BAIPA - sleeper issue?

[6thGen]

aka The Induced Infant Liability Act. Even with the best team of nuance makers, I don't see how being left of NARAL is good for him. Thoughts?

[6thGen]

FYI - BAIPA is the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Obama opposed it and killed it in committee as a state senator. The US Senate passed with a unanimous vote. It basically states that infants born alive are afforded the same Constitutional rights, whether or not they were wanted. A nurse testified that in 1999, she watched babies aborted alive and shelved to die in utility rooms. Obama killed the attempt to end it in committee.

[Bob]

how could anyone oppose that bill? there must be "the rest of the story" somewhere.

[6thGen]

From the nurse that testified that she witnessed babies shelved to die.

Obama's 10 reasons for supporting infanticide

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 16, 2008
1:00 am Eastern


By Jill Stanek
© 2008

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59702




I was intimately involved in the five-year process to pass the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, testifying before committees twice that then-state Sen. Barack Obama sat on.
Following are 10 excuses Obama has given through the years for voting "present" and "no" on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or BAIPA.

10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:

I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …

I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to mothers.

Before voting "no" for a second time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:

What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that.
8. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative.

An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against BAIPA because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."

7. Anyway, doctors don't do that.

Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed BAIPA because "physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions."

6. Obama apparently read medical charts and saw no proof.

Also, during a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said "there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee," according to the Illinois Leader.

5. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue.

During his U.S. Senate contest against Obama, Alan Keyes famously said:

Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died. ... Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.
Obama has always mischaracterized Keyes' condemnation as a blanket statement against Obama's pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes was pointedly discussing infanticide.

Nevertheless, induced labor abortion, the procedure that sometimes results in babies being aborted alive, must be included as one Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes as he recounted in a July 10, 2006, USA Today op ed:

... [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and … I can't impose my religious views on another.
4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle.

In that USA Today piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer, decided it was a "typically liberal response," and revised it:

But my opponent's accusations nagged at me. ... If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
3. Introducing legislation to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was a political maneuver.

During the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, "The bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons," according to the Illinois Leader.

2. Sinking Born Alive was about outmaneuvering that political maneuver.

Obama has this quote on his website:

Pam Sutherland … of … Illinois Planned Parenthood … told ABC News, "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive.' They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats. ..."
And the No. 1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:

1. Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade.

During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade. ... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.
This was a lie on two points.

First, there was no such amendment.

Second, both definitions of "born alive" were always identical. The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois' version in 2003, refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it.

The federal paragraph (c) actually weakened the pro-abortion position by opening the possibility of giving legal status to preborn children, the opposite of Obama's contention:

Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.

At any rate, so what if stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and leaving them to die did theoretically "encroach on Roe v. Wade"?

Obama was admitting he supported infanticide if that were true.

[scooterbug44]

As far as I can tell, the bill was flawed because its definitions and standards were too vague. Obama voted against it because he worried its vagueness 1) would become ammo against Roe v. Wade and 2) cause issues as the medical community does not fully agree at what point resucitation is futile or just how far they should go to keep a severely premature baby alive.

Apparently there was legislation passed in 1984 nicknamed "baby doe" that covers the issue of healthy babies, but isn't well regulated/enforced

The legislation is easy to sensationalize so they are now writing articles about "why Jesus won't vote for Obama" (written by the woman 6th gen references) and adding the rumor that he wants newborn babies to die to the list o' nonsense. :roll:

From a neonatal medical journal discussion of the issue:

"The BAIPA indiscriminately defines "born alive" to include an infant "at any stage of development... regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion," and it makes no reference to standards of care or best interests, nor does it specifically protect a parent’s decision-making authority."

"At best, legislators recognized that physicians disagree about the efficacy of resuscitating at the limits of viability, and therefore the current standard of care permits doctors to deem resuscitation a futile endeavor. However, judges may resist characterizing resuscitation as futile, given its poor analytical fit, and substantial public-policy concerns regarding discrimination against future disabled individuals could easily tip a court to preserve incipient, at least, physiologic life under the BAIPA’s all-encompassing definition of born alive."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/4/e576?ct

[6thGen]

The other article title was a reference to Keyes' remark. There are plenty of vague laws passed with his support, but this is one he chose to take a stand on. I'm not saying he couldn't talk his way out of his vote, but that's why I cited it as a sleeper issue where his attempt at nuance could bite him in the ass. He still did a terrible job of talking around it. His hasty dismissal would lead me to believe he has a quick answer for killing it in committee, but it took him years to come up with something reasonable. Everyone with a friend on the Hill knew what Kerry meant when he said that he voted for the war before he voted against it, but it hurt him regardless. The fact that a similar federal bill passed unanimously points to the fact that everyone else knew better than to touch that issue. He's also against criminalization for transporting minors across state lines for abortions without parental consent. He's further left on abortion than NARAL, and it's going to hurt him.

[hnooe]

Thanks Scotterbug for filling me in on the "rest" of the story.

I will look forward to 6th Gen response on this.

This is an issue where you need every single bit of information on both sides to make a good decision. The actual, specific act itself, sounds abhorent to me, and should be illegal IMO, and I am on the left of this issue in general.

This "sleeper" issue will obviously play very well in conservative churches across the country, as those preaches inclined to "walk the line" of actually endorsing McCain, will certainly use it to motivate their congregations.

[Zebraspots]

I would certainly like to see far fewer abortions, but passing laws to get the government further involved in MEDICAL decisions is the wrong way to go.

Quit getting rid of health services, contraception, and only teaching abstinence based sex-ed if you want fewer abortions instead of messing w/ women's health!

Obviously anyone leaving a baby to die in a utility closet should be fully prosecuted (and then severely beaten and left to die in a utility closet), but that claim is so sensational and crazy that I have alot of trouble believing the nurse's claims.

[6thGen]

Thanks Scotterbug for filling me in on the "rest" of the story.

I will look forward to 6th Gen response on this.

This is an issue where you need every single bit of information on both sides to make a good decision. The actual act itself sounds abhorent to me, and should be illegal.

This "sleeper" issue will obviously play very well in conservative churches across the country, as those preaches inclined to "walk the line" of actually endorsing McCain, will certainly use it to motivate their congregations.

I completely agree with your bolded statement. I don't know that Obama's really addressed this, other than when he's pressed. It's not something that plays well. Regardless, see my post above. The point is not the nuance of the written law, the point is that it reinforces the fact that he's left of anyone and everyone.

[scooterbug44]

He's pro-choice and presented his (IMO valid) reasoning for voting against the bills.

How does that make him further left than everybody? :idontno:

[30A Skunkape]

There is already plenty of hand wringing in the NICU regarding the resuciation of neonates at the threshold of viability. Why, oh why, oh why would anyone want to 'save' a newborn of improbable viability who has survived termination efforts in the first place? We do NOT need laws obligating physicians to practice medicine that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.

[rancid]

There is already plenty of hand wringing in the NICU regarding the resuciation of neonates at the threshold of viability. Why, oh why, oh why would anyone want to 'save' a newborn of improbable viability who has survived termination efforts in the first place? We do NOT need laws obligating physicians to practice medicine that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.


If this excuse to circumvent Roe vs Wade ever became law, I can see the Terry Schiavo circus now. A bunch of crazies picketing outside a NICU to keep a 400 gram baby on life support indefinitely at an obscene cost to society against the wishes of the family.

[6thGen]

The only thing the law does is offer the same amount of hand wringing for wanted babies as unwanted. If it is reasonable for a wanted, it should be for an unwanted.

[6thGen]

In 2000, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) was first introduced in Congress. This was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal "person" for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion. (To view the original 2000 BAIPA, click here.)

In 2002, the bill was enacted, after a "neutrality clause" was added to explicitly state that the bill expressed no judgment, in either direction, about the legal status of a human prior to live birth. (The "neutrality" clause read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section.") The bill passed without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress. (To view the final federal BAIPA as enacted, click here. To view a chronology of events pertaining to the federal BAIPA, click here.)

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, actively opposed a state version of the BAIPA during three successive regular legislative sessions. His opposition to the state legislation continued into 2003 — even after NARAL had withdrawn its initial opposition to the federal bill, and after the final federal bill had been enacted in August 2002.

[jdarg]

Thanks Scotterbug for filling me in on the "rest" of the story.

I will look forward to 6th Gen response on this.

This is an issue where you need every single bit of information on both sides to make a good decision. The actual, specific act itself, sounds abhorent to me, and should be illegal IMO, and I am on the left of this issue in general.

This "sleeper" issue will obviously play very well in conservative churches across the country, as those preaches inclined to "walk the line" of actually endorsing McCain, will certainly use it to motivate their congregations.

I love that Tom Ridge is hanging out with McCain- and is completely pro-choice.

I would certainly like to see far fewer abortions, but passing laws to get the government further involved in MEDICAL decisions is the wrong way to go.

Quit getting rid of health services, contraception, and only teaching abstinence based sex-ed if you want fewer abortions instead of messing w/ women's health!

Obviously anyone leaving a baby to die in a utility closet should be fully prosecuted (and then severely beaten and left to die in a utility closet), but that claim is so sensational and crazy that I have alot of trouble believing the nurse's claims.

People who are prochoice are NOT proabortion, even though that is the spin put on it.:roll:

If as much money and energy was put into effective sex ed, free contraception for anyone that needs it (including teens), and finally just admit that the abstinence only (and those stupid promise rings) are statistically the WORST sex ed ever - we could reduce pregnancy rate, therefore reduce the number of unwanted preganancies that end in abortion. No woman wants to have one.


He's pro-choice and presented his (IMO valid) reasoning for voting against the bills.

How does that make him further left than everybody? :idontno:

It doesn't.

There is already plenty of hand wringing in the NICU regarding the resuciation of neonates at the threshold of viability. Why, oh why, oh why would anyone want to 'save' a newborn of improbable viability who has survived termination efforts in the first place? We do NOT need laws obligating physicians to practice medicine that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.

No, we don't.

If this excuse to circumvent Roe vs Wade ever became law, I can see the Terry Schiavo circus now. A bunch of crazies picketing outside a NICU to keep a 400 gram baby on life support indefinitely at an obscene cost to society against the wishes of the family.

The idea makes me shudder.

I think we as a country have more pressing issues (war, economy, education) than personal female medical decisions.

[6thGen]

If Obama's position is that the government need not influence its citizens' decisions when said decision does not infringe on other's rights (which it is my position that this one does), I'll back off and maybe even vote for him. Right now, that position is limited to abortion and gay marriage.

[scooterbug44]

How does him voting against a bill that might take medical decisions away from doctors (in the ongoing quest for anti-abortion legislation) infringe on YOUR rights? :idontno:

[Gypsea]

[quote=jdarg;450244]I love that Tom Ridge is hanging out with McCain- and is completely pro-choice.

and probably why he will not be his VP. :(

[30A Skunkape]

6th Gen, I don't accept the premise that there was an overwhelming burden of potentially viable neonates surviving abortions. Further, I certainly doubt that the standard of care was sticking these babies in closets and waiting for them to die. That is absurd. This was obviously a feel good law.

I think it is a terrible idea to place the burden of taking care of these babies on a pediatrician. Keep in mind that elective abortions are generally NOT performed in hospitals where there is a staff pediatrician on call, thus the logistics of transporting the most fragile of infants to the nearest pediatrician are a nightmare. Once care is assumed by a pediatrician, that provider will be responsable for transport to the nearest NICU, which again, is a logistical nightmare. I see no indication in the bill that provides tort protection for physicians-so, I see a scenario where a woman presents to a clinic to abort a 25 week gestational age fetus; a 'viable' baby is delivered in the process. The neonate is transported to a pediatrician in a community hospital who does her best to keep the baby 'alive'. After a few hours, transport to a NICU is arranged. A neonatologist assumes care and after a four month taxpayer funded stay in the NICU during which time the baby is intubated and suffers severe baro-trauma to the lungs, undergoes intestinal resection for necrotizing colitis, sustains a grade IV intracranial hemorrhage, and survives two rounds of sepsis, the baby suffers a fatal septic episode. One month later, the neonatologist and pediatrician are served notice that they are being sued by the mother for failing to save the baby.

Think it can't happen? Think again-there are hundreds of John Edwards wannabes out there who would love to litigate this kind of stuff.

[6thGen]

How does him voting against a bill that might take medical decisions away from doctors (in the ongoing quest for anti-abortion legislation) infringe on YOUR rights? :idontno:

Did I say that? I said it infringes on others' rights. The "other" is the child that is killed.

[6thGen]

Skunkape,
I certainly bow to your knowledge on the logistics here, but the point iof the law is that it is a step to undermine the legitimacy of abortion, which I see as the ultimate civil rights issue. The Three Fifths compromise wasn't pretty, but it undermined slavery, and in the end helped to hasten its end. This law begins to undermine the nonsense that it is a "personal female medical decision".

Again, the point of the thread is that this could be a sleeper issue. The electorate doesn't understand, or for that matter care about nuance, especially when it is employed as selectively as the junior Senator from Illinois chooses to do so.

[30A Skunkape]

Skunkape,
I certainly bow to your knowledge on the logistics here, but the point iof the law is that it is a step to undermine the legitimacy of abortion, which I see as the ultimate civil rights issue. The Three Fifths compromise wasn't pretty, but it undermined slavery, and in the end helped to hasten its end. This law begins to undermine the nonsense that it is a "personal female medical decision".

Again, the point of the thread is that this could be a sleeper issue. The electorate doesn't understand, or for that matter care about nuance, especially when it is employed as selectively as the junior Senator from Illinois chooses to do so.

Gotcha. Well, I am not touching the abortion issue with a ten foot pole, but this seems to be an awfully sloppy way to go about doing away with abortion.

[6thGen]

Not anywhere near as sloppy as the SCOTUS decision that established it.

[30A Skunkape]

It may actually be. I am pretty disturbed to learn about this end around to stamp out abortion. It is pathologically evil to conspire to subject neonates to pain and suffering. Period. The lay public that this law is intended to play to has no concept regarding the tenuous existence extremely premature babies have. They are frail and simply not equipped with the physiological requirements to survive on their own.

It is sick, sick, sick to play political football with innocent life. Isn't the rationale behind abolishing abortion protecting the sanctity of life in the first place? How could it make logical sense to subject innocent life to almost certain suffering? It doesn't. Furthermore, I can't think of a more tasteless violation of a human's civil liberty than to subject them to futile, painful, invasive medical treatment in the name of some damn political game.

Thats about all I have to say on this topic.

[6thGen]

It may actually be. I am pretty disturbed to learn about this end around to stamp out abortion. It is pathologically evil to conspire to subject neonates to pain and suffering. Period. The lay public that this law is intended to play to has no concept regarding the tenuous existence extremely premature babies have. They are frail and simply not equipped with the physiological requirements to survive on their own.

It is sick, sick, sick to play political football with innocent life. Isn't the rationale behind abolishing abortion protecting the sanctity of life in the first place? How could it make logical sense to subject innocent life to almost certain suffering? It doesn't. Furthermore, I can't think of a more tasteless violation of a human's civil liberty than to subject them to futile, painful, invasive medical treatment in the name of some damn political game.

Thats about all I have to say on this topic.

Hold on a bloody minute. You say you aren't touching the abortion issue with a ten foot pole, but come up with this? Again, the ONLY thing this law does is clarify that any child who is completely out of his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is afforded equal rights. If you have a problem with your legal requirements with your required care for neonates, I suggest you take it up with the legislation that addresses it. This is the same lame argument that the fair traders try to make.

[Bob]

i don't care for abortion, but i don't want the state to dictate policy over someone's body...it's a typical repub play. we are all for freedom as long as it's our kind of freedom.

[30A Skunkape]

Hold on a bloody minute. You say you aren't touching the abortion issue with a ten foot pole, but come up with this? Again, the ONLY thing this law does is clarify that any child who is completely out of his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is afforded equal rights. If you have a problem with your legal requirements with your required care for neonates, I suggest you take it up with the legislation that addresses it. This is the same lame argument that the fair traders try to make.


I didn't make any value judgment on abortion, good, bad or otherwise.

So that I may more effectively take it up with our legislators, please let me know what the accepted standards are regarding the delivery of care to extremely premature neonates. What I don't think you understand is that there is no consensus regarding the care of these fragile little souls, therefore, I am not sure on what equality is based upon. It is especially difficult to determine what constitutes equal care when comparing a neonate who is simply born early against one who has just undergone intentional injury yet survives.

[6thGen]

i don't care for abortion, but i don't want the state to dictate policy over someone's body...it's a typical repub play. we are all for freedom as long as it's our kind of freedom.

I don't know when life begins. I know it is sometime after coitus, and sometime before birth. I believe we should err on the side of caution when deciding who makes the decision on another innocent life. It is not an issue of choice, inarguably in the third trimester when a "reasonable" time to choose has passed, assuming you believe there should be a reasonable time. It is a civil rights issue.

[rapunzel]

A quick googling of this subject brings up the alternate title of this bit of propaganda -- Why Jesus Would Not Vote for Barack Obama. Since Jesus mentioned serving the least among us thousands of times in my Bible, and his opposition to abortion zero times, I think it is sort of presumptuous of the author to assume Jesus was a single issue voter.

This exchange shows just why some decisions should be between a doctor and patient. When people try to find a backdoor to get what they want, they often end up creating some horrible legislation that has no bearing on the real world, such as BAIPA. Elective abortions are generally performed in the first trimester, before a woman begins to show and far before the fetus would be viable. The late abortions that would normally result in a fetus born alive are usually performed to save the mother, and normally everything possible is done to save the baby. This is a waste of time and taxpayer money to legislate a cure for a problem that really doesn't exist.

It's interesting to me that these special interest groups are willing to try to trick the electorate, and waste legislators time as they try to deflect a election time attack and everyone fiddles as Rome burns.

[jdarg]

A quick googling of this subject brings up the alternate title of this bit of propaganda -- Why Jesus Would Not Vote for Barack Obama. Since Jesus mentioned serving the least among us thousands of times in my Bible, and his opposition to abortion zero times, I think it is sort of presumptuous of the author to assume Jesus was a single issue voter.

This exchange shows just why some decisions should be between a doctor and patient. When people try to find a backdoor to get what they want, they often end up creating some horrible legislation that has no bearing on the real world, such as BAIPA. Elective abortions are generally performed in the first trimester, before a woman begins to show and far before the fetus would be viable. The late abortions that would normally result in a fetus born alive are usually performed to save the mother, and normally everything possible is done to save the baby. This is a waste of time and taxpayer money to legislate a cure for a problem that really doesn't exist.

It's interesting to me that these special interest groups are willing to try to trick the electorate, and waste legislators time as they try to deflect a election time attack and everyone fiddles as Rome burns.

Thank you! All this spin on situations that are not really elective abortions. The prolife movement really wants people to believe that late term abortions are happening all the time and are flip decisions made by women who forgot to use birth control- nice try, but so not the true and complete story. Most involve situations where the health of the mother is at risk, or the baby has too many health issues to survive to full term, or much past it.

Obama was SO right on this one, giving me even more confidence in his judgment.

[Bdarg]

If one is “pro life”, then a priori, one needs to be “pro-social welfare” to support said life and “pro-sex education” to insure that all life is wanted.
Unfortunately the argument too often becomes one of pro-mother’s life verses pro-fetus’ life in a situation where neither win. On top of that, those in the pro-fetus camp are often the same people that argue constantly to cut or eliminate the social programs that would support, care for and educate that unwanted fetus. To argue for life and then deny sustenance to those unwanted, problem plagued children only once they are born into this world and beyond hypocrisy.
As for the viability of the unborn in a second or third term abortion, these are not on demand spur of the moment decisions to abort a pregnancy, they are not a form of traditional birth control, and they are most always the result of a non-viable fetus that is in danger of damaging a mother, who desperately wants a child, to a point that she may not be able to ever have a child. We can all imagine the horror of a mother and father having to make such a decision. I am certain that it is not a whimsical decision.
First trimester is a different story, but then viability is not currently an issue in the first trimester.
Sorry to abort your red herring so early in this election spin season.

[LuciferSam]

Hold on a bloody minute. You say you aren't touching the abortion issue with a ten foot pole, but come up with this? Again, the ONLY thing this law does is clarify that any child who is completely out of his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is afforded equal rights. If you have a problem with your legal requirements with your required care for neonates, I suggest you take it up with the legislation that addresses it. This is the same lame argument that the fair traders try to make.


I would say that while this issue may be a consequence of abortion, it has nothing to to with abortion. It's about consent of the wishes of the dying. Obviously the baby can't consent to grant power of attorney to the mother or designate her as health care surrogate. This would give her the right to issue do not resuscitate or do not feed orders as might be the case with an elderly dying relative. I would argue that in the case of a newborn these should be her powers by default in cases in which the baby is on the edge of survival such as a failed abortion. You could argue about the morality of late-term abortions, but that is another issue.

[6thGen]

A quick googling of this subject brings up the alternate title of this bit of propaganda -- Why Jesus Would Not Vote for Barack Obama. Since Jesus mentioned serving the least among us thousands of times in my Bible, and his opposition to abortion zero times, I think it is sort of presumptuous of the author to assume Jesus was a single issue voter.

This exchange shows just why some decisions should be between a doctor and patient. When people try to find a backdoor to get what they want, they often end up creating some horrible legislation that has no bearing on the real world, such as BAIPA. Elective abortions are generally performed in the first trimester, before a woman begins to show and far before the fetus would be viable. The late abortions that would normally result in a fetus born alive are usually performed to save the mother, and normally everything possible is done to save the baby. This is a waste of time and taxpayer money to legislate a cure for a problem that really doesn't exist.

It's interesting to me that these special interest groups are willing to try to trick the electorate, and waste legislators time as they try to deflect a election time attack and everyone fiddles as Rome burns.

Do you make all of your decisions by article titles that come up on Google searches? If you'd bother to read the rest of what I said here, or if you had a better handle on the history of your candidate, or if you'd even bother to read the article, you'd know the article title was a reference to something Alan Keyes said. Since you cited the legislation as "horrible", what specifically is horrible about it? If it was so horrible, why did it pass unanimously and why didn't NARAL oppose it?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ207.107

To say the problem doesn't exist is to turn a blind eye to reality. If the problem doesn't exist, and jdarg, this is one for you as well, would you support a ban on elective abortions in the third trimester? What about the first?

[6thGen]

If one is “pro life”, then a priori, one needs to be “pro-social welfare” to support said life and “pro-sex education” to insure that all life is wanted.
Unfortunately the argument too often becomes one of pro-mother’s life verses pro-fetus’ life in a situation where neither win. On top of that, those in the pro-fetus camp are often the same people that argue constantly to cut or eliminate the social programs that would support, care for and educate that unwanted fetus. To argue for life and then deny sustenance to those unwanted, problem plagued children only once they are born into this world and beyond hypocrisy.

Wrong. Failure to support government funded welfare is far different than putting the child on the street. I believe that social programs is more efficiently run in the private sector.

As for the viability of the unborn in a second or third term abortion, these are not on demand spur of the moment decisions to abort a pregnancy, they are not a form of traditional birth control, and they are most always the result of a non-viable fetus that is in danger of damaging a mother, who desperately wants a child, to a point that she may not be able to ever have a child. We can all imagine the horror of a mother and father having to make such a decision. I am certain that it is not a whimsical decision.
First trimester is a different story, but then viability is not currently an issue in the first trimester.
Sorry to abort your red herring so early in this election spin season.

Again, wrong. Elective late term abortions are legal as a form of birth control. If you'll support a ban on them, I'll listen. Otherwise, the red herring is yours.

[6thGen]

I would say that while this issue may be a consequence of abortion, it has nothing to to with abortion. It's about consent of the wishes of the dying. Obviously the baby can't consent to grant power of attorney to the mother or designate her as health care surrogate. This would give her the right to issue do not resuscitate or do not feed orders as might be the case with an elderly dying relative. I would argue that in the case of a newborn these should be her powers by default in cases in which the baby is on the edge of survival such as a failed abortion. You could argue about the morality of late-term abortions, but that is another issue.

That's the best argument I've read thusfar, and completely valid. However, the law doesn't go into that much detail, it only makes the distinction previously mentioned. BAIPA opens the door to discuss the morality of late-term abortions, which is where this thread is now.

[jdarg]

Wrong. Failure to support government funded welfare is far different than putting the child on the street. I believe that social programs is more efficiently run in the private sector.



Again, wrong. Elective late term abortions are legal as a form of birth control. If you'll support a ban on them, I'll listen. Otherwise, the red herring is yours.

Sorry, not wrong, just not right in your opinion.

[6thGen]

Sorry, not wrong, just not right in your opinion.

So failure to support government funded social programs is no different than believing that those needing assistance should receive none at all? Here is your quote "To argue for life and then deny sustenance to those unwanted, problem plagued children only once they are born into this world and beyond hypocrisy."

Where did I say that?

[jdarg]

So failure to support government funded social programs is no different than believing that those needing assistance should receive none at all? Here is your quote "To argue for life and then deny sustenance to those unwanted, problem plagued children only once they are born into this world and beyond hypocrisy."

Where did I say that?

I think he was making the point that Republicans tend to cut funding to social programs that would help these kids.

6thGen- this discussion needs to end. There will never be a productive argument here. Both sides are on opposite sides of the fence, actually, on the opposite sides of the universe. A cosmic disaster wouldn't bring us closer on this issue.

Lucifer is right- BAIPA is the subject at hand. And there are many people who are not pro-choice that don't support BAIPA.

[6thGen]

I think he was making the point that Republicans tend to cut funding to social programs that would help these kids.

6thGen- this discussion needs to end. There will never be a productive argument here. Both sides are on opposite sides of the fence, actually, on the opposite sides of the universe. A cosmic disaster wouldn't bring us closer on this issue.

Lucifer is right- BAIPA is the subject at hand. And there are many people who are not pro-choice that don't support BAIPA.

I know what point he was trying to make, but you take incredibly hyperbolic cheap shots, then tell me "this discussion needs to end". When the issue is discussed, as Lucifer did, I addressed it. When I'm told that I support bringing children into this world and then dumping them on the street with no regard for their welfare, I'll discuss that. You two brought it up. I said you (he) were (was) wrong, I asked you to point to where I said such and you told me to end the discussion. You have absolutely no basis for claiming the high road here.

[jdarg]

I know what point he was trying to make, but you take incredibly hyperbolic cheap shots, then tell me "this discussion needs to end". When the issue is discussed, as Lucifer did, I addressed it. When I'm told that I support bringing children into this world and then dumping them on the street with no regard for their welfare, I'll discuss that. You two brought it up. I said you (he) were (was) wrong, I asked you to point to where I said such and you told me to end the discussion. You have absolutely no basis for claiming the high road here.

I am not claiming the high road. I see that here, as in most other conversations with you, it will go on for infinity. You think I am completely wrong, and I think you are completely wrong. A discussion with you never feels productive or educational. Have a great day!:wave:

Oh, please respond and have the last word. I'm handing it to you on a plate.

[scooterbug44]

To say the problem doesn't exist is to turn a blind eye to reality. If the problem doesn't exist, and jdarg, this is one for you as well, would you support a ban on elective abortions in the third trimester? What about the first?

Approximately 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, 10% occur in the 2nd trimester, and 1% are done in the third trimester. (I didn't cite a specific source because I am not in the mood for a discussion of sources, but since I found the same stats in Fox News articles and on Planned Parenthood sites, I figure I'm okay.)

All legislation like this does is further sensationalize the issue and make it even harder for doctors to provide their patients w/ proper medical care.

[6thGen]

You do realize that unless I'm Jack Kerouac, there needs to be a second party for a discussion, right?

scooterbug, would you be ok with banning late term elective abortions? No one wants to answer this question. Less than 1% of white collar workers are convicted of embezzlement. Should that be legal as well, since outlawing or discussing it only sensationalizes the issue and makes it harder for employers and employees to trust one another?

[scooterbug44]

No, I most certainly would not!

Just because something is an "elective" procedure doesn't mean it isn't medically necessary or the best course of action is preserving a life.

Obviously any debate about legislating a medical procedure should be honest about the frequency with which it occurs and the circumstances surrounding it.

While partial-birth abortion has great political shock value (most descriptions of medical procedures do), it is rare and is performed because the physical and mental trauma of the other options is greater than with that procedure.

[6thGen]

Just because something is an "elective" procedure doesn't mean it isn't medically necessary or the best course of action is preserving a life.

Actually, it does.
An abortion is considered to be therapeutic when it is performed to:
to save the life of the pregnant woman
to preserve the woman's physical or mental health
to terminate pregnancy that would result in a child born with a congenital disorder that would be fatal or associated with significant morbidity
or to selectively reduce the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy.
An abortion is considered to be elective if it is performed for any other reason.


Obviously any debate about legislating a medical procedure should be honest about the frequency with which it occurs and the circumstances surrounding it.

While partial-birth abortion has great political shock value (most descriptions of medical procedures do), it is rare and is performed because the physical and mental trauma of the other options is greater than with that procedure.

Your argument is that late term elective abortions should be legal because they are rare, right? Help me out here. I just want to be clear before I say that dairy cattle could make better arguments.

[6thGen]

I know you all will PM each other that I'm talking to myself here, but when a counter argument sticks, it tends to go quiet. It's pretty damned telling that scooterbug, bdarg, jdarg, and rapunzel give radio silence when I ask if they are against late term elective abortions. Not even a response with caveats. It's shameful and disgusting. Third trimester elective abortions, used as a form of birth control, no matter how rare, should make your stomach turn.

[scooterbug44]

You frequently think you have "won" the argument because no one responds, but in reality people just get tired of nitpicking discussions w/ people whose minds are made up.

I specifically said I was for allowing late term abortions - whether they are therapeutic or elective is semantics and beyond my scope as I am not the woman's physician.

There are too many variables and circumstances that can and do occur for us to be legislating medical care, especially since I have yet to see statistics that late term abortions are being used as a major form of birth control.

[Rita]

.
6th Gen - I think most realize that you just want to keep a "dead" thread alive in the off chance that someone new will notice it. :idontno:

.

[6thGen]

Abortion is not "medical care". Also, I didn't say I won. I said your position was shameful and disgusting.

[30A Skunkape]

I know you all will PM each other that I'm talking to myself here, but when a counter argument sticks, it tends to go quiet. It's pretty damned telling that scooterbug, bdarg, jdarg, and rapunzel give radio silence when I ask if they are against late term elective abortions. Not even a response with caveats. It's shameful and disgusting. Third trimester elective abortions, used as a form of birth control, no matter how rare, should make your stomach turn.

I think the radio silence kicked in after the thread devolved (predictably) into a pro vs con abortion mess. You will not change the minds of those you listed, nor will they change yours. All involved can rest easy knowing they are 'right' without debating anonymous strangers in endless loops.

[6thGen]

I think the radio silence kicked in after the thread devolved (predictably) into a pro vs con abortion mess. You will not change the minds of those you listed, nor will they change yours. All involved can rest easy knowing they are 'right' without debating anonymous strangers in endless loops.

Not to split hairs, but it went silent when I asked if they'd consent to a ban on late term elective abortions. No one really wants to answer that question. The closest I got was it was rare and therefore unnecessary. I can name a few other things that are rare that result in jail time.

[Mango]

Your argument is that late term elective abortions should be legal because they are rare, right? Help me out here. I just want to be clear before I say that dairy cattle could make better arguments.

I know you all will PM each other that I'm talking to myself here, but when a counter argument sticks, it tends to go quiet. It's pretty damned telling that scooterbug, bdarg, jdarg, and rapunzel give radio silence when I ask if they are against late term elective abortions. Not even a response with caveats. It's shameful and disgusting. Third trimester elective abortions, used as a form of birth control, no matter how rare, should make your stomach turn.

Well bow your head and say moo, 6th because Roe vs. Wade gave the State the right to step in and deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy for any reason, after viability and in the third trimester, in a clear and unequivocal support of protecting fetal life, with the only exception being the protection of a woman's health or life.

I pray to God that you and you wife are never in a position where you have to make a decision, after viability, between choosing between her or the baby, and risk losing both, because what constitutes "viability" is even a grey area.

[6thGen]

Well bow your head and say moo, 6th because Roe vs. Wade gave the State the right to step in and deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy for any reason, after viability and in the third trimester, in a clear and unequivocal support of protecting fetal life, with the only exception being the protection of a woman's health or life.

I pray to God that you and you wife are never in a position where you have to make a decision, after viability, between choosing between her or the baby, and risk losing both, because what constitutes "viability" is even a grey area.

Is there some glitch here where everyone is missing "elective"? I recognize that states can place restrictions, I'm asking the aforementioned if they support them.

[jdarg]

Well bow your head and say moo, 6th because Roe vs. Wade gave the State the right to step in and deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy for any reason, after viability and in the third trimester, in a clear and unequivocal support of protecting fetal life, with the only exception being the protection of a woman's health or life.

I pray to God that you and you wife are never in a position where you have to make a decision, after viability, between choosing between her or the baby, and risk losing both, because what constitutes "viability" is even a grey area.

Thank you Mango.

[jdarg]

Is there some glitch here where everyone is missing "elective"? I recognize that states can place restrictions, I'm asking the aforementioned if they support them.

I do not support any ban or restriction on any reproduction-related procedure, including late term abortion. All of these decisions are between a woman and her doctor, period. Is that specific enough for you? Please don't be one of those crazies that stalk people that are pro-choice.

[jdarg]

Not to split hairs, but it went silent when I asked if they'd consent to a ban on late term elective abortions. No one really wants to answer that question. The closest I got was it was rare and therefore unnecessary. I can name a few other things that are rare that result in jail time.

And the ignore button now goes on! Ding!

[6thGen]

Is this going to hurt my chances for prom king at next year's Seaside Prom? Dammit, Mother warned me about discussing politics and religion.

[jdarg]

Dang it- forgot to activate the button.:bang:

6th Gen, your last comment could be construed as pretty creepy and scary. I usually refrain from engaging with you, because it just gets too weird and pointless.

[Bdarg]

Is there some glitch here where everyone is missing "elective"? I recognize that states can place restrictions, I'm asking the aforementioned if they support them.

You obviously lack the skills and ability to discuss anything in an intellectual manor, so therefore I am stating this a plainly, bluntly and as simply as possible.

Please make note that when "everyone is missing" something that the odds are extremely high that your pompousness is at full throttle and that indeed you are the one "missing" the something. You have been told by a medical doctor, a lawyer, and an ethicist, and numerous other highly intelligent people that are obviously much more functionally literate than you, that you are wrong and your information is completely wrong and irrefutably wrong.

There are no elective late term abortions, for the past 35 years the only ones allowed under federal law are ones that are medically necessary. So how on earth could someone support or not support a procedure as you describe that does not exist, i.e. you cannot have round squares.

Do us all a favor and read the Roe v. Wade—it is most obvious that you have never taken the time to read it or anything about it. Then read the opinions of the justices. (Please dear God have 6thgen take the time to actually inform himself, before he goes bounding off on another tirade.)

The reason for the “radio silence” is that it has been universally determined by those that choose not to post anymore that you lack the ability to understand any form of simple reason and that you apparently have a skull that is as hard as diamonds and as dense at plutonium.

I am most certain that you have absolutely no idea on earth what any of the above paragraphs, mean, but I will have one hell of a time laughing at you when you try to rebut; which you will.

Thank you in advance for the laugh.

Now back to “radio silence” and the red herring is still firmly yours.


p.s. please note that in no way shape or form have you been called any names in the above paragraphs.

[Andy A.]

And the ignore button now goes on! Ding!
jdarg, to start this post let me assure you, being what I consider a moderate Republican, I am Pro Choice. Your responses to 6th Gen are out of line. His questions are legitimate. The point I wish to make is that anyone who resorts to the "ignore" button is only saying I can't counter what you are saying. If you don't want to read or respond to soneone's argument, that is fine but as far as I'm concerned, in debate or discussion the "ignore" button is a piece of crap, not worthy of recognition on this board if freedom of communication is one of the prime objectives.

[jdarg]

Uh, Bdarg, what are we doing? I just realized how pointless it is to argue with someone like 6thGen. it is also impossible to have a real discussion with someone that has zero respect for anyone else's knowledge or professional opinion, 6thGen is the be-all, end-all expert on every hot button topic on earth! Truly an amazing individual.

[jdarg]

jdarg, to start this post let me assure you, being what I consider a moderate Republican, I am Pro Choice. Your responses to 6th Gen are out of line. His questions are legitimate. The point I wish to make is that anyone who resorts to the "ignore" button is only saying I can't counter what you are saying. If you don't want to read or respond to soneone's argument, that is fine but as far as I'm concerned, in debate or discussion the "ignore" button is a piece of crap, not worthy of recognition on this board if freedom of communication is one of the prime objectives.


Andy, 6thGen's job from day one has been to flame and bring up hot topics that he thinks will be fun to turn into trainwrecks. If you haven't figured that one out by now, you haven't been reading enough. He was nipping at me, Bdarg, Scooterbug, and Rapunzel by name, like a little terrier, so yes, the ignore button is a good feature.

[Andy A.]

Andy, 6thGen's job from day one has been to flame and bring up hot topics that he thinks will be fun to turn into trainwrecks. If you haven't figured that one out by now, you haven't been reading enough.
I read, quite well, thank you and I also form my own opinions and have enough experience and education to consider them valid. 6th Gen presents one definite point of view. You present the opposite point of view. Both of you do it forcefully and with conviction. I happen to think, once again because of my experience and education, that one of you, most of the time is wrong. I'll let you draw the conclusion as to which one it is.

[jdarg]

Let's take this thread to a more productive and educational level.

For real information on birth control, sex education, and how to prevent pregnancy in the first place, here are 2 links that have valuable information.

Planned Parenthood -

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/index.htm

ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project

http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/index.html

Both sites have excellent info on sex education, and I can only imagine how much more effective they could spend less of their budget on fighting the religious right and more on education!

[Bdarg]

jdarg, to start this post let me assure you, being what I consider a moderate Republican, I am Pro Choice. Your responses to 6th Gen are out of line. His questions are legitimate. The point I wish to make is that anyone who resorts to the "ignore" button is only saying I can't counter what you are saying. If you don't want to read or respond to soneone's argument, that is fine but as far as I'm concerned, in debate or discussion the "ignore" button is a piece of crap, not worthy of recognition on this board if freedom of communication is one of the prime objectives.


If you are truly Pro Choice, and I take your word that you are, then you know the value of correct and accurate information. 6thgen has a history that goes way before your sign on date of misrepresenting an inflammatory subject and then declaring victory and self righteousness when everyone gives up trying to calmly and clearly get the true and accurate information out.


The goal of all Pro Choice people is to end the need for abortion.

The difference between the two sides is the method by which to achieve this goal. One side wants a lawmaker in Washington to create a law to control every woman's uterus and force her to term no matter what the consequences or circumstances are for either.

The other side wants to eliminate them by providing good, accurate information via sexual education as well as excellent health care for the mother and child.

We all like to think that pregnancy is the result of a loving bond. The reality is that there are brutal rapes, incest, disease and other things total unimaginable to most all of us that take away that pastoral vision.

If every child were happy, healthy, and secure in a loving environment, then I do not think that we would be having this discussion.

All we have tried to do was keep the facts straight, so that healthy education could be achieved.

[Mango]

As far as I know, there are no rules on Sowal regarding the use of the ignore button and professing it's use. Whatever gets someone through the day, makes viewing Sowal more pleasurable and stress free, so be it.

The original discussion brought to the table by 6th Gen really had nothing to do with discussing abortion, per se, but a Presidential candidates rationale for nay-saying a Bill. If there is dissension, it's because regardless of whether one is pro-life, somewhere in the middle, or not at all, the appearance to those posting on this thread is it is a far stretch to assume a Presidential candidate is pro-infanticide, when they simply have been trying to protect the constitutionality of Roe vs. Wade. The law is the law.

6th Gen is entitled to his opinions, as is anyone on this board, but to insult those who do not engage him by not wishing to discuss the very topic of abortion, which was not really the original intent of the initial discussion, is wrong.

[Rita]

As far as I know, there are no rules on Sowal regarding the use of the ignore button and professing it's use. Whatever gets someone through the day, makes viewing Sowal more pleasurable and stress free, so be it.

The original discussion brought to the table by 6th Gen really had nothing to do with discussing abortion, per se, but a Presidential candidates rationale for nay-saying a Bill. If there is dissension, it's because regardless of whether one is pro-life, somewhere in the middle, or not at all, the appearance to those posting on this thread is it is a far stretch to assume a Presidential candidate is pro-infanticide, when they simply have been trying to protect the constitutionality of Roe vs. Wade. The law is the law.

6th Gen is entitled to his opinions, as is anyone on this board, but to insult those who do not engage him by not wishing to discuss the very topic of abortion, which was not really the original intent of the initial discussion, is wrong.

.
Thank you Mango!

I read the earlier posts and decided that the "sleeper issue" was a propaganda ploy intended for those voters who will not look further into Obama's reasoning. Thanks to those of you who have taken the time to refute the " pro-infanticide" smear.

.

[jdarg]

.
Thank you Mango!

I read the earlier posts and decided that the "sleeper issue" was a propaganda ploy intended for those voters who will not look further into Obama's reasoning. Thanks to those of you who have taken the time to refuted the " pro-infanticide" smear.

.

Thanks Mango, and thanks Rita- your to-the-point and concise analysis of this thread is excellent. I just wish you had posted it on the first page and saved us long winded ones the effort!!:lol:

Punzy has a good phrase- "tapping on the glass". Some people glass tap to get attention, others tap to flat out annoy and cause trouble. Lately I have had a few of each tapping on my glass and I really need a big bottle of Windex.;-)

[6thGen]

Dargs,
Sorry to step away whilst you have the bit between your teeth, but I'm limited to response via blackberry for a few days, and I'm not taking the time for a more lengthy response on a 2 inch keyboard. You wouldn't recognize a decent argument if you tripped over it in the dark. In an effort to not appear as wrong as an Atlantic hurricane in February, go ahead and read Powe's opinion on Roe. He's the foremost apologist for the Warren Court, and believes the end justified the means in Roe, but study how he defends the Warren Court's dastardly opinion and abandonment of any pretense of interpretating the Constitution. Much like scooterbug's boneheaded and absentminded argument, he argues that the Court was right, only because more affluent women had de facto access to abortion, albeit illegal. Even he can't base it on our governing document. He bases it on Griswold's precedent, yet another example of scotus usurping state powers and ignoring the 9th amendment, aka the inkblot. That's your crux. Great standard to base your argument, professor. That's all off the top of my head, after a few drinks, and I've obviously never read up on the subject so you might really be in trouble if I do. Speaking of creepy, do you always communicate with your spouse (I assume) over internet message boards?

[TooFarTampa]

Once again:

Not only do insults do absolutely nothing to elevate an argument, they are not permitted on this site.

[30A Skunkape]

You obviously lack the skills and ability to discuss anything in an intellectual manor, so therefore I am stating this a plainly, bluntly and as simply as possible.

Please make note that when "everyone is missing" something that the odds are extremely high that your pompousness is at full throttle and that indeed you are the one "missing" the something. You have been told by a medical doctor, a lawyer, and an ethicist, and numerous other highly intelligent people that are obviously much more functionally literate than you, that you are wrong and your information is completely wrong and irrefutably wrong.

There are no elective late term abortions, for the past 35 years the only ones allowed under federal law are ones that are medically necessary. So how on earth could someone support or not support a procedure as you describe that does not exist, i.e. you cannot have round squares.

Do us all a favor and read the Roe v. Wade—it is most obvious that you have never taken the time to read it or anything about it. Then read the opinions of the justices. (Please dear God have 6thgen take the time to actually inform himself, before he goes bounding off on another tirade.)

The reason for the “radio silence” is that it has been universally determined by those that choose not to post anymore that you lack the ability to understand any form of simple reason and that you apparently have a skull that is as hard as diamonds and as dense at plutonium.

I am most certain that you have absolutely no idea on earth what any of the above paragraphs, mean, but I will have one hell of a time laughing at you when you try to rebut; which you will.

Thank you in advance for the laugh.

Now back to “radio silence” and the red herring is still firmly yours.


p.s. please note that in no way shape or form have you been called any names in the above paragraphs.

I think I know who 6th Gen is:lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy8Zdjkpmzk

[6thGen]

One thing I forgot to mention, Roe did not make late term abortions illegal. It allowed the states to place restrictions on late term abortions. I asked I you were in favor of banning the most shameful of them, which you all said you were not.

[Rita]

One thing I forgot to mention, Roe did not make late term abortions illegal. It allowed the states to place restrictions on late term abortions. I asked I you were in favor of banning the most shameful of them, which you all said you were not.
.

Maybe you can get by with this if you start a new thread on this topic. maybe



.

[hnooe]

I for one have found this thread to be one of the better ones of late. And, one in which I received knowledge from both a doctor and a woman's standpoint (both of which I am not). It is one that has cyrstallized a lot of different information on the abortion issue and BAIPA (I did not even know what BAIPA was-thanks 6thGen).

We heard from Liberals and Conservatives, a Doctor, Women (Conservative and Liberal). Thanks to all of you, my viewpoint is now clearer, and I can articulate my own position much better than before.

Heated at times, yes, and not to sound too pollyanna, but I have learned something fom everyone's point of view on this thread!:clap:

[InletBchDweller]

I for one have found this thread to be one of the better ones of late. And, one in which I received knowledge from both a doctor and a woman's standpoint (both of which I am not). It is one that has cyrstallized a lot of different information on the abortion issue and BAIPA (I did not even know what BAIPA was-thanks 6thGen).

We heard from Liberals and Conservatives, a Doctor, Women (Conservative and Liberal). Thanks to all of you, my viewpoint is now clearer, and I can articulate my own position much better than before.

Heated at times, yes, and not to sound too pollyanna, but I have learned something fom everyone's point of view on this thread!:clap: Hnooe2000, I agree with you. I also have learned alot from this thread. I also did not even know what BAIPA was nor had ever heard of it - now I have heard all sides.:wave:

[rapunzel]

When women have abortions (in weeks from the last menstrual period):


http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/2008/07/10/IB_pie.gif
from guttmacher.org.

Eighty-nine percent of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, 2004.

Of the 1.1% that occur after the 20th week (18 week gestational age), 92% are to save the life of the mother -- or, more commonly, her reproductive ability in the face a non-viable pregnancy.

The overwhelming majority of cases where BAIPA would come into play is when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy. I think the very earliest a fetus is viable is 24 weeks, and it's basically torture for the child against long odds even at 24 weeks. An ectopic pregnancy usually begins to cause pain and is discovered before the 24th week. I can't imagine why someone would want to legislate this decision and take it away from women and their doctors. These aren't bad women who are irresponsible and cold. I had a close friend in this very situation, and even without having to make the decision of torturing a 21 week fetus to try in vain to keep it alive, when it couldn't have lived much longer before her tube ruptured and it died, she went through a personal hell. This decision came on the heels of a miscarriage, and years of trying for a baby. To think that in the hopes of undermining Roe the pro-life movement would needlessly make people in these situations suffer, leaves me with less respect for the movement.

Not to mention, I've seen the emotional toll it takes on people to be asked to torture these innocent babies for weeks rather than letting them go peacefully with as little suffering as possible.

If all the money poured into the late term pro-life aganda was going to fund research into a breathable fluid to bring 24-28 week pre-term babies through the crucial phase of lung development, we might actually see a few babies saved.

And if you want to prevent abortions, chew on this statistic:
The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). This is partly because the rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200% of poverty* (112 vs. 29 per 1,000 women.

I've never understood how the people who want to take away the social safety net are usually often the first to call themselves pro-life.

[Miss Kitty]

"I've never understood how the people who want to take away the social safety net are usually often the first to call themselves pro-life."...rapunzel

I would like to see this debated in a thread as an issue. Not in an elitist way, but the facts! ;-) Let's talk welfare, educational programs and throwing money away at problems with little to no accountability. I am interested to find out what works! With a child starting a career in social work, I am looking forward to seeing if/when her ideals change. I pray she does not become cynical like her mother did after teaching school in a big city school district. :(

[6thGen]

I GET IT. LATE TERM ABORTIONS ARE RARE.

How many times do you want me to concede it? On a grand scale, most violent crimes are rare. It doesn't change anything.

As for the safety net comment, as I've said before, to the same exact comment, I believe the safety net is best established by the private sector rather than the public. However, it is easier to throw around that comment, attack me personally with a list of "facts" that are completely wrong, and say I don't know what I'm talking about than it is to have an intellectually honest discussion on the topic at hand. I really don't know why I bother.

[aleonard]

I GET IT. LATE TERM ABORTIONS ARE RARE.

How many times do you want me to concede it? On a grand scale, most violent crimes are rare. It doesn't change anything.

As for the safety net comment, as I've said before, to the same exact comment, I believe the safety net is best established by the private sector rather than the public. However, it is easier to throw around that comment, attack me personally with a list of "facts" that are completely wrong, and say I don't know what I'm talking about than it is to have an intellectually honest discussion on the topic at hand. I really don't know why I bother.

I really don't want to get in this one, but I would like to ask a question. Why should the private sector establish a net for something the government regulates, such as reproductive choices?

[30ashopper]

I do not support any ban or restriction on any reproduction-related procedure, including late term abortion. All of these decisions are between a woman and her doctor, period. Is that specific enough for you? Please don't be one of those crazies that stalk people that are pro-choice.

In the case of late term abortions, shouldn't the child have some say in the matter? And if the child is unable to speak for his / herself, shouldn't the state speak for them?

The late term argument frustrates me, simply becuase these are children who are regularly born early and live if they are not aborted. I understand it is a rare case, and in a situation where the mother's life is in danger (i'm not talking mental stress here, I'm talking life threatening) aborting the child is an option. But pushing this idea that women should have the right to walk in at the last minute and, for any reason, kill their kid is perposterous.

[30ashopper]

The overwhelming majority of cases where BAIPA would come into play is when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy. I think the very earliest a fetus is viable is 24 weeks, and it's basically torture for the child against long odds even at 24 weeks.

I believe the current standard is 21 weeks. I seem to remember a primi that lived after 21 weeks a year or so ago.

[30ashopper]

I believe the current standard is 21 weeks. I seem to remember a primi that lived after 21 weeks a year or so ago.

Wikipedia to the rescue -

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

The have a nice table in there, as well as references. 24 weeks looks to be the current "standard" but children have lived after being born as early as 21 weeks.

There's an interesting side discussion on this - the viability point will no doubt continue to move backward as medical science improves. At some point the viability point will no doubt be the point of conception. Hopfully by then women won't need abortions for any reason, but it would be interesting to step into the future and see how this all plays out by then.

[30A Skunkape]

Wikipedia to the rescue -

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

The have a nice table in there, as well as references. 24 weeks looks to be the current "standard" but children have lived after being born as early as 21 weeks.

There's an interesting side discussion on this - the viability point will no doubt continue to move backward as medical science improves. At some point the viability point will no doubt be the point of conception. Hopfully by then women won't need abortions for any reason, but it would be interesting to step into the future and see how this all plays out by then.

I am skeptical of this and wonder why anyone would advocate pushing the envelope regarding viability. Viability is a misleading term since no baby born at 24 weeks is viable without several harrowing weeks of intensive care.

[rapunzel]

In the case of late term abortions, shouldn't the child have some say in the matter? And if the child is unable to speak for his / herself, shouldn't the state speak for them?

The late term argument frustrates me, simply becuase these are children who are regularly born early and live if they are not aborted. I understand it is a rare case, and in a situation where the mother's life is in danger (i'm not talking mental stress here, I'm talking life threatening) aborting the child is an option. But pushing this idea that women should have the right to walk in at the last minute and, for any reason, kill their kid is perposterous.

I think you may have missed my point...if the majority of these late term 'induced abortions' are the result of ectopic pregnancies, are you advocating the ectopic fetus have a say in whether or not it is removed from the mother's body before her fallopian tube ruptures and she either bleeds to death along with the fetus or her life is saved but her fertility severely damaged via emergency surgery? When a pregnancy develops in the fallopian tube, the fetus is not going to live. These are not 'abortions' in the common use of the term, they are medically necessary procedures that just move along the inevitable. A fallopian tube does not expand large enough for a child to develop to term.

Third trimester abortions of a elective nature of an otherwise viable fetus just don't happen. It's a red herring.

[LuciferSam]

I don't think the state should speak for the child any more than they should for a dying relative with a living will. I think by default, the mother, who has carried the fetus in her own body should be the one to make these decisions by default. What would the state use as a criterion as to whether or not to let the child live or die, and why should anyone trust the state's judgment any more than the mother's? We've already seen how politically fueled the state's decision making capability can be with the Terry Schiavo case.

[30ashopper]

I think you may have missed my point...if the majority of these late term 'induced abortions' are the result of ectopic pregnancies, are you advocating the ectopic fetus have a say in whether or not it is removed from the mother's body before her fallopian tube ruptures and she either bleeds to death along with the fetus or her life is saved but her fertility severely damaged via emergency surgery? When a pregnancy develops in the fallopian tube, the fetus is not going to live. These are not 'abortions' in the common use of the term, they are medically necessary procedures that just move along the inevitable. A fallopian tube does not expand large enough for a child to develop to term.

Repunzel, in the case where the mother's life is in danger (I mention this above) terminating the pregnancy is completely acceptable in my book.

Third trimester abortions of a elective nature of an otherwise viable fetus just don't happen. It's a red herring.

The point I was trying to make is that many pro-choice supporters use the slippery sloap argument to advocate the idea that women should have the right to have elective abortions during this period. I do not support that.

[30ashopper]

I don't think the state should speak for the child any more than they should for a dying relative with a living will. I think by default, the mother, who has carried the fetus in her own body should be the one to make these decisions by default. What would the state use as a criterion as to whether or not to let the child live or die, and why should anyone trust the state's judgment any more than the mother's? We've already seen how politically fueled the state's decision making capability can be with the Terry Schiavo case.

If the mother has the right to make a decision like this and the state should not represent the child (which, um is a violation of the childs constitutional rights, but hey, who cares about that) why stop at late term abortions? Lets give the mother the right to decide the fate of her child throughout the childs life? Is there really any difference?

[LuciferSam]

If the mother has the right to make a decision like this and the state should not represent the child (which, um is a violation of the childs constitutional rights, but hey, who cares about that) why stop at late term abortions? Lets give the mother the right to decide the fate of her child throughout the childs life? Is there really any difference?

I'm just trying to be consistent with current law to the best of my knowledge. The fact is that people do indeed under some cases have the ability to make life or death decisions involving relatives who are dying and near death. They can be legally authorized to issue do not resuscitate or do not feed orders if the patient has provided authorization.

Actually, the parents do have the authority to decide the fate of their child throughout life. Parental authorization is required for things such as life-saving surgery. Is this a violation of the childs constitutional rights if the parent denies such authorization? What about Christian Scientists who deny medication for their child or Jehovah's witnesses who refuse blood transfusions. Does the state step in?

[30A Skunkape]

I'm just trying to be consistent with current law to the best of my knowledge. The fact is that people do indeed under some cases have the ability to make life or death decisions involving relatives who are dying and near death. They can be legally authorized to issue do not resuscitate or do not feed orders if the patient has provided authorization.

Actually, the parents do have the authority to decide the fate of their child throughout life. Parental authorization is required for things such as life-saving surgery. Is this a violation of the childs constitutional rights if the parent denies such authorization? What about Christian Scientists who deny medication for their child or Jehovah's witnesses who refuse blood transfusions. Does the state step in?

Yes.

[Rose Anna]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30ashopper http://sowal.com/bb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?p=451999#post451999)
Repunzel, in the case where the mother's life is in danger (I mention this above) terminating the pregnancy is completely acceptable in my book.

Since there are no late term abortions that are not to save the mother's life then you must be fine with any that happen in the third term, since all are medically necessary.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 30ashopper http://sowal.com/bb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?p=451999#post451999)
The point I was trying to make is that many pro-choice supporters use the slippery sloap argument to advocate the idea that women should have the right to have elective abortions during this period. I do not support that.

I understand what you are saying, but you actually have the argument in reverse. Pro-choice by definition is neither for or against abortions, but is in fact just in favor of governments and groups backing off and letting the woman, her doctors and whatever her support group is make the decisions concerning her body.

The anti-choice forces use the slippery slope argument to say if we allow any they will eventually progress to infanticide, therefore the government should force to end all decisions by making all illegal. There are several state laws on the books that make it illegal even if the mother's life is in danger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30ashopper http://sowal.com/bb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?p=452001#post452001)
If the mother has the right to make a decision like this and the state should not represent the child (which, um is a violation of the childs constitutional rights, but hey, who cares about that) why stop at late term abortions? Lets give the mother the right to decide the fate of her child throughout the childs life? Is there really any difference?

If you want to argue that point, then it stands that the fetus' legal guardian is the mother, just as you are the legal guardian of any children that you have. Do you want the government usurping your rights over your children, or do you think that you can look out for their best interest and your own?

The key to all of this is education, health care and prevention. There are a lot of diseases out there that are much worst. No one wants an abortion. No one wants to be in the position to have to make the decision to abort or not. In a time where we are constantly criticizing our government for being too big, too intrusive and incapable of making good decisions, why are we asking that they start legislating the function of private body parts.

[LuciferSam]

Yes.

I was just wondering. Could you elaborate on the legalities involved in these situations? I would like to know more about this. I was under the impression that parents had to give authorization for certain medical prcedures. Don't get me wrong, I find that very disturbing that parents have tried to withhold medical treatment.

[Rose Anna]

I'm just trying to be consistent with current law to the best of my knowledge. The fact is that people do indeed under some cases have the ability to make life or death decisions involving relatives who are dying and near death. They can be legally authorized to issue do not resuscitate or do not feed orders if the patient has provided authorization.

Actually, the parents do have the authority to decide the fate of their child throughout life. Parental authorization is required for things such as life-saving surgery. Is this a violation of the childs constitutional rights if the parent denies such authorization? What about Christian Scientists who deny medication for their child or Jehovah's witnesses who refuse blood transfusions. Does the state step in?

Yes, but very rarely. Most of the time they never make it to the hospital where that might happen. Home, left to their own devises and religion, no, the state does not step in. I doubt that real statistics are available or would be accurate.

[30A Skunkape]

I was just wondering. Could you elaborate on the legalities involved in these situations? I would like to know more about this. I was under the impression that parents had to give authorization for certain medical prcedures. Don't get me wrong, I find that very disturbing that parents have tried to withhold medical treatment.

I can't cite case law or anything like that, but in Florida (and I assume most if not all states) a physician can depend on a court order to deliver generally accepted treatment to save a minor whose life is in danger or who risks long term injury from not receiving treatment regardless of the parent's wishes. Basically, life sustaining treatment trumps the parent's first amendment rights. I do think there have been instances where adolescent minors have been deemed sound enough of mind to refuse treatment based on first amendment rights-I think there was a case of an older teen who refused leukemia treatment.

[30ashopper]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30ashopper http://sowal.com/bb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?p=451999#post451999)
Repunzel, in the case where the mother's life is in danger (I mention this above) terminating the pregnancy is completely acceptable in my book.

Since there are no late term abortions that are not to save the mother's life then you must be fine with any that happen in the third term, since all are medically necessary.


I'm not sure your are correct in the assumption that all late term abortions are for the good of the mother's health. According to wikipedia in some cases they are not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 30ashopper http://sowal.com/bb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?p=451999#post451999)
The point I was trying to make is that many pro-choice supporters use the slippery sloap argument to advocate the idea that women should have the right to have elective abortions during this period. I do not support that.

I understand what you are saying, but you actually have the argument in reverse. Pro-choice by definition is neither for or against abortions, but is in fact just in favor of governments and groups backing off and letting the woman, her doctors and whatever her support group is make the decisions concerning her body.



Well, I've had a few discussions with pro choice advocates who use the slippery sloap argument. I don't think one side or the other is innocent of taking things to the extreme.




Quote:
Originally Posted by 30ashopper http://sowal.com/bb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?p=452001#post452001)
If the mother has the right to make a decision like this and the state should not represent the child (which, um is a violation of the childs constitutional rights, but hey, who cares about that) why stop at late term abortions? Lets give the mother the right to decide the fate of her child throughout the childs life? Is there really any difference?

If you want to argue that point, then it stands that the fetus' legal guardian is the mother, just as you are the legal guardian of any children that you have. Do you want the government usurping your rights over your children, or do you think that you can look out for their best interest and your own?


The state has limited responsibilities - one is to protect people's rights. The fact that we've ballooned our government up into something it shouldn't be doesn't really play into this. IMHO, the original intent of governmental role in our lives is still very valid and worthy.

I get the legal guardian argument, it's a good one. But note that in medical "Schiavo" cases, it is often that the subject involved is suffering. A child in the womb is not suffering, he or she wants to live given the chance. There is a dividing line here, a mother has the right to make life and death decisions if the mother's goal in making those decisions is to do what is best for the child. e.g. save a life, alleviate suffering, etc.. Abortion is the opposite, she is terminating a life because that life is an inconvenience to her. (medical cases where the mother's life is in danger not included.) In some cases that could easily be considered murder, and our laws are quite clear on whether or not that is legal.

Again, my concern here is about one side or the other taking things to the extreme. Both sides are guilty of this IMHO. On one side you are letting government invade into someone's life far too much, on the other you are giving an individual the right kill someone due to inconvenience. Striking a balance, basing our decisions on medical science (rather than symbolism), and maintaining constitutionality in our decision making process are what is most important to me. IMHO both sides are equally guilty of the current mess we have because both are breaking one rule or another in order to get their way.

I should point out (if it's not already obvious) that I feel Roe v Wade and the cases that followed it are based on rights that don't actually exist in the Constitution. I do however appreciate the balance these rulings have set.

[6thGen]

I don't think the state should speak for the child any more than they should for a dying relative with a living will. I think by default, the mother, who has carried the fetus in her own body should be the one to make these decisions by default. What would the state use as a criterion as to whether or not to let the child live or die, and why should anyone trust the state's judgment any more than the mother's? We've already seen how politically fueled the state's decision making capability can be with the Terry Schiavo case.

Nice argument, but Primum non nocere separates this from Schiavo.

[6thGen]

One last thing, the dargs (who shouldn't be allowed to handle sharp objects) and scooterbug's position is differentiated from the old Chinese method of sex selection only by its convenience for the mother.

[jollyroger]

I just want to be clear before I say that dairy cattle could make better arguments.

One last thing, the dargs (who shouldn't be allowed to handle sharp objects)

your father was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

I think that I know who 6th Gen is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl8H-rm6kt4&feature=related

[JeanLafitte]

6TH Gen certainly seems like a frustrated fellow. Could this poor gent be displaying the burden of too many years of wedgies, stolen lunch money and general unpleasantness at the hands of viscous tormentors in the formative years? An upbringing like that, along with too much time spent in Bill Buckley's fart cloud does tend to foster chat room tyrants.

[6thGen]

Alanis Morrisette (sp?) wrote a song about this. When I say something unfriendly after being attacked, I get threatening PMs, responses like the above, and so forth. When someone insults me while getting it wrong and completely missing point, they get every form of internet high five there is.

[Mango]

If someone gets a threatening PM, please report it to a moderator.

Also, once again, personal attacks are not allowed on Sowal by anyone.

This applies to body functions, smelly berries, kitchen appliances, and well, anything else insulting.

[John R]

another winner thread propagated by 6thgen.

This whole thread became moot when he posted a reference written by some loon who stated that she witnessed an infant being left on a shelf to expire. Seriously? Does she have evidence? I personally believe she is a liar, making things up for someone's political agenda. Perfect fuel for the weak minded to throw themselves upon.

btw, I do not support a ban on third trimester abortion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a ban means it could never happen. That would put many women at risk, no?