Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-24-2011, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
8,346 posts, read 7,044,020 times
Reputation: 2874

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
What is the correlation?

If the USA had national health care then you will be fine with restricting abortion to the first 12 weeks,is that agreeable to you?
What would be "agreeable" to me is restricting abortion up until the general point of viability.

Which is exactly what the US did.

Which is the exact law this doctor broke.

@thread:

This is disgusting, and an abuse of position. Partial birth abortion is illegal unless hte woman is in danger, and it should stay that way.

But, I surmise that people will use this unfortunate example to demonize all abortions. It's just how stupid some Americans can get.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2011, 09:15 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,878,374 times
Reputation: 14345
It seems that the people who are anti-abortion focus their attention very narrowly on the fetus in these situations, and even more narrowly on the life of that fetus. Which is not a bad thing, because it reflects their ideology. But ideology and reality often are in conflict. People who are pro-choice may too often focus on the women's issues, which reflects their ideology. I think most people in the United States are more moderate in their views on abortion. No one likes abortion, but it is reasonable to acknowledge that there are cases when abortion does less harm to the woman than any other choice. And it's important that people approach this issue WITH RESPECT. The women who choose abortion do MERIT the RESPECT of us all. Whether you agree with their choices or not, when you bring contempt to the discussion you are showing that your mind is closed, not open. Every situation is different, and in order to understand the situation that each woman faces, you have to be willing to listen, willing to see her point of view. If you aren't willing, what does that say about you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2011, 09:19 AM
 
Location: Ohio
15,700 posts, read 17,046,690 times
Reputation: 22091
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
To you "pro-choices".....

what's the difference?

killing a "fetus" while the head is still in the birth canal, (as in a partial birth abortion) or ten seconds after the "baby" is born?

This statement is both ignorant and heartless. These procedures are extremely rare, and are only LEGALLY done to save the life of the mother. In these cases, the women DO NOT WANT an abortion......they are forced to have an abortion or die, perhaps leaving their other children motherless.

when is the last time that there has been a serious discussion about the emotional, mental and physical effects on a woman after an abortion?

This has been discussed. Very few women have emotional problems after an abortion. Physical problems from LEGAL abortions are virtually nil. A doctor can do a complete physical exam on a woman and will not know whether she has previously had an abortion unless she tells him.

when is the last time that mortality rates of women during or after an abortion were discussed?

Death due to a legal abortion is EXTREMELY RARE. Legal abortion is one of the safest medical procedures done. FACT: More woman die during childbirth than from legal abortion.

I think it's time that we have an adult discussion about these things and stop being so cavalier about "woman's rights" when,in fact, an unborn child has none.
Unborn children are not aborted on demand. Fetuses that are not viable are aborted on demand.

Stating emotional fallacies as fact is childish and cavalier. It is impossible to have an adult discussion when you are ignorant of the FACTS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2011, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Ohio
15,700 posts, read 17,046,690 times
Reputation: 22091
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
I guess that is the definitive argument why the unborn have fewer rights than illegal aliens.
Guess what? Illegal aliens are not fetuses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2011, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Ohio
15,700 posts, read 17,046,690 times
Reputation: 22091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minethatbird View Post
Shouldn't have been around at all if the promises pro-abortion folks had made were kept. Namely, that we needed to legalize abortion to get rid of places like this.

It would also appear this place has been in existence for awhile. Where were all the women's health advocates? Now we know they don't care if abortionists kill babies but this guy killed a woman as well. Isn't that another thing Roe v Wade was supposed to stop? Deaths of women from abortions?

Doctor's long tumble to jail | Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/23/2011
You seem to have chosen to ignore the fact that this doctor was also handing out narcotics like candy.......which is also illegal.

Where were the drug enforcement officers?

Where were the anti drug abuse advocates?

Where was Nancy Reagan.......just say no?

Following your scewed train of thought, I guess we should also stop using narcotics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2011, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Ohio
15,700 posts, read 17,046,690 times
Reputation: 22091
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
What is the correlation?

If the USA had national health care then you will be fine with restricting abortion to the first 12 weeks,is that agreeable to you?

The correlation is that the government pays for the abortions that are done.

If the USA restricts abortion to the first 12 weeks, would you be agreeable to the government paying for abortions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2011, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,222,878 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantasy Tokoro View Post
What would be "agreeable" to me is restricting abortion up until the general point of viability.

Which is exactly what the US did.

Which is the exact law this doctor broke.

@thread:

This is disgusting, and an abuse of position. Partial birth abortion is illegal unless hte woman is in danger, and it should stay that way.

But, I surmise that people will use this unfortunate example to demonize all abortions. It's just how stupid some Americans can get.
The 2003 law only was directed and Intact D an E abortions not all abortions after viability

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531[1], PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion." The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the term "partial-birth abortion" in the Act pertains to a procedure that is called intact dilation and extraction by its defenders.[2] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or a

This statute prohibits a method of abortion in the United States that it names "partial birth abortion". The procedure described in the statute is usually used in the second trimester,[3] from 15 to 26 weeks, some of which occur before and some of which occur after viability. The law itself contains no reference to gestational age or viability. The present statute is directed only at a method of abortion, rather than at preventing any woman from obtaining an abortion
In the 2000 Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, a Nebraska law banning "partial-birth abortion" was ruled unconstitutional, in part because the language defining "partial-birth abortion" was deemed vague.[8] In 2006, the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart found that the 2003 act "departs in material ways" from the Nebraska law and that it pertains only to a specific abortion procedure, intact dilation and extraction.[2] Some commentators
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2011, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
8,346 posts, read 7,044,020 times
Reputation: 2874
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
The 2003 law only was directed and Intact D an E abortions not all abortions after viability

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531[1], PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion." The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the term "partial-birth abortion" in the Act pertains to a procedure that is called intact dilation and extraction by its defenders.[2] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or a

This statute prohibits a method of abortion in the United States that it names "partial birth abortion". The procedure described in the statute is usually used in the second trimester,[3] from 15 to 26 weeks, some of which occur before and some of which occur after viability. The law itself contains no reference to gestational age or viability. The present statute is directed only at a method of abortion, rather than at preventing any woman from obtaining an abortion
In the 2000 Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, a Nebraska law banning "partial-birth abortion" was ruled unconstitutional, in part because the language defining "partial-birth abortion" was deemed vague.[8] In 2006, the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart found that the 2003 act "departs in material ways" from the Nebraska law and that it pertains only to a specific abortion procedure, intact dilation and extraction.[2] Some commentators
My mistake on the viability part.

Although further research shows some suprising trends.

Such as the amount of abortions going down, and that most abortions are done before the general point of viability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2011, 12:00 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,870,208 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantasy Tokoro View Post
What would be "agreeable" to me is restricting abortion up until the general point of viability.

Which is exactly what the US did.

Which is the exact law this doctor broke.

@thread:

This is disgusting, and an abuse of position. Partial birth abortion is illegal unless hte woman is in danger, and it should stay that way.

But, I surmise that people will use this unfortunate example to demonize all abortions. It's just how stupid some Americans can get.
24 weeks is viable.

Abortion is legal in PA at 24 weeks.

Viability is steadily increasing.

So you favor steadily restricting abortion correct,as the viability of the baby is increased.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2011, 12:03 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,870,208 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
The correlation is that the government pays for the abortions that are done.

If the USA restricts abortion to the first 12 weeks, would you be agreeable to the government paying for abortions?
Quote:
At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.
Public Funding for Abortion | American Civil Liberties Union

Any other reason for abortion makes it elective surgery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top