I think the point GP is trying to make is that many people are anti-abortion because they wholly believe in the sanctity of all human life. This includes the lives of convicted criminals. If someone wants to be anti-abortion because of the above named reason, fine. They shouldn't be surprised when people call them out for being contradictory when they cry *for* the death penalty.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, some scholars and observers believe that the case against the Ninth Circuit is overstated, and note that the court “is more likely than other circuits to handle complex issues that require legal pioneering in a rapidly changing society.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's just another way of saying "some" (liberal) scholars and observers stating that they agree with judicial legislation when it serves their purposes.

And with some, it's not a question of human life. It's a question of justice.

The criminal is receiving justice. Is the fetus?

Based on legal precedent, the mother's health does. The government is allowed to restrict access to abortions, but there must always be an exception for the mother's health. It's the law. I'm willing to bet that if this makes it to the Supreme Court, they'll uphold the decision.

If you want to have the sanctity of human life argument, we can start another thread for that....

Yes. For some it is justice. I can understand their viewpoint there. I don't always necessarily agree, but that's life. It's just irking for people to pick and choose what lives are sacred. That's God's job.

I'm not really a sanctity of life person.

I've just looked at the facts, and my view is that this particular procedure is unnecessary, irresponsible and barbaric.

I'm actually perfectly okay with some earlier term abortion procedures -- in fact, I would go so far as to say that in the case where the potential mother excercises responsibility and good decision making skills early, she's got every right to terminate that pregnancy.

However, once a fetus reaches a point where it would be viable outside the womb, I begin to have a problem with killing it. That's where I think this procedure is unnecessary.

In the brief research I did on this topic, I could not find one specific instance of a mother's health being brought into jeapordy. However, I'm all in favor of a stipulation in the law requiring that so long as doctors use it responsibly (and I'm talking murder trials for the ones that don't).

Not in America, that's the jury's job.

It's a graphic procedure, to be sure. If a woman is going to have an abortion (for whatever reason) she will 99.9999% of the time elect to do it as early as possible. If it's personal, she'll want as few people as possible to realize she's pregnant. If it's medical, it needs to be done asap to prevent further problems. I've never heard of a case where a woman carries a baby to 8 months and then says "Ya know, I've changed my mind." If she has a 'partial birth' abortion, it would no doubt be out of medical necessity and not simply on a whim. Also note that abortion often causes fertility issues (if not complete infertility), especially if performed later on in the pregnancy. And as with any operation, there are risks to life and limb. It's not a decision to be made lightly!
If we attempt to deny women the choice (or hinder their ability to implement the choice) to make decisions about their own bodies, we'll be no better than the Third World countries we've attempted to liberate.

I don't think people's issues with partial birth abortion has anything to do with a woman's choice. If someone wanted to have an abortion for the reason that she just doesn't want to be pregnant, she should have it as early as possible. It isn't something that I agree with, or encourage, but I guess if someone wants to do it, she should be able to. It is the partial birth thing that I have issues with.

I've looked for statistics before and haven't found any. Here's a webpage that outlines the major reasons (aside from potential death of the mother) that D&X abortions are performed:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm#why


Essentially, the whole thing about D&X abortions is that they are almost never performed unless it would be a very bad idea to go through with the pregnancy (and in the rare cases where it is performed for "no good reason," that's against medical regulations in many states). You can't just wake up one day and say, "Oh, whoops, I changed my mind and I don't want to have this baby anymore, guess I'll go have an abortion!" Any doctor who performs this procedures weighs the pros and cons very carefully simply because of its nature.

There is nobody sane in the world who chooses the most violent, goriest procedure available to get rid of a fetus just for the hell of it. Most people out there choose the procedure that will cause the least discomfort for both them and the fetus -- anybody who doesn't is pretty clearly crazy (and in that case, they need to be having an abortion because I don't want any more crazy people having children). And if someone doesn't understand that, I think they're missing out on a fundamental piece of the argument.

But like I said earlier, she would have it done as early as possible (assumption on my part, but pretty likely). Perhaps she would not find out about any potential dangers w/ the pregnancy/delivery until after the 6th month. In that case, would you still be opposed to the procedure?

It's their job to dole out justice . . . I think you could debate that it's their job to decide who lives and who dies.

However, at some point the life inside her is not hers.

I'm going to refine my point here.

I found an interesting article on MSN (they really seem to be more pro-choice on this one) that gives some interesting figures. First of all, partial birth abortions account for about 6% of all abortions.

"But 6 percent--more than 80,000 abortions--are done after 15 weeks, and several hundred of these are done after 24 weeks, commonly taken to be the point of viability. The fetus is now too big to fit into the suction tubing. A 20-week fetus is commonly 6 inches long or more."

So what I would refine my point to be (and yeah, I'm changing my mind a bit for the sake of consistancy) would be that any time AFTER the point at which a fetus is considered viability -- let's say 24 weeks although many other articles have said 22 -- partial birth abortion should not be allowed.

However, in the period between the 15th and 22nd(or24th) week where the fetus is not viable outside the womb, I guess this procedure is as reasonable as any other abortion procedure. They're all pretty graphic, but if that's what someone wants to do, who am I to say no?

Who are any of us, really?

I really respect you, by the way. You state your opinions, back them up w/ facts, but conceded that other people feel differently. Such a rarity around here.

Sometimes.

There are a few things that I have a tendency to get worked up about.

But less about me and more about the thread :D