Senate Approves Bill to Prohibit Type of Abortion

Setanta --

thanks a lot for this tutorial! As it turns out, I wasn't only ignorant of the amendment's consequences, I was also ignorant of the fact that there was no such amendment in the American constitution in the first place. Such are the hazards of not admitting what you don't know. Wink

If you are right in your last paragraph and the debate on the equal rights amendment has significantly hardened the resentments between the political parties, I now understand why nobody proposes an abortion amendment. It may or may not turn out to clarify the problem, but the political process of its ratification would be so vengeful and messy that it wouldn't be worth the trouble in any case. Pretty sad when you think about it ....

0 Replies

Abortion Vote Leaves Many in the Senate Conflicted

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: October 23, 2003

Quote:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 — Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, considers herself decidedly in favor of a woman's right to abortion. "I'm about 99 percent pro-choice," she says.
On Tuesday, she voted the other 1 percent.
Ms. Lincoln was among 17 Democratic senators, many of them strong advocates of abortion rights, who voted to ban the procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion. Their votes were not a surprise: most had voted to forbid the procedure several times before, as had many abortion rights proponents in the House.

Reading the article leaves me conflicted. In that these well paid congress people did not have the intestinal fortitude to fulfill their obligation but rather chose to abrogate their responsibility and chose to let the courts decide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/politics/23ABOR.html?th

0 Replies

Listen -- I don't know anyone personally who isn't conflicted about abortion. And then within that area of conflict are degrees of revulsion and acceptance.

Probably the only realistic way to deal with the issue is to leave it in the hands of women -- impossible under our constitution, of course, but it makes sense to limit the rule-making about abortion to those it affects most closely (since we can't find a way to give a foetus a vote). It's about an aspect of reproduction which very few have experienced: not the surprise conception but the deeply terrifying conception.

Where both sides are in indefensible moral territory (I think) is on the conception side of it. In the matter of conception, both sexes are involved and responsible. For a woman to have to be the one primarily responsible for conception and, should it fail or be forgotten by her or whatever, be responsible for the outcome and then vilified for wanting to abort, is simply nuts. Those "well paid" Congress people are representing us all too perfectly in the matter of abortion. We don't want to go to the core of the matter; they don't either; let women carry the burden...

0 Replies

The majority of the people want some legislation governing the third trimester abortion, they don't want the piece of **** that has been force fed by the Moral Majority (sic).

Tartarin, great points and let it not be forgotten the GWB paid for and illegal abortion that was performed before RvW Exclamation

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Probably the only realistic way to deal with the issue is to leave it in the hands of women -- impossible under our constitution, of course, but it makes sense to limit the rule-making about abortion to those it affects most closely (since we can't find a way to give a foetus a vote).

I agree it makes sense, but I think the conservatives also make sense when they assume that every fetus, if given a choice, would prefer life over death, and take this assumption for granted as they proceed with their arguments. Again, it boils down to the question: When is a fetus close enough to being a human to establish a right to live -- and to have his (most likely) preference considered? The question is difficult because pregnancy is a gradual process in which something that's clearly not a human transforms into something that's clearly a human, with an extended murky situation in the middle.

0 Replies

Thomas -- a fetus doesn't have a choice in the literal sense: a fetus doesn't have a developed brain. What most people have in mind when they say such things is a cute three-year-old making the choice in retrospect. But it doesn't work that way. In my view, abortion is abortion -- horrible at any stage of development. War is horrible at any state of development. In both cases, the cause of the condition is the key.

0 Replies

Edited - In reply to Thomas - the wonderful words of:

Butrflynet wrote:

Partial-birth abortion isn't like a regular abortion, and they aren't just performed for "normal" abortion services.

Tthese are mostly performed when there is danger to the life of the mother, or there is a severe anomaly with the baby.

"According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit group that conducts sexual and reproductive health research, 2,200 late-term abortions were performed in 2000. That was less than 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions performed that year."(Source CNN)

If this is not covered in the legislation, then it is an abomination. People do not for the most part use third trimester abortion for birth control - period.

0 Replies

Thomas, if you are right about what Conservatives are assuming with regard to a fetus, i would point out that they are ignoring a principle very deeply embedded in our law, one of prior claim. The woman is already here, and already human, and under our constitution, clearly a free agent with full proprietary rights over her self in all forms, without any limitation placed on her physical actions toward herself, except for suicide (which is prohibited by state and local ordinance, and not the constitution). I would posit, rather, that much Conservative thought on the subject is conditioned by religious morality, and the ingrained Judaic paternalism of Christianity. This debate has always had to my mind, strong overtones of women as chattel, without the rights of free agency.

Tart, i don't understand why you would say that our constitution would make it impossible to leave this matter to women. Could you clarify?

0 Replies

Thomas
The problem with the legislation and what it boils down to is it excludes a provision for medical necessity. If that were included I believe there would be very little opposition to the legislation.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Thomas -- a fetus doesn't have a choice in the literal sense:

Assuming otherwise is just that, an assumption - the only known choice is that of the mother in consultation of her choosing, not the Republican caucus.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Thomas -- a fetus doesn't have a choice in the literal sense: a fetus doesn't have a developed brain.

There are mentally handicapped persons whose brains are also not well-enough developed to have "a choice in the literal sense". Nevertheless, we proceed on the assumption that mentally handicapped people prefer life to death, and respect their right to live. While embryos don't have a developed brain, their nervous cells start interacting (this is from memory) after 8-9 weeks, and they are well enough developed after 13 weeks to respond to pain by retracting from a needle when stitched. If an embryo expresses a preference of pain over the absence of pain, it's safe to extrapolate and conclude that she prefers life over death.

Tartarin wrote:

In my view, abortion is abortion -- horrible at any stage of development.

But wouldn't you agree it is more horrible at early stages of development than at late stages of development? To take the extreme cases, wouldn't you agree that the morning-after pill is an ethical nuisance (if that), while a day-before-birth abortion would be virtually indistinguishable from infanticide, which everyone agrees should be illegal?

The reason I'm asking is because I'm virtually sure that pro-choicers will be more willing to defend a woman's right to take the morning after pill than the day-before-birth abortion. Conversely, pro-lifers will be more willing to defend a 9th month embryo's right to live than a 1st month embryo's right to live. So there should be some point in the middle where the benefits of either right to either group balance each other. Moralist fundamentalism won't lead anyone anywhere.

0 Replies

There should actually be no condoms allowed, nature should only take its course. After all, a sperm is alive.........................

Just prior to this this time, by the way, is the time it becomes solely the domain of the woman and the consultants of her choosing, hmmmmmmm!

0 Replies

BillW wrote:

Assuming otherwise is just that, an assumption - the only known choice is that of the mother in consultation of her choosing, not the Republican caucus.

The "only known choice"? It isn't the fault of society at large if you are incapable of thinking of any other.

Your own arguments here undercut the very foundation of most social programs in existance - most of them heavily supported by liberals. That being that those who are unable to think/act for themselves are those that are most deserving of the protection by society at large.

0 Replies

Every indication is that the USCC will reject the legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. However there is one large fly in the ointment.
When the Supreme Court overturned the Nebraska law, the vote was 5-4. The departure from the court of one justice from that majority could put a new cast on the court's approach to abortion rights, particularly if President Bush is reelected.

0 Replies

I do not in anyway reach the same conclusion as you fishin', I do not see any more or less "capacity" limitation in my statement as to any others. But, it is your choice to use ad hominems if you wish Smile

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Thomas, if you are right about what Conservatives are assuming with regard to a fetus, i would point out that they are ignoring a principle very deeply embedded in our law, one of prior claim.

Interesting point! So you would claim that under this assumption, an abortion would be analogous to the scenario of me refusing to donate you one of my kidneys when your life depends on it? I'd be a nicer person if I didn't refuse, but the choice is mine as far as the law is concerned. I need to think this through some more before I respond.

Setanta wrote:

I would posit, rather, that much Conservative thought on the subject is conditioned by religious morality, and the ingrained Judaic paternalism of Christianity.

You may well be right about this, but I don't think it makes as big a difference as you think it makes. Every basis for justice I know -- religious, natural rights based, utilitarian, you name it -- makes a huge distinction between humans and non humans, and don't account for the possibility of in-betweens. I suspect abortion is messy under any code of ethics and justice because embryos are in-betweens.

BillW wrote:

If this is not covered in the legislation, then it is an abomination. People do not for the most part use third trimester abortion for birth control - period.

Sure -- but the 2200 incidences you quote are still a lot if -- repeat if -- you believe that third trimester embryos are humans and should have the same rights as born people. The likely effects of gun control laws are about as big as that. The death toll of September 11 wasn't that much more than that -- smaller if you count it as a one-off event.

BillW wrote:

There should actually be no condoms allowed, nature should only take its course. After all, a sperm is alive.................

Bill, if you think this is a position I hold, may I suggest that you re-read my posts and reconsider?

0 Replies

Thoams - re;

1) Each incident must be taken individually, which this legislation does not

and,

2) I do not take that as your position, it is my position, if I accept your position........ BTW, I try never to tell someone what his/her position is, even ones who are not as articulate as you Smile

0 Replies

Okay, now this post is getting really messed up. I first responded to au, then realized I had misunderstood him and changed the response, then discovered that BillW had already responded to the first version. I hope I can avoid further confusion by posting both answers (the second from memory)

au1929 wrote:

Thomas
The problem with the legislation and what it boils down to is it excludes a provision for medical necessity. If that were included I believe there would be very little opposition to the legislation.

[First answer, which BillW responded to.]

You're right. I'm not in the business of writing constitutional amendments, so the language of this one would clearly have to be fleshed out along the lines you describe. The point I cared about is that Congress could clarify the constitution with an amendment, and could find some terms that a large-enough majority can agree to. Setanta's point about the equal rights amendment made me question the wisdom of that point, though I don't think it's a show-stopper.

[Second answer, which is my revised answer to au. From memory, because it got lost in the fog of editing]

But unless I misunderstood the New York Times article you posted a link to, the whole point of the legislation, as seen by its supporters, was that the procedure was medically unnecessary, but stubborn doctors performed it anyway. Wouldn't a medical necessity exception defeat the point of having this legislation at all?

0 Replies

If you can get two-thirds of any group to support any of these amendments, remember the actual process of adopting an amendment to the United States Constitution would also require that the amendment be adopted by two-thirds of the United States Congress and three-fourths of the states as well.

0 Replies

I have a friend whose parents married because her mother was pregnant with her and she thinks it would have been better in the long run if her mother had had an abortion.

I agree that the actions of Jeb Bush and the FL legislature in the Terry Schivo (sp?) case are outrageous.

Because of the violence shown by the so-called pro-lifers, many doctors today refuse to perform abortions.

0 Replies

Senate Approves Bill to Prohibit Type of Abortion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know