PDA

View Full Version : For all you anti-choice proponenets



Qtec
03-11-2011, 03:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Woman Forced To Watch Her Baby Die Because Nebraska Anti-Abortion Law Prohibited Doctor From Acting

Since the start of the year, Republican lawmakers on the federal and state level have charged headlong into a comprehensive assault on a woman’s right to choose.

In Nebraska, one law already in existence heaped needless trauma on a mother’s tragedy. Thirty-four-year-old Danielle Deaver was 23 weeks pregnant when she faced a fate “worse than your own death” — her baby would not make it. Her water broke early and, without amniotic fluid, the fetus would not develop lungs to survive outside the womb. Deaver and her husband decided they wanted to let “nature take it’s course” and would not risk harming the child further, so they asked their doctor to help “put an end to this nightmare.”

But because of Nebraska’s law prohibiting any abortion after 20 weeks, the doctor could not assist or he would “face criminal charges, jail time, and lose his medical license.” Her doctors told her “she’d just have to wait.” So she did, in “torture,” and gave birth to Elizabeth at 3pm, watched her gasp for breath, and then watched her die at 3:15pm on December 8, 2010. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>“The outcome of my pregnancy, that choice was made by God,” said Deaver, but “how to handle the end of my pregnancy, that choice should’ve been mine.”</span>

She told her story to the Des Moines Register, watch it: </div></div> link (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/10/nebraska-abortion-law-tragic/)

Q

pooltchr
03-11-2011, 07:24 AM
I think most laws are written to cover cases where the life of the baby or the mother are in immediate danger. I suspect there is much more to this story than just the side you have presented.

Nice use of the term "anti choice" in your title. Certainly gives a negative slant to the people who believe that every life is valuable.

You are a good tool of the left. Be proud!

Steve

Sev
03-11-2011, 08:20 AM
Perhaps she should have devoted herself to be more athletic rather than look like a sack of potatoes.

eg8r
03-11-2011, 08:58 AM
So what are your thoughts?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-11-2011, 12:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Woman Forced To Watch Her Baby Die Because Nebraska Anti-Abortion Law Prohibited Doctor From Acting

Since the start of the year, Republican lawmakers on the federal and state level have charged headlong into a comprehensive assault on a woman’s right to choose.

In Nebraska, one law already in existence heaped needless trauma on a mother’s tragedy. Thirty-four-year-old Danielle Deaver was 23 weeks pregnant when she faced a fate “worse than your own death” — her baby would not make it. Her water broke early and, without amniotic fluid, the fetus would not develop lungs to survive outside the womb. Deaver and her husband decided they wanted to let “nature take it’s course” and would not risk harming the child further, so they asked their doctor to help “put an end to this nightmare.”

But because of Nebraska’s law prohibiting any abortion after 20 weeks, the doctor could not assist or he would “face criminal charges, jail time, and lose his medical license.” Her doctors told her “she’d just have to wait.” So she did, in “torture,” and gave birth to Elizabeth at 3pm, watched her gasp for breath, and then watched her die at 3:15pm on December 8, 2010. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>“The outcome of my pregnancy, that choice was made by God,” said Deaver, but “how to handle the end of my pregnancy, that choice should’ve been mine.”</span>

She told her story to the Des Moines Register, watch it: </div></div> link (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/10/nebraska-abortion-law-tragic/)

Q </div></div>

Horrible, and such stories will continue, as long as we have religious radicals in this country, who think their opinions should supercede the personal, private decisions of others.

Dictatorial people have incredible nerve, to think they have a right to dictate, and/or interfere, in the lives of others.

I find those sort of attitudes, completely unAmerican, inhuman, and revolting.

No person has any right to dictate what another person does with their own body, period!

G.

ugotda7
03-11-2011, 12:25 PM
PO.............................?

pooltchr
03-11-2011, 12:49 PM
We get it, Gayle. You believe that the right of a woman to choose to kill a baby out of convenience is the ultimate right.

Who is looking out for the rights of the baby??

Steve

Soflasnapper
03-11-2011, 12:54 PM
No person has any right to dictate what another person does with their own body, period!

I disagree with this maximalist position, while still agreeing in principle with the concept.

Roe v. Wade laid out the balancing issues of interest, and ruled that the state(s) could protect the unborn by limiting the unfettered right of abortion to the first trimester, and then permitting state(s)' restrictions for later term abortions in subsequent trimesters, post-viability.

It is NOT the case that any woman is allowed to abort a healthy 8-1/2 month old fetus that could survive outside the womb, as a general matter, unless under rare circumstances, continuing the pregnancy and/or performing a C-section risks the life of the mother. Even as someone who is pro-choice, I agree with this kind of restriction (which is the current state of the law).

pooltchr
03-11-2011, 01:19 PM
Good call. But rational thoughts will not resonate when they are directed at an irrational person. She believes any woman should be able to kill her baby anytime, if the pregnancy, or the potential inconvenience of raising a child lets her decide to do so.

How dare you agree with restrictions on that freedom??????????

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-11-2011, 01:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No person has any right to dictate what another person does with their own body, period!

I disagree with this maximalist position, while still agreeing in principle with the concept.

Roe v. Wade laid out the balancing issues of interest, and ruled that the state(s) could protect the unborn by limiting the unfettered right of abortion to the first trimester, and then permitting state(s)' restrictions for later term abortions in subsequent trimesters, post-viability.

It is NOT the case that any woman is allowed to abort a healthy 8-1/2 month old fetus that could survive outside the womb, as a general matter, unless under rare circumstances, continuing the pregnancy and/or performing a C-section risks the life of the mother. Even as someone who is pro-choice, I agree with this kind of restriction (which is the current state of the law).

</div></div>

And I agree with you completely. You haven't been here long enough to know my view, on the subject, but IMO, a woman should have only the first tri-mester to make her decision, during which time, no one has any right to intrude upon her in any way, including forcing her to view sonograms.

After that time, I am in favor of abortion only to save the health and life, of the mother, at any time, or spare needless suffering to a fetus which is not a viable fetus, with no time limits.

Obviously, any medical decision can be very complex, and unpredictable, which only a woman, her family, and her doctor, have any right to discuss, or decide upon.

Forcing the mother to do anything she doesn't want to do, is, IMO, wrong. I also think every pregnancy is unique, and there should be reasonable exceptions to my stated opinions, when appropriate.

IOW, there are cases when stress and damage to the fetus, doesn't occur until the last weeks of Pregnancy. The goal should be to spare needless suffering. A woman, her family, and her doctor, should have the final say in all of it.

I greatly resent the sort of degrading, misogynistic statements that misogynistic men, or judgemental women, make about the private, personal decisions, of women, as regards abortion.

G.

LWW
03-11-2011, 04:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No person has any right to dictate what another person does with their own body, period!</div></div>

Then on what authority do you approve a woman killing a baby ... since this baby is a separate body, merely contained within another body?

The hypocrisy of the article is that the baby isn't a human if it's aborted, but somehow is when the advancement of the ideology requires it.

Qtec
03-11-2011, 05:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what are your thoughts?

eg8r </div></div>

You know what my thoughts are. Its not my place to tell a woman what she can do with her own body. Its certainly not the place of govt to come between a patient and her Doctor.

I thought you guys were against Govt intrusion?

Q

Qtec
03-11-2011, 05:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> since this baby is a separate body, merely contained within another body?</div></div>

A baby is a part of the mother until it is born, that's a fact!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>merely </span>contained within another body? </div></div>

I have never heard such a sexist comment on this board.

Q...another record.

Sev
03-11-2011, 06:05 PM
Whats sexist about that??

A woman is merely and incubator for a child once conception is achieved.

Like we used to like to say.

A woman is nothing more than a life support system for a pussy. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

I give you permission to consider that a sexist remark.

Soflasnapper
03-11-2011, 06:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No person has any right to dictate what another person does with their own body, period!</div></div>

Then on what authority do you approve a woman killing a baby ... since this baby is a separate body, merely contained within another body?

The hypocrisy of the article is that the baby isn't a human if it's aborted, but somehow is when the advancement of the ideology requires it. </div></div>

Prolly misdirected this to me, as I QUOTED that to DISAGREE with it.

As I argued AGAINST this position, there certainly are times when the state may appropriately restrict what a woman does with her own body.

Soflasnapper
03-11-2011, 06:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We get it, Gayle. You believe that the right of a woman to choose to kill a baby out of convenience is the ultimate right.

Who is looking out for the rights of the baby??

Steve </div></div>

In this case, the only 'right' of the baby upheld by refusing to allow an abortion was to undergo the rigors of birth, only to nearly immediately die, possibly in agony.

This is no poster case for the anti-abortion crowd to be proud of.

Qtec
03-11-2011, 06:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">there certainly are times when the state may appropriately restrict what a woman does with her own body. </div></div>

If you are talking about abortion, of course there are limits. If you are 5 months pregnant and you decide you don't want the baby after all, too bad, too late.
What the anti-choice people want is to forbid all abortion after the moment of conception.

Q

sack316
03-11-2011, 06:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We get it, Gayle. You believe that the right of a woman to choose to kill a baby out of convenience is the ultimate right.

Who is looking out for the rights of the baby??

Steve </div></div>

In this case, the only 'right' of the baby upheld by refusing to allow an abortion was to undergo the rigors of birth, only to nearly immediately die, possibly in agony.

This is no poster case for the anti-abortion crowd to be proud of. </div></div>

I agree it's not a poster case for sure.

Let's say I lay out a full deck of cards on the table. I grab one card. If you correctly guess the value and suit of the card, you live. Otherwise you die.

Would you take the chance (granted slim one) of guessing correctly, or just tell me to go ahead and kill ya off?

Sack

Qtec
03-11-2011, 06:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In this case, the only 'right' of the baby upheld by refusing to allow an abortion was to undergo the rigors of birth, only to nearly immediately die, possibly in agony. </div></div>

Thanks for stating the case so clearly.


Can you imagine that poor woman watching her baby die?

Q

Qtec
03-11-2011, 06:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the fetus would not develop lungs to survive outside the womb </div></div>

It had no lungs! It was certain death. No oxygen.........get it?

There was no chance of survival. This poor woman was forced to give birth just to watch her baby die.

Think about it. Close your eyes and imagine you are that woman. The umbilical cord is cut and the baby has no oxygen. Imagine what happens next.


Q

sack316
03-11-2011, 06:52 PM
Actually Q, the articles have said there was under a 10% chance of survival, and slightly less than 2% of survival with a decent quality of life.

Not certain death.

I'm not saying it's an easy choice. I'm not even saying I necessarily disagree with the wishes of the family here. It's an awful situation to have to be in.

But statistically, the scenario I presented above is what it is. What would you choose?

Sack

Soflasnapper
03-11-2011, 07:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We get it, Gayle. You believe that the right of a woman to choose to kill a baby out of convenience is the ultimate right.

Who is looking out for the rights of the baby??

Steve </div></div>

In this case, the only 'right' of the baby upheld by refusing to allow an abortion was to undergo the rigors of birth, only to nearly immediately die, possibly in agony.

This is no poster case for the anti-abortion crowd to be proud of. </div></div>

I agree it's not a poster case for sure.

Let's say I lay out a full deck of cards on the table. I grab one card. If you correctly guess the value and suit of the card, you live. Otherwise you die.

Would you take the chance (granted slim one) of guessing correctly, or just tell me to go ahead and kill ya off?

Sack </div></div>

I'll answer that, of course, I'd try to guess that card, however dim the hope I'd be correct.

Not exactly this situation, with respect to there being a slim chance. In the case we're discussing, this result was medically guaranteed and known ahead of time.

Soflasnapper
03-11-2011, 07:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually Q, the articles have said there was under a 10% chance of survival, and slightly less than 2% of survival with a decent quality of life.

Not certain death.

I'm not saying it's an easy choice. I'm not even saying I necessarily disagree with the wishes of the family here. It's an awful situation to have to be in.

But statistically, the scenario I presented above is what it is. What would you choose?

Sack </div></div>

I posted my prior reply before reading this.

If there was a chance of life as you say some reports say, then that would make somewhat of a difference.

But you have to add in the rest of the equation, that over 90% of the time rather than living, they'd almost immediately die from suffocation, and suffer how that must feel.

It's said that bad cases make for bad laws.

But please note that this was quite the opposite case of any kind of abortion for convenience/substitute for birth control/stupid immature woman changing her mind capriciously, or whatever other horribles are mounted up as examples by the anti-abortion crowd.

LWW
03-12-2011, 03:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually Q, the articles have said there was under a 10% chance of survival, and slightly less than 2% of survival with a decent quality of life.

Not certain death.

I'm not saying it's an easy choice. I'm not even saying I necessarily disagree with the wishes of the family here. It's an awful situation to have to be in.

But statistically, the scenario I presented above is what it is. What would you choose?

Sack </div></div>

Don't confuse him with the truth. You know he wants no part of it.

sack316
03-12-2011, 06:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually Q, the articles have said there was under a 10% chance of survival, and slightly less than 2% of survival with a decent quality of life.

Not certain death.

I'm not saying it's an easy choice. I'm not even saying I necessarily disagree with the wishes of the family here. It's an awful situation to have to be in.

But statistically, the scenario I presented above is what it is. What would you choose?

Sack </div></div>

I posted my prior reply before reading this.

If there was a chance of life as you say some reports say, then that would make somewhat of a difference.

But you have to add in the rest of the equation, that over 90% of the time rather than living, they'd almost immediately die from suffocation, and suffer how that must feel.

It's said that bad cases make for bad laws.

But please note that this was quite the opposite case of any kind of abortion for convenience/substitute for birth control/stupid immature woman changing her mind capriciously, or whatever other horribles are mounted up as examples by the anti-abortion crowd. </div></div>

Thank you sofla, for honesty and integrity in answering the post (an attribute I've found in all of your posts actually).

I feel we would all choose the same, given the statistical scenario.

That by no means is intended to diminish this particular horrible instance for this particular case. In all honesty, putting myself in this woman's place, I don't know what I would do.

But I also do feel, any chance, no matter how minuscule... is worth the gamble. Perhaps my presented scenario would be more accurate if I said I (or another) was the one choosing for the poor sap getting 52-1 odds. But then again we have the benefit of knowing what life is.

I am a righty... but a pro-choice righty (well, I personally am pro life but feel it is not my place to tell another what to do). But I'd like to know my mother would give me the fighting chance, barring any detrimental effects to her, no matter the odds.

So in this case, if the choice were up to me to decide whether you get to pick a card or not... I'd venture to say we all would like getting that &lt;2% chance. And I'd also like to say, no matter how heartbreaking it may be to the chooser, that they would go for the longshot too.

Then again, I am an idealist.

Sack

LWW
03-12-2011, 06:53 AM
What remains unmentioned is that she could have crossed state line and had the abortion.

This case was a set up IMHO.

Gayle in MD
03-12-2011, 06:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We get it, Gayle. You believe that the right of a woman to choose to kill a baby out of convenience is the ultimate right.

Who is looking out for the rights of the baby??

Steve </div></div>

In this case, the only 'right' of the baby upheld by refusing to allow an abortion was to undergo the rigors of birth, only to nearly immediately die, possibly in agony.

This is no poster case for the anti-abortion crowd to be proud of. </div></div>

I agree it's not a poster case for sure.

Let's say I lay out a full deck of cards on the table. I grab one card. If you correctly guess the value and suit of the card, you live. Otherwise you die.

Would you take the chance (granted slim one) of guessing correctly, or just tell me to go ahead and kill ya off?

Sack </div></div>

Could you please explain this post? There is nothing helter skelter, about technology, these days.

It is very easy to determine if a fetus is suffering, and very easy to determine if it will be viable, after needless suffering for weeks or months.

Tell me, would you be in favor of steralizing a man, after it is proven that he impregnated numerous women, and then deserted them and their own babies? Why is the man always left out of the discussion of unwanted pregnancies?

If only the woman is going to deal with those consequences, then ONLY THE WOMAN, should have any right to determine how she deals with those consequences, of unwanted pregnancies. Decisions made by men in black robes, should be inconsequencial. The Medical Profession, has it's own rules and regulations regarding humane medical decisions and medical interventions. The Supreme Court, should stay out of this matter, completely, IMO. It is NOT their place to interfere with the MEDICAL DECISIONS between a woman, and her doctor.


G.

LWW
03-12-2011, 07:04 AM
Furthermore, in typical leftist hypocrisy they are so concerned about this baby suffering ... as am I ... yet have spent decades denying the suffering of a baby being torn apart as shown in "SILENT SCREAM."

sack316
03-12-2011, 07:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We get it, Gayle. You believe that the right of a woman to choose to kill a baby out of convenience is the ultimate right.

Who is looking out for the rights of the baby??

Steve </div></div>

In this case, the only 'right' of the baby upheld by refusing to allow an abortion was to undergo the rigors of birth, only to nearly immediately die, possibly in agony.

This is no poster case for the anti-abortion crowd to be proud of. </div></div>

I agree it's not a poster case for sure.

Let's say I lay out a full deck of cards on the table. I grab one card. If you correctly guess the value and suit of the card, you live. Otherwise you die.

Would you take the chance (granted slim one) of guessing correctly, or just tell me to go ahead and kill ya off?

Sack </div></div>

Could you please explain this post? There is nothing helter skelter, about technology, these days.

It is very easy to determine if a fetus is suffering, and very easy to determine if it will be viable, after needless suffering for weeks or months.

Tell me, would you be in favor of steralizing a man, after it is proven that he impregnated numerous women, and then deserted them and their own babies? Why is the man always left out of the discussion of unwanted pregnancies?

If only the woman is going to deal with those consequences, then ONLY THE WOMAN, should have any right to determine how she deals with those consequences, of unwanted pregnancies. Decisions made by men in black robes, should be inconsequencial. The Medical Profession, has it's own rules and regulations regarding humane medical decisions and medical interventions. The Supreme Court, should stay out of this matter, completely, IMO. It is NOT their place to interfere with the MEDICAL DECISIONS between a woman, and her doctor.


G. </div></div>

Gayle... I agree with that. But then again it has nothing to do with what I said/asked.

Sack

sack316
03-12-2011, 07:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What remains unmentioned is that she could have crossed state line and had the abortion.

This case was a set up IMHO. </div></div>

Indeed, she COULD have. But she shouldn't HAVE to (me flopping on the other side of the coin there).

Sack

LWW
03-12-2011, 07:06 AM
Also, they want to hold the father financially responsible for the mother's "CHOICE" which is tantamount to slavery, while desiring to retain the legal right to slaughter the father's children.

Has anyone ever asked how many fathers have had their children slaughtered without consultation, or been lawfully powerless to stop the slaughter that they knew was about to happen?

Gayle in MD
03-12-2011, 07:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We get it, Gayle. You believe that the right of a woman to choose to kill a baby out of convenience is the ultimate right.

Who is looking out for the rights of the baby??

Steve </div></div>

In this case, the only 'right' of the baby upheld by refusing to allow an abortion was to undergo the rigors of birth, only to nearly immediately die, possibly in agony.

This is no poster case for the anti-abortion crowd to be proud of. </div></div>

Yes, and what you wrote earlier, about disallowing abortions, during the last months of pregnancy, does not prevent that kind of needless, inhumane suffering.

This is exactly the reason why, no lbanket decision, by the Supreme Court, can cover the subject, appropriately.

NO ONE should have the right to interfere between a woman, and her doctor, when it comes to medical decisions. The medical community has it's own humane standards and oath. To say that a woman is different from a mann, in that shhe may cotrol her own body, completely, is about as sexist as it gets, IMO.

Of course, if a person starts out the process of thinking about this matter, from a misogynistic psychological point of view, such as the person you quote in this post, then the goal is to demonzie all women, for all abortions, with no humane view included in his thinking, whatsoever.

The fetus is the possession of the MOTHER who carries it. AND NO ONE ELSE! HER body, and everything in it, is completely her OWN.
The right to own one's own body, is the hallmark of civil rights. NO person, has the right to control what someone else, does with their own body.

But, the Medical Profession, does have the right to monitor the actions and bahaviors of it's practitioners.

The Supreme court, in my view, has no business being involved in this matter, at all, IMO. It is a medical decision, and it is a private, personal matter.

Religious views, are out of the discussion, completely, IMO. We are supposed to have separation of church and state, in thhis country. The religious opinions of others, should not invade the body of another. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>To suggest that others should have any say in what a woman does with her own body, is truly the same as saying that a women has no rights, at all, and that her life, is of no value, at all. SUPREME SEXISM, IMO!</span>

G.

Gayle in MD
03-12-2011, 07:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We get it, Gayle. You believe that the right of a woman to choose to kill a baby out of convenience is the ultimate right.

Who is looking out for the rights of the baby??

Steve </div></div>

In this case, the only 'right' of the baby upheld by refusing to allow an abortion was to undergo the rigors of birth, only to nearly immediately die, possibly in agony.

This is no poster case for the anti-abortion crowd to be proud of. </div></div>

I agree it's not a poster case for sure.

Let's say I lay out a full deck of cards on the table. I grab one card. If you correctly guess the value and suit of the card, you live. Otherwise you die.

Would you take the chance (granted slim one) of guessing correctly, or just tell me to go ahead and kill ya off?

Sack </div></div>

Could you please explain this post? There is nothing helter skelter, about technology, these days.

It is very easy to determine if a fetus is suffering, and very easy to determine if it will be viable, after needless suffering for weeks or months.

Tell me, would you be in favor of steralizing a man, after it is proven that he impregnated numerous women, and then deserted them and their own babies? Why is the man always left out of the discussion of unwanted pregnancies?

If only the woman is going to deal with those consequences, then ONLY THE WOMAN, should have any right to determine how she deals with those consequences, of unwanted pregnancies. Decisions made by men in black robes, should be inconsequencial. The Medical Profession, has it's own rules and regulations regarding humane medical decisions and medical interventions. The Supreme Court, should stay out of this matter, completely, IMO. It is NOT their place to interfere with the MEDICAL DECISIONS between a woman, and her doctor.


G. </div></div>

Gayle... I agree with that. But then again it has nothing to do with what I said/asked.

Sack </div></div>

Then please explain your reference, comparing a medical decision, to a game of pure chance?

sack316
03-12-2011, 07:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We get it, Gayle. You believe that the right of a woman to choose to kill a baby out of convenience is the ultimate right.

Who is looking out for the rights of the baby??

Steve </div></div>

In this case, the only 'right' of the baby upheld by refusing to allow an abortion was to undergo the rigors of birth, only to nearly immediately die, possibly in agony.

This is no poster case for the anti-abortion crowd to be proud of. </div></div>

I agree it's not a poster case for sure.

Let's say I lay out a full deck of cards on the table. I grab one card. If you correctly guess the value and suit of the card, you live. Otherwise you die.

Would you take the chance (granted slim one) of guessing correctly, or just tell me to go ahead and kill ya off?

Sack </div></div>

Could you please explain this post? There is nothing helter skelter, about technology, these days.

It is very easy to determine if a fetus is suffering, and very easy to determine if it will be viable, after needless suffering for weeks or months.

Tell me, would you be in favor of steralizing a man, after it is proven that he impregnated numerous women, and then deserted them and their own babies? Why is the man always left out of the discussion of unwanted pregnancies?

If only the woman is going to deal with those consequences, then ONLY THE WOMAN, should have any right to determine how she deals with those consequences, of unwanted pregnancies. Decisions made by men in black robes, should be inconsequencial. The Medical Profession, has it's own rules and regulations regarding humane medical decisions and medical interventions. The Supreme Court, should stay out of this matter, completely, IMO. It is NOT their place to interfere with the MEDICAL DECISIONS between a woman, and her doctor.


G. </div></div>

Gayle... I agree with that. But then again it has nothing to do with what I said/asked.

Sack </div></div>

Then please explain your reference, comparing a medical decision, to a game of pure chance? </div></div>

There is no medical reference. Simply seeing what any individuals who choose to answer would say were they personally given equivalent odds on life/death. I certainly understand that may not seem fair... as well I understand the scenario can hardly compare apples to apples... truly I understand that. But the response is indeed relevant, regardless of how inappropriate it may sound.

I'd want the fighting chance. We all would. We'd all hate to be the baby, and none of us would want to suffer. I certainly appreciate that. I also feel we'd each, assuming any cognitive ability, would understand the mother's choice as well. I don't think any of us would blame her. But I also feel, if given a choice, we'd still like the most minute of chances. That's all I'm saying. No judgment passed either way on it.

Sack

Gayle in MD
03-12-2011, 08:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No person has any right to dictate what another person does with their own body, period!</div></div>

Then on what authority do you approve a woman killing a baby ... since this baby is a separate body, merely contained within another body?

The hypocrisy of the article is that the baby isn't a human if it's aborted, but somehow is when the advancement of the ideology requires it. </div></div>

Prolly misdirected this to me, as I QUOTED that to DISAGREE with it.

As I argued AGAINST this position, there certainly are times when the state may appropriately restrict what a woman does with her own body. </div></div>

I don't agree with you on that, at all. No State, or court, should have the authority to intervene between a woman, and her doctor, EVER, on ANY matter.

To say that a woman, does not have the same rights to total control of her own body, and medical decisions regarding her own body, as a man, is to say that she has no rights as a human being, at all.

Again, there are laws and regulations, contained within the medical profession, which have existed for hundreds of years.

The act of trying to determine when life begins, should be outside the issues, entirely. That is a religious question, and religion is subjective, according to one's beliefs and values, but not a justification to dictate to others.

A living human being, has no rights at all, if those rights are limited and subject to one's gender, and as regards ownship of their own body, a man has no higher right, than a woman, to own his body.

The Supreme Court, should have refused to hear any of this. The statement should have been, that the medical profession is equipped to regulate itself.

The religious right seems to think that coporations have a right to regulate themselves, although they have NO self regulating board, of any kind. They kill thousands of people, around the world every year, as they pollute it, through unprofessional, inhumane actions. Yet, the right supports the ideology, that they should not be regulated!

This entire issue of abortion, has been a religious invasion, of the doctor, patient relationship. To say that that is correct, only in the case of a woman's private medical decisions, with her doctor, and family, is to make women, and the value of their lives, and intellectual ability, to make their own decisions, less than men, who know absolutely NOTHING, of womanhood, pregnancy, child birth, or even, in many cases, nothing of the life changing aspect, of becoming a parent, given that so many of them escape the results of their own irresponsible contribution, completely.

This matter, of abortion, above all issues, is one about which neither the state, nor the courts, nor the religious community, nor the politicians, should have any say, at all. It is a private medical preceedure. One's body, is one's own, period! Guidelines, yes, guidelines in the courts, as a form of suggestion, are fine.

Beyond that, States should have no say. Courts should have no say. No One should have any right, to control another person's body.

G.

wolfdancer
03-12-2011, 09:52 AM
I thought your original post stated your humanistic ideas on this very well. My religion frowns on abortion, and the thought of aborting a healthy fetus is abhorrent to me.
The other side of the coin...an unwanted, unplanned for baby; a teen whose future is limited by motherhood, a rape victim,etc, .....I'm glad that I am not the one faced with that difficult decision....

Gayle in MD
03-12-2011, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd want the fighting chance. We all would. We'd all hate to be the baby, </div></div>

"Babies" are not aborted, only fetuses, are ever aborted.....

As I said, ONLY a woman, has full ownership, of her body, hence she should have complete control of it. Anything less, amounts to taking away the most basic human right, the very hallmark, of of personal freedom, and huma right, which is the sole ownership of one's own body.

I hope you understand, in my life, and in my world, according to my own personal values, it would not be my choice, to ever abort, unless the goal was to eliminate suffering of the fetus, but I fully understand, and completely accept, that it is not my place, nor my right, to dictate, to others, according to my own opinions, values, beliefs, etc.

G.

wolfdancer
03-12-2011, 10:52 AM
I have to wonder how some can place such high value and concern over the life of an unborn fetus, yet can have such a cavalier attitude towards our combat casualties?

Soflasnapper
03-12-2011, 10:54 AM
Gayle, I count myself as both a feminist and pro-choice, but I don't take the maximalist position you have argued.

To me, as of the threshold of viability, the fetus has his/her own right to life that cannot be the choice of the mother any longer, except in the case of her life at risk, or severe health consequences caused by carrying the fetus to full term and delivery. This is a reasonable standard under which the state can properly intervene in my view, and about how the court rulings have been reasoned, which I find acceptable.

Your maximalist position is the caricature that the pro-life side uses against the more moderate pro-choice position that doesn't actually argue for the right to 'abortion on demand' at any time, under any circumstances, although that's what they claim. However, given your stated position, their false caricature of most pro-choice people would be accurate as to your position.

Gayle in MD
03-12-2011, 11:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle, I count myself as both a feminist and pro-choice, but I don't take the maximalist position you have argued.

To me, as of the threshold of viability, the fetus has his/her own right to life that cannot be the choice of the mother any longer, except in the case of her life at risk, or severe health consequences caused by carrying the fetus to full term and delivery. This is a reasonable standard under which the state can properly intervene in my view, and about how the court rulings have been reasoned, which I find acceptable.

Your maximalist position is the caricature that the pro-life side uses against the more moderate pro-choice position that doesn't actually argue for the right to 'abortion on demand' at any time, under any circumstances, although that's what they claim. However, given your stated position, their false caricature of most pro-choice people would be accurate as to your position. </div></div>


I don't think you are correct in your statement, because in it, you assume, that I would approve of a person, carelessly deciding to abort a viable fetus, just for their personal conveneince.

IMO, that doesn't happen, never happened, never could happen, except perhaps in the days of the back ally abortions, or with coat hangers, perhaps by someone who is mentally ill.

If human rights are our concern, then there should be no question, that a living, existing human being, must have all of those same rights, accorded to any other living, existing human being.

Realistically, the Medical profession, has it's own standards. The courts, Federal, or State, or SCOTUS, have no business interfering between a woman, and her doctor.

Try to imagine, why any woman would carry a fetus for seven or eight months, and then suddenly decide to abort it, frivolously?

Yet, the so called Right to Lifers, supposedly concerned about rights of the unborn, not about dictating according to their religious beliefs, are currently seeking to take away a woman's right to choose, completely, by slicing and dicing the issue with "conditions" that truly border on emotional torture, all as a cover for their true goal, which is to make a woman's right to any abortion, impossible, either through intimidation, or through their domestic terrorism, by bombing and illing innocent people...

Regardless of how anyone interprets the law, one would think that it cannot be denied, that the right to total control over one's body ANd it's functions, belongs to the individual, not the self appointed judges, from any arena, and that right to perfect and complete control of one's own body, is the Hallmark, of any human being's rights.

I think it is truly a shame, and a sham, that any woman's right to live her life according to her own values, her right to amke her own decisions, make her own personal choices, as accomadated by reputable Medical Doctors, who take an oath to their own, long accepted, profesional standards, would be violated by strangers, who know nothing of the individual circumstances involved, and regardless of whether they are wearing black robes, or white hoods, or screaming insults at the ggravesites of our veterans...

I also think, that any such late term decisions, are so completely rare, according to my studies, that the issue is hardly worth any attention, and surely not requiring any intervention, or judicial "Findings" at all.

It would seem that to suggest otherwise, is to be extremely presumptuous, and unfairly judgemental of women, in general.

Late term abortions, are extremely rare, and they are not done without conscience, or without cause.

G.

pooltchr
03-12-2011, 11:32 AM
So the baby is joint property of the mother and father. After all, the woman didn't create it by herself!

Is it simply because she has physical custody that only she can determine the fate of the child?

Steve

pooltchr
03-12-2011, 11:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, they want to hold the father financially responsible for the mother's "CHOICE" which is tantamount to slavery, while desiring to retain the legal right to slaughter the father's children.

Has anyone ever asked how many fathers have had their children slaughtered without consultation, or been lawfully powerless to stop the slaughter that they knew was about to happen? </div></div>

In her world, men have no rights! They have no say in the disposal of the child they contributed at least 50% in the creation of said child.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>To suggest that others should have any say in what a woman does with her own body, is truly the same as saying that a women has no rights, at all, and that her life, is of no value, at all. SUPREME SEXISM, IMO!</span>

G. </div></div>

She has this crazy idea that the unborn child she is housing is hers and hers alone to do with as she pleases. Men should have no say in the decision.

Steve

wolfdancer
03-12-2011, 12:19 PM
it's all explained quite nicely, in the owners manual

pooltchr
03-12-2011, 12:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it's all explained quite nicely, in the owners manual </div></div>

But since I don't own any women, I don't have an owner's manual!

Steve

Stretch
03-12-2011, 12:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have to wonder how some can place such high value and concern over the life of an unborn fetus, yet can have such a cavalier attitude towards our combat casualties?
</div></div>

Or make jokes about horrific natural disasters....St.

wolfdancer
03-12-2011, 12:45 PM
That too.....

sack316
03-12-2011, 03:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I hope you understand, in my life, and in my world, according to my own personal values, it would not be my choice, to ever abort, unless the goal was to eliminate suffering of the fetus, but I fully understand, and completely accept, that it is not my place, nor my right, to dictate, to others, according to my own opinions, values, beliefs, etc.

G. </div></div>

Now that we fully agree on

Sack

wolfdancer
03-12-2011, 03:47 PM
then how do you know...which buttons to push and which to avoid?

Soflasnapper
03-12-2011, 03:49 PM
Late term abortions, are extremely rare, and they are not done without conscience, or without cause.


I agree.

pooltchr
03-12-2011, 04:17 PM
Trial and error!

Steve

wolfdancer
03-12-2011, 04:33 PM
lol !!!

sack316
03-13-2011, 02:47 AM
I'll take a lack of any actual answers, sans from sofla (thank you again, sofla), that it becomes slightly more difficult of a choice when it becomes personalized?

Sack

Gayle in MD
03-13-2011, 04:10 AM
Here's an interesting story for you Sack,

My Grandmother was a devout Catholic. She walked to church, every day. She was constnatly saying the Rosary. All of her children were raised Catholic. She had six kids. After the sixth, her bladder, was shot. She began to suffer with severe bladder problems. She was from the old country, and had come to America when she was thirteen.

After the sixth child, she became pregnant, again, and it was not a planned pregnancy, but in her day, few pregnancies were planned. Birth control wasn't what it is today.

She went to her doctor, who had been treating her for her problems, actually, more than just the bladder, in fact, and he told her that she simply could not handle another pregnancy.

She had an abortion. No one knew, and for years, she kept this a secret.

Years later, she told her daughter-in-law, my mother, about what she had done. Yes, she cried, she revealed her guilt, and and expressed her hope, that God would forgiver her. If this womann ever committed a sin in her life, according to the Catholic beliefs, I can't imagine what it could have been.

Back in those days, there were plenty of good doctors, family doctors, who performed abortions for their patients. The poor women, of course, didn't have that advantage. They had to fare for themselves, the best way they could.

The point is this. Family doctors are part of the family. They know the issues of their patients, financial, health and otherwise. Because of people who don't mind their own business, Doctors who performed these quiet, but necessary abortions, cannnot do so anymore.

Because of so called "Christians" making judgements about others, (the very thing they are quick to tell you when THEY are under scrutiny, that ONLY GOD has the right to do) the private family decisions, and resulting abortions, are no more.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Federal Government, and then the State governments, basically stepped into the matter, at the behest of these so called, "Christians" and the result has been poor women in particular, have to find the money to drive out of state, to get an abortion.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The result of these religious busy bodies, has been bombing at abortions clinics, murder of doctors and nurses who work at abortion clincis, and radical people on internet forums, who praise those murderers. </span>

Do you think we have progressed, as a society, from the courts stepping into private, family matters? I surely don't

My point is this. No man knows a thing, nothing, about the experience of pregnancy. Yet, when this subject arises on this forum, it is easy to identify the misogynists among us.

You aren't one of them, but several who post here stand out like sore thumbs. This is, IMO, partly a result of the RW radical Religious right, in our country, which, IMO, divides this country by trying to force their religious views, upon all others.

This is why the courts ended up in this private, personal matter, between a woman and her doctor.

While I respect Sofla's views, and his excellent presentations here, on a range of subjects, I don't think my views on this subject are at all maximilist, nor radical.

I know of some men who live solely for their sexual conquests. Several I have known have impregnated a number of women, left the area, and never looked back. Do we make any laws to control their bodies? Do we track them down and legislate so that they must endure a surgery, so that they cannot impregnate more women, about whom they truly do not care, before they move on to posibly impregnate their next conquest??



Misogynistic men, want it both ways....they make, or try to make an argument which on the one hand, puts all of the responsibility on the woman, who "allows" herself to become pregnant, (As if anyone can have total control over avoiding unwanted pregnancies, absurd, as we know that is) while at the same time, they believe that their contribution to the pregnancy should afford them some "right" to have control over what decisions a woman makes, after the fact, the woman, of course, being the only party involved, who undergoes an actual physical, mental and emotional, (Due to hormone fluctuations) body changing, AND life changing, result.

Men, IMO, have no place, and no right to a voice, in the matter of a woman's pregnancy. It is HER pregnancy, not his. It is her body, not his. No man, IMO, judge or jury, should have any say in the matter, whatsoever. The matter, should be only between the pregnant woman, her own conscience, and that of her doctor.

I know you're intelligent, and I'm not aiming any of this AT you, just discussing it WITH you. I know that you know me well enough, to realize that I can have that view, without being against men, in any way, and to the contrary, most of my closest friends, ARE men, not that I don't have many women friends, as well, but the closest, are men, and I'm well aware of how men think about the unwanted babies, women's pregnancy issues, sex, and all other matters, having heard so many of their most private experiences, accompanied by their views about life, and their intentions, as regards supporting a woman, after neither used precautions, and the resulting life, which would follow. Also, there are plenty of women out there who were brokend hearted by men, who pretended they loved them, and when the pregnancy arose, found out for sure, how littel these men cared about them when the MEN involved, made it clear, that they insisted on abortion, and threatened those women, that they would be on their own, if they went through with the pregnancy, not to mention, how many of the women who shoose to go through with the pregnancy, end up murdered by the men invovlved.

IMO, this issue should never have made it into the courts, in the first place. If your private medical life, and life changing decisions, are not your own to make, then what IS freedom, after all?

I blame the disastrous social divisions on this subject, solely on the religious political RW, who doesn't seem to know where their own "Rights" end, and another's begin.

G.

pooltchr
03-13-2011, 07:28 AM
Sad story. But I think if you look closely, you would find that abortions are not illegal when the health of the mother is at stake. So modern day abortion laws would probably have not applied in her case.

A little less emotion, a little more reason should be your goal.

Steve

LWW
03-13-2011, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Late term abortions, are extremely rare, and they are not done without conscience, or without cause.


I agree. </div></div>

What do you base that upon?

eg8r
03-14-2011, 11:55 AM
Wolfie, I agree, I am glad that I am not the faced with that decision. However, I still do not agree with the abortion whether it is unplanned or not. Many things happen in life that are unplanned and getting through those difficult times are what makes you the person you become. As far as a rape victim, I find it tough to be black and white on the issue but in the end I choose life. In the examples where it is life and death for the mother, I just don't know what I would do if it was me making the decision.

eg8r

eg8r
03-14-2011, 11:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't agree with you on that, at all. No State, or court, should have the authority to intervene between a woman, and her doctor, EVER, on ANY matter.

</div></div>Yet you are for the healthcare reform bill as it currently stands? Seems like the left side of your brain has no idea what the right side is thinking. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
03-14-2011, 12:25 PM
LOL, that is the only way to respond when she starts ranting as if she knows everything, otherwise you will be ignored...except not in those instances where the post might be read in a back alley with a hanger in hand.

Wasn't it funny at the beginning of her response where she states no one has ever aborted a baby for personal convenience, that it never happen nor could it have EVER happenen...well except for those examples when done with a coat hanger in a back alley. Craziness.

eg8r

eg8r
03-14-2011, 12:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you are 5 months pregnant and you decide you don't want the baby after all, too bad, too late.
</div></div>Not if you are gayle. She wants to tell everyone else what they can do with their money but don't dare make a suggestion about her body.

eg8r

eg8r
03-14-2011, 12:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But please note that this was quite the opposite case of any kind of abortion for convenience/substitute for birth control/stupid immature woman changing her mind capriciously, or whatever other horribles are mounted up as examples by the anti-abortion crowd. </div></div>Which do you think happen more often, those exmaple mounted up by anti-abortion crowd or the OP's example (a baby certain to die if conceived)?

eg8r