But I knew that prolonging my decision would only make it that much MORE difficult, risky and morally wrong IMO.

[Marblez]

Non-anecdotal information about the survivability of extremely premature babies and the ethics surrounding their treatment.

Here.

Just so you know.

Just so you know, I read that today prior to your posting it.

About 300 babies are born in the UK each year at 23 weeks.

They have a 17% survival rate, compared with 50% for those born at 25 weeks.

Figures suggest that no baby survives at 21 weeks, while only 1% survive to leave hospital at 22 weeks.

I wonder how many mothers are lose their lives in the process of non "partial birth" late term abortions.

Let's say after 25 weeks...

50 Abortions = 25 Dead babies.

How many of those mothers would have died as a result of birthing a live child? 25?

Somehow I don't think so. But of course those numbers are not going to ever be available.

[sinmantyx]

Ok, the reason that I posted the above link was to point out the viability of some of these babies that are being aborted. I do not believe that abortion should be outlawed. I believe in the freedom of choice. I also believe that aborting a viable human baby should be discouraged. If that discouragement comes in the form of potential physical risk to the mother then so be it.

It does bother me to think that this would also risk the mothers of babies with severe deformity, perhaps this puts them in the category of "non-viable fetus" and an exception could be made in these cases.

This way the potential parents of simply "undesired" babies continue to be encouraged to make their decision of whether to become parents either before or shortly therafter conception. Otherwise they might need to make the difficult decision to risk the mother or choose adoption.

By the way, I have had an abortion (at 7-8 weeks) and feel that I did the responsible thing at the time. I would not want that decision taken away from me. But I knew that prolonging my decision would only make it that much MORE difficult, risky and morally wrong IMO.

I agree with a lot of what you said and certainly would have preferred the amendment to this bill that Kerry (with others) proposed when it was being debated in the Senate; that actually addressed many of those concerns.

I'm under the impression that late term abortions are illegal in most states, but I don't know specifics about cut-off, etc. I do know that every other abortion restriction has had an exception for health, and this one doesn't.

I don't agree though that we should be trying to discourage certain abortions by making them less safe. That's not something I could get behind. That's smacks of the same social engineering as refusing to vaccinate against HPV for the *soul* purpose of discouraging sex. Morality through threat is not reasonable to me. Morality through honest education and support: I'm all for that.

[Marblez]

I don't agree though that we should be trying to discourage certain abortions by making them less safe. That's not something I could get behind.

I acknowledge this valid point.

I would also question...less safe for whom? No matter what, the baby dies. Birth the baby at the latest possible date and let someone else (say, an adoptive couple) foot the bill to incubate it if necessary. The mothers chances do not change or are only minimally infringed and the baby's chances are 50- 100% greater!!

[sinmantyx]

I acknowledge this valid point.

I would also question...less safe for whom? No matter what, the baby dies. Birth the baby at the latest possible date and let someone else (say, an adoptive couple) foot the bill to incubate it if necessary. The mothers chances do not change or are only minimally infringed and the baby's chances are 50- 100% greater!!

All of this depends on the specifics of the situation and why the procedure is being done. Electively ending a pregnancy when the fetus can survive outside the mother is illegal almost everywhere.

I found some good info about procedures here and here.

BTW: this is what Roe v. Wade says:

"In 1973, Roe v. Wade struck down the abortion laws of most states. Under Roe, no state could regulate abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. Regulations directly related to maternal health would be allowed during the second trimester. Post-viability abortions, if regulated, would be subject to the mental and physical health exceptions set out in Doe v. Bolton."

Post-viability abortions can be made illegal, but require health exceptions. If the fetus can live outside the mother, it can certainly be made criminal to abort the fetus...as it is in many many places. In fact, the word "abortion" doesn't even technically apply in those cases.

According to the article: there IS a "life" exception in the law (as the radio-person said) but not a health exception. I have no idea how that could be enforced reasonably well...but at the very least it *is* in there.

Yes: we could have a federal law banning ALL post-viability abortions; with exceptions for the health of the mother that have been set by precedent. Instead, we have a law banning a particular procedure devoid of those exceptions.

-that makes me unhappy-

I think it would make a great many people unhappy.

[BrassFusion]

I also believe that aborting a viable human baby should be discouraged. If that discouragement comes in the form of potential physical risk to the mother then so be it.

Positively draconian, Marb. Straight ouf of Leviticus. "And the Lord spake unto the Levites: 'Fuck the unlucky. Just fuck 'em. I don't care. I'm G-d, for christ's sake.' "

And Steven...

For the last time, it's not some "new" procedure. It is a procedure that is the safest, easiest, and least physically and emotionally harmful to all parties involved in some circumstances. You, I, and the Supreme Court have no right to contradict doctors on which circumstances those are. I mean, Jesus Fucking Christ. If you want to be anti-abortion, just come with it, but if you want us to keep believing you're pro-choice, stop trying to limit the spectrum of choices.

Exactly which abortions are you "cool" with? The ones where the kid comes out looking like he's been through a fucking blender?

[Marblez]

Exactly which abortions are you "cool" with? The ones where the kid comes out looking like he's been through a fucking blender?

From what I have read, I don't think he's "cool" with any of them. As he said, he is "anti-abortion" but I understand that he respects that it is not his choice to make.

[Steven]

K, I may be an even dumber ass, but at least I'm not a close minded sheep.

your really reaching now.

and calling me a sheep makes you look rather desperate. ANybody can say that. But to prove it you'd have to walk alongside me.

[Steven]

Positively draconian, Marb. Straight ouf of Leviticus. "And the Lord spake unto the Levites: 'Fuck the unlucky. Just fuck 'em. I don't care. I'm G-d, for christ's sake.' "

And Steven...

For the last time, it's not some "new" procedure. It is a procedure that is the safest, easiest, and least physically and emotionally harmful to all parties involved in some circumstances. You, I, and the Supreme Court have no right to contradict doctors on which circumstances those are. I mean, Jesus Fucking Christ. If you want to be anti-abortion, just come with it, but if you want us to keep believing you're pro-choice, stop trying to limit the spectrum of choices.

Exactly which abortions are you "cool" with? The ones where the kid comes out looking like he's been through a fucking blender?

you know, you and I get into this tit for tat occasionnaly Erin, where you question me on statements I did not make, or allude to insinuations where they do not exist on my part.

I'm actually pretty blunt and painfully simple.

Im not OK with any dead baby techniques.

and therefore I do not support option A, B, or C or the next thing, because I do not condone killing a fetus.

well break it down to do the math and quantify:

Tissue=Fetus=Baby+Life divided by Medical Instrumetnation of Death=big money=me no likey.

whew, Im exhausted. damn pea brain.

[Steven]

...because this was their fault and they have somehow convinced a great many people that this has something to do with protecting unborn babies in the late term. It doesn't.

Brassfusion broke it down pretty simply.

Specific conservative groups = the Catholic Bishops and Republicans a few years back who were specifically the groups that pushed this through: as written. Why shouldn't I be prompted to blame the people responsible?

The precedent here is that it is OK to outlaw a medical procedure without an exception to preserve health or human life. South Dakota already tried to ban abortion without any regard to the health of the mother. If certain groups get their way: procedure by procedure, choices will be taken away with pretty damned horrifying results.

At the same time, sensible and legal abortion restrictions are NOT enacted (federally) so that suitably visceral and sensational stories and images can be paraded in front of the voting masses.

I just don't understand why you are cool with that.

Let me explain something to you.

although we sometimes disagree, I make up my own mind based not only on what data I think is hopefully less slanted, but also based on my own personal moral fiber.

I also choose my own underwear and socks.

People choose - to receive and digest and stand upon what platform they will.

you have been fighting for your right to choose.

these people that have chosen to accept and thus act upon seemingly en masse - you are in effect calling them all mindless or suggesting that these millions, lack the ability to make up their own minds, or to choose on their own, because of the Omniscient Power of the hated Right. I find that difficult to accept.

At what point do we stop blaming big brother, or "them"????

at what point do you recognize that somehow, somewhere, large groups of people desire a moral framework that differs from your own, and that they have the right to group togethor and thus impact the system as it presently stands?

One day this will all change, and this conservative mindlessness that you hate will be eradicated. But for now at least, its seems to have the forefront.

you see when I look at this nation and all of its epic tales of whoa, I dont blame the governmetn or specific political parties or any overimposing spector. I blame us. Me and You. As long as you have a hateful finger to point then you will never be responsible for the outcome fo your own life and the deeper you will play into the machine itself. You are obviously extremely intelligent and well versed and studied. I am none of those things. But I do think for myself.

[sinmantyx]

Let me explain something to you.

although we sometimes disagree, I make up my own mind based not only on what data I think is hopefully less slanted, but also based on my own personal moral fiber.

I also choose my own underwear and socks.

People choose - to receive and digest and stand upon what platform they will.

you have been fighting for your right to choose.

these people that have chosen to accept and thus act upon seemingly en masse - you are in effect calling them all mindless or suggesting that these millions, lack the ability to make up their own minds, or to choose on their own, because of the Omniscient Power of the hated Right. I find that difficult to accept.

At what point do we stop blaming big brother, or "them"????

at what point do you recognize that somehow, somewhere, large groups of people desire a moral framework that differs from your own, and that they have the right to group togethor and thus impact the system as it presently stands?

One day this will all change, and this conservative mindlessness that you hate will be eradicated. But for now at least, its seems to have the forefront.

you see when I look at this nation and all of its epic tales of whoa, I dont blame the governmetn or specific political parties or any overimposing spector. I blame us. Me and You. As long as you have a hateful finger to point then you will never be responsible for the outcome fo your own life and the deeper you will play into the machine itself. You are obviously extremely intelligent and well versed and studied. I am none of those things. But I do think for myself.

Don't get me wrong: I totally blame you for your own opinion

I also blame the lobbyist and people in power for: 1) misleading and manipulating the public and 2) voting the way they did.

I also realize there is a difference between thinking something is wrong and wanting it to be illegal.

Thing is: I still don't get it. This law doesn't actually do anything to protect fetuses; it ONLY takes choices away from health care professionals and their patients.

So, my conclusion is that those who support this law either 1) don't understand it because they have been misled or 2) they see it as a first step to further restrictions

I guess I should add 3) supporting the ban makes them feel good about themselves because descriptions of D&X sound "icky".

One leading reason for the D&X procedure to be performed is mentioned in the article I linked:

"A midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5,000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but cannot live for long; it will never achieve consciousness."

That's why I keep going back to the idea of "a baby born without a brain" -- simply because that is one of the very very few reasons that I would choose to have this sort of procedure performed according to MY "moral compass".

Unless this law has exceptions that I am unaware of: since my "life" - but not my emotional well-being or health - would be taken into account. This procedure would not be available to me in order to end the pregnancy in order to avoid carrying a child that I knew was going to die after delivery: because (according to this law) my health does not matter. Also, I would have no choices that would allow me to avoid prolonging the suffering of my unborn child.

I guess it's only a - what? - 1 in 2000 chance?

The reason I believe this is the case (that this ban has passed): is because MUCH of the public wants to "do something" about what has been described as a brutal and horrible procedure. THAT way I call this a snow job...because those that now feel good about doing "something" have essentially done "nothing"...but somehow still feel, inexplicably, as if they HAVE done something to assert their "moral compass".

The ONLY result of this particular ban is devaluing the health of pregnant women...in my estimation this also devalues their life.

If you want to assert your moral belief that a fetus matters more than the woman: I guess you succeeded in that. You aren't alone either. There is also this bizarre pervasive idea running around that interfering (in any way) with reproduction is "playing God". It's frustrating to me.

I can respect several "sensibilities" and opinions on the matter. It is a divisive and emotional issue - I get that. Don't worry: I might disagree with your conclusion in this case, but I'm not "at war with you". I got that. We are certainly on different sides however.

Now, if you told me you believed that ending a tubal pregnancy was "murder" or that procedures allowing the safe removal of such pregnancies should be outlawed: I wouldn't just see you as someone I disagree with strongly...but a truly evil and dangerous person.

At the very least, there are other procedures available besides D&X that would be available to me in the above case. I could possibly have a C-section or (I assume) might have the choice of inducing labor. There would be no legal way of avoiding allowing the child to die slowly, however. That is one REAL effect of this law.

Every test has shown Gabe to be healthy and in no increased risk or danger of such problems; and I have no idea what choices I would make (or would have made) in consultation with my doctor and my husband if that were to happen. However, I certainly don't appreciate one of those choices being taken away so a bunch of self-righteous people can feel good about themselves.

[Scary Guy]

your really reaching now.

and calling me a sheep makes you look rather desperate. ANybody can say that. But to prove it you'd have to walk alongside me.

I don't need to walk along side you, I can see exactly where you're going.

You might not have thought my comment was funny, but most people probably would because it is (at least until it happens to them I guess).

[Steven]

Don't get me wrong: I totally blame you for your own opinion

If you want to assert your moral belief that a fetus matters more than the woman: I guess you succeeded in that. You aren't alone either. There is also this bizarre pervasive idea running around that interfering (in any way) with reproduction is "playing God". It's frustrating to me.

I can respect several "sensibilities" and opinions on the matter. It is a divisive and emotional issue - I get that. Don't worry: I might disagree with your conclusion in this case, but I'm not "at war with you". I got that. We are certainly on different sides however.

Now, if you told me you believed that ending a tubal pregnancy was "murder" or that procedures allowing the safe removal of such pregnancies should be outlawed: I wouldn't just see you as someone I disagree with strongly...but a truly evil and dangerous person.

I respect what you posted here and your reasoning, and to a certain degree I can understand it. Yes we disagree and yes we are both seemingly concerend about the tip of the iceburg that is represented by either upholding or disallowing this decision, we simply happen to be on either side of the fence.

And I dont picture you as a salivating baby killer who is placing fetuses within the brass arms of Molech either. I understand what your trying to do. I understand that you are basically trying to offer a from of protection to an established life. I get that.

and your right, it is an emotional and difficult issue for either side. I really dont get caught up at all in the "playing God" argument....I've heard it, but it doesent concern me. I simply wnat to save a child if at all possible, even a child that has a fraction fo a chance to live and thus become what he or she may one day become. That to me is my final motivation, and it is much more akin to seeing the unborn as a poteentially potent future life force of undeniable potential......than that of being afraid of pissing off God with a "thall shalt not kill" mindset.

"However, I certainly don't appreciate one of those choices being taken away so a bunch of self-righteous people can feel good about themselves..."

this one here....doesent apply to me. And althought it exists, it also does not apply to alot of people inside the pro life movement. Some of them just feel the same way I feel. And alot of them are wonderful people, whom I have spent much time with.

[Steven]

I don't need to walk along side you, I can see exactly where you're going.

You might not have thought my comment was funny, but most people probably would because it is (at least until it happens to them I guess).

we're boring everybody with this.

[BrassFusion]

was that "brass arms of molech" thing some intentional reference to me being a demon

[sinmantyx]

this one here....doesent apply to me. And althought it exists, it also does not apply to alot of people inside the pro life movement. Some of them just feel the same way I feel. And alot of them are wonderful people, whom I have spent much time with.

I can understand pro-life: I don't understand pro-D&X ban.

Pro-life would be a federal ban on post-viability abortions. I could very well get behind that myself, if the law was written in such a way to ensure that choices were still available when the situation could merit certain actions (such as some of the ones that I mentioned). Roe v. Wade actually allows for such a law.

THAT would be pro-life.

This law is not pro-life or anti-abortion: it's JUST anti-choice.

I would actually predict that anti-abortion/pro-choice individuals (like myself) would agree on that.

My sister used to picket clinics. I was thinking of maybe going there as a patient escort so I could say "hi" and it would be all ironic. She's a wonderful person whom I have spent much time: doesn't mean she isn't self-righteous.

[Steven]

was that "brass arms of molech" thing some intentional reference to me being a demon

such Ego, Love.

Molech the Idol, in the land of Cannan, had arms made of brass with a fire pit directly beneath it. You would place said child in the arms of Molech as a human sacrifice.

and your not power hungry enough to be a Demon.

[Steven]

I can understand pro-life: I don't understand pro-D&X ban.

Pro-life would be a federal ban on post-viability abortions. I could very well get behind that myself, if the law was written in such a way to ensure that choices were still available when the situation could merit certain actions (such as some of the ones that I mentioned). Roe v. Wade actually allows for such a law.

THAT would be pro-life.

This law is not pro-life or anti-abortion: it's JUST anti-choice.

I would actually predict that anti-abortion/pro-choice individuals (like myself) would agree on that.

My sister used to picket clinics. I was thinking of maybe going there as a patient escort so I could say "hi" and it would be all ironic. She's a wonderful person whom I have spent much time: doesn't mean she isn't self-righteous.

you see the problem with this particular argument is that it leaves huge openings for personal definitions.

[Steven]

Thing is: I still don't get it. This law doesn't actually do anything to protect fetuses; it ONLY takes choices away from health care professionals and their patients.

So, my conclusion is that those who support this law either 1) don't understand it because they have been misled or 2) they see it as a first step to further restrictions

I guess I should add 3) supporting the ban makes them feel good about themselves because descriptions of D&X sound "icky".

I forgot to comment on this part:

1) they dont understand because they have been misled..... I think your wrong here.

They understand completely, but they latch onto a point of view that differs from your own conventional logic, which is rooted in your desire for your own personal sense of decency and order. In other words they are doing what you are doing. But because you dont like what they are doing, well then they must be mentally ill or otherwise just ill informed. The sad part about that mindset, is that it presents itself in an elevated manner. Sort of like if I posted that you were all heathens who were going to hell because you obviousy don't get it. I'm assuming if I came across that way you'd feel belittled and disrespected. And I may even have some sort of worthy bit of information worth considering, but it would be lost in translation simply because I reduced you upon delivery. I respect your logic Syn, I do. Except when it demands that I must be lesser than.

2) they see it as a first step to further restrictions.....

that is much closer to the truth, yes.

3) making them feel good about themselves.....

Im assuming that somewhere somebody or a group of somebody's did you some hurt in the name of god. Because within the course of your arguments you have a tendency to introduce just a lilt of disrespect and rancor. Hint: your use of the word "icky". I beleive that earlier you complained about broad brushtrokes?