How can you vote for someone who is for partial birth abortion

[barman]

Well right now, it's not murder. It's just terminating a pregnancy.

So no, I won't help you or your fringe group fellows by giving you information that will help you change the definition to murder.

The medical records are private.

You can't have them.

It doesn't matter if the abortion was 'neccesary'. All that matters is if the mother wants to terminate the pregnancy. She is the only one who decides - not a court, not Ashcroft, not you.

It's a great system and I can't see a rational reason to change it now.

But keep trying if you feel it's the best use of your civic time.

 

[barman]

We don't have the actual data, but based on population statistics, Florida had over 50,000 pregnancies terminated last year alone.

If the law were changed to define abortion as murder, that would be 50,000 women plus all of their doctors, and family members who paid for the procedure who would then be facing execution. In short, there would be more people on Florida death row than currently fill all of our prisons (just over 80,000).

The vast majority of Americans realize how insane that would be. Therefore, even if they don't believe abortion is the right thing to do, they will never support making it a crime worthy of execution by the state.

 

[Massmilwaukee]

Politicians defining what a doctor and their patients can or cannot discuss is like my car mechanic defining business ethics.

[This message was edited by Massmilwaukee on April 21, 2004 at 05:36 PM.]

 

[truthteller]

Man, you could be the poster boy for the O'reilly's No Spin Zone.

Are we talking about all abortions here or just POB? I think your spinning is making you a little dizzy.

 

[UncleMoneybags]

Ex post facto laws would be a nightmare. In that, you are right, barman. If they made all abortions illegal tomorrow, there would be a dropoff in the personnel that make themselves available for these types of procedures. I would say that the actual # would be a lot lower. The women that wanted it done and those that had the money would probably go to another country to obtain the procedure. The question is how far would the feds push it to discover the transgressions of a few citizens.

 

[barman]

All abortions of course.

It would be insane to arrest women who elect to terminate a pregnancy at any point and then charge them, their doctors and anyone financially connected to the procedure with murder subject to being executed.

Plain and simple.

Abortion is viewed as a bad idea by some people.

Charging those who have it done with homicide subject to execution is viewed as a worse idea by nearly all people.

That's why it's appropriate to teach alternatives to abortion and to help provide those alternatives. But it's a big waste of time for elected officials to suggest that we charge all people connected with an abortion as murderers subject to being executed.

That's why John Kerry isn't giving it much attention. And that's why over 50 million Americans who would otherwise vote for him aren't thrown off by his not working to criminalize abortion.

 

[JudgeWapner]

Will probably get blasted for this,but I believe only women have a right to an opinion on abortion.

 

[barman]

No JW, anyone can have an 'opinion' about abortion.

But only the mother involved can be the ultimate decision maker on a specific abortion.

 

[JudgeWapner]

Barman,well said.

 

[truthteller]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It would be insane to arrest women who elect to terminate a pregnancy at any point and then charge them, their doctors and anyone financially connected to the procedure with murder subject to being executed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's fuking insane they have PBO. You say I am on the fringe of society when it comes to criminalising PBO. I guess the DOJ is on the fringe too. I guess the judge that granted access to these paitents are a fringe. Anyone who doesn't agree ith your fuked up thinking is on the fringe.

What a bunch of hypocrisy. You kill a pregnant woman and you can be charged for taking THE LIVES OF 2 PERSONS

 

[barman]

TT: It's fuking insane they have PBO. You say I am on the fringe of society when it comes to criminalising PBO. I guess the DOJ is on the fringe too. I guess the judge that granted access to these paitents are a fringe. Anyone who doesn't agree ith your fuked up thinking is on the fringe.

BAR: On this particular topic yes, you, the DOJ and the judge in Michigan are indeed on the fringe. It doesn't make you a bad person, it just means you're in the solid minority.


TT: What a bunch of hypocrisy. You kill a pregnant woman and you can be charged for taking THE LIVES OF 2 PERSONS

BAR: I agree that is hypocritical. If you kill a pregnant woman, you shouldn't be subject to two charges. Fortunately, that's only happened in a very small number of cases, and I'm not even sure if anyone has actually been convicted of a double homicide in such cases.

 

[blueedwards]

Originally posted by barman:
Well right now, it's not murder. It's just terminating a pregnancy.QUOTE]

this is interesting to me. currently, abortion is legal so, according to the laws of the u.s., you are correct...it is just terminating a pregnancy. and, if they change the law tomorrow, declare an unborn child a human being with rights and make abortion illegal, it would become murder. so if that were to happen, what about all the abortions that have already happened...were they murder too?

kinda like over a hundred years ago when the u.s. congress decided that a black man was 3/5 of a person. later on, they decided that a black man is in fact a whole person. so my question is, prior to that ruling, was the black man actually 3/5 a person? or, was the congress horribly wrong and later corrected their mistake?

are there absolutes like, "all men are created equal" or is that just the soup di jour depending on the group of lawmakers at the time of the writing of a certain document?

 

[barman]

That's an interesting question, Blue.

At this time, it's clear that one does not have full rights as a '100% human being' until he is successfully delivered from the mother.

It's the angle that the current administration is trying to push, hoping that by changing that definition to say, "180+ days in the womb" they could then prosecute those women (and anyone else associated with the procedure) who might terminate from day 181 forward as murderers.

And that's why it seems likely to fail as a strategy.

Public opinion on "Do you support getting abortions on demand?" is fairly divided.

But public opinion on "Do you support prosecuting women who have abortions as murderers?" receives relatively little support.

It's one thing to see something that we disagree with and say, "There oughta be a law against that".

It's quite another to fully expand that thought and ask, "If we make this a crime, what will the penalties be?"

So far in the abortion debate, those seeking to change the law for the most part insist on the penalty being the same as for murder. That's where they lose the vast majority of the public.

As noted above several times - smile - I can fully understand why someone would be offended by the idea of abortion. I can fully understand how they might want to do everything they can to reduce the number of abortions.

But I cannot understand the rationale of defining all associated with an abortion as being complicit in murder.

I happen to know a lot of women who at some point in their lives terminated a pregnancy, each for their own reasons. What TTeller is demanding, at least in this thread, is that I now send all of them to death row (I live in a death penalty state) along with their doctors and anyone that helped finance it.

Sorry, but I can't get on that train.

 

[barman]

Hey, this thread is getting way too somber.

http://www.cafeshops.com/thewhitehouse.4604924?zoom=yes#zoom

 

[truthteller]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I can fully understand why someone would be offended by the idea of abortion. I can fully understand how they might want to do everything they can to reduce the number of abortions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can you understand all of that when you think a baby in the womb is just a piece of tissue. If nothing is wrong with abortion even in PBO as you see it, then you couldn't possibly understand why people would be so upset about this act.
To you, it's just like a piece of paper, women can go on throwing out all day long.

As for your idea, that it's not a big deal in this election look at

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/23/fri/index.html

 

[lander]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Massmilwaukee:
Politicians defining what a doctor and their patients can or cannot discuss is like my car mechanic defining business ethics.

[This message was edited by Massmilwaukee on April 21, 2004 at 05:36 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you an anarchist? Surely you must feel that only experts working in their specific expertiese are qualified to make laws.

 

[barman]

TT: How can you understand all of that when you think a baby in the womb is just a piece of tissue. If nothing is wrong with abortion even in PBO as you see it, then you couldn't possibly understand why people would be so upset about this act.

BAR: Of course I can understand it. You see it as more than a piece of tissue.

You see it as a full human being, worthy of all the protections given to those who have already been delivered.

As such, it makes perfect sense that you would work to eliminate abortions. I think I do understand that.

But I also know that using criminal prohibition laws and charging women with murder seems to me as more damaging to society than the loss of a fetus.


TT: To you, it's just like a piece of paper, women can go on throwing out all day long.

BAR: Actually, very few women have abortions 'all day long' (or repeatedly as your statement infers). Most are one time occurences. But even in cases of repeated terminations, the suggestion that putting them in prison for life, or executing them would be a better policy than permitting the termination seems wrong to me.

"I" am NOT 'for' abortion.
Which is why I do more than you likely realize to help reduce the number of abortions. I just don't use criminal prohibition laws as one of my ways to do that, as you would propose.

I AM for women not being charged as murderers and executed by the state because they don't want to take a pregnancy to full term. And that's why I can't support a proposed law change that would lead to that for any woman.

 

[barman]

From this week's coverage of the march in Washington DC this past weekend:

"Despite media hype about marches in Washington both for and against abortion rights, the issue consistently ranks low on the list of priorities cited by most voters. In a February Gallup poll, for example, abortion ranked 13th, below such issues as education, the economy, the war in Iraq, health care and immigration."

BAR: Which is why Kerry does not give much attention to those who support criminalization of PBA.

AND:

A Gallup poll last October showed that 17 percent thought abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, and 40 percent thought it should be legal in only a few circumstances.

BAR: Meaning that 83% do not support laws that would make abortion illegal in all circumstances, while 60% have no problem with it being legal under a variety of circumstances.

 

[truthteller]

According to CNN on Sunday, the country is split 50/50 on whether abortion should be legal or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But I also know that using criminal prohibition laws and charging women with murder seems to me as more damaging to society than the loss of a fetus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it's ok if a woman kills a 10 minute old baby? Is it more damaging to society to charge her with murder than the loss of this 10 minute old?

I find it fascinating that since there is still debate about the point at which a fetus is defined as a person, the pro-killers want to give the benefit of the doubt to the woman instead to a defencless baby.

 

[kayaman+]

"I find it fascinating that since there is still debate about the point at which a fetus is defined as a person, the pro-killers want to give the benefit of the doubt to the woman instead to a defencless baby."

I find it amazing that abortion itself is still a debate. No matter what your personal opinion is on the issue, it's become a relatively unimportant issue to most voters and as past experience has shown us, it can't be stopped and becomes a bigger problem when it is illegal.