b
I listed why the term "partial birth abortion" is accurate.
In your opinion?
What part are you disagreeing with? The partial, the birth, or the abortion? Perhaps you don't use the term Lou Gehrig's disease either because that is a made up term also.. After all, the real name is Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
The procedure has nothing to do with birth. The term birth was included by its originator with the express purpose of confusion.
Lou Gehrigs disease is the same as ALCS, but it wasn't a term designed to cause misapprehension of what ALCS really is...
b
Do I have to post a link to the NRLC to refute Guttmacher? They are diametrically opposed and biased equally. Your statement from Guttmacher says "most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal viability". That can be stated that some abortions do take place after fetus viability.
Yes. But in either case the numbers are a very small sub set of the total universe. 0.02% .... A friend of mine had to abort a fetus in the 26th week, because the fetus was deformed so badly it was not viable... She would have been forced to bear the nonviable fetus for another 14 weeks without recourse to this procedure.
b
Is that what you support? You support a right to kill a "fetus" after viability? This is where we differ. Just because a pregnancy is unwanted (again from your post), that is not a reason to terminate a fetal life.
I beleive the issue of abortion should be a private matter between the woman and her doctor and whomever else she wants to involve.
BTW in Canada we essentially have no law governing abortion anymore.(The previous laws have all been ruled unconstitutional) There is no increase in instance of late term abortions because the medical community simply won't do the procedure - with the rare exceptions noted.The force of the state is not required when an ethical barrier has been consensually erected by informed practitioners.
b
For someone who defends the right of a convicted murderer to stay alive based upon the possibility of judicial error, your view of a fetus not being a life (even as you doubt the exact time it becomes a life), and subject to death by lethal injection into the womb is, IMHO, in opposition your position on the death penalty
.
I disagree with the state taking a life.I also disagree with the state involving themselves in a private moral matter and a matter of health between a woman and her medical doctor. Ethically the medical community won't end the development of a fetus once it has become viable, except in extraordinary circumstance that are very limited. . If there is a law in place that enforces this, it would already have 100% compliance with the medical community.
I don't beleive that ending the development of a fetus is ending a life. It does end the possibility of life ...but then so does a condom.
[quote]It must be acceptable to kill a fetus that has done nothing.
It is not acceptable to kill a convicted murderer.
To me that is a dichotomy.[quote]
The fetus has done nothing because it isn't alive yet.
Look B, I am not sugggesting that I find abortion generally "acceptable". I think any unplanned pregannacy can be a major calamity for a woman. She has made an error in judgement or her birth control has failed her, or she has been a victim of a sexual assault ... For any of these reasons she finds herself bearing the responsibility for the pregnancy.
Medical science provides a safe way to end that error. Snce I don't feel the fetus is a live being, I won't judge that woman for her actions. Until the state can prove that they are protecting life, rather than the potential of life, it should remove itself from the moral question.
And, if you argue that protecting the potential of life is the same as protecting life ...you lead your self down the road of the Catholic Church where contraception becomes a violation...
Because, as Monty Python's troop sang "Every sperm is sacred"
I would prefer that every pregnanacy be planned or at least welcomed. I believe if anything the state has a duty to help its citizens avoid the calamity, and the lousy choice that abortion essentially is... A well informed and educated populace of child bearing age, is the best armour against unplanned pregnancies. Unfortunately your country has replaced, in many places, a complete sex education with "abstinence education". Ironically, its been proven that the more informed a tennager is, the less likely they are to engage in sex .
And the resort to "abstinence teaching seems to lead to US Senatorial candidates being sadly misinformed.
Since you brought up Death Row as a comparison"
Compare assisted suicide. Should a person be forced to continue liviing a life of pain and misery, with no hope of remission or reprieve, Or should they have the choice to end their life with the assistance of their doctor?
Why should the state involve itself in this decision? Why should the state force pain and suffering upon people who have a prefered alternative? Yes, there are religions that proscribe against suicide...
But religion is also a private matter.
I respect people who oppose abortion on moral or religious reasoning..
What I don't respect is the impostion of their moral or religious reasoning upon others. If we allow people the privacy to make their own religious choices, then the decisions that people have to make day to day, for which there is no clear science or evidence to guide them, and which have to be made only upon their personal belief or moral reasoning.... those should be private too.
Where Mr Ryan and Mr. Akins proposed law was particularly wrong was that it sought to make it more difficult for women without personal financial resources to make the private decision.
Their law would in no way incovenience women who's families had a lot of money from resorting to abortion if they so chose.... But poor women, who cannot afford medical access without assistance ... they now have less choice.
Its a law designed as a restriction on women's right to choose, but it is only an effective restriction on the poor.
28 Aug 2012, 11:21 am 
