Partial-birth abortion
Reading through an article on the overturning of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, I started feeling sick:
In the banned procedure -- known as intact dilation and extraction to doctors, but called partial-birth abortion by opponents -- the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.
Justice Department attorneys argued that the procedure is inhumane, causes pain to the fetus and is never medically necessary.
Abortion rights advocates, however, argued that a woman's health during an abortion is more important than how the fetus is terminated, and that the banned method is often a safer solution that [sic] a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces. [emphasis mine]
Why is there even a debate on whether or not it is better to "terminate" a fetus by crushing its skull or dismembering it? Even if you don't think life begins at conception, but think that an unborn baby is less than human, imagine this discussion in the context of, say, putting to sleep household pets - "should we crush Fluffy's skull or just chop him up bit by bit?" Why is it appropriate to show that much concern for a pet, but none at all for a human being, even if you only recognize it as some sort of a proto-human?
And why, when the morality of abortion is questioned, is the questioner assumed to be some sort of misogynistic Neanderthal? Is the possibility of a child being brutally killed that irrelevant?
June 1, 2004 04:57 PMI was hoping that you would be interesting, as you're apparently not just another pimply-faced teenager from your photo and you might be almost as old as I am. So I get here only to find out that you're a right-to-lifer wacko. Crap.
That was just plain rude and shows a complete lack of respect and maturity. It is illogical to be happy someone isn't a "pimply-faced teenager" and then act out like one with your comment.
Rather than deal with the issue (atrocity) of partial-birth abortions or abortions in general, you reduced it to name calling. That is to be expected from a "pimply-faced teenager", but not from someone who "might be almost as old as" Maphet.
Thank goodness we have freedom of speech in this country, but it is our responsibility to use that freedom in a constructive way. Otherwise, we diminish the efforts of the brave men and women who have fought to keep that freedom in tact.
It is that freedom which allows for productive discourse to express ideas and opinions and come to societal consensus on such issues as abortion. Obviously, this country is still rather divided on the issue and those are the real things that need to be dealt with and not name-calling. It would be very easy to retort to the “right-to-lifer wacko” comment with calling you a “baby-killer genocidal maniac”, but that wouldn’t be constructive at all. I would rather you express your reasons for believing abortion is okay or at least respond to the questions posed in the post.
Although I suppose in a back-door way you answered the most pressing question of all.
Is the possibility of a child being brutally killed that irrelevant?
The Mad Raunter seems to think so, and I think that is sad.
Pondered by Jeff Price at June 2, 2004 09:41 AMI will address some of your points, even though I know (in advance) that it's quite pointless to engage in "productive discourse" with a right-to-lifer wacko.
First off, the country is not "still rather divided" on the issue. Abortion is legal in this country and will remain legal, the efforts of right-to-lifer wackos notwithstanding. If, in fact, abortion is even un-legalized in this country, I will buy you a case of beer or Kool-Aid or whatever it is wackos drink. In the meantime, how about you buy me a case of beer every year that abortion remains legal?
Even when abortion was illegal, if you had money you could get one. This would be even more true now, with cheap jet airfares going everywhere. So what we're talking about REALLY is just another way to keep poor folks down.
You cruel man, saying that life begins at conception... actually, life begins at ejaculation. In fact, men's seed contains the life, and that seed is "sowed" in the ground of the female. We must make ejaculation (except when in the process of creating a baby) illegal! Let's start telling men what to do with their penises and see how well that goes over. Let's lay off of poor women's utereri for a change.
While I must resist the urge to engage you in line by line repudiation of your “productive discourse”, I’ll simply ask you to take a look at these poll results and explain how “the country is not "still rather divided" on the issue.”
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
By the way, some of us “right-to-lifer wackos” like to drink Guinness. It’s all part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to make people think we only drink Kool-Aid.
Pondered by Jeff Price at June 3, 2004 01:19 AMI personally prefer a black and tan so please remember the Harp also.
Pondered by Rong at June 9, 2004 01:53 PMForbidden fruit is sweet...
Pondered by Barnabas at June 14, 2004 09:30 PM