Partial Birth Abortion

Off topic, but back to my lawyer comment, I obviously misunderstood the context in which the post was made. Under our legal system, even the obviously guilty of any crime is entitled to defence. This is not my complaint about the legal profession at all.

Without defending the obviously guilty, we would go back to the days of considering only the crime, not circumstances, which can profoundly determine proper punishment as well as determination of rehabilitating and individual, which does deserve a very serious look. Every criminal deserves representation to promote society.

We wish to rehabilitate, not just equate a specific crime with a blanket punishment, which does nothing for society. I feel the US justice system is a bit beyond chopping off the hand of a thief, as done in the Middle East today. This is barbaric, in my view. Did the thief steal because their family is hungry with no opportunity and desperation? This is not brought to the attention to any judge in the Middle East. They will chop off your hand, even today, no matter what the circumstances. I don't feel that the guilty should go unpunished, but punishment should be just.

Thankfully, it is here. With the exact same crime, but all criminals are not equal. Did the thief of equal crime steal out of desperation or out of personal greed? Does an individual who committed a crime feel guilt or do they not care as long as they personally benefit? Questions such as this should be answered before proper sentencing by a judge. In the US, we do represent the guilty, or **** of society, with good reason, individual punishment and probability of rehabilitation. Again, all criminals are not equal for the exact same crime. All of the whys should be answered.

In the US, no one is above the law, which is not true of other countries. Criminals can and do pay off their ticket out of justice. Not here and that is a good thing. In the US, the obviously guilty, no matter what their financial means, are treated with some degree of equality. Those who do not have financial means relying on a court appointed attorney will not get the same verdict as those with cash to invest, which is a fatal flaw. At least the accused does stand trial, no matter what income level.

There are those who are psychologically ill equipped and feel nothing towards another. They deserve a stiff sentence. They will get it. It's all to easy to refute by prosecution for defense to deny. A jury and judge will see through it. Many criminals of same crime are unsafe to be allowed into the general population, but all do not fit this mold of equal crime to equal sentence. These very unfit types will lose in trial because defense cannot hide this sort of fact.

The individual and circumstances should be presented to any judge and jury to determine justice, which differs for many individuals and their ability to feel remorse, reasoning as to why they committed the crime, as well as other aspects of the individual should be considered for the punishment and degree of rehabilitation.

Absolutely, a defence attorney is dealing with a problematic individual, but to what degree? Modern justice should represent this individual for proper sentencing for the crime committed. Well, that's my take and I don't blame any lawyer for defending a guilty individual, even if we do consider them to be the toilet bowl of society. They do deserve fair representation.

My complain is about the abuse of the profession, which, as pointed out, can be a plumber overcharging for parts. A crooked plumber can never extort the amount of money that a lawyer can. Lawyers extort millions and even billions of dollars. Big difference in what a mechanic or plumber can do overcharging. These people do not affect our way of life, but lawyers do, dramatically with poor ethics that cost a whole lot more than any rip off mechanic could ever dream of.

We all pay for the ills of the legal profession. Believe me. I work in the medical profession and spend too much time avoiding lawyers than I do caring for patients. My argument about lawyers is their impact on society, not a matter of being overcharged a few bucks by a mechanic or plumber, which is wrong, but does not affect our way of life.

Lawyers suck! I will stand by that one. lol!

Wildflower, what you say about the life-changing capacity of a dishonest lawyer can't be denied; I do think though, that your closeness to the worst of them might influence your opinion. I've known some of the nastiest, but I also know lawyers who have changed the lives of underprivileged people very much for the better.

Ye110man, here is part of a post of mine from a thread on government intrusion, showing the miniscule number of partial birth abortions compared to those done in the first trimester. To me, this shows that all the talk is politically based rather than an attempt to solve a major problem in our society. If you read through, you'll see that only 1.5 of all abortions are performed after 20 weeks......

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.

Results: A total of 861,789 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 1999, representing a 2.5% decrease from the 884,273 legal induced abortions reported by the same 48 reporting areas for 1998. The abortion ratio, defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births, was 256 in 1999, compared with 264 reported for 1998; the abortion rate for these 48 reporting areas was 17 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for 1999, the same as in 1997 and 1998.

The highest percentages of abortions were reported for women aged <25 years, women who were white, and unmarried women; slightly more than half were obtaining an abortion for the first time. Fifty-eight percent of all abortions for which gestational age was reported were performed at <8 weeks of gestation, and 88% were performed before 13 weeks. From 1992 (when these data were first collected) through 1999, increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at <6 weeks of gestation. Few abortions were provided after 15 weeks of gestation; 4.3% were obtained at 16--20 weeks and 1.5% were obtained at >21 weeks. A total of 27 reporting areas submitted data stating that they performed medical (nonsurgical) procedures (two of these areas categorized medical abortions with "other" procedures), making up <1.0% of all procedures reported from all reporting areas.

Then he's just not trying hard enough.


Lawyers all have a code of ethics, and failure to follow that code can lead to severe penalties, including losing one's license to practice law. Compare that to the business world, where there is no comparable code of ethics. If a CEO, for instance, engages in unethical yet legal business practices, there is no sanction available. And if a plumber violates the "plumber's code of conduct," there is likewise no avenue of recourse for the customer.

Are there unethical lawyers? Of course. I've had occasion to meet a few. Are lawyers more ethical than those professionals who do not operate under a code of ethics? On the whole, I'd say that they are. But then one's view of what constitutes "ethical" conduct is often colored by one's interests.

To make my stand clear, I have a problem with professions who have drastic influence on society. Auto mechanics or a plumber may very well rip us off. Again, I will say that the professions with power can actually change society, which the legal profession has, as well as accounting.

Ok, I will give one singular example, lawyers and their denial of personal freedom and choice of socialization:

Can I have adults at my home and serve drinks? Not anymore. I can be sued if someone stupidly wrecks their car. End of adult social engagement at my house! I'm not willing to put myself up to a serious lawsuit or be a babysitter for adults who know when enough is enough.

Am I supposed to have a slumber party, like a teenager for adults? At my age of 40, this is not reasonable. It is reasonable to assume adult responsibility while driving. Not under the law of today! I can and will be sued for intoxication of an invited guest in which I would assume, because of age, should act responsibility. Where is my ethical responsibility for anyone of the age of 40ish? Excuse me, but they should take responsibility for how much they have consumed and complete responsibility for their own judgment of impairment or lack of.

By today's standard of law, I refuse to have any type of party that I wouldn't throw for my 13 year old daughter. I should have a unspiked punch bowl with chips and dip. What adult buys this type of gathering? None! I cannot gear an adult gathering today. I have to assume everyone has the mentality of a teen of the age of 40ish. This is pathetic!

I willingly assume the role of babysitter with my teen kids. Is it anywhere reasonable that adult behavior should follow the same rules? No, it isn't. Since I don't feel like being sued for anyone's poor judgment of my own age group, I will not risk a social gathering at all.

What kind of isolated society does the legal profession make us in this circumstance? I have a clue! Social isolation, which is the norm today, but psychologically unhealthy. You cannot expect mature adults to enjoy a same sort of gathering that you would throw for your teen kids. They will stay home watching cable TV.

I would love to know why it is that personal responsibility is lost with law? Are we all happy with this sort of threat over our heads, being mature adults? No, we aren't. The law has prohibited us from having any social gathering for adults and led us to a bar to assume risk. Problem, most professional adults do not like the bar scene at all. So, by law, we stay isolated.

What part of personal responsibility does law fail to see? If you choose to drive drunk, your problem. It never should be a lawsuit problem for any individual who has an adult gathering, but it currently is. We do have a choice, either be druggie lowlifes or law abiding citizens. Those who abide by the current law are definitely denied a social and adult culture and friendship. We are cursed to spend our lives working, spending our money on status.

Sorry to offend, but this is very wrong in our society. Thank the legal profession for this. If you really want, I will take a stand on the profession of accounting, my second most hated profession because both lack common sense and ethics. Do you really want me on my soap box again? I will, agree or be ignorant of what threat these professions pose to our culture and society.

I don't know if you can consider 1.5% of 884,273, "miniscule."

There may be social host liability in your state, but that doesn't mean that you can't host parties. Instead, you should act exactly as you would if there weren't any potential for liability: serve alcohol in moderation, make non-alcoholic drinks available, and make sure guests either have a designated driver or take a taxi when they leave. If the law is forcing you to do anything, then, it's forcing you to do what you should have been doing all along.

I hear this kind of complaint all the time: "these stupid laws won't let me do what I want to do anymore." I like to call this "Stosselizing," in honor of the nation's whiner-in-chief, John Stossel. Manufacturers, for instance, Stosselize when they complain that health and safety regulations don't permit them to injure and kill their workers "like in the good ol' days." Employers Stosselize when they moan about their inability to fire blacks and women and cripples and gays because of anti-discrimination laws. And average, hard-working American citizens are perhaps the biggest Stosselizers of them all, complaining about those annoying laws that forbid them from driving as fast as they want, or building their McMansions on quarter-acre lots, or filling up their guests with liquor and sending them out on the roads.

Give me a break!

The Stosselizers of the world are the first to complain about laws that impinge on their lifestyles, but they are the first to demand regulation of everyone else's conduct. They dream of a libertarian paradise of no regulation and no governmental interference, but they can't imagine a world where they couldn't call upon the government to restrict the actions of others who don't conform to their particular worldviews. They moan about how lawyers are ruining society, but they, like their spiritual leader, John Stossel himself, run to their own lawyers at the slightest provocation.

This country doesn't need fewer lawyers: it needs a radical Stosselectomy.

Joe, I have to respectfully disagree completely. I do not live in the past. I live in the present society where no one wants to take responsibility for their personal choices and actions. Everyone wants to blame someone else for their lack of judgment and the law of today allows this. If a minor, this is a valid claim. It is not with adults that know the laws of society.

Even a teen knows the liability for drinking and driving. Is it reasonable to blame an individual who served drinks at a social gathering, not some redneck beer bash? No, it is not. It is completely reasonable to assume every adult knows current law with drinking and driving and will abide by this. It is unreasonable to assume that you can, as a host of adults, monitor anyone's intake at a social gathering.

I have only hosted teen gatherings, where I will not allow anything illegal. I have also hosted holiday gatherings for both sides of the family, which does amount to large numbers of respectable and responsible people. No one has ever accused me of being a lousy host and I do get pressure from family, given my attention to guest, food, and beverage.

I am high pressured to hold such family gatherings only because of my attention to the individuals I invite, family with differing beliefs, values, but do love each other despite this. I do know how to throw a good adult gathering, which children included.

Minors do not have the same rights as an adult and family does expect a difference. I hold no beer bash or anything that would equate to that. I do not wish to be held legally responsible for people, who I consider responsible adults, to be able to include me in any litigation. I do not associate or invite anyone to my home that I consider less than adult with ethics. The law says different today. We are all equated to juvenile type of law and responsibility, which is very wrong.

Am I reasonably supposed to monitor responsible, law abiding, adults or how much beer many family members shared or mixed drinks that were presented as self serve? I have to question exactly who this responsibility belongs to, a host or the drinker that knowingly drove their car intoxicated from my home, which I had no idea of consumption from any guest.

Exactly how much do I have to pay an attorney to prove my innocence with intent? How much stress over a social gathering am I supposed to endure? Am I expected to be in a court room with legal representation to defend my innocence, but a knowingly ill act of another who I invited to my home without knowledge of any illegal activity? Enough money to a lawyer to financially devastate me? We all know it.

So, don't throw any party at your home at all or you will pay the lawyers for blame of something you are not responsible for at all. The only person I see with anything to gain is the legal profession who made this type of flawed law in the first place. Don't fool yourself into thinking they aren't self serving at the expense of the majority, they are and do it every day. We socially allow this and shouldn't.

You may see my reasoning behind never having an adult gathering at my home because of legal risk. I get high pressure from both sides to hold such occasions, because I make sure everyone feels welcome by personal attention. I always have so much food that I send my guest home with leftovers. I also acknowledge the desire of adults to be served alcoholic beverages.

Any guest is also allowed to smoke a cigarette in my home. They are allowed to have a drink. They also have to put up with my pets, which I love and consider part of the family. I do have cat lovers only, both sides. My dog will never be locked in a room or cat. If you find my pets offending, leave, but no one does. They wait for my next holiday gathering.

I'm quite sure that everyone knows that cigarette smoking and pets can possibly offend someone. I never serve less than two meats to please guest taste and preference. I do the same for drinks, some do contain alcohol and some do not. I always offer variety.

All are welcome and made to feel that way, otherwise I would have never invited them, including cigarette smokers, animal haters, adults who wish for alcoholic beverage, to adults who enjoy a soft drink or coffee. I never ignore my guests and make introductions and common conversation, only because I know both. Also, I have to be on top of watching the appetizers and meal.

Again, I put beer and soft drinks in a cooler. I refill when needed, no matter if we are short of beer, Mt. Dew or mixed drinks. I always make sure my guests have appetizers as well as a solid meal. I watch the liquor and mixers and often make two different liquor drinks available to my adult guest on a self serve basis.

What are we doing? We are finger pointing someone else for our own adult choices. This is so wrong. If you don't wish to risk the problems of drinking and driving, have a few drinks, but stay long enough to legally drive. Use a designated driver. Don't drink at all.

Drinking to excess is a matter of personal choice and risk of an adult associated. With the multi task of a host, how can any reasonable person hold them accountable for adult indulgence? What is the definition of adult responsibility, yet our current law wants to treat adult as minors who are not responsible for their own acts, being illegal drinking and driving. Please, someone answer that for me!

Someone from above better help you, as a host of an invitation only adult gathering, because the law sure wont. If you dare to serve adults anything but a soft drink, which they don't want, you can be under a serious lawsuit, which will cost you your home, seriously.

How many social gatherings has anyone hosted serving beer, wine, or mixed drinks? Can you honestly keep track of who drank what? No, you can't. As a host, you are trying to serve food, drinks, and mingle with people. There is absolutely no way you could ever know who drank what. You are too busy with the duties of providing food and drink, whether or not it contains alcohol.

I have hosted teen parties to adult holiday gathering. I can tell you that every family member loves my hospitality. I know family will never point the finger and blame me for what they have consumed. I can only trust them. I cannot trust people who will not take personal responsibility for themselves. I will host no social gathering beyond blood family, only because of current law.

I have parents, of both sides of family, talking about "next year" assuming I will continue to host holiday gathering. Yes, I have a heart attack about this. This responsibility always falls on women, rarely men.

I can't pay attention to any guest consumption. My attention, as a hospitable host goes to socialization, meaning introductions of extended family who may not know each other and giving them something incommon to talk about, then moving on to others and expectations as a host.

I go and check on food, appetizers, and drinks (alcoholic, soft drink, and coffee). I do have good social etiquette. I do make sure there is adequate and comfortable seating. I do make sure there is plenty of food and appetizers. I do make sure that anyone can enjoy themselves without banning a cigarette or alcohol.

Where am I to blame for unknown consumption? I'm not. I will just have to put a second mortgage on my house if any adult, who knows current law, to defend my innocence.

This is an example of wronging society by the legal profession. A private gathering turns into a lot of money by ignoring adult responsibility towards the law. I, for one, am sick and tired of our government and attorneys exploiting us as if we are children. We are not and I should never have to defend myself over another adult's irresponsible or criminal act that I had no knowledge of.

The legal profession exploits us all. Never mistake law as "right and wrong". The law changes every day, but ethics never do. Notice this!!!!

Geez, Wildflower, for someone who says that it's impossible to have adult parties anymore because of lawyers, you certainly sound like you throw a helluva lot of parties.

No, I don't throw too many. I do have supervised teen parties for birthday's of my children. I did allow my 13 year old daughter to have overnight friends over for the New Year. I have also been pressured by family to have holiday gatherings. Our parents are getting old and so am I. In reality, parents who used to hold holiday occasions are now considered elderly. I get stuck with it, but am very hospitable to my guests.

I expect personal responsibility out of every family member, even extended ones or would never allow them under my roof. Any moron can throw a party. You would have to be a moron, not to selective invite because of today's law. I cannot invite friends, only family. I can supervise teen behavior and do. I never make that mistake of invitation of adult friends because of lawsuit potential.

I can control teen behavior. I can count on family. Friends have a way of being 'fair weather' sorts. If the clouds look dark, they will blame everything on you for their own irresponsibility. You can't trust people anymore, just family or kids who you can control.

"Let's Kill All the Lawyers"

William Shakespeare

bocdaver: Didn't you mention once that your son is in law school?

Sounds reasonable to me! lol!! How do we start, firing squad or should we put them in a huge boat and sink it? Just having some fun! Don't take me too seriously....

Wildflower, I have taken great glee in lawyer jokes and know of some awful sharks, but keep in mind the idealistic and hard-working storefront lawyers or the people who work and risk their lives at the South Poverty Law Center, which has worked wonders for civil rights.

The only reasons for partical birth abortions should be: the mother's life is in danger , Or a women got pregnant from a rape, I would not want to have a child from a rape a daily reminder of an awfull experince

I can't go as far as partial birth abortion from rape. I am very much pro choice and do feel this is a very personal decision. This procedure is a bit on the drastic side. In rape cases, simple early abortion of fetal tissue, not a developed unborn is the answer to this problem, in my opinion.

I completely agree. No woman should have to endure giving birth to a child of rape to feel the pain of a constant reminder of a sick man when a child may inherit violent traits of a mentally ill father.

I could not withstand the pain of giving away my child, even one of rape, never to be seen or heard of again after giving birth. I couldn't do it. Maybe I am selfish about my children. I would rather a birth not occur at all than live without a life of my blood, which I have no right to see or have any knowledge of through adoption.

That child of rape is still your blood. I can't ignore that or give my child away because I think someone else can offer better. If I honestly believed that, I would have put my own children up for adoption. I'm sure there are people that can give them better opportunity in life than I can.

I would never want to explain to a child of mine this type of truth, which they deserve to know, about their father, a very sick man. You know people are going to ask. What are you supposed to do, as a woman of rape? Lie to everyone, including your child? This isn't a good existence for either, a pack of lies or the truth. Both are so bad, but on different spectrums.

I want to know the truth about my parenting and family and would demand it, feeling betrayed by anything less than the truth. I am sure any child, no matter what circumstance, wishes the same. All of us want the truth, not lies, no matter how well intended, to protect us from social acceptance or socially ousted. Too many people have been hurt by lies of childhood to be told the truth at an appropriate age. They are outraged and no longer trust the ones they felt they could.

The only thing that I don't agree with is the timing. If a victim of rape, you do figure it out pretty fast if you are pregnant or not. If married or have a life partner, there are medical measures that can determine paternity early on, while it is still a simple procedure. Personally, I would be flipping out until I learned exactly who the father was, a man I loved or a sexual predator of violence.

Is this selfish or overly emotional? Please tell me!

All I can say is WOW

THIS **** IS DEEP

Yeah, I guess some things do get a bit deep! lol!! I'm new here too. Hope you enjoy!