Political Hot Potato - Abortion

[michaelskis]

And 'Skis, you should read this piece before typing one more word about "delusional psychopaths." Many of the folks who traveled to Lansing to try to speak against the pending bills brought it up.
Tissue alert.

Dandy, you don't need to read it.

What irony. 8 months ago we were told that there was "complications" with the pregnancy and they could do a test, and if the test came back a particular way, we could decide abort the child if we chose. We did not have the test done because for us, it was not going to matter. It was progressing to the same setup and my my wife had an emergency induction a couple of weeks early. Developmentally, Boston was 6 weeks early and had to be in isolation in the NICU. He is 3 months old, happy and healthy.

Do I think that the representative was wrongly punished, absolutely. She should have been able talk about her vagina all she wanted. But like I said before, abortion is murder in my eyes. In the article what is worse, letting the baby die naturally, or putting it down like a dog?

[Veloise]

... But like I said before, abortion is murder in my eyes. In the article what is worse, letting the baby die naturally, or putting it down like a dog?

Or a cat.

My first real-time experience with animal euthanasia happened just last year. The vet explained that my 19yo would feel no pain from it, and she'd be "free at last" before I left their parking lot. Safe and painless, quick. (Or I could have continued to draw things out and feed her baby food, and listen to the fissure in her upper palate creak when she tried to eat. She'd stopped howling in the night. Her face was swelling up, and fluid was leaking from her eyes. She could barely climb up her ramp to her heated bed. It had been several weeks since she'd last purred, which happy cats tend to do pretty much constantly. I let things drag out too long because I didn't want to let her go, and because I had no previous episode to guide me.)

Watching my father suffer, I thought a lot about the good work done by Dr Kevorkian. I am sure that had a push-button been available, dear ol' dad would have pushed it -- weeks prior to his eventual death.

I am not seeing the Christianity in letting a going-to-die-soon-after-birth baby develop for the additional weeks. Nor in threatening to prosecute physicians who could have made the outcome less painful for everyone. Keep in mind that the bill in question was enacted under the guise of "fetal pain." Think the dying baby felt any?

The whole point of the Jewish legislator's speech was: it is not appropriate to impose one religion onto everyone.

[Hink]

Do I think that the representative was wrongly punished, absolutely. She should have been able talk about her vagina all she wanted. But like I said before, abortion is murder in my eyes. In the article what is worse, letting the baby die naturally, or putting it down like a dog?

Which is fine. But please realize that by birthing a baby that has no chance of living, you are raising the healthcare costs of the birth by around 1000%. So by having that stance, you really can't complain about healthcare costs, because along with end of life care, these are two of the most problematic and costly parts of the healthcare system.

The fact that most ob/gyns wouldn't even deliver at that time would make me assume (although I don't have data, I could look it up, but don't feel like it) that many OBs have left Nebraska never to go back. You are putting a doctor in a situation based on your religious beliefs that isn't what is best for the mother, the stillbirthed baby, or the nation's healthcare situation.

To me, this is yet again a religious view pushed on millions of people, without merit, without cost in mind, and unfortunately without mercy to those who have to live through the event because you have some view of the world that I or others might not share.

Talk about big government...

[Bear Up North]

Like many, this Bear has conflicted feelings about abortion. If you want to solidify your confusion, read the excellent John Irving novel, Cider House Rules. That is all I will say on this topic.

Bear

[michaelskis]

Which is fine. But please realize that by birthing a baby that has no chance of living, you are raising the healthcare costs of the birth by around 1000%. So by having that stance, you really can't complain about healthcare costs, because along with end of life care, these are two of the most problematic and costly parts of the healthcare system.

The fact that most ob/gyns wouldn't even deliver at that time would make me assume (although I don't have data, I could look it up, but don't feel like it) that many OBs have left Nebraska never to go back. You are putting a doctor in a situation based on your religious beliefs that isn't what is best for the mother, the stillbirthed baby, or the nation's healthcare situation.

To me, this is yet again a religious view pushed on millions of people, without merit, without cost in mind, and unfortunately without mercy to those who have to live through the event because you have some view of the world that I or others might not share.

Talk about big government...

It is not a government thing, it is a religious thing... Thou shall not commit murder. An unborn baby cannot speak for his/ her self, therefore it is important that others do it. I know people in here who have adopted their kids. What would it be like if their biological parent had aborted the baby? Additionally does anyone have numbers on the number of babies that are aborted because on life threatening issues vs just unwanted pegnancies?

Also what about kids that have major health and disability issues? How can you look them in the eye and tell them that they are the reason that abortion should remain legal? Should they be unthinized too?

[Veloise]

Wonder what it would be like to be the putative father of a fetus in that predicament. Lying next to your wife every night and trying to deal with the fact that the forthcoming blessed event was not going to have a happy outcome.

The Nebraska law was enacted on the basis of fetal pain. Wonder if the newborn felt any pain during her struggle to breathe. Wonder if her parents would have rather held a stillborn child, or one that was dying in their arms.

I do not understand how inducing labor in this instance would constitute murder. Nor why members of one religious group would presume to impose their beliefs on everyone else, across the board, without regard to whatever the rest of the state believes.

[Planit]

THIS SHOULD BE A PERSONAL DECISION AND DECIDED BY THOSE IMMEDIATLEYT INVOLVED. NOT ONE WHERE HEALTHY OPTIONS ARE ELIMINATED BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE DOESN'T LIKE OR APPROVE.
IT IS NOT A DECISION THAT ONE WANTS TO MAKE.

[luckless pedestrian]

The whole point of the Jewish legislator's speech was: it is not appropriate to impose one religion onto everyone.

exactly, this is why I am pro-choice -

I also believe in free will and the laws of the land don't always equal the laws of the Church - i believe laws are in part to prevent chaos and I don't see this a chaotic, sad, not chaotic

It's exploitative and cruel that conservatives have forced so many to turn their backs on the Beatitudes to vote for someone that is against abortion - it was brilliant for Reagan to get the Catholic vote as prior to that, many Catholics were die-hard Democrats but guess what, what has anyone done about it - how about birth control that's free so women don't have to make that choice to begin with - how about assistance for daycare so if she keeps the baby she can work to provide for it?

But let's not sugar coat this or celebrate it as a women's freedom - it's not a great choice to make, I am so happy I never needed to make this choice and I pray my children never have to make this choice

Like many, this Bear has conflicted feelings about abortion. If you want to solidify your confusion, read the excellent John Irving novel, Cider House Rules. That is all I will say on this topic.

Bear

exactly - I have held the hand of a couple of friends who made this choice - though it might have been the right thing to do at the time, their lives were never the same thereafter and now, 30 years later, they remember their due date every year

it's a choice, but let's not celebrate it

I was adopted at birth so it is personal for me

and another thing: the Supreme Court needs to get off its dead ass and make the call as to NOT when life begins, as that is religious/personal/spiritual/moral call, but more importantly WHEN DOES THE FETUS BECOME A PROTECTED MEMBER OF SOCIETY?????!!! We will throw a pregnant Mom in jail for doing drugs or otherwise endangering her baby but she can end its life, seriously? - come on, make the call - it's not a state problem, it's a federal one

whew, I'm beat after that

[michaelskis]

Two years ago, I watched my mother die a slow and painful death, but even in the final hours, she wanted God to make the decision... not a doctor, not us, not even her. She was able to communicate to us up to 12 hours of when she died. An unborn child does not have that luxury. In looking up the numbers on abortions, it is interesting to find that is quite a range in information. This sheet says that since Roe v Wade was finalized, there have been over 54 Million abortions. In 2008, there was somewhere between 825,000*** and 1.2 Million abortions in the US and numbers and statistical information has not been recorded by the CDC since 2008. (*** Does not include at least 3 states)

In 2008, 18% were teenagers, and 57% were in their 20's. 45% of all abortions in 2008 are by women who are no married and not living with significant other. Per this website: LINK

The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

Most people use abortion as a form of birth control. Either way it is wrong but to have it be legal because of medical reasons would be like banning cars because of accidents.

The whole point of the Jewish legislator's speech was: it is not appropriate to impose one religion onto everyone.

The 6th commandment, "Thou shall not murder" as a direct Hebrew translation is not only a Christian principle, but also a Jewish one as well. If we allow for abortion, why don't we just allow for uncontrolled killing on the streets?

[Blide]

The 6th commandment, "Thou shall not murder" as a direct Hebrew translation is not only a Christian principle, but also a Jewish one as well. If we allow for abortion, why don't we just allow for uncontrolled killing on the streets?

That is such a fallacious argument and really does nothing to help the discourse on this topic.

The reason abortion is such a controversial issue in the first place is that there is a fundamental disagreement as to when life actually begins. No one is actually advocating infanticide or even late term abortions.

[kjel]

exactly, this is why I am pro-choice -

I also believe in free will and the laws of the land don't always equal the laws of the Church - i believe laws are in part to prevent chaos and I don't see this a chaotic, sad, not chaotic

It's exploitative and cruel that conservatives have forced so many to turn their backs on the Beatitudes to vote for someone that is against abortion - it was brilliant for Reagan to get the Catholic vote as prior to that, many Catholics were die-hard Democrats but guess what, what has anyone done about it - how about birth control that's free so women don't have to make that choice to begin with - how about assistance for daycare so if she keeps the baby she can work to provide for it?

But let's not sugar coat this or celebrate it as a women's freedom - it's not a great choice to make, I am so happy I never needed to make this choice and I pray my children never have to make this choice



exactly - I have held the hand of a couple of friends who made this choice - though it might have been the right thing to do at the time, their lives were never the same thereafter and now, 30 years later, they remember their due date every year

it's a choice, but let's not celebrate it

I was adopted at birth so it is personal for me

and another thing: the Supreme Court needs to get off its dead ass and make the call as to NOT when life begins, as that is religious/personal/spiritual/moral call, but more importantly WHEN DOES THE FETUS BECOME A PROTECTED MEMBER OF SOCIETY?????!!! We will throw a pregnant Mom in jail for doing drugs or otherwise endangering her baby but she can end its life, seriously? - come on, make the call - it's not a state problem, it's a federal one

whew, I'm beat after that

Could not have said it better myself. I am also adopted from birth. I was a very young mom when RT was born and had several options before me, I chose the best one for me. I would not ever think that I or anyone else should be able to decide for someone else what to do with an unplanned pregnancy or one with complications.

[OfficialPlanner]

Takes a peak inside this thread... Runs out as fast as possible!

[luckless pedestrian]

Takes a peak inside this thread... Runs out as fast as possible!

POST OF THE DAY

[Gedunker]

It is not a government thing, it is a religious thing...

Bingo. The government allows you to choose and you choose not to follow that path since your faith tells you that it is wrong. That's your business. The government is not telling you what you must do. That is the freedom from government intrusion that you seek so forcefully in economic matters and elsewhere. But here, you'd have the government bend to your religious wishes and tell people what freedoms they have and what freedoms they don't. It doesn't work that way and God help us if ever it does.

Further Gedunker sayeth not.

[Suburb Repairman]

I refuse to get directly involved in the abortion debate. Luckless is correct that the USSC needs to get its ass in gear and accept an abortion case that will allow it to rule on when a fetus becomes a protected member of society, which is the Constitutional, rather than religious, issue. This question needs to be solved because it doesn't just have implications for abortion--it carries implications for defining other criminal acts as well (if a pregnant woman is killed and both she and the fetus die, how should the fetus be considered - a separate murder charge?).

You know what would make me happy? Not being treated like we're some kind of fucking criminals as my wife & I pursue adoption. Yes, I understand some process is needed to address issues like human trafficking (even then, background checks take a matter of minutes, not months), but why are we required to attend parent prepatory classes when biological parents are not? Why does that biological connection automatically grant them as qualified to be a parent, and us not be afforded that same presumption of knowledge as an adult? We're subjected to deep background checks that take forever, detailed home studies, medical physicals and full release of our medical history, follow-up visits from social workers and similar crap like that because we are making a choice to have a child that is not a DNA match to us. Our system in this country begins the adoption process with a presumption that if you want to adopt a child, there must be something wrong with you. It is a system that is capable of stripping parental rights from adoptive parents because some obscure relative comes out of the woodwork. Now the agencies and such never come out and say that, but when you look objectively at the procedure that adoptive parents are put through, that is exactly the message being sent.

Maybe instead of focusing on abortion, the elected lowest common denominators could focus on adoption reform. You know, something that could result in bipartisan support while still potentially reduce dependence on abortion as a means to deal with an unwanted child. Make it easier for folks to adopt kids that need homes, and make that option more appealing for a mother that does not wish to keep a child.

[imaplanner]

As a man I don't really feel qualified to say a whole lot about it.

[beach_bum]

exactly, this is why I am pro-choice -

But let's not sugar coat this or celebrate it as a women's freedom - it's not a great choice to make, I am so happy I never needed to make this choice and I pray my children never have to make this choice

Agree 100%

Once, in Catholic school, I was made to watch a video of a late term abortion. It made me sick to my stomach. There is nothing celebratory about an abortion no matter the circumstances.

I really see these arguements about birth control, abortion, etc, more about controlling a woman's place in society instead of about the baby. If it were really about the child then we as a society would be funding education more than adequately and helping these families find affordable care and housing.

[michaelskis]

Bingo. The government allows you to choose and you choose not to follow that path since your faith tells you that it is wrong. That's your business. The government is not telling you what you must do. That is the freedom from government intrusion that you seek so forcefully in economic matters and elsewhere. But here, you'd have the government bend to your religious wishes and tell people what freedoms they have and what freedoms they don't. It doesn't work that way and God help us if ever it does.

Further Gedunker sayeth not.

Based on your argument, honor killings should not be regulated by the government? What about human sacrifice in the name of religion?

In the constitution, it states that we have the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Freedom."Abortion is preventing an unborn baby from living. Thus, a violation of the constitution and a violation of decent morals. For me, it is a religious belief with constitutional authority to the government to regulate. Even Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe in Roe v Wade) has now come out as a very vocal pro-life supporter and has stated that she regrets her decision every day of her life.

So once again, how can one decide to murder a child, born or unborn? Can someone please answer this question for me.

If it were really about the child then we as a society would be funding education more than adequately and helping these families find affordable care and housing.

I totally disagree with the idea about putting women in their place as I believe in equality, but I do agree that it is a societal issue and that better education does need to happen. As for funding, there are programs out there. The daycare that we had mini-skis in had several kids that were partly or fully funded by private funding through the church based on financial need.

You know what would make me happy? Not being treated like we're some kind of fucking criminals as my wife & I pursue adoption. Yes, I understand some process is needed to address issues like human trafficking (even then, background checks take a matter of minutes, not months), but why are we required to attend parent prepatory classes when biological parents are not? Why does that biological connection automatically grant them as qualified to be a parent, and us not be afforded that same presumption of knowledge as an adult? We're subjected to deep background checks that take forever, detailed home studies, medical physicals and full release of our medical history, follow-up visits from social workers and similar crap like that because we are making a choice to have a child that is not a DNA match to us. Our system in this country begins the adoption process with a presumption that if you want to adopt a child, there must be something wrong with you. It is a system that is capable of stripping parental rights from adoptive parents because some obscure relative comes out of the woodwork. Now the agencies and such never come out and say that, but when you look objectively at the procedure that adoptive parents are put through, that is exactly the message being sent.

Maybe instead of focusing on abortion, the elected lowest common denominators could focus on adoption reform. You know, something that could result in bipartisan support while still potentially reduce dependence on abortion as a means to deal with an unwanted child. Make it easier for folks to adopt kids that need homes, and make that option more appealing for a mother that does not wish to keep a child.

SR, all I can say is I don't know if it is possible for me to agree more with your comment in terms of adoption. Because of the complications we had with the last pregnancy, this is something that the Mrs. and I might need to deal with in the future. Thank you for saying what you said. From what I have heard, this happens all too often.

[btrage]

This scares the hell out of me as a father of two daughters.

http://www.rainn.org/get-information...eporting-rates

It makes me wonder how many abortions are the result of rape, but the woman never tells.

Again, a male dominated world where women are raped for violence and other predatory reasons. Let's solve the rape problem, then I'll worry about women aborting babies. To me, this is a far more important problem. But yet we never hear a damn thing about it.

[Blide]

So once again, how can one decide to murder a child, born or unborn? Can someone please answer this question for me.

Using words like murder doesn't really help the debate...

As people have stated already, the issue boils down to when life begins or at the very least, when a fetus becomes a protected member of society. Science points to one direction while some religious institutions point to another. The law is supposed to try to provide balance on an issue where many don't want it.

[wahday]

Well, I stumbled into this room, decided I shouldn't be here, but keep poking my head in to see how its going. Now I feel compelled to chime in. Nothing earth shattering here, but just my two cents.

Another way to view the abortion issues is that while one would like for it not to ever be a decision anyone has to make, the fact is that women do get pregnant and, regardless of whether abortion is illegal or not, they do seek them out. The reasons are many and I don’t pretend to understand what it feels like to be in this situation (or a woman). But whether you feel it is just or not, it definitely happens. So, one response society can make is “given these realities, we want to ensure that people have access to safe and regulated services.” And I think that is what the current law does. Making abortion illegal again is not going to stop them from happening.

At some point, on this and other issues, I believe societies have to reconcile how they WISH their communities behaved with how they ACTUALLY act and make sure that legislation protects as many of them as it can for the good of all. Some will say this is the same as condoning the behavior and will encourage more, but I don’t see it that way. And unfortunately we really don’t have the stats to know if abortion being illegal would change much (not many accurate figures on pre-1973 illegal abortions). I see it is devising laws that are geared toward how people actually behave and not how we wish they would.

[otterpop]

In the constitution, it states that we have the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Freedom.".

Those rights come from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. While a historic and landmark document of the statement of human rights, it is not part of the law of the land.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

[Mastiff]

In 2008, there was somewhere between 825,000*** and 1.2 Million abortions in the US and numbers and statistical information has not been recorded by the CDC since 2008.

Because that's just what we need... another million people on the planet every year.

[Suburb Repairman]

Those rights come from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. While a historic and landmark document of the statement of human rights, it is not part of the law of the land.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

Also, it is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

It is incredibly hard for me to take someone's Constitutional argument seriously when they don't even know which document says what, and manage to misquote a fundamental American philosophical statement regarding human rights. I don't like to dismiss people outright for such errors, but when someone runs around professing to be so knowledgeable & well-read on such issues it becomes relevant. Remember, when it comes to government action on this it is a Constitutional interpretation issue, not a religious one.

[Veloise]

Also, it is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

It is incredibly hard for me to take someone's Constitutional argument seriously when they don't even know which document says what, and manage to misquote a fundamental American philosophical statement regarding human rights. I don't like to dismiss people outright for such errors, but when someone runs around professing to be so knowledgeable & well-read on such issues it becomes relevant. Remember, when it comes to government action on this it is a Constitutional interpretation issue, not a religious one.

No personal attack intended, 'Skis, but I'll chime in to add that your arguments would carry more weight if you spelled words like euthanasia correctly. Just turn on the "red underlining" instant spell-check, and your position out on a limb will be a lot less precarious. This would likely help in a professional capacity as well.

Here's a Michigan story about a 20-week decision.

"Over the course of the next few weeks, Jenni visited specialists and genetic counselors to learn more about her son’s condition. When she learned that he was unlikely to even survive full-term, Jenni made the painful decision to terminate her wanted pregnancy, a decision she understandably describes as “incredibly difficult, and so deeply sad.” By the time her termination was scheduled, Jenni’s pregnancy was in the 21st week."