New Abortion Laws

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

AuthorTopic: New Abortion Laws
BoE Posse
Member # 112
Profile #0
I just recently learned of some new abortion laws in the ACT (that's the Australian Capital Territory, for you non-aussies). I have heard it is now legal to kill the baby at any stage during the pregnancy, as long as it is still partially inside it's mother. From what I understand it was done to allow a safer (for the mother) method of abortion.

It's called partial birth abortion. Basically, you induce labor and then kill the child as it is coming out. you would just have to be carful to kill it before it came all the way out, otherwise it's murder.

Is there anyone here who actually belives this is right?

--------------------
Rate my scenarios!

Areni
Revenge
To Live in Fear
Deadly Goblins
Ugantan Nightmare
Isle of Boredom
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
Profile Homepage #1
It's bioethically wrong. In my country, it would go agains't its Constitution!

The last someone tried to legalize the abortion, there was a national referendum. No abortion (fortunately). But it seems there are some pressures for a new pro-abortion law...

What's happening to this world?

4 fundamental principles of bioethics:

Autonomy
Justice
Beneficence
Non-Maleficence

I think that it's clear the abortion goes agains't these principles.

quote:
It's called partial birth abortion. Basically, you induce labor and then kill the child as it is coming out. you would just have to be carful to kill it before it came all the way out, otherwise it's murder.
Gee... That would make it legal to cut the baby's head when he's coming out... :eek:

[ Monday, March 21, 2005 14:16: Message edited by: Overwhelming ]

--------------------
Visit the Blades of Avernum Center
and the Beta Testing Center

--------------
"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9
Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #2
I think you've got your facts a bit wrong there, in the details at least. For one thing, this happened quite a while back. For another, it's actually that a bill (which was passed earlier) outlawing partial birth abortion was repealed after a change of government, not that a new law has been made. I think there is still a 26 week limit, not sure. A source would be nice.

But yeah, disgusting.

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
BoE Posse
Member # 112
Profile #3
As a matter of fact that's close to what they do. They stab the baby's head with a hollow tube and then suck it's brains out. The head collapses, making it much easier for the mother to push it out.

Oh, and it would be unconstitutional here too, if the babies were legally babies.

edit: I was aware that it had happened a while ago, but I'd only just heard of it. And thanks for making it clearer. There's no law supporting it, just no law against it.

[ Monday, March 21, 2005 14:29: Message edited by: The Creator ]

--------------------
Rate my scenarios!

Areni
Revenge
To Live in Fear
Deadly Goblins
Ugantan Nightmare
Isle of Boredom
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #4
To be perfectly honest, I don't see a huge difference between having a child and then killing it compared to never conceiving it at all. In both cases, the result is the same: no baby. I'm not sure how it's possible to argue that the former is wrong without arguing that the latter is wrong too.

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
Profile #5
I'll wait for someone with a clearer knowledge of the facts to confirm this, but...

The Partial Birth Abortion is a medical procedure used primarily to ensure the safety of the mother. AFAIK, it is NOT used as an alternative to traditional abortion techniques that get rid of the baby by the end of the first trimester. I'm pretty sure that it is only used to safeguard the well-being of the mother, when other alternatives are not available. If the PBA were not allowed, there could be cases where the mother would die because the PBA was not performed.

Also in response to Overwhelming:

People have to recognize that abortions are going to be performed, regardless of legality. In the end, it comes down to this: if abortions are illegal, women will be getting unsafe non-professional abortions that put their lives at risk. Is it worth it?

[ Monday, March 21, 2005 14:46: Message edited by: wz. arsenic ]

--------------------
5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0...
Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
Profile Homepage #6
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

To be perfectly honest, I don't see a huge difference between having a child and then killing it compared to never conceiving it at all. In both cases, the result is the same: no baby. I'm not sure how it's possible to argue that the former is wrong without arguing that the latter is wrong too.
I see a huge diference. The former example, there's an existence that is murdered, in the later one, there's nothing, so there's no wrong/evil you can do to... nothing.

wz.arsenic:

If you see the bioethics principles, you'll see that there are ethical abortions, example: when only one can survive, the baby or mother, the mother can choose. (And generally they choose to sapre their babies' life... Hard choices...).

And please, don't come with the argument that "if abortions are illegal, women will be getting unsafe non-professional abortions that put their lives at risk".

Risk? The baby, in that case, would have no risk: he would be killed. And he can't defend himself!

That's like saying: hey, thieves will always exist, let's legalize thievery, so that they don't have to put their lives at risk.

--------------------
Visit the Blades of Avernum Center
and the Beta Testing Center

--------------
"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9
Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #7
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

To be perfectly honest, I don't see a huge difference between having a child and then killing it compared to never conceiving it at all. In both cases, the result is the same: no baby. I'm not sure how it's possible to argue that the former is wrong without arguing that the latter is wrong too.
Yesterday, I failed to give you my car. Should I be arrested? :P

Seriously, I can see how that's a logical stance from a certain point of view, but do you really believe it?

Heck, from a strictly logical viewpoint, it's impossible to say there is such a thing as right and wrong.

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
Profile #8
quote:
Originally written by Overwhelming:

If you see the bioethics principles, you'll see that there are ethical abortions, example: when only one can survive, the baby or mother, the mother can choose. (And generally they choose to sapre their babies' life... Hard choices...).

And please, don't come with the argument that "if abortions are illegal, women will be getting unsafe non-professional abortions that put their lives at risk".

Risk? The baby, in that case, would have no risk: he would be killed. And he can't defend himself!

That's like saying: hey, thieves will always exist, let's legalize thievery, so that they don't have to put their lives at risk.

Well, that argument happens to be what I believe. I don't believe a fetus in the first trimester can be considered a human being with the same right to well-being as, say, a 17-year old girl.

Personally, I think the woman's right to do with her own body as she chooses trumps the right of the unborn fetus every time. Obviously, you think differently. Since neither of us can sway the other, all I can say is I'm glad I don't live in Portugal.

--------------------
5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0...
Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #9
Overwhelming, the point of the argument is that the choice is between having an aborted fetus and a living woman or having an aborted fetus and a dead woman. I'd take the former over the latter any day.

Thuryl: if all we cared about were the end result, then why would we do anything? I mean, everything that you do will get washed over by time anyway. The idea, I think, is that the end result is not all that matters.

You know this. Why am I explaining it to you?

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #10
quote:
Yesterday, I failed to give you my car. Should I be arrested? :P
Well, if you had two cars that you didn't need and I had none and needed one, one could make an argument for taking away your car and giving it to me, but that's a different issue entirely.

quote:
Seriously, I can see how that's a logical stance from a certain point of view, but do you really believe it?

Heck, from a strictly logical viewpoint, it's impossible to say there is such a thing as right and wrong.
We've had that discussion already. :P

Depends what you mean by "believe", really. Ethics is mostly an intellectual exercise for me. I don't feel strongly about any particular issue unless it affects me directly. And since I've been born for quite some time now and am not likely to be unborn in the foreseeable future, banning abortion doesn't really do much to benefit me.

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #11
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Thuryl: if all we cared about were the end result, then why would we do anything? I mean, everything that you do will get washed over by time anyway. The idea, I think, is that the end result is not all that matters.
Well, that's where one gets into the back-and-forth about how someone who hasn't been born hasn't really had any worthwhile or unique experiences yet so it's generally no great loss to anyone if they die, apart from having been something of a waste of several months of the parents' time.

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
Profile Homepage #12
wz.arsenic:

"I don't believe a fetus in the first trimester can be considered a human being with the same right to well-being as, say, a 17-year old girl."

Fortunately, justice isn't based in just opinion. Why do you say a three month fetus doesn't have the same right to well-being as a 17-year old girl? So, the older, the more right to well-being?

Although there's some debate on this issue, medicine and bioethics agree that life begins when the sperm enters the egg (the proper terms don't come to my mind in english). The debate is about the totipotency: in the first eight days, there's a great chance the egg will divide itself in two. And from there it can unite again or continue its evolution separately (twins). So, until then, the individual is not defined: there can be a person or two. But life begins at the moment the egg is fertilized, so there shouldn't be a big debate here.

Anyway, what do you think gives you the right to choose the fetus' death? Use your answer to also justify why shouldn't a mother kill her two years old boy, for example.

Kelandon: Sure. As I said, there are situations where abortion is ethical. I was talking about the abortion in general.

--------------------
Visit the Blades of Avernum Center
and the Beta Testing Center

--------------
"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9
Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #13
quote:
Originally written by wz. arsenic:

I don't believe a fetus in the first trimester can be considered a human being with the same right to well-being as, say, a 17-year old girl.

Personally, I think the woman's right to do with her own body as she chooses trumps the right of the unborn fetus every time.

What seperates the two that gives one greater right to live?

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
BANNED
Member # 3477
Profile #14
its this simple: wear a condom, use pills if nececery

dont u love my spelling

--------------------
Avernum is as addictive as skribbane!!! Withdrawal symptoms are harsh so I just keep playing.
Free skribbane at Wal-mart
Posts: 296 | Registered: Monday, September 22 2003 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
Profile #15
quote:
Originally written by Overwhelming:

Fortunately, justice isn't based in just opinion. Why do you say a three month fetus doesn't have the same right to well-being as a 17-year old girl? So, the older, the more right to well-being?

Basically. I think the lack of a conciousness and awareness is what settles the issue for me personally. In my opinion, going through with an unwanted pregnancy can cause a lot of trauma and stress for the mother. The fetus hardly even has a nervous system by the first trimester; I don't think it counts as a human being.

quote:

Although there's some debate on this issue, medicine and bioethics agree that life begins when the sperm enters the egg (the proper terms don't come to my mind in english). The debate is about the totipotency: in the first eight days, there's a great chance the egg will divide itself in two. And from there it can unite again or continue its evolution separately (twins). So, until then, the individual is not defined: there can be a person or two. But life begins at the moment the egg is fertilized, so there shouldn't be a big debate here.

You say life begins; I say that the process of cell division and specialization begins. For the first couple of days, the union of sperm and egg is just a clump of cells. I don't see much difference between it and a piece of my skin except that the blastula has the potential to become something different.

quote:

Anyway, what do you think gives you the right to choose the fetus' death? Use your answer to also justify why shouldn't a mother kill her two years old boy, for example.

First, I assume that by "you" here you mean "the mother" -- I don't claim to have the right myself to destroy someone's fetus. As I said, I think the mother can choose to destroy the fetus if she thinks it would suit her physical or mental health, because I don't think a fetus can be considered a human being. A two year old boy, on the other hand, is much more biologically similar to an adult than a fetus is: a boy has developed organs (with the exception of reproductive ones), and is conscious.

I think this also answers your question, Creator.

--------------------
5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0...
Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #16
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

quote:
Originally written by wz. arsenic:

I don't believe a fetus in the first trimester can be considered a human being with the same right to well-being as, say, a 17-year old girl.

Personally, I think the woman's right to do with her own body as she chooses trumps the right of the unborn fetus every time.

What seperates the two that gives one greater right to live?

Nothing. It's profoundly obvious to even the most dense person that the collected experiences and emotions of seventeen years weigh just as heavily as those collected by three insensate months in a lightless, airless cavern.

I do not consider first-trimester abortion to even be an ethical issue. It's an embryo, for God's sake. It doesn't have eyes. It's not even close to viable life at a trans-cellular level. Removing someone's lung to stop a virulent cancer is literally closer to killing of a living creature in every sane way.

[ Monday, March 21, 2005 16:27: Message edited by: Bad-Ass Mother Custer ]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Shaper
Member # 5437
Profile #17
Abortion is usually allowed (here at least) up to the end of the first trimester. After that point the brain, nervous system, and other signs of consciousness start to develop. The baby will jump if it hears loud noises and become restful to peaceful music. I feel at this point it is “alive.” To abort at birth is disgusting.

I think people should have rights to their own bodies. I could not abort a baby, I would be endlessly sad. It would be different if there were a medical reason that would cause the child to have a life of suffering or me to die. I would never tell anyone else it is right or wrong to make this decision for themselves.

[ Monday, March 21, 2005 16:54: Message edited by: Dolphin ]

--------------------
Nena
Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00
Agent
Member # 3364
Profile Homepage #18
A bit if interesting statistics about abortion.

quote:
Who Has Abortions?

Abortion is the most frequent surgical operation (National Center for Health Statistics)
Roughly 42% of all baby girls and 25% of all baby boys are aborted. - (Planned Parenthood)
40% of women who have abortions will have more than one (AG Institute)
50% of women who have abortions use it as their sole means of birth control (AG Institute)

From an American survey of 1900 women who have had abortions

Age

<15yrs - 3%
15-19 - 42%
20-24 - 33%
25-29 - 14%
>30 - 8%

Completed Education
<12yrs - 6%
High School - 39%
13-14 years - 26%
Bachelors - 19%
Masters - 4%
PHD - 1%

Number of Children

0 - 73%
1 - 14%
2 - 9%
3 - 4%
>3 - 1%

Race

African-American - 35%
White - 33%
Hispanic - 15%
Other - 17%
(CDC 1995)

Reason for abortion

Mother's Health - 3%
Baby has possible health problem - 3%
Rape or Incest - 1%
Couldn't Afford Baby - 21%
Not ready for the Responsibility - 21%
Concerned how child would change lives - 16%
A relationship problem - 12%
Not mature enough - 11%
Had all the children they wanted - 8%
Other - 4%
Partial Birth Abortion is legal in most states of the US. Congress passed a ban while Clinton was in office but he voted it. PBA is wrong on so many levels. If the baby can survive outside the womb at the time the abortions is taking place, why not just birth the baby and give it up for adoption?

I end with an eyewitness account. WARNING: Not for the faint of heart.
quote:
In September, 1993, Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse with thirteen years or experience, was assigned by her nursing agency to an abortion clinic. Since Nurse Shafer considered herself "very pro-choice," she didn't think this assignment would be a problem. She was wrong. This is what Nurse Shafer saw:

" I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen."


--------------------
"Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05

"Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #19
quote:
Originally written by Jewels of the Forest
Roughly 42% of all baby girls and 25% of all baby boys are aborted. - (Planned Parenthood)
...
50% of women who have abortions use it as their sole means of birth control (AG Institute)

I feel reasonably confident that these two statistics are lies and don't actually come from the sources you cited.

[ Monday, March 21, 2005 19:30: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #20
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Jewels of the Forest
Roughly 42% of all baby girls and 25% of all baby boys are aborted. - (Planned Parenthood)
...
50% of women who have abortions use it as their sole means of birth control (AG Institute)

I feel reasonably confident that these two statistics are lies and don't actually come from the sources you cited.

Had a look at the AGI site. This may not be what Jewels was referring to, but...

"But what is really striking is that almost half of the unintended pregnancies, and almost half of all the abortions annually, occur to the three million women who do not use contraception."

Linky.

Haven't checked the other one out, but I think you may owe Jewels an apology there, Kel.

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #21
Let me rephrase that. I feel fairly confident the first one is total garbage. I don't know what AGI is, and that second statistic may be reasonably accurate if you take into account Third World countries and a number of other things that skew the data, but the first one simply cannot be true. If that were true, the population would be so badly misaligned in terms of gender ratio that it would be obvious.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #22
"But what is really striking is that almost half of the unintended pregnancies, and almost half of all the abortions annually, occur to the three million women who do not use contraception."

A little under 50% of abortions are initiated by women who do not use birth control. While it may perhaps seem to therefore mean that 50% of women who have abortions use it as their solitary form of birth control to, say, a five-year-old, the two are not obviously connected at all.

I mean, if women do not use contraception, they are likely to have more abortions, having had more pregnancies. The bottom line is (1) this statistic relates to abortions, not abortors, and (2) it's not 50% anyway.
When someone cannot make an argument without hashing their numbers, look for them to be trying to sell you something.

Clinton vetoed the PBA ban because it gave no provision for necessary PBAs, e.g. cases in which normal childbirth would cause the death of the mother. Had such a proviso existed, it is almost certain the ban would have received President Clinton's support; in fact, it is the policy of the AMA, the sole licensed authority on the subject, to forbid PBAs in non-necessary cases.
It is typical of anti-abortion zealots to omit that from the discussion, and treat it as just another case of the terrible, child-killing Democrats.

I feel that the third trimester ought be off-limits unless there's a severe health concern because the fetus is rather viable, and the second trimester ought be a matter of personal choice. A second-trimester fetus is only 'life' in the vaguest, most mechanical sense; in all but a few isolated cases they are incapable of the rigors of survival even given extensive life support, they are literally devoid of any conscious experience, memory, or activity whatsoever - in other words, killing a grown dog is almost certainly a worse 'offense' and if there's a medical or economic necessity and all humane measures are taken, there oughtn't be a problem with it.

If you want to feel there's a soul in there, that's fine; don't abort your fetuses, then. You can take this as far as considering contraceptives wicked, if you like, but don't expect the state to step in on your behalf.

[ Monday, March 21, 2005 22:09: Message edited by: Bad-Ass Mother Custer ]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #23
Even though women that don't use contraceptives are more likely to get pregnant, that doesn't change the fact that almost half the women who get abortions didn't do anything to try to stop getting pregnant.

quote:
Originally written by Bad-Ass Mother Custer:

A second-trimester fetus is only 'life' in the vaguest, most mechanical sense; in all but a few isolated cases they are incapable of the rigors of survival even given extensive life support, they are literally devoid of any conscious experience, memory, or activity whatsoever[/QB]
So because our technology isn't good enought to keep it alive, it wasn't really alive in the first place? Terminal cancer patients must love you.

quote:
Originally written by Bad-Ass Mother Custer:

if there's a medical or economic necessity and all humane measures are taken, there oughtn't be a problem with it.

[/QB]
Did you actually look at that list of reasons? The majority of abortions aren't done because of medical or economic necessity. And even if they can't afford it, they could still put it up for adoption.

Edit: Hmmm. I seem to have somehow logged onto my brother's account. This is The Creator.

[ Monday, March 21, 2005 22:55: Message edited by: Ash Lael ]

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #24
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

Even though women that don't use contraceptives are more likely to get pregnant, that doesn't change the fact that almost half the women who get abortions didn't do anything to try to stop getting pregnant.
As Alec pointed out, what it actually said was that almost half the abortions performed are for women who weren't using contraceptions. It's not "almost half the women", because many of them are the same women who'd already had abortions previously.

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00

Pages