republicans, is this helping, or hurting your party

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

It's a perfect response requiring little explanation. Why waste time seeing how you think depression is always treatable via non-abortion means? Abortion can be the treatment, this is obvious to me.

So now your saying your link you gave to back your point is now wrong or you just figured out it does not support how you feel on the issue? Heck, I was even going to find a link that supported your arguement and when I typed in abortion and derpession all I got was sites that talked about depression after an abortion.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So now your saying your link you gave to back your point is now wrong or you just figured out it does not support how you feel on the issue? Heck, I was even going to find a link that supported your arguement and when I typed in abortion and derpession all I got was sites that talked about depression after an abortion.

The site says seek help and get treatment. It also says this:

There are medications that have been used during pregnancy without adverse affects. Discuss with your health care provider what he/she feels is safest for your baby but still beneficial to you.

[firstdown]

Quote from your Link:
There are medications that have been used during pregnancy without adverse affects. Discuss with your health care provider what he/she feels is safest for your baby but still beneficial to you.

I don't think the safest thing for the baby would be an abotion but you did not highlight that part.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

It's a perfect response requiring little explanation. Why waste time seeing how you think depression is always treatable via non-abortion means? Abortion can be the treatment, this is obvious to me.

Ah yes....I'm feeling overweight and depressed, plus I'm not ready to take care of a child. I couldn't figure this out in the first or second tri-mester. So I know, I'll have a late term abortionist stick a needle into my 22+ week old babies heart to kill it with drugs, induce labor, and leave the dead baby....I feel much better now.

I'm sure that won't have any adverse effects on a young woman's mental health....not to mention the baby's.

What I find confusing is that you will defend the rights of terrorists (adult murderers) so they aren't confined unjustly or waterboarded (not executed), but yet find every excuse to defend the actions of an abortionist who has performed well over 1,000 late term abortions on viable fetuses (babies) when the mother's life was NOT at risk. I think your moral compass is a bit off or you're unwilling to concede a point that is counter to your liberal ideology or you're just trying to get a rise out of your conservative counterparts

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Ah yes....I'm feeling overweight and depressed, plus I'm not ready to take care of a child. I couldn't figure this out in the first or second tri-mester. So I know, I'll have a late term abortionist stick a needle into my 22+ week old babies heart to kill it with drugs, induce labor, and leave the dead baby....I feel much better now.

I'm sure that won't have any adverse effects on a young woman's mental health....not to mention the baby's.

What I find confusing is that you will defend the rights of terrorists (adult murderers) so they aren't confined unjustly or waterboarded (not executed), but yet find every excuse to defend the actions of an abortionist who has performed well over 1,000 late term abortions on viable fetuses (babies) when the mother's life was NOT at risk. I think your moral compass is a bit off or you're unwilling to concede a point that is counter to your liberal ideology or you're just trying to get a rise out of your conservative counterparts

Your confusion is self-inflected for I am rational and capable of articulating my position clearly. We always have options but the question is whether we choose the right option. As I have stated clearly on many occasions I oppose torture because there are other options and the fact that it is against the law. Similarly, I oppose late term abortions when the woman's life is not at risk due to physically or mentally ailment and if it was against the law I would oppose the practice. This is where the court of law comes into play. Furthermore, I have no problem with trying and putting to death terrorist who are found guilty in the court of law.

Yes, it's all that simple folks and if you take a moment to think it all through I am confidant you will see the consistency of my arguments.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

It's a perfect response requiring little explanation. Why waste time seeing how you think depression is always treatable via non-abortion means? Abortion can be the treatment, this is obvious to me.

I can also win any argument by having the quicker trigger finger, but that doesn't make it the right choice.

Treatment has to consider the betterment of all the parties. This would include the unborn. You appear to be okay killing off one party to stabilize the other, but many philosophers would suggest that your solution attacks the defenseless party at the expense of the party that was mistreated until this point. So, I dunno man, you're advocating the most brash of all treatments, and your argument is still a strawman since you are assuming that all mental illness is life-threatening.

But what your arguing is the difference between late-term abortions and more traditional abortions. The reason the former is "sketch" is because we're talking about a stage at which the fetus is in a very grey area between unborn and born. The difference between a late-term fetus and a premature birth is often just semantics.

Let's face it, you are looking at birth at the point in which you would apply human rights to the second party. There is nothing in natural law that states birth is more significant than conception or is more significant than any point in-between. This is a cultural division. Your denial of human rights up until a point is the EXACT REASON that late-term abortions are sketch. You've decided that there's a hard point at which a child should go from not having the right to life, to having all human rights, which fits the American legal perspective just fine, but does not account for the inherent gradual development of the situation. The eyes, nose, ears, and conscience don't just happen on birth man. I once again suggest you re-assess here.

[saden1]

Natural law indeed...let's just cut to the chase people and say you oppose late term abortion under any and all circumstances and we call it a wrap.

p.s. Best believe my wife comes first...always...every day and all day.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Natural law indeed...let's just cut to the chase people and say you oppose late term abortion under any and all circumstances and we call it a wrap.

p.s. Best believe if my wife comes first...always...every day and all day.

Saden I feel the same way but that can be a really tough choice. I had a friend who had issues while she was in her second pregnancy and the doctor told her that she and/or her baby could dye if she went on with her pregnancy. I believe they said the child had like an 80% chance to live and she had like a 50% chance of surviving. They went as far as setting an appointment with a doctor to have the abortion (3rd Trimester) and that night as the baby was kicking she knew there was no way they could go through with the abortion. Well then came plan B and the doctors monitored her each day and when they thought it was the best time they would do a c section. Her problem was that all of her vital signs were real high and then one day while she was at the hospital they went total off the charts. They got her in and delivered the baby but my friend died a couple of hours later leaving behind the new born, 3 year old and the father.

[Hog1]

..............wow............that makes me sad
I praise her courage and love to knowingly make a decision to possibly sacrifice herself for her unborn child. NO greater gift can be given. I hope dad was (and is) able to vew it like that.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

It's a perfect response requiring little explanation. Why waste time seeing how you think depression is always treatable via non-abortion means? Abortion can be the treatment, this is obvious to me.

I have a family member, who had an abortion. Her depression and life took huge backwards regressions, as she realized the nature of what she had done. Now mind you, this was an early term abortion, legal at the time(mid 70s) and not life threatening to her. Now, from her experience alone, not stats/facts/morals/logic/etc, I offer one point for you to consider. When a depressed person realizes that a late term abortion actually killed a viable baby life, do you not think it is possible, maybe likely, that a More severe depression may take hold of her?

For me, this does not seem like a solution to providing stable mental health. If the mother is traumatized, then bring the child into life, and let her seek treatment and try to heal her mental, and emotional traumas through other methods.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

Natural law indeed...let's just cut to the chase people and say you oppose late term abortion under any and all circumstances and we call it a wrap.

p.s. Best believe my wife comes first...always...every day and all day.

Because it's simply never that clear cut. However, I think law should better reflect the reality of the situation, that the closer and closer a woman gets to 9 months, her legal options become progressively more limited.

I'm okay with law reflecting a pro-choice perspective, but I also think that you can have implicit choice situations, and pretty much any situation where the fetus could be considered "near birth" needs to inherit a whole new set of rights. No doubt the situation can be complicated by any number of effects as you have pointed out. But law should not be all that liberal on late-term abortions. It should be much clearer on what constitutes an exception.

I have no problem with you suggesting an abortion might treat the issue, and my answer would just be that it shouldn't be legal treatment. I'm okay with most stem-cell treatments, abortions, not so much.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I have a family member, who had an abortion. Her depression and life took huge backwards regressions, as she realized the nature of what she had done. Now mind you, this was an early term abortion, legal at the time(mid 70s) and not life threatening to her. Now, from her experience alone, not stats/facts/morals/logic/etc, I offer one point for you to consider. When a depressed person realizes that a late term abortion actually killed a viable baby life, do you not think it is possible, maybe likely, that a More severe depression may take hold of her?

For me, this does not seem like a solution to providing stable mental health. If the mother is traumatized, then bring the child into life, and let her seek treatment and try to heal her mental, and emotional traumas through other methods.

I have always understood the fact that abortion can be mentally traumatic event after the fact and I equally understand that the opposite can be true. That is to say in certain cases it can also be mentally traumatic to continue with a pregnancy. One can not deny one possibility and affirm the other.

I feel bad for your aunt but the fact that she might suffer from sever depression after an abortion should not preclude her from having the choice. I doubt people were as informed back then but now we know a lot more and people can make a conscious decision as to whether they want to take the risk or not. If I am not mistaken "the state can not foolproof people from themselves" is a time tested conservative mantra.

[70Chip]

Assuming that the women has an authentic medical condition that would mean that having an abortion may save her life, the moral dilemma is still vexatious. The reason that there are only a few doctors who perform late term abortions is that apparently you actually have to be an excellent surgeon to do them. Early abortions are quite simple and many states do not even require practitioners to be licensed physicians. Late term procedures are dangerous to the women because a sloppy procedure can leave bone fragments that can damage the uterus (and other parts I guess) and the head of the fetus is usually too large to be removed through the birth canal intact. You have to know what you are doing. This is not the simple extraction of a doughy lump of cells. This is something else and this is why its troublesome. While a doctor performing one of these procedures may be able to say that he has saved the mother's life, he (or she) must also wrestle with the the fact that in order to effectively do so, he has to quite skillfully destroy another.

Furthermore, these procedures are quite expensive. I would worry that the lucrative nature of a practice like George Tiller's would cause an unscrupulous practitioner to treat perfectly healthy women. We all remember the cases of these girls who drop a baby in the bathroom at the prom. In other words, there are mothers who are the picture of health who hit month 6 and suddenly decide "Oh. I need to do something about this". Such a situation may be painful for the women and perhaps the child is doomed to an unhappy life (or maybe not), but one has to weigh that fact against those bone shards and the crushed skull I mentioned above. It seems like we are relying on the people making the money to decide if these women are really in danger and that worrys me.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Assuming that the women has an authentic medical condition that would mean that having an abortion may save her life, the moral dilemma is still vexatious. The reason that there are only a few doctors who perform late term abortions is that apparently you actually have to be an excellent surgeon to do them. Early abortions are quite simple and many states do not even require practitioners to be licensed physicians. Late term procedures are dangerous to the women because a sloppy procedure can leave bone fragments that can damage the uterus (and other parts I guess) and the head of the fetus is usually too large to be removed through the birth canal intact. You have to know what you are doing. This is not the simple extraction of a doughy lump of cells. This is something else and this is why its troublesome. While a doctor performing one of these procedures may be able to say that he has saved the mother's life, he (or she) must also wrestle with the the fact that in order to effectively do so, he has to quite skillfully destroy another.

Furthermore, these procedures are quite expensive. I would worry that the lucrative nature of a practice like George Tiller's would cause an unscrupulous practitioner to treat perfectly healthy women. We all remember the cases of these girls who drop a baby in the bathroom at the prom. In other words, there are mothers who are the picture of health who hit month 6 and suddenly decide "Oh. I need to do something about this". Such a situation may be painful for the women and perhaps the child is doomed to an unhappy life (or maybe not), but one has to weigh that fact against those bone shards and the crushed skull I mentioned above. It seems like we are relying on the people making the money to decide if these women are really in danger and that worrys me.

If there a few practitioners who must be very skilled, are constantly under threat that they must wear bullet proof vests, and aren't even safe in god's house the money is bound to be good. The question is are they doing it for the money and is it worth it?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

If there a few practitioners who must be very skilled, are constantly under threat that they must wear bullet proof vests, and aren't even safe in god's house the money is bound to be good. The question is are they doing it for the money and is it worth it?

Yea, it takes alot of skill to suck the brains out of a 6 month old fetus an if it was that hard how did the peopl back in the days do them in a dark alley. I heard last night this guy has performed over 64,000 abortions. Not sure how you can have any heart or feelings with those kind of numbers and if you look at the guy he looks like one of those guys you see on the post office wall wanted for some creepy crime.