Kerry and Late Term Abortion

[Pah]

Quote: (Originally Posted by pah)
When the motive is to favor the life of a fetus, then the agenda and purpose
Deut:
Are you referring to my motive, agenda and purpose?

No, but if the shoe fits....

Any comment on the material cut?..

Quote: (Originally Posted by pah)
Removing -rescinding - rejecting - curtailing rights of women is a throw-back to patriarchal control.
Deut:
I am opposed to patriarchal control.

That's nice.


Quote: (Originally Posted by pah)
The procedure being protested is one easily replaced.
Deut:
Then perhaps it should be.

Why? Do you have something solid about the relative risk to the woman?

Quote: (Originally Posted by pah)
What is really gained by opposing partial birth abortion?
Deut:
What is really gained by refusing to talk about it?
Is there anybody refusing to do that in this thread?

Quote: (Originally Posted by pah)
I am pro-choice and I wish abortion would become a rarity for I love babies as much as anyone.
Deut:
So there we have it: on the one side stands pah, who loves babies as much as anyone, and on the other stands the forces of evil plotting the resubjugation of women under the iron fist of patriarchal control. I guess that pretty much lays to rest any ethical question that an honest person might contemplate.

Thank you!
-pah-

 

[civilcynic]

In terms of this issue of abortion in general, I suggest that the main issue is not whether the fertilized egg/embryo is living.....it is..just like skin cells are alive, intestinal fauna is alive, etc; but when it acheives 'personhood' (for lack of a better term).

Now back to the subject matter...late term abortion.

According to current law, Roe V. Wade, late term abortion is done when there is serious health risk involved. Now, anti-abortionists will decry that this isn't always the case and that late term abortions are done for completely other reasons or that the 'health risk' is not that serious. Although I personally believe that most late term abortions (including partial birth) are done within the context of Roe. v. Wade, I am sure that anti-abortionists are right to conclude that all late term abortions do not follow that letter of the law....The problem, therefore, comes down to enforcement.
Exactly how will we enforce this law...What is the criteria for serious health risks; Is there a specific concrete measurement that MD's can go by to determine whether a woman's health risk (or for that matter the fetus' health risk) is serious enough? Is it only for those who may be at risk of dying and, if so, what is the cut-off percentage rate for survival that helps a MD make the determination? Does a pregnant woman with a 50% chance of dying have the right to have an abortion or does the risk of death need to be higher? Can the right to have an abortion increase/decrease as the pregnancy progresses and the risk factor changes? Who makes that determination and who monitors and investigates it?

For those who believe that Roe v. Wade needs to be repealed and that there should be anti-abortion legislation in place, please give some guidelines not only on the how and what criteria should be established, but also how it can be effectively enforced.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

According to current law, Roe V. Wade, late term abortion is done when there is serious health risk involved. Now, anti-abortionists will decry that this isn't always the case and that late term abortions are done for completely other reasons or that the 'health risk' is not that serious. Although I personally believe that most late term abortions (including partial birth) are done within the context of Roe. v. Wade, I am sure that anti-abortionists are right to conclude that all late term abortions do not follow that letter of the law....The problem, therefore, comes down to enforcement.
Exactly how will we enforce this law...What is the criteria for serious health risks; Is there a specific concrete measurement that MD's can go by to determine whether a woman's health risk (or for that matter the fetus' health risk) is serious enough? Is it only for those who may be at risk of dying and, if so, what is the cut-off percentage rate for survival that helps a MD make the determination? Does a pregnant woman with a 50% chance of dying have the right to have an abortion or does the risk of death need to be higher? Can the right to have an abortion increase/decrease as the pregnancy progresses and the risk factor changes? Who makes that determination and who monitors and investigates it?

For me, this is exactly why the decision should be left to the woman and her doctor.
TVOR

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The following is a reply to TVOR on some posts of a while back which I've been meaning to respond to:

I agree that if I attack the people (rather than their position) it would be an Ad Hominem fallacy - however, I have re-read my own posts twice (each) looking for this error on my part. I can find no instance when I attacked the person and not the position or tactic employed.

On the definition of ad hominem, according to www.dictionary.com :

The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case

You attacked pro-lifers for failing to adopt more children. When the topic of the debate is whether or not late term abortion is ethical, that kind of attack is ad hominem. As the definition states, ad hominem is an argument that addresses the failings of an adversary rather than the merits of the case...whether or not pro-lifers adopt many children has nothing to do with whether or not a fetus is a person.

Your point that partial birth abortions fall within the realm of Late Term abortions is valid. What I disagree with is that not all late term abortions are partial birth abortions. This "grouping together" leads to the restriction of abortions that are not truly in the same class.

I agree, and I apologize if I inadvertantly grouped them all together like that.

I certainly realize that, and it makes me appreciate your stance all the more. The fact that you oppose it because you see it as a violation of the babies' rights assumes that your premise that these are babies rather than fetuses - I still do not concede this point.

I understand, but to be honest, my objective here was more to clarify and defend my position than to convince others. I realize that I can no more convince you that a fetus is a human being any more than I could convince a racist that black people are human beings. They are both subjective judgements that just have to be 'felt' to be true. However, I do think that if people in general are exposed more to pictures and information on fetuses, they may start to feel differently. Furthermore, I hope you realize that given that I do feel a fetus is a human being, it would be unconscionable for me to support any law that denies that fetus his/her basic human rights.

These pictures truly are horrific to look at. We all agree with this. That said, this is the basis for the appeal to emotion.

Yes, and I thought we agreed that emotions were valid indicators of right and wrong when presented with reality (i.e. photos of dead civilians in war, pictures of the dead fetuses as a result of abortion).

I fully understand your position, however, I must deny this premise. It does not make me right (or wrong, for that matter) - nor does it make you right or wrong. This is truly opinion on both our parts - and the point cannot be won by either side. We must simply agree to disagree. Regardless of my stance or yours on this point, I deeply respect your opinion - I just disagree with it.

I appreciate your respect for my views, and I respect your right to hold your views as well. But it would be unethical for me to simply 'agree to disagree' on this. I feel people are being denied their right to live, and I refuse to sit idly by and allow it to happen, hoping that I'm wrong about whether or not fetuses are 'people'. Again, this is why I feel I am justified in trying to "impose" my pro-life views on others. This reasoning was precisely why activists in history have tried to "impose" their views on others when groups of different ethnicities, religions, physical ability, sexual orientation, gender, etc. have been denied their rights.

You are correct, but the emotion brought about by the pictures (or the fetuses) still boils down to the appeal to emotion. They disturb me, just as they do you (I have seen them as well). As bad as these photos are, they do not change my position on when a fetus is considered a baby. I'm sure that many on this site (and around the world) feel as you do - I'm also sure that many feel as I. Even if you (or I) were the only person on earth that held your position, it would still be a matter of opinion. The argument that many people agree with either of us would be the fallacy of appeal to authority (in this case "many people").

Actually, I think it's important to note that most people are disturbed by the photos. Most people do feel that late term abortion is wrong...the real debate is whether or not it should be made illegal and under what circumstances. If people did not feel, deep down, that the dead bodies depicted were perhaps people with an inherent right to live, why do you think most people who see them find them horrific?

I agree with the majority of this statement, but this still boils down to emotion. We cannot get past the point that we have reduced this argument to the point of opinion. No amount of photographs will change my point of view, just as I am sure that even if the media turns its back to this procedure, you will not change your point of view.

I disagree. I can't speak for you, but I definitely think that if there were no pictures or descriptions of aborted fetuses, my view would change. And if I had never seen pictures of dead soldiers and civilians, I would probably have a very different view of war.

I certainly am not a proponent of abortion, and will not be labeled as such. I am a proponent of the woman's right to choose - huge difference that tends to be obscured by some of the rhetoric of the Prolife movement. Basically - the opposite of Prolife is not Prodeath - it is ProChoice.

Why are you "certainly not a proponent of abortion" if a fetus is not a person and has no inherent right to be alive? I don't see how an you, personally, can have any moral or ethical problems with abortion if you don't feel that a fetus is a person.

[continued in next post]

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Again, the appeal to emotion.

I'd like to reiterate...I thought you and I agreed that emotions were valid indicators of right and wrong, just as it would be valid for me to defend the rights of blacks because I am disturbed by violence I have seen against them.

A fine example of human rights - and I am a fan of civil disobedience. We are still stuck on the point that our opinion of whether it is a fetus or a baby is the crux of this argument. After a baby is delivered, it is a human being (in my opinion) and deserves all of the human rights entailed therein. I understand that the next argument is "why is it a baby at one moment, when 30 seconds earlier it was not"? My answer to that is - At what point do we stop this argument? Is it a baby at the moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg? Or the woman is inseminated? When the fetus is viable? Each of these is open to debate, and still come down to opinion - thus this point cannot be resolved.

It kind of sounds like you're confusing your views on what should/should not be legally considered a person, and what you personally feel is/is not a person. I understand that legally, we have to draw a line somewhere, and I agree with you that drawing that line at the moment of conception is too drastic. But I also feel that drawing that line at the moment the babies' head comes out is also too drastic. But aside from where the law should draw the line, what do you, personally, beleive constitutes a human being? Do you really think this: http://www.w-cpc.org/pictures/adam/mo6.jpg isn't a person because he/she hasn't come out of the womb yet? I just want your personal opinion here.

What is the criteria for serious health risks; Is there a specific concrete measurement that MD's can go by to determine whether a woman's health risk (or for that matter the fetus' health risk) is serious enough? Is it only for those who may be at risk of dying and, if so, what is the cut-off percentage rate for survival that helps a MD make the determination? Does a pregnant woman with a 50% chance of dying have the right to have an abortion or does the risk of death need to be higher? Can the right to have an abortion increase/decrease as the pregnancy progresses and the risk factor changes? Who makes that determination and who monitors and investigates it?

Well, as you said, the law currently says that late term abortions cannot be performed unless there are serious health risks to the woman. Does this apply to abortions in the second trimester, or only the third? If it does not apply to the second trimester, I feel that it should be extended to include this period.

A competent doctor should be able to discern whether or not a given pregnancy is within the bounds of normal, and when there are serious abnormal health risks to the mother. If the doctor cannot make that determination, he/she should be brought to trial for malpractice. I would think the state would investigate this just as they would investigate other forms of malpractice among doctors...if they catch doctors performing abortions on perfectly healthy babies, they should be prosecuted in my opinion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

TVOR-- One other thing I forgot to reply to...I believe somewhere in this thread (I forget where) you asked if I thought people would be justified in bringing pictures of mothers who have died from childbirth to the attention of the public. My answer is yes. People need to be exposed to the reality of the situation.

P.S.-- John Kerry. There, now I'm technically still on topic.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

You attacked pro-lifers for failing to adopt more children. When the topic of the debate is whether or not late term abortion is ethical, that kind of attack is ad hominem.
[continued in next post]

Spinkles -
I did not intend my question about adoption as an attack on the individuals taking a prolife stance. I was merely pointing out the fact that when a prolifer makes the statement that unwanted children could be adopted, the argument is hollow - or we would not have children waiting for adoption today.

TVOR

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Spinkles -

1) I certainly hope that you are using the analogy of racism as simply that (and are not directly calling me a racist). I am taking your statement as a simple analogy.

2) I didn't bother to follow your link to the photos of an aborted fetus. I know what they look like, and have no need to view them again. Unlike the prolife side of the argument, I will not disseminate inflammatory pictures to help make my point. If I cannot carry my side of the debate without them, I would feel that I don't truly have a defensible argument.

3) I will concede your argument that you cannot "agree to disagree", on the premise that you see abortion as murder of an innocent human life. If, like you, I saw an act (any act) as murder, I would feel a moral obligation to rail against it, unceasingly.

4) If your morals will not allow you to "agree to disagree" (and I understand why they won't), then we will simply have to drop the argument. I feel no confusion over my position on abortion. I disagree with you on when a fetus becomes a human.

Sincerely,
TVOR

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I was merely pointing out the fact that when a prolifer makes the statement that unwanted children could be adopted, the argument is hollow - or we would not have children waiting for adoption today.

I beg your pardon, TVOR, but this is ad hominem--you are addressing the failure of the opponent in debate to adopt children (which makes their argument "hollow") rather than the merit of their argument (that abortion is not the only alternative to abortion for unwanted children).

1) Yes, it is an analogy, and no I am certainly not calling you a racist. My point is that no one can objectively say a fetus is a 'person' any more than one can objectively say someone of a different ethnicity is a 'person'. Both are subjective judgements.

2) The link was not of an aborted fetus, it was a healthy fetus in the third trimester still inside the womb. I was asking if you personally feel that, just because the fetus in the picture is still inside the womb, he/she is not a 'person'. I know now that that is precisely how you feel, and I respect your right to feel that way, but to me he/she looks an awful lot like a person.

3) If I have railed unceasingly, I apologize. I made an honest attempt to follow your example and present my personal justifications for why I feel the way I do in a rational, polite manner.

4) I understand, and I have enjoyed listening to your arguments, and challenging my own arguments in my mind. As I said earlier though, my goal here was never to 'convert' anyone to my side. I'm satisfied to simply hear everyone else's case, present my case, and then drop it and be friends again.

P.S. John Kerry! (We're still on topic )

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I beg your pardon, TVOR, but this is ad hominem--you are addressing the failure of the opponent in debate to adopt children (which makes their argument "hollow") rather than the merit of their argument (that abortion is not the only alternative to abortion for unwanted children).

1) Yes, it is an analogy, and no I am certainly not calling you a racist. My point is that no one can objectively say a fetus is a 'person' any more than one can objectively say someone of a different ethnicity is a 'person'. Both are subjective judgements.

2) The link was not of an aborted fetus, it was a healthy fetus in the third trimester still inside the womb. I was asking if you personally feel that, just because the fetus in the picture is still inside the womb, he/she is not a 'person'. I know now that that is precisely how you feel, and I respect your right to feel that way, but to me he/she looks an awful lot like a person.

3) If I have railed unceasingly, I apologize. I made an honest attempt to follow your example and present my personal justifications for why I feel the way I do in a rational, polite manner.

4) I understand, and I have enjoyed listening to your arguments, and challenging my own arguments in my mind. As I said earlier though, my goal here was never to 'convert' anyone to my side. I'm satisfied to simply hear everyone else's case, present my case, and then drop it and be friends again.

P.S. John Kerry! (We're still on topic )

If you see my point as ad hominem, I withdraw it.

1) I'm a little lost on how anyone could judge someone of a different race or ethnicity as anythng other than a person, but I'll live with it.

2) I must apologize. I assumed (incorrectly) that you were posting a link to an aborted fetus. Very closed minded of me, and inexcusable.

3) For the third time in this thread - when an issue is as emotionally charged as this one is for you, it is inevitable that the emotions will show. I have absolutely nothing but respect for you as an individual, and for your ability to argue your position. I know that I am the only perfect debater here and that emotion never seeps into my words. :sarcastic

4) I'm gonna have to get a hug here. I'll say this - when it comes to arguing a viewpoint, I'll take you on my team anytime. It's a lot easier being on the same side of the aisle with you than it is having to take you on. We may not agree on this subject, but I have to say that I looked forward to every reply you made - knowing that the tone would be one of civility. Lastly, we cannot be friends again - that would imply that we were not during this thread - and from my point, nothing could be further from the truth.

John Kerry.

May your children be as sagacious as you,
TVOR