Neb. governor signs landmark abortion bills

Originally posted by Violater1
Taking the life with or without the consent of a defenseless person is murder. Please explain yourself to the families of innocent murdered human beings, that never hurt, let alone murdered anyone else.

First off, we disagree that abortion kills a person or a human being. To me, it's just a group of cells. A miracle but, a group of cells none the less. One that has to camouflage itself or be attacked by our own immune system and be aborted by our bodies naturally. I don't think of them as a person or a human being, not at that stage.

Originally posted by awake_awoke
...
www.boston.com...
...
No legislator has the right, or probably the strength, to deal with what some of these women have. SHAME ON THEM for assuming they have any idea what they are talking about. And shame on them for doing this.

Thank you for sharing. Everyone should read this article.

Everyone said, of course it's the right thing to do -- even my Catholic father and my Republican father-in-law, neither of whom was ever "pro-choice." Because suddenly, for them, it wasn't about religious doctrine or political platforms. It was personal -- their son, their daughter, their grandchild. It was flesh and blood, as opposed to abstract ideology, and that changed everything.

...and that's compassion. Without it, we humans are less than our best. And that's when God weeps.

reply to post by VintageEnvy


Abortion is a bad thing.
For some reason, people with a reduced group of cells in their frontal lobes, are lacking common/moral sense.

reply to post by VintageEnvy


How many group of cells have you given birth to?

Originally posted by walsbg22
reply to post by Annee

 

Do think partial birth abortion should be allowed?

THAT would fall under my own personal belief "system" - - which can not be judged - moralized (or de-moralized) by someone else's belief.

FIRST - I don't find making the decision easy no matter what one believes. I know there are those who have had multiple abortions - but I do question that they are unaffected.

ANYWAY - as I believe - we are actually non-physical energy beings choosing a physical experience. Physical is secondary to energy consciousness.

Therefore - it comes down to when consciousness enters the physical. Which I personally believe is after birth and there is a viable physical being.

what i hate about all of this is that the guy doesn't get any say, because the woman will say "its my body, i can do whatever i want with it" but if the guy has money, after the baby is born, hes gonna foot some of the bill, so how is that fair? the guy being forced to pay for a child when he didn't have a say in keeping him/her or not. sure, its in the girls body, but it isn't her body, and it takes two.

i'm against abortion, pro responsibility. why should a child pay for your bad decisions? yes, killing them is the easy way out, but it isn't the right way out. adoption is the best way to turn a bad situation into a better one.

and for those crying "what about rape victims? incest? deformed babies?"

"Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons."


www.johnstonsarchive.net...

so 98% of babies killed are because two people couldn't keep from having protected sex. and how many more have been killed by plan b and such?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by walsbg22
reply to post by Annee

 

Do think partial birth abortion should be allowed?

THAT would fall under my own personal belief "system" - - which can not be judged - moralized (or de-moralized) by someone else's belief.

FIRST - I don't find making the decision easy no matter what one believes. I know there are those who have had multiple abortions - but I do question that they are unaffected.

ANYWAY - as I believe - we are actually non-physical energy beings choosing a physical experience. Physical is secondary to energy consciousness.

Therefore - it comes down to when consciousness enters the physical. Which I personally believe is after birth and there is a viable physical being.

no, personal morality can be judged, and in many cases should. if a man was for raping women for pleasure would you be against it? its his morals, right?

am i allowed to key your car for fun? that falls within my morals, so you aren't allowed to judge it.

of course you will judge it.

and not to attack your beliefs, but your world view seems like it is built completly around being able to accept abortions as ok. kind of strange that people will look to philosophy to get rid of guilt. everyone does this, atheists, christians, muslems, jews etc.

"Therefore - it comes down to when consciousness enters the physical. Which I personally believe is after birth and there is a viable physical being."

so you think a baby with it's foot still in the woman's vagina doesn't have a "soul" yet, but when he/she is all the way out that NOW they have a soul? again, not to be insensitive, but it seems you are avoiding guilt.

Originally posted by VintageEnvy

Originally posted by Violater1
Taking the life with or without the consent of a defenseless person is murder. Please explain yourself to the families of innocent murdered human beings, that never hurt, let alone murdered anyone else.

First off, we disagree that abortion kills a person or a human being. To me, it's just a group of cells. A miracle but, a group of cells none the less. One that has to camouflage itself or be attacked by our own immune system and be aborted by our bodies naturally. I don't think of them as a person or a human being, not at that stage.

why don't you?

"When does the heart begin to beat?

At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother."

a seperate circulatory system and heart beating only 4 days after being late for your period? hell, you probably wouldn't even realize you were pregnant and their heart is already beating totally seperate from the mother. and its not human to you? not a person? not seperate?

Originally posted by Annee
My first pregnancy ended in a fourth month miscarriage. I had 2 pregnancies (2 daughters) following that. Then I had an abortion.


My opinion is not just lip service.

It is no one's business but the person making the decision - PERIOD!

BS that it's no one else's business!

I'm pro-choice EXCEPT when it comes to late term abortions. I agree with whomever before said that by the time a fetus reaches late term, the mother has had sufficient time to make up her mind to keep it or not. If a baby can be extracted from the womb at any time AND live either with assisted help or on it's own, then to kill it at that point is outright murder.

If some health crisis arose that endangered the life of the mother and required the baby to be removed, then if they can do so and keep the baby alive, then why kill it?

So don't lay down that crap about it being no one's business but the mother - if we're talking about removing a baby that can live on it's own or with assistance, and the mother still plans to have it killed, then I say it's someone's duty to intervene and save the life of that child.

Republican Gov. Dave Heineman signed both bills, one barring abortions at and after 20 weeks of pregnancy

This bill I have mixed feelings about. 20 weeks should be plenty of time to decide if you want to have an abortion. However, late term abortions should still be allowed if the safety of the mother is at risk.

It worries me that there is no mention of this in the article.

and the other requiring women to be screened before having abortions for mental health and other problems.

This one is just scary. While it would be one thing to require doctors to inform women of all of the physiological and psychological repercussions of having an abortion, forcing screening to determine if a mother is fit to have an abortion seems like a sneaky way to allow medical professionals to flat-out refuse abortions based on their own personal beliefs.

Personally, I have mixed feelings on abortion. However, I firmly believe that the government has absolutely no right to determine these things for women. It is up to the mother to decide. End of story.


Why is it that Republicans, who claim to be for 'smaller government', seem to have no problem forcing government control over the medical decisions of expecting mothers? Hypocrisy much?

reply to post by drwizardphd


"Personally, I have mixed feelings on abortion. However, I firmly believe that the government has absolutely no right to determine these things for women. It is up to the mother to decide. End of story.


Why is it that Republicans, who claim to be for 'smaller government', seem to have no problem forcing government control over the medical decisions of expecting mothers? Hypocrisy much?"

so are you against the government making/enforcing murder laws? anti-abortion laws don't take away woman's rights, they enforce unborn baby rights.

who are you or anyone else to condemn a baby to death?

"However, late term abortions should still be allowed if the safety of the mother is at risk."

what good mother wouldn't risk their life for their child? so getting an abortion to avoid risk isn't a valid reason.


[edit on 14-4-2010 by Bob Sholtz]

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

who are you or anyone else to condemn a baby to death?

...


what good mother wouldn't risk their life for their child? so getting an abortion to avoid risk isn't a valid reason.

Who are you or anyone else to condemn a mother to death?

reply to post by drwizardphd


i'm not condemning her to death, but stuff happens. there is risk involved, and the odds are rarely 100% that she will die. but even if it is a guarantee, you are saying that it is ok to murder innocents for your own benefit.

This is probably going to get lost in the debate but here goes...

After Scott Roeder killed George Tiller in Kansas a few months back a qualified, third-term abortion doctor in Nebraska offered to take all of Dr. Tiller's patients in his office. He regularly performed the abortions because he was one of the very few qualified doctor's in the country to do so.

This bill banning abortions after 20 weeks, while seemingly logical, is really a move to put this doctor out of business and not allowing late term abortions in Nebraska without going to the extreme that Scott Roeder did.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


i'm not condemning her to death, but stuff happens. there is risk involved, and the odds are rarely 100% that she will die. but even if it is a guarantee, you are saying that it is ok to murder innocents for your own benefit.

Actually, you are condemning her to death, in the same vein that you claim allowing abortion condemns an unborn child to death. I hope you understand the logical fallacy you just made.

In situations where the pregnancy is compromised, and doctors believe the mother's life may be at stake, the option to abort the unborn fetus in order to save the mother's life should always be in the hands of the mother, and nobody else. It is her life on the line, and she shall decide if she wants to give her life for her unborn child.

You should also consider the fact that in cases where the pregnancy is compromised, there is usually a significantly lowered survival chance for the unborn fetus. So basically what you are saying is it would be better for both the mother and unborn fetus to die, as opposed to the mother surviving thanks to medical intervention.


There simply isn't any logical argument against choice. If you believe abortion is wrong or immoral (I believe it is immoral), then you can simply not have one yourself, or try to convince your partner not to have one. When you try to force your personal beliefs on others, you become the face of hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

and not to attack your beliefs, but your world view seems like it is built completly around being able to accept abortions as ok. kind of strange that people will look to philosophy to get rid of guilt. everyone does this, atheists, christians, muslems, jews etc.

"Therefore - it comes down to when consciousness enters the physical. Which I personally believe is after birth and there is a viable physical being."

so you think a baby with it's foot still in the woman's vagina doesn't have a "soul" yet, but when he/she is all the way out that NOW they have a soul? again, not to be insensitive, but it seems you are avoiding guilt.

1. Viable physical being.

2. Each person is entitled to their own belief.

3. Forcing your belief on another is not OK.

Guilt? NO. Emotions? YES.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
what i hate about all of this is that the guy doesn't get any say, because the woman will say "its my body, i can do whatever i want with it" but if the guy has money, after the baby is born, hes gonna foot some of the bill, so how is that fair? the guy being forced to pay for a child when he didn't have a say in keeping him/her or not. sure, its in the girls body, but it isn't her body, and it takes two.

Both are fully responsible for the ACT of creating a living physical being. Therefore - both are equally responsible for the financial aspect of that physical beings needs.

The relationship between the man and woman - will determine if both have a say so in keeping or aborting. There have been cases where the parents agreed to full term and the father took full custody and responsibility.

The high percentage of men who abandon women who become pregnant is ridiculous. As a woman - I really have no sympathy for man complaining about abortion. NONE ZERO.

Again, I encourage those discussing "partial-birth abortion" to visit the link I provided regarding the implications such vaguely defined legislation has on services provided to mothers and fathers, who very much wish to add to their family but are met with terrible tragedy.

Do you know, as a woman, I can remember my 15 week screening for genetic defects. I was seeing an OB, one I did not particularly like (I ended up with a fantastic midwife), and after my screening was completed the nurse said:

"And of course, sign here for the testing, but don't worry...Dr. X doesn't believe in abortion so..."

"Excuse me?"

"Oh, Dr. X doesn't believe in abortion so no need to worry about that if anything shows up...."


And I'm thinking "what on earth is she bringing that up for.....". Like Dr. X's opinion has anything to do with mine. My husband and I were so excited for our daughter to arrive and she was wanted more than anything else in the world. But at that moment I could not help and get internally flustered at the audacity of the nurse to impose "Dr. X's" feelings on abortion on me. Lets cross that bridge if we have to get to it.

I went home that evening and spoke to my husband about what was said to me and he was furious. There are so many shades of gray when something as unfortunate as that happens...how bad the genetic defects are...what is the chance of survivial etc. WE would make such a decision, with our hearts aching and full of sorrow and pain....not some doctor who has spent about 5 minutes with me in the past few months....

I don't know what I would ever choose in that situation... but again, it would have been no one else's judgement except mine.

And again, don't worry, I found one of the top OB-midwife teams in America to deliver my daughter. And one day, near the end of my third trimester, my favorite midwife told me she'd need to have me wait in the office for a bit because she had to speak privately with a patient. I ended up needing to use the restroom about 15 minutes later and as I walked past the office I saw her, with 2 of the top OBs, holding an expecting mother and fathers shoulders as they weaped. Bad news obviously....so tragic. But I hope that whatever decision they made was the right one for them and that my medical team would hold their hand the whole way, with compassion and dedication, as they should.

Oh, and Dr. X eventually had her license revoked due to a botched surgery. Thank goodness....

reply to post by Annee


When does a baby become a real human?

Originally posted by walsbg22
reply to post by Annee

 

When does a baby become a real human?

You are not going to dictate to me your belief as when a baby becomes a human.

Are you?

Or tell me I am wrong because my belief doesn't agree with yours.

Are you?