Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2224516)

There may not be middle ground, or the middle ground might be somewhere no one expects it to be.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2224546)

PP v. Casey staked out whatever middle ground there was fairly nicely. 20-week bans, however, don't seem to stake out that ground. If legislatures were to require a physician to make a specific finding after tests were run that the fetus would not be viable outside of the womb prior to an abortion, that might shore up the problems with a 20-week ban, but stating that at 20 weeks, women are forced to give birth rather than abort is attempting a one-size fits all application to a process which is very much not amenable to that approach.

The trouble with the debate right now is that the pro-life side views PP v. Casey as the polar opposite of what they believe. They don't see any give from the left in the concept that states have a compelling interest in protecting life after the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb.

Originally Posted by AXOmom (Post 2224532)

Hmmm- I need to stop by this site more often – always an interesting conversation going on.


DubaiSis – I have a couple of questions, and I want to let you know before I ask them that I do consider myself prolife, but I completely agree with MysticCat’s point that these type of discussions go nowhere if we don’t understand the point of view of those with whom we disagree or think we disagree, so I want to assure you that these are not meant to sound snarky, but come from a desire to understand your perspective. If my attempts to paraphrase your points mischaracterize them, please correct me.

1) You stated that you didn’t want “religious people” or more specifically Christians cramming their beliefs down your throat. How do you think they are doing this – in other words, do you believe they are bypassing the usual political process that exists in order to affect change when we (meaning citizens) feel change is necessary or do you mean they are doing this in some other way and if so, how do you mean this? I have to say I was a little concerned with the comment that if this is what they want to do, they should start their own Christian country. It sounds a little like the response of conservatives to Vietnam War protestors in the 60”s: America- love it or leave it. Is this what you meant or am I misreading you?

The problem is the screamers get the votes. Anti-choice people are NOT the majority in the US. The problem is Live and Let Live is not a call to aggressive action. It, by definition says you should let people do their own thing. The opposite is most definitely a call to action but skews what the majority actually thinks.

And I didn't say they should start their own Christian country. I said they should move to one. The hard truth for many to accept is the US was most definitely not set up as a Christian country. Most of the founders were either nonreligious or deists, what most would call Unitarian Universalists today. NOT Christian. And the primary idea was freedom FROM religion, and that one has desperately been twisted lately. Ever since Under God was added to the pledge of allegiance, people have really seriously forgotten what separation of church and state means.


2) You pointed out that there have been cases of pro-lifers or anti-abortionists bombing abortion clinics and there is no corollary among pro-choice groups. Are you arguing that when they (meaning those who would consider themselves liberal) feel strongly about an issue – when they consider it vital to maintaining or bringing about a just society that protects those whom they perceive to be helpless, those who are on the “left” so to speak in their political viewpoints, have never reacted extremely or with violence?

I'm sure you are not in support of terrorism, and causing violence because the law is not on your side is terrorism. Campaigning, screaming, yelling, trying to convince lawmakers to do the right thing is not terrorism. Even harassment is not terrorism, although it should be treated as mean spirited, if not illegal.

3) Finally, you indicated that you felt there was enough hypocrisy among “religious people” to be noted. This probably will sound snarky, I don’t, again, mean it that way, but I can’t think of another way to word it – how does one quantify the amount of hypocrisy in the roughly 27 million people in this country who identify religion as a high priority for them and determine there is enough of it to be noted? How would one draw the conclusion or find any evidence to support the conclusion that they are more hypocritical than those who claim no religious beliefs? What is the number or percentage of hypocrites within that group necessary to be worth noting? Since we all have moments of hypocrisy, how would you determine whether these people are consistently hypocritical or have moments of hypocrisy common to every human?

The problem is "religion as a high priority" means exactly jack squat. If you feel that being anti-choice is your religious obligation but vote against child healthcare, you are a hypocrite. You can't be all for the protection of life before it's life but against it once it is undeniably life. You can't be all about love your neighbor, except when that person is black, gay or poor. That is hypocracy. If you want to be a racist bigot woman hater screw the poor person (and I"m not saying you as an individual are any of this) then go for it. But don't then also say religion is a high priority in your life. A lot of people say religion is important, when what is important is being seen at church on Sunday. So cut that 27 million down to, in my completely off the cuff guess, to about 5 million seriously religious people who only want what is good and right for all people in the world and are willing to do what it takes to help every last American.

I realize these read like long essay questions. I apologize for that, and I understand if you don’t want to take the time necessary to answer all of them or any of them, but as I said, I’ve found that this site is, among other things, a great place to come and read different opinions and find out why people see things the way they do and how they’ve come to their conclusions and beliefs.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2224546)

PP v. Casey staked out whatever middle ground there was fairly nicely. 20-week bans, however, don't seem to stake out that ground. If legislatures were to require a physician to make a specific finding after tests were run that the fetus would not be viable outside of the womb prior to an abortion, that might shore up the problems with a 20-week ban, but stating that at 20 weeks, women are forced to give birth rather than abort is attempting a one-size fits all application to a process which is very much not amenable to that approach.

The trouble with the debate right now is that the pro-life side views PP v. Casey as the polar opposite of what they believe. They don't see any give from the left in the concept that states have a compelling interest in protecting life after the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb.

Originally Posted by IrishLake (Post 2224250)

My pro-life stance has nothing to do with my faith. (I'm also very pro-gay rights, my church telling me it's a sin has no impact on my feelings). I think the adoption culture in our country is crap. Abortion as a means of birth control makes me very sad, because I know SO many potentially wonderful parents who are waiting for a baby to adopt. If the public psychological resources existed to helped women with unwanted pregnancies carry to term and give the baby to an adoptive family, that would be an amazing thing and help so many people. Then those same resources have to be there to help the birth mother during her post-partum years as well. During a case of rape/incest, I can understand the justification for an abortion (as early as possible) because it is emotionally detrimental to the mothers mental health. Again, it would be wonderful if the state provided the mental health resources to help a woman carry a child to term in rape/incest cases. We barely have enough public mental health resources to help all of the other people who need it, let alone help for moms with unwanted pregnancies.

Originally Posted by barbino (Post 2224630)

My husband was a 19 3/4 weeks in the womb baby, born in the 1960's. Did he have some medical issues? Yes. His entire extended family made sure that 2 members of the family were there to feed him & take care of him at all times for 2 entire months. He's been told by several doctors that it was almost a miracle that he lived. Kudos to my mother-in-law, who actually punched a doctor when he suggested that since she was only 19 and could have many more babies, she donate this one's body to science (she almost got kicked out of the hospital). So it's really hard to say just when a embryo/baby might be able to be viable outside the womb. :)

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2224549)

The 20 week ban is for show. The number of abortions occurring after 20 weeks is trivial and is cover for the more aggregious actions like requiring all abortion clinics to be outpatient surgical centers thus shutting down all centers in a state. The 20 week number is inflammatory and diverts attention from everything else that is going on. The vast majority of 20 week+ abortions occurring in the US are for fetal anomalies. This is like the partial birth abortion ban. It effected few but whipped up a fury because of the grisly nature of the procedure. There is no real desire to make a reasonable attempt to find the line at which a fetus becomes viable outside the womb (which is 22-23 weeks btw.)

Originally Posted by Kelsium (Post 2224644)

you know what they say, there's no better way to a woman's heart than through a trans-vaginal ultrasound.

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp (Post 2224633)

Sure, but I have to call a spade a spade. Anyone who says abortion is murder isn't interested in dialogue, anyway.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2224546)

PP v. Casey staked out whatever middl,e ground there was fairly nicely.

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp (Post 2224640)

If true, this would be a world record previously unknown to medical science. Call the Guinness Book if you can document this. 21 weeks, 5 days is the current record, and first occurred in the 1980s (in other words, after the introduction of surfactant therapy).[/QUOTE

Interesting - None of the doctors who knew his case ever suggested this, including my nurse practicioner sister-in-law, who works in the hospital where he was born. I'm sure its documentable.