PA abortionist, and barbarian, may face death penalty.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Wha?

It's a classic philosophical argument by Thomson, just because potential actions caused the baby into existence, that doesn't mean it has the right to use a woman's body without her permission.
Look up the Violinist example and the robber example by her.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I'm pro-life and I never once argued that abortion should be illegal. If someone wants one for any reason that is none of my business.

(scratchin head)..
Then.. that would make you pro-choice if you believe that the mother has a right to choose..


nm

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by valo403

I actually think that most people's minds can be changed, at least to a degree, through discussion and education. People at the extremes aren't going to be swayed (is there an extreme pro choice movement? Like abortions at any time at all? Seems like a hard position to support) but the people in the middle, which is most of us, could probably be moved in terms of the timing issue.

Right, and that was the point to my original post. It was a case of timing, and I think that everyone agrees that 'late term' abortion and partial-birth abortion, especially when a fetus is viable is just wrong.

It's funny how things turn out in these discussions when things are taken out of context.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

(scratchin head)..
Then.. that would make you pro-choice if you believe that the mother has a right to choose..


nm

Let's clear this up. I don't believe in abortion as a form of birth control. Hopefully my wife/girlfriend and/or kids one day would agree, but I would never force the issue on them, as it's not my body even if in the case of my wife or girlfriend it would be my baby. I don't judge people who get abortions and I sure as hell won't ever picket or make anyone feel bad over it. But I do consider it a disappointing shame that an invasive surgical procedure has become a mainstream form of birth control.

Better?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Let's clear this up. I don't believe in abortion as a form of birth control. Hopefully my wife/girlfriend and/or kids one day would agree, but I would never force the issue on them, as it's not my body even if in the case of my wife or girlfriend it would be my baby. I don't judge people who get abortions and I sure as hell won't ever picket or make anyone feel bad over it. But I do consider it a disappointing shame that an invasive surgical procedure has become a mainstream form of birth control.

Better?

So you don't judge; but it's shameful.
You don't believe in abortion as birth control; but you don't oppose any form of abortion.

Frankly, it sounds like you're just rationalizing the status quo.

The problem is, at some point, it's murder. Wherever that point is - once a doctor/patient/society goes past that then condoning murder is not something to do flippantly.
This doctor is not just terminating a pregnancy, he is terminating the 'child.'

I don't have any better answers than you, but I don't have the same level of certainty about where right ends and wrong begins.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

This is just an FYI since you're researching this, I thought it might help you a bit.

They stopped using the method you're thinking about in 2003:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial...ortion_Ban_Act

President Obama strongly opposed the Partial Birth Abortion Act and still does.

When George Tiller was murdered, he was one of three doctors in the US that actively performed 'late term' abortions. He called himself a 'Soldier for God' and his method was to first inject a solution into the fetus' heart and then have the mother deliver the child stillborn but induction of labour.

People came from all over to have this procedure done. Some of the situations were pretty heartbreaking, and although it did happen, seldom were the late terms done for convenience. Normally it had something to do with the health of the baby. I do NOT condone this, but I am just saying that most of the time women did this because there was something wrong with the baby and they didn't want to face dealing with it. What would happen was they would take (usually) 10 women at a time (at the clinic) and stop their fetus' hearts. Then the women would go to a hotel (which was guarded and staffed with nurses) while labour was induced. They would have their stillborn babies at the clinic when they were ready to deliver, and a lot of times they would then have a funeral for them. (I know this is what happened at the clinic in Wichita, not sure about any others.) I think there are two other places in the US that will still use this method, but doctors in their right mind don't want the death threats, legal hassles, picketers, attention- and they don't want to take the chance of being murdered like Dr. Tiller and others before him. There was a widely publicized case once of the solution not working and the baby was born alive. The baby was sent to the hospital for immediate medical treatment, and the coverage on the news of the ambulance leaving the clinic, etc, was extensive. There were also several cases of the mother having the stillborn fetus in their hotel room without being able to make it back to the clinic.

If it makes you feel any better, I think there are only two doctors in the US who will do this today.

It's really, really sad this has to happen at all. I am sorry you're so upset.

Firstly, Obama protected Partial Birth Abortions in his own State by causing a law that would make it a criminal act not to help a new born that was born alive after an abortion to die in his committee. It was one of the few times he did more than vote present. Sure he would say something different in mixed company but, his voting record says different.

Secondly, George Tiller was killing babies for money. If you came to him with the money and wanted your baby killed he would refer you to a doctor friend of his who would provide a letter stating that it would be harmful to your mental health for you to carry the child to full term. This fulfilled the State requirment that two doctors independantly needed to determine that it was harmful for the mother to carry to term. You pay for the letter and than pay Tiller for the procedure. No one was ever turned down.

Also, there isn't a State in the union that refuses to a allow a late term abortion if the mother's life is in danger. Women went to Tiller because he would make it happen without any questions or hassle.

Abortion clinics are assembly line efficient baby killing factories. They make their money on high volume death.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Firstly, Obama protected Partial Birth Abortions in his own State by causing a law that would make it a criminal act not to help a new born that was born alive after an abortion to die in his committee. It was one of the few times he did more than vote present. Sure he would say something different in mixed company but, his voting record says different.

Correct. He opposed the Partial Birth Abortion Act which bans partial birth abortions.

Secondly, George Tiller was killing babies for money. If you came to him with the money and wanted your baby killed he would refer you to a doctor friend of his who would provide a letter stating that it would be harmful to your mental health for you to carry the child to full term. This fulfilled the State requirment that two doctors independantly needed to determine that it was harmful for the mother to carry to term. You pay for the letter and than pay Tiller for the procedure. No one was ever turned down.

Correct.

Also, there isn't a State in the union that refuses to a allow a late term abortion if the mother's life is in danger. Women went to Tiller because he would make it happen without any questions or hassle.

Abortion clinics are assembly line efficient baby killing factories. They make their money on high volume death.

Correct. Late Term Abortion is protected. Partial Birth Abortion is different.

As for your views on Abortion Clinics, I have no opinion.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Cole436

It's a classic philosophical argument by Thomson, just because potential actions caused the baby into existence, that doesn't mean it has the right to use a woman's body without her permission.
Look up the Violinist example and the robber example by her.

Interesting thought experiment. And as a thought experiment, it invokes thoughtful discussion, but as an argument for or against, in and of itself, it is not.

[goaliegirl]

Only 1-2% of abortions would be classed as late term, and a very high number like 99% of them are done for incompatibility of life reasons or maternal health, most women who get one done do so within the first 13 weeks. This doctor(if you can call him that) is nothing more than a murderer, and if abortion ever became illegal again, you would probably see many more like him out there not only doing this to infants but killing women as well.

[goaliegirl]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

That's the kind of report I was looking for, it certainly seems to support the statement that there are many more women looking for adoptions versus infants available. I stand corrected.

Lets say all of the 100,000 women who have an abortion every year in Canada decided to carry to term, lets say half of those decided to give up for adoption, do you really think there would be 50,000 adoptive parents out there every year who would be looking to adopt an infant? Eventually supply would exceed demand and you would start to see orphanages popping up to house all these unwanted children.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by goaliegirl

Lets say all of the 100,000 women who have an abortion every year in Canada decided to carry to term, lets say half of those decided to give up for adoption, do you really think there would be 50,000 adoptive parents out there every year who would be looking to adopt an infant? Eventually supply would exceed demand and you would start to see orphanages popping up to house all these unwanted children.

Well, support your position with numbers then.

[goaliegirl]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Well, support your position with numbers then.

Ok here are the abortion numbers for Canada.
http://www.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml

International adoption Canada:
http://www.adoption.ca/031212cicstats.htm

Domestic adoption per year:
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Adoption_in_Canada.aspx

So if 100,000 women abort yearly, and only 3800 children are adopted(both internationally and domestically), can you not see where the discrepancy is? I mean even if you tripled the adoption number you would still have a whole lot of babies without homes.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Interesting thought experiment. And as a thought experiment, it invokes thoughtful discussion, but as an argument for or against, in and of itself, it is not.

Well no, it is without a doubt an argument. The violinist example is an analogy to pregnancy to rape, as it states that you have been forced against your will to be hooked up to the dying violinist, and must continue to do so for the next nine months or he will die. Would it be really nice if you did that? Sure. Are you under any moral obligation to do so? Absolutely not, he does not have the right to use your body without your permission, same goes for a baby in that situation.
The robber example is an analogy to unprotected sex, if you don't lock your door when you leave your house you know there is the possibility to get robbed, but you are not inviting the robber into your house to be robbed; he has no permission to be there. Same as a baby if a woman deems so.

The point is a woman has a right to her body, and if she does not allow a baby to live in her she has the right to abort. Though I believe that is only valid until the first trimester before cognitive function begins in the fetus.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Well no, it is without a doubt an argument. The violinist example is an analogy to pregnancy to rape, as it states that you have been forced against your will to be hooked up to the dying violinist, and must continue to do so for the next nine months or he will die. Would it be really nice if you did that? Sure. Are you under any moral obligation to do so? Absolutely not, he does not have the right to use your body without your permission, same goes for a baby in that situation.
The robber example is an analogy to unprotected sex, if you don't lock your door when you leave your house you know there is the possibility to get robbed, but you are not inviting the robber into your house to be robbed; he has no permission to be there. Same as a baby if a woman deems so.

The point is a woman has a right to her body, and if she does not allow a baby to live in her she has the right to abort. Though I believe that is only valid until the first trimester before cognitive function begins in the fetus.

What if, instead of one day waking up to find yourself randomly attached to a dying violinist, you willingly entered the "DVL: Dying Violinist Lottery."

In the DVL, you are given the option of taking 1 of only 100 tickets in the lottery, and if you take a ballot you will immediately be given $1,000. If, however, your ballot is drawn, you will be hooked up to a dying violinist for 9 months to sustain his life.

You elect to take a ticket, knowing the odds are 99 to 1 in your favor.

Your ticket is drawn.

Do you owe an obligation to the violinist?

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

What if, instead of one day waking up to find yourself randomly attached to a dying violinist, you willingly entered the "DVL: Dying Violinist Lottery."

In the DVL, you are given the option of taking 1 of only 100 tickets in the lottery, and if you take a ballot you will immediately be given $1,000. If, however, your ballot is drawn, you will be hooked up to a dying violinist for 9 months to sustain his life.

You elect to take a ticket, knowing the odds are 99 to 1 in your favor.

Your ticket is drawn.

Do you owe an obligation to the violinist?

No, but if you choose to have the baby he/she would get straight As in algebra..

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

What if, instead of one day waking up to find yourself randomly attached to a dying violinist, you willingly entered the "DVL: Dying Violinist Lottery."

In the DVL, you are given the option of taking 1 of only 100 tickets in the lottery, and if you take a ballot you will immediately be given $1,000. If, however, your ballot is drawn, you will be hooked up to a dying violinist for 9 months to sustain his life.

You elect to take a ticket, knowing the odds are 99 to 1 in your favor.

Your ticket is drawn.

Do you owe an obligation to the violinist?

That's missing the entire point that the violinist example is akin to rape, but to humour you your example is assuming that people would engage in sex with some intention of creating a baby; as shown with your 1/1000 odds. Secondly the answer is the same, you are under no moral obligation to hook the dying violinist to your body. It would be very kind of you, but you do not have to do it.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Cole436

That's missing the entire point that the violinist example is akin to rape, but to humour you your example is assuming that people would engage in sex with some intention of creating a baby; as shown with your 1/1000 odds. Secondly the answer is the same, you are under no moral obligation to hook the dying violinist to your body. It would be very kind of you, but you do not have to do it.

You're right: I'm changing the initial situation away from one of rape.

The situation I've posed is more akin to having protected sex for sexual gratification - the most common reason underlying most incidents of sex.

What this version asks is: if you have willingly engaged in an activity for which there is a certainty (or high likelihood) of immediate gratification (sexual pleasure/monetary reward), with the knowledge that with it comes a low likelihood of serious long-term consequences (impregnation/violinist-attachment), are you responsible for those long-term consequences in the unlikely event that they result?

[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

You're right: I'm changing the initial situation away from one of rape.

The situation I've posed is more akin to having protected sex for sexual gratification - the most common reason underlying most incidents of sex.

What this version asks is: if you have willingly engaged in an activity for which there is a certainty (or high likelihood) of immediate gratification (sexual pleasure/monetary reward), with the knowledge that with it comes a low likelihood of serious long-term consequences (impregnation/violinist-attachment), are you responsible for those long-term consequences in the unlikely event that they result?

Yes. There are many other situations where people are expected to accept responsibility despite the low probability of the least desirable outcome occurring.

I can think of many activities (certain adrenaline sports for example) in which there are often liability waivers that you have to sign. ie. If something happens its your responsibility.

I can think of people choosing to travel to potentially dangerous areas... they do so for personal gratification but some kind of reimbursement isn't expected if they get mugged or something.

Heck something as simple as choosing to drink and smoke may satisfy immediate personal gratification.... but if you develop chronic illness don't expect to be reimbursed from cigarette and liquor companies.

In my opinion its no different with sex. People are deciding to engage in an activity with potentially undesirable consequences. People are aware of that and they should not be able to shift responsibility from themselves to the fetus just because they made a gamble they weren't ready for. Once again, I understand unique circumstances of rape etc. But lets face it... these days a lot of abortions are the result of careless planning and a disregard for personal responsibility. I'll probably get a lot of flack for this.... but so be it.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

You're right: I'm changing the initial situation away from one of rape.

The situation I've posed is more akin to having protected sex for sexual gratification - the most common reason underlying most incidents of sex.

What this version asks is: if you have willingly engaged in an activity for which there is a certainty (or high likelihood) of immediate gratification (sexual pleasure/monetary reward), with the knowledge that with it comes a low likelihood of serious long-term consequences (impregnation/violinist-attachment), are you responsible for those long-term consequences in the unlikely event that they result?

While I feel there is a sense of responsibility, for example a woman being careless time and time again and having multiple abortions, I don't believe that for an accidental pregnancy a fetus has a right to a body if the woman does not want it. It might sound cold, but that's my opinion.

[pylon]

I really don't think the debate is about pro-life vs. pro-choice. As a lot of pro-choice people have already stated, even to them, sucking the brain out of and dismembering a nearly or already viable child is just too far. The only reason partial birth abortions are done the way they are, is because of a legal issue. According to the law, until the entire body of the baby, is fully exposed, or until the baby has taken a breath of air, they are still not considered a human being with rights. It is the abuse of a technicality in the worst possible way. I can see the lawyers drawing it up ,"Well, IF the head is still in the vagina, I guess it TECHNICALLY can't breath, and is still TECHNICALLY not born yet."

In my opinion, it would be more humane to just give birth to the thing, and peacefully euthanize it with drugs, as opposed to pulling it out backwards most of the way, ramming scissors into the base of its skull, wiggling them around, then vacuuming out its brain. Can you imagine how painful that must be?

This is a pretty educational video using a doll to explain and demonstrate the procedure. Take away the fact this guy has a religious agenda, and is preaching to what looks like a bible school. Just look at it for the technical details of how its done:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_W75zh1j2I

If you killed a dog like that, you would go to jail, and lets not fool ourselves. A 6 or 7 month preemee can feel pain and it can cry. It has a nervous system, and it will react to stimuli. Sounds like a living being to me at that point.

This debate is about the method, and the timing of terminating the child, not if it is right or wrong IMHO. Because I believe both sides have valid points. It is comforting to know, that a lot have similar views as I do on this issue, and that you can say... "Yeah, I guess abortion is OK... up to a certain point."