Home - List All Discussions

Compromise?

by: jeafla

According to January 2006 polling data published in Wikipedia 33% of American would allow abortion in cases such as rape, incest or to save the woman's life, while 17% would allow abortion to save the woman's life and 5% would not allow abortion under any circumstances. This means that 55% of Americans are pro-life to some extent (another 15% would allow abortion but with greater unspecified legal restrictions; only 27% support abortion on demand).
Would the people who oppose all abortion and abortion in cases of rape and incest agree to a ban on abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the woman's life if any abortion that results from rape or incest means the guilty party is given the death penalty (or life in prison without parole)?

reply from: yoda

What do you mean "accept"?
Many of us would not fight such a limited ban, but would still work to have all abortions banned. It's a moral issue, not just a practical one.

reply from: faithman

Why should the womb child be put to death for the crimes of his/her father? Rapist should be turned over to the families of the victims.

reply from: micah

There are a lot of false pro-choicers out there who support abortion rights in all cases in spite of their personal beliefs because they fear a slippery slope towards a complete ban.

reply from: faithman

There are a lot of false pro-choicers out there who support abortion rights in all cases in spite of their personal beliefs because they fear a slippery slope towards a complete ban.
Please get it right. Yoda is the one quoted here.

reply from: micah

oops. It's fixed now.

reply from: yoda

How nice..... sacrifice a few innocent babies so that they can protect the right to kill innocent babies..... what a "noble" attitude...... </sarcasm>

reply from: jeafla

What about sacrificing the lives of a few innocent babies in order to protect the lives of millions more?
Should anyone allow their wish for a total ban to prevent a partial ban that could save millions of lives?

reply from: faithman

What about sacrificing the lives of a few innocent babies in order to protect the lives of millions more?
Should anyone allow their wish for a total ban to prevent a partial ban that could save millions of lives?
Nice try! But your point is mute here. No one is standing in the way of saving any child from abortion. e are merely pointing out that is not the goal. The goal is to protect them all. Loral resting, is moral abandonment. The final goal is personhood. Nno one here dispises the steps to get their. We just refuse to keep marching simply because some one elses goals have been reached. The fact remains that any effort that says you can still kill, isn't really pro-life.

reply from: Banned Member

A child in the womb is not an unnatural threat to the mother, a woman. The conceived child is not an invader. The physical relationship which allow life to flourish in the womb is a natural one. That the woman might not consciously consent to the functions which keep that unborn child alive and growing does not change the fact that she is a mother carrying a conceived child. This conceived child is a person due all the rights of other human persons. Once the child is conceived, the woman may be reasonably expected to accomodate this life in her womb by caring for the health of both, until the child can be safely delivered. This newly conceived life in the womb is a person and has the same right to live as the mother has. After the child is born, the woman is perfectly within her rights to give that child away to the proper institutions that would provide care for that child and seek a proper home for the child where they may be permently care for and loved.
The woman may not have given consent to the means and time of the conception in her womb, but that does not give her the right to cease care and terminate the life of another human person. Abortion in the case of rape should never be allowed, especially because it is a human person in the womb. The carrying of a conceived life in the womb against consent is but one of many instances where a person, through no fault of their own, finds themself in the care of another human person's safety and well being. Carrying the child to term is truly an instance and opportunity for charity and caring and healing. The unlawful act of the child's father does not reflect upon or revoke the rights of the child as a human person in any way. Caring for life is a way to control the events of a persons life by excercising human compassion rather than compounding the violence of rape with the violence of abortion. Caring for life is true personal autonomy. By seeking an abortion you only turn the control of two human persons over the the rapist. By choosing life, a woman dictates the terms of her personal freedom and entrusts herself to the care of and compassion for the second victim of rape, the conceived child.
Yeah, that's right... I'm against rape exceptions.

reply from: faithman

That is because you are a sold out pro-death scanc that has to abandon reason to inhabit your position. That is not very hard to decipher at all. It stands necked for all to see.

reply from: yoda

Strawman, no one here is advocating opposition to a partial ban. Bring them on, just don't get in the way of our effort to get a total ban. We don't like leaving the innocent behind.

reply from: nancyu

What about sacrificing the lives of a few innocent babies in order to protect the lives of millions more?
Should anyone allow their wish for a total ban to prevent a partial ban that could save millions of lives?
It is immoral to sacrifice one child to save another. It is equally immoral to sacrifice 20000 babies to save 20000000.
No one has a right to intentionally kill an innocent human being. EVER.

reply from: jeafla

Originally posted by: faithman
Nice try! But your point is mute here. No one is standing in the way of saving any child from abortion. e are merely pointing out that is not the goal. The goal is to protect them all.[/quote]
But politically speaking we will never be able to protect them all, so if you are unwilling to compromise you insure that they are all killed.
Abortion is a personally issue with me. My mother was physically unable to carry a baby to term and her doctor had told her to expect a stillbirth. I was born in 1968 ten week premature weighing only 3 pounds, 6 ounces. I spent the first 2 month, to the day, of my life in an incubator because it took me that long to weigh the 5 pound minimum needed to be released from the hospital. In another time or place I could have easily been aborted.
I was the first Republican in my family when I registered to vote at the age of 18. I was foolish enough to believe the Republicans' promise that they were going to do something about abortion. I left the Republican Party in 1999 when Clinton was acquitted with 10 Republican votes. I have not yet joined another party because I have not yet found one that I am comfortable with. No party will ever be both effective and 100% pro-life because the country does not have a majority that is 100% pro-life. Anyone that continues supporting the Republican Party (that has appointed 7 of the last 9 members of the U.S. Supreme Court and which has never seriously supported a legal personhood law for the unborn) simply supports the status quo. The Republican Party is never going to do anything about abortion because if it did it will give up one of the main issues it uses to drive gullible conservatives to the polls on election day. And at the same time anyone who insists on an all-or-nothing ban on abortion will condemn millions of innocent people to death because no such ban is or ever will be politically possible.

reply from: jeafla

Originally posted by: Augustine
A child in the womb is not an unnatural threat to the mother, a woman.[/quote]
It is if the woman has cancer and continuing the pregnancy postpones cancer treatment.

reply from: jeafla

Strawman, no one here is advocating opposition to a partial ban. Bring them on, just don't get in the way of our effort to get a total ban. We don't like leaving the innocent behind.
I just want to clarify that no one here would oppose a partial ban because they are insistent on a total one that will never happen.

reply from: jeafla

What happens if you don't sacrifice either and both die?

reply from: yoda

The only time I've ever heard of that happening is when two national prolife organizations opposed the abortion ban in South Dakota that had exceptions written into the law. I believe those were the National Right to Life and the American Life League.

reply from: snapdragon

I would allow it to save the woman's life; such as the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, and of course if the fetus had died in utero it would of course need to be removed. Most people however do not consider these abortions. Other than that I do not condone abortion and feel it should be banned. A child concieved of rape or incest is no less innocent than a child lovingly concieved and it should not be handed a death sentence for the sins of the father. In pregnancy complications I have never heard of one in this day and age in which abortion is the only available treatment. Abortion for convenience is abhorrent in my honest opinion and, even a deformed child should not be treated as a lamb to the slaughter. These are children.

reply from: Teresa18

I would support such a ban, but the final goal must be the unborn are recognized as persons with the Constitutional right to life.

reply from: Shenanigans

Well, it'd be a start. I'd imagine that once a "partial ban" is innitated in America, a total ban could be on the cards.
But as a "no exceptions" Pro-Lifer, I for one won't be happy till all unborn and their mothers are protected from this mess of abortion.

reply from: Shenanigans

Hate to break it to ya buddy, but the child in that case is not the threat! The cancer is! Its the woman's choice then to postpone treatement, and most of the time the woman only has to make it through the first trimester as that's when the chemo is more dangerous. It also depends on the kind of cancer and where it is in the body as to whether it's already terminal or treatable with other things like surgery and pin point radio.
In any case, it'd be a horribly tiny amount of cases, despite what might be peddled in the media.

reply from: jeafla

The only time I've ever heard of that happening is when two national prolife organizations opposed the abortion ban in South Dakota that had exceptions written into the law. I believe those were the National Right to Life and the American Life League.
Isn't National Right to Life the largest pro-life lobbying group in the U.S.? It is the group that I hear about most often.
And why would pro-life lobbying groups settle for anything other than what they will never get? These groups, like the Republican Party, don't want the abortion issue to ever be settled because if the issue were to ever be settled, the people that run these groups would be out of a job.

reply from: jeafla

Hate to break it to ya buddy, but the child in that case is not the threat! The cancer is! Its the woman's choice then to postpone treatement, and most of the time the woman only has to make it through the first trimester as that's when the chemo is more dangerous. It also depends on the kind of cancer and where it is in the body as to whether it's already terminal or treatable with other things like surgery and pin point radio.
What about pre-eclampsia, a condition where a pregnancy causes a life-threatening rise in the pregnant woman's blood pressure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-eclampsia.

Pre-eclampsia is likely caused when a chemical produced by the placenta disrupts the lining of the woman's veins and arteries. The result is high blood pressure and damage to the liver and kidneys. A human pregnancy lasts about 39 weeks, but pre-eclampsia can develop as early as the 20th week. The only cure for this condition is either induced labor, C-section or abortion.

reply from: scopia19822

"The only cure for this condition is either induced labor, C-section or abortion."
I have never heard of abortion being recommended to treat preeclampsia. Usaully they give the mother medication and keep her on bedrest until they can induce labor or perform a csection when the baby is most likely to survive.

reply from: Shenanigans

Did... did you just cite Wiki? Go back to the sandpit, junior.
"Severe Pre-eclampsia: Medical management and Nursing Assessments and Interventions.
The woman should be placed in a quiet, dimly lit room. ... following medications should be available, emergency anticonvulsants, sedatives, anti-hypertensives and heparin containing drugs....
Eclampsia
Forunately the occurance of seizure is rare today. ... as soon as convulsions are controlled the plans for birth are considered. (Novak, Broom. 1999. Maternal and child health nursing. Mosby publishing, Sydney).
And if that ain't enough for you:
Hypertensive Disorders of pregnancy:
The peak of the blood pressure is by 28 weeks gestation.
The incidence of pre-eclampsia ranges from 3 to 10% of pregnancies. The aim of management is to maintain BP within normal limits of pregnancy. ... As the disorder progresses, early delivery should be considered for maternal wellbeing and the wellbeing of the foetus. (Curtis, Ramsden, Friendship, 2008. Emergency and Trauma Nursing. Mosby publishing, Sydney).
Absolutely NO MENTION whatsoever of abortion.

reply from: yoda

Absolutely, and there is no conflict there.

reply from: yoda

They are.
Not just a little bit cynical, are you? I think you're smearing with a pretty wide brush there, not to mention smearing folks you don't even know.

reply from: yoda

Yes, but you can't expect a devoted follower of the abortion culture not to try to work it in somehow, can you?

reply from: jeafla

For up to 19 weeks? And you are assuming that medication and bed rest always work. I know that medication and bed rest are the first option, but I seriously doubt that they always work. It is wrong to assume that there is never any situation where a pregnancy threatens a woman's life. That claim is pure propaganda.

reply from: jeafla

Originally posted by: Shenanigans
Did... did you just cite Wiki? Go back to the sandpit, junior.[/quote]
Go to Hell, jackass. I happen to have a bachelor's degree in biology. What education do you have?

reply from: jeafla

They are.
Not just a little bit cynical, are you? I think you're smearing with a pretty wide brush there, not to mention smearing folks you don't even know.
You can document that I am wrong?

reply from: scopia19822

http://www.healthline.com/adamcontent/preeclampsia?utm_medium=ask&utm_source=smart&utm_campaign=article_toc&utm_term=Preeclampsia+treatment#treatment&ask_return=Preeclampsia#treatment

Above is a link on treatments for preeclampsia. The only way to end the condition is to deliever the baby, not to abort it.

reply from: yoda

Which part of you got educated?

reply from: yoda

Mmmm..... you're asking for documentation to prove that a conspiracy does not exist?
Take any debating courses while your posterior was getting educated?

reply from: Shenanigans

Bachelor of Nursing degree .
And if you really have a BA the you should know better then to cite Wiki.

reply from: Yuuki

Bachelor of Nursing degree .
And if you really have a BA the you should know better then to cite Wiki.
Wiki is actually very nice for a quick reference, and an excellent starting point for deeper research as they are encouraged to cite their sources, meaning that you can check out the real sources for yourself and decide if you agree or not. No moron believes that everything on there is 100% right, but as a quick reference? Yes, it's nice and quick and easy. I'd never use it to shore up and actual paper or argument, though. For that you must go to the sources.

reply from: Yuuki

Yoda likes to berate educated people who are proud of their educations. Just drop it right now. You don't want to open that can of worms.

reply from: yoda

Moi? Why, I'm SHOCKED!! (Actually it's just those who BRAG on their education that strike me as very, very insecure.......)
Hey, just because someone sent their butt to college so they could be a smart ass, that's no reason to get your big girl panties all in a wad!

reply from: yoda

Which is pretty much what Shennigans said, right?

reply from: Yuuki

Which is pretty much what Shennigans said, right?
Possibly, but I said it much nicer. You know how I like the niceness.

reply from: jeafla

Abortion, like delivery or C-section removes the placenta, which is apparently the cause of the condition.
Now can you document that medication and bed rest always works?

reply from: jeafla

Bachelor of Nursing degree .[/quote]
Then you should know that medication and bed rest may not always work to end pre-eclampsia.
[quote]And if you really have a BA the you should know better then to cite Wiki.
I only use it to document what I already know is true. Abortion is a viable treatment for pre-eclampsia.

reply from: jeafla

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610160007

"...several potential pregnancy complications, such as an ectopic pregnancy, which is 'the leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths in the first trimester' or preeclampsia, which 'affect[s] up to one in seven pregnant women' can threaten the life of a pregnant woman".
"According to the Mayo Clinic, 'many cases of preeclampsia can be treated by inducing labor right away.' While in most instances doctors attempt to control the pregnant woman's preeclampsia until she is 36 weeks into her pregnancy, according to the Mayo Clinic, 'In more severe cases, it may not be possible to wait.' Though rare, therapeutic abortion has been used to treat preeclampsia conditions."
So, contrary to what the rabid-right believes, Wikipedia is right after all.

reply from: nancyu

What happens if you don't sacrifice either and both die?
concerned parent is back. great.

reply from: jeafla

Moi? Why, I'm SHOCKED!! (Actually it's just those who BRAG on their education that strike me as very, very insecure.......)[/quote]
Which I did not do. I only mentioned my degree because my intelligence was questioned for using Wikipedia.
[quote]Hey, just because someone sent their butt to college so they could be a smart ass, that's no reason to get your big girl panties all in a wad!
And if the Mayo Clinic means anything, Wikipedia is correct and thus a viable reference in this case.

reply from: nancyu

They are.
Not just a little bit cynical, are you? I think you're smearing with a pretty wide brush there, not to mention smearing folks you don't even know.
You can document that I am wrong?
He doesn't need to document anything. Nobody believes you. Go home.

reply from: jeafla

They are.
Not just a little bit cynical, are you? I think you're smearing with a pretty wide brush there, not to mention smearing folks you don't even know.
You can document that I am wrong?
He doesn't need to document anything. Nobody believes you. Go home.
If people like the Republican Party and National Right to Life are so concerned about abortion in this country, why is abortion still legal and still prevalent in this country? These groups are just playing politics. They don't really care about the unborn and anyone who falls for their hype is just as complicit in the murder of millions as these groups are.

reply from: Shenanigans

Wiki is a website where any man and his labtomoised dog can access and alter the info to their heart's content. If you're really going to carry any weight in a debate, don't use it, no matter how quick it is. I mean, seriously, it took me all of 30seconds to go to my room and get those damn books. I even had time to pat my rats and swat a few flies.

reply from: Shenanigans

...
Heheh.
BWHAHAHAHAH!
Seriously? Oh my gosh! Seriously???
I didn't say it wasn't right, I was just trying to point out to you, oh highly educated and esoteric one with that big BA of yours, that it was far from credible in a debate. If its right about one thing, doesn't mean its' going to be right about everything, so you might as well save yourself the shame of when you screw up using wiki and stop using it. All I use Wiki for is the occasional "what's that Transformer's name in Japan?"
As it is, I"d like to see some of your (NOT WIKI) stats about the rate of abortion for pre-eclampsia. If you can put your BA in bio down long enough to look.
ps. NOT FROM WIKI.

reply from: faithman

They are.
Not just a little bit cynical, are you? I think you're smearing with a pretty wide brush there, not to mention smearing folks you don't even know.
You can document that I am wrong?
He doesn't need to document anything. Nobody believes you. Go home.
If people like the Republican Party and National Right to Life are so concerned about abortion in this country, why is abortion still legal and still prevalent in this country? These groups are just playing politics. They don't really care about the unborn and anyone who falls for their hype is just as complicit in the murder of millions as these groups are.
Unfortunantly you are exactly right. The Rep only want our vote, and the rest of the time they don't won't to here from us. NRTL are a bunch of sell outs, and actually only an "action commitee" for the GOP.

reply from: jeafla

The same is true for just about any website in existence. However, the article I cited is backed up by the Mayo Clinic. So what of it?

reply from: jeafla

If Wikipedia isn't wrong regarding the treatment for pre-eclampsia, then you have no reason to object when someone uses Wikipedia as a source, now do you?

reply from: micah

I would have an objection if somebody used wikipedia in an academic environment or in journalism, but on an Internet forum, I think wikipedia is perfectly fine. Especially on this forum. My god, people quote lifenews.com and people's personal blogs as sources.

reply from: yoda

Well, I've never heard of the Mayo Clinic bragging about their educational achievements......

reply from: yoda

You're not debating those two groups here.... and there's no one here to speak for them....... so put that where the sun don't shine......

reply from: faithman

You're not debating those two groups here.... and there's no one here to speak for them....... so put that where the sun don't shine......
Thats about all these 2 groups are worth on this issue. Both are sell outs and part of the problem, and continuosly get in the way and hinder the answere.

reply from: yoda

How does the average lobtomoised web surfer edit Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, for example?

reply from: yoda

So when you're on the internet, you're perfectly okay with lies?

reply from: yoda

I know, be WE don't have to answer for them.......

reply from: Yuuki

Wiki is a website where any man and his labtomoised dog can access and alter the info to their heart's content. If you're really going to carry any weight in a debate, don't use it, no matter how quick it is. I mean, seriously, it took me all of 30seconds to go to my room and get those damn books. I even had time to pat my rats and swat a few flies.
If something seems incorrect I view the sources myself; I have enough background knowledge and common sense to do that. Not everyone owns these books you speak of, whatever books those may happen to be.

reply from: yoda

But not everyone is an expert on every subject as you are...... what are these poor unfortunate souls to do? Take Wiki at their word?

reply from: faithman

But not everyone is an expert on every subject as you are...... what are these poor unfortunate souls to do? Take Wiki at their word?
Well I guess according to the def at wikki, this dunder head does have "common sence" even though it treads the classic def under it's lame brain feet with almost every post.

reply from: jeafla

You're not debating those two groups here.... and there's no one here to speak for them....... so put that where the sun don't shine......
So there are no Republicans on this board? I didn't know I had stumbled upon a group of pro-life Demicrats.

reply from: jeafla

How does the average lobtomoised web surfer edit Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, for example?
What guarantee do you have that the people that do get to edit Merriam Webster always know what they are talking about?

reply from: Shenanigans

And what does the Mayo clinic cite?
As for other websites in existacnce, you must be aware of the online medical journals that actually carry crediance, a lot of them you can get on without a subscription.
I stand by anti-wiki stance.

reply from: Shenanigans

I didn't expect people to own such books. But if people don't beleive me they're welcome to access the Mosby website that is responsible for the creation of those books.
There are also online medical journals with the same information, cited, and backed up with studies. Heck, I'll take a half paragraph abstract if you guys are that desperate.

reply from: faithman

Why don't folks just post links to the sites and be done with it? Let the info stand for itself!!!!

reply from: yoda

None that will defend the record of the Republican Party on prolife legislation, to my knowledge.
I have the same guarantee that the Guttmacher Institute knows what they are talking about when they put out a paper on an abortion related issue. They are professionals, and they have a reputation for accuracy. Can you say the same about the editors of Wiki?

reply from: yoda

You want the borties to actually furnish documentation for the stuff they make up? How unreasonable of you!

reply from: Shenanigans

And I"m still waiting on the numbers of all the women flocking to abort to cure their pre-eclampsia.

reply from: Yuuki

I didn't expect people to own such books. But if people don't beleive me they're welcome to access the Mosby website that is responsible for the creation of those books.
There are also online medical journals with the same information, cited, and backed up with studies. Heck, I'll take a half paragraph abstract if you guys are that desperate.
Wikipedia is like window shopping, or better, like watching previews at the movies. You may see something you like, you get a nice quick preview, but to truly understand it's up to YOU to do the deep research.

reply from: Yuuki

But not everyone is an expert on every subject as you are...... what are these poor unfortunate souls to do? Take Wiki at their word?
I'm far from an expert on everything, but I do know something about many things. Common sense isn't common though from what I've heard, so if someone is naive enough to think that Wikipedia is the final truth on something, then they need to go live under a rock.

reply from: Shenanigans

If someone came up to me and said "Hey, guess what Jeanette, I saw an awesome top in a window of a shop today!" and I asked "so did you buy it" and they reply "No".
I have no interest in some damn top someone saw in a shop window they didn't buy.

reply from: faithman

But not everyone is an expert on every subject as you are...... what are these poor unfortunate souls to do? Take Wiki at their word?
I'm far from an expert on everything, but I do know something about many things. Common sense isn't common though from what I've heard, so if someone is naive enough to think that Wikipedia is the final truth on something, then they need to go live under a rock.
Granite or marble?

reply from: jeafla

But not everyone is an expert on every subject as you are...... what are these poor unfortunate souls to do? Take Wiki at their word?
You need not be an expert, but anyone who is lacking in intelligence and a basic knowledge of a complex socio-political issue, shouldn't be participating in any discussion of that issue. People here, regardless of whatever education they have or don't have, who honestly believe that there is never a situation where an abortion is necessary to protect a pregnant woman's life, are prime examples of people who have no business discussing abortion- because they do not know what they are talking about. People who have not bothered to do enough research to know this simple fact about abortion wouldn't know if Wikipedia is correct or not so there is no point in people like you complaining when someone cites Wikipedia as a source.

reply from: jeafla

And what does the Mayo clinic cite?
As for other websites in existacnce, you must be aware of the online medical journals that actually carry crediance, a lot of them you can get on without a subscription.
I stand by anti-wiki stance.
You say that there are legitimate online medical journals that say abortion is never necessary to save a pregnant woman's life- but you don't cite any of them?

reply from: jeafla

Again, none of which you cite.

reply from: jeafla

Define professional. And in matters of science, do you have the necessary education and training that qualifies you to determine who is and is not a professional?

reply from: Yuuki

If someone came up to me and said "Hey, guess what Jeanette, I saw an awesome top in a window of a shop today!" and I asked "so did you buy it" and they reply "No".
I have no interest in some damn top someone saw in a shop window they didn't buy.
No comment about the movie preview example I notice. You just want to be disagreeable.

reply from: jeafla

I'm still waiting for you to cite the medical journals that say abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life.
But in the meantime:
http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijgo/vol7n1/risk.xml

The older a woman is when she gets pregnant the greater chance there is that she will have high blood pressure or diabetes during the pregnancy or complications while giving birth. There are such things as high risk pregnancies, when a woman's life in endangered because she is pregnant.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics