I could easily say 'I don't care....I'm not an American'....but even non-Americans are human and have a sense of humanity....and this sort of legislation is draconian at best and more invasive in a human rights sense than leaving the responsibility for decision with the experts where it belongs, not some dim-witted ego-tripper looking for self-agrandisement via the political forum.

Has anyone actually...you know...READ the law?

Abortion hasnt' been outlawed. They just limited LATE TERM abortions, i.e. abortions that take place in the 7,9, and 9th month.  There are already exceptions in the law for if the mother's life is in danger along with other exceptions.

This law is directed largely at those people who simply change their mind about wanting to have a kid when "the kid" is nearly there.

Until this law was passed, a woman could have an abortion of a perfectly healthy child right up to the moment she delivered. I'm sorry but I don't see that as draconian at all and I'm pretty darn pro-choice.

but look at it this way, the one problem that will destroy this planet is over population.

http://www.crlp.org/hill_int_ggr_hiv.html

Expanded Global Gag Rule Limits Women’s Rights and Endangers Their Well-being
A recent expansion of the "global gag rule" or "Mexico City Policy"-a policy that denies United States development funds to organizations that perform or advocate for abortion, even with their own, non-U.S. funds-poses a grave danger to the lives and health of countless women around the world.

http://www.crlp.org/hill_int_usfp.html

Recently, at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Children in May 2002, the Bush administration advocated for efforts to restrict sexual education and information to "abstinence-only until marriage" and claimed that the words "reproductive health services" implied access to abortion. The Bush administration has turned a blind eye to the glaring needs of adolescents for information and services to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy, and HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmissible infections. In the end, the U.S. agreed to retain references to reproductive and sexual health care, and in return was granted its bid to weaken references to the importance of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the agreement.


http://family.org/cforum/citizenmag/coverstory/a0001561.cfm

STERILIZE OR STARVE

In February, reports of a U.S.-funded campaign of forced sterilization in Peru found their way to the U.S. House International Operations and Human Rights subcommittee and into major media outlets including The New York Times

Buttressed by Peruvian witnesses and a report from congressional staffer Joseph Grover Rees, who had recently visited Peru, subcommittee chairman Chris Smith, R-N.J., presented evidence of numerous abuses. Among them: Doctors who are given sterilization quotas and rewards for sterilizing larger numbers of women, and mostly poor women who are required to undergo tubal ligations as a condition of receiving food.
-------------------------
HUMAN LAB RATS

In addition to promoting sterilizations, U.S.-funded programs routinely dispense contraceptives such as Norplant and Depo-Provera--which in some cases act as abortifacients and are known to cause dangerous side effects. PRI reports that in the U.S. alone, 50,000 lawsuits have been filed against Norplant's manufacturer, Wyeth-Ayerst.


What's worse, there's evidence that the programs have used Third World women as guinea pigs to test those drugs.


A 1995 British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) documentary, The Human Laboratory, reported that in the mid-1980s USAID paid a private group, the Population Council, to conduct Norplant tests in Bangladesh. The test subjects: poor women living in slums who were offered the drug for free and told it was proven safe. All they had to do was have six plastic cylinders implanted in their arms and their troubles would be over.

---------------

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/healthnet/SAsia/suchana/0200/h024.html

Rao, Mohan. : Neo-Eugenics : The Quinacrine Sterilisation of Women in India. Women's Link. 3(3). July-September 1997. P. 12-15. Location: SNDT Churchgate.

Neo-Eugenics [1]: The Quinacrine Sterilisation of Women in India


Dr. Kessel is on record that as a patriotic American he is proud to receive funding from such sources as he believes that, should the US allow free immigration, it would soon be turned into a Third World country. In a published paper they also argue that population control in Third World nations is of paramount importance to US security interests



neat huh?

enough info out there to wrap a mind around and understand where the claim of double standards and broken policy comes from...

Yes Brad I did and am of the opinion that Late Term is only justifed in the event of saving the mothers life. Though I do not see why they can not do it in such a manner that a real attempt to save the childs life was taken up in the process.

As far as early term goes and sex education and information, that should be there and is a womans right without interference from any government of group of people.

Except in the instance that it is proven someone is making use of abortion as a means of birth control.

There is a good reason the world is left wondering what it is that the US stands for because we do so many contrary things with such conviction it leaves them dumb founded.

At the same time though, Jeb Bush assigned a Guardian to a fetus of a mentally retarded woman who has the brain function and personality of a three year old who was raped in a state funded nursing home. She also is/was at such a body weight that giving birth could kill her and he put a stop to a Doctor order abortion.

Today they changed the Florida Constitution to allow the Gov to step in and throw away any court orders in dealing with a woman who is in a vegitative state and has been for years. Her brain is full of holes where the brain matter has desolved and such and will never gain any connection with the world again, she is just one step of being comatose.

That and other things are what have people so up in arms about the passage of the bill ending late term. Along with what is done around the nation and the world, and all the conflicting actions of the US it is no wonder really...

just my opinion...

[Message Edited]

All I want to say on this is...... My second child (Blair) could have been used to settle many, many child issues in this country! 1. We're thinking of having a child! Really, great I'll send Blair over Friday evening and you'll have your decision made before Monday...Guaronteed. 2. Can't make up your mind about the "pill"... no problem you can babysit Blair 3 days this week and by Friday you'll know for sure if you want it or not! 3. Can't decide where you stand on abortion..... Let Blair live with you for a week.....problem solved. I just want to warn you before he gets there, at present murder and abortion are still handled differently so don't confuse the two before you send him back home! Don't get me wrong I love him more than life itself and wouldn't trade him for anything, he's 175% boy and raising him by myself has sure cleared up some of these issues for me! I think Ortho should pay me for not using him to put them out of business! I love everyone here, please forgive me I just had to share my little comical twist in here!

not some dim-witted ego-tripper looking for self-agrandisement via the political forum.

Guess you caught some of the 'Jed Clampett Show' in Canberra on the ABC today Jafo??
BTW ... have you dried out yet!
My hearing is still out to lunch but I REALLY want one of those V4 Dukes!
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]

Brad, no I didn't read the bill. But from what I read, the bill does NOT include health exceptions, which was the reason why Clinton opposed his veto twice in 2000. Also, still from what I read the bill defines partial abortion as second and third term pregnacies. The second term is where most of the health problems are found in the faetus. I see no reason why a malformed child should be allowed to be born.

wombat....yes...dried out....and I'll post a pic of a Brutale....just to make you a tad green.....

I don't like abortions but I think it's a choice left to the woman. The problem I have with this procedure is that a living, innocent human being has it's head sticking out of the mother, mere moments away from a full life and it is killed. It sounds barbaric. What do they do? Chop the head off? Smother it? We don't hear those gruesome details but somehow they are murdering a child half out of the womb. Politically, I think this is why this law has been able to get through because some of the shroud over this "procedure" has been lifted and exposed the actuality of it. That said, I don't think the law should or will go any further,

paxx said: "I see no reason why a malformed child should be allowed to be born."

I love ya Paxx, but that would have to be the most offensive thing I have ever heard you say. I didn't comment the first time you hinted at it, but I can't prevent myself this time. I understand (hope) you mean malformed to the point that survival is impossible outside the womb, but without limits people could eventually interpret 'malformed' as any level of deformity or handicap, or even genetic predisposition.

As in any discussion here, I see people who have good hearts and no clue of how wretchedly people abuse their good intentions. There are sick f*cks walking around right now that would abort a child because they don't like it's potential hair or eye color. A child is not livestock to be bred for health or benefit to the herd, and we have only to look at Nazi science to see where rating the 'value' of a fetus can lead. Will we say that children with Down's syndrome shouldn't be born? What about the blind? Deaf? Tone Deaf? People with such a grasp of evolutionary theory seem to have no ability to apply it. Do you want the average person deciding what characteristics are preferred?

I personally witnessed a cheerleader in High School that was forced to have an abortion by her parents because they didn't like the father and it would have delayed college for a year. A human being is not here today because it would have been an inconvenience, nothing more. He or she would now be about the same age as the mother was. Didn't matter that someone could have adopted the child, that they needn't have even bothered with it after it was born. I hate those people so, so deeply. I don't have words for what they are.

I would suggest looking back through history at those figures we owe so much to, and see how many of them were born with defects, in abject poverty, to abusive families, etc. I don't think we have the right to decide 'viability' or potential benefit to the human race when in the past it has proven to be so difficult to predict.

Regardless, I have no business posting here. The subject itself is offensive to me, and I would have zero tact. My acquaintance here at wc is limited as it is, and I am sure my point of view would be of little value and make my presence even less popular if that is even possible.

BakerStreet, I'm sure you won't agree, but yes, I most definately think that children with severe handicaps should not be born. I'm not talking one missing finger or something small that would make little diference in one's life, I'm talking serious handicap, where that human being would be miserable and unhappy for the rest of his life, or makes everybody else's life unhappy.  There is no reason why a child with the Down Syndrome should be born. What kind of life do these children - and eventually adults - have? They will never be autonomous.  They will be dependant on their mother until she is 100 years old and dies, and then they'll be transfered to some special home. Of course they're too retarded to understand what is happening, they may be sortof happy, in the way a dog or a cat can be happy. But really, is that a life? 

Anyway, I understand from your last post that you probably have a very strong opinion against any form of abortion, so indeed, we should just leave it at that before we get our guns out.  Oh wait, I don't have one.

Ultimately in the end we are each held responsible for our own individual actions. What we did or did not do during our life on this earth. We've been given the tools to do right and do wrong, after that the choice is ours whether to use them or not. It's up to each of us individualy to determine our fate based on the choices we make while we are here. Society is unquestionably divided on this issue however in the end and only then will we know what's REALLY right and what's REALLY wrong. Irregardless of what society has decided. None of this is an implication as to what my opinion is on this matter. Also, I have a complete understanding that there are multiple opinions on this subject and I'm not offended by the opinions of others. I would only be offended if my own opinion didn't reflect my true feelings. Just my 1.573 cents. Cant go a full 2 on this one!

paxx...my wife is a speech pathologist....working for 'Scope' [formerly the 'Spastic Society']....and would tend to differ....

I worked at a camp for the mentally handicapped in Tennessee. Many of them had Down's syndrome. I find your point-of-view heinous. I have been acquainted with many mentally retarded people who's presence I would value much more than many 'viable' humans. I have yet to walk out of my house and fear what might be in store for me because of someone with a severe handicap. Healthy people, on the other hand, leave a lot to be desired.

Watch much MTV? I have seen a great many people with no handicaps that were barely autonomous. Say what you want, Paxx, but you won't be there to make sure people don't abuse the definition of what a 'miserable and unhappy' life will be. Imagine what the average 'stage mother' would consider 'miserable and unhappy'.

I think it is sickeningly funny that in a community of "artists" we can ponder viability in people who aren't the definitive healthy human.


[Message Edited]

Wow! What a loaded subject!! I guess all we can go by is personal experience (at least that's how I live MY life...that...and good ole common sense)and so...having terminated a pregnancy that was a result of a very violent and horrible encounter in young adulthood, I was convinced that the 4 later miscarriages were a direct punishment for "murder"...having matured and finally having two children (grown now), I think differently. There are so very many social, cultural, religious and economic issues that combine to put so many critical issues on a single decision...how can a "blanket" statute apply to such a diverse population? I can't claim I have the answer because I don't...I just think that maybe a little more consideration should be given before we judge anyone...or force a "one law for all" demand on such a complicated and obviously delicate problem. Peace.

BakerStreet, same here. I have worked three years in a camp for handicapped children.  Plus 8 years in a hospital.

Anyway. Fact remains though. There are such things as ultrasounds and other tests to detect those anomalities in babies, and in am happy that in Canada, it's still the mother's choice to terminate or not such a pregnancy.  Good for you if in the US you won't be able to.
I'm happy in my country and you'll be happy in yours. All is for the best.

My 2 cents:

This can be ended in 2 words : WOMAN'S CHOICE, or
3 words, if you are picky : ALWAYS woman's choice.

Done


Sajuuk

I can think of quite a few people who prove it's never too late for abortion...

I am personally pro-life (for myself).  I never took the tests when I was pregnant to find out if my child could possibly have a birth defect so that I would have the "option" of terminating the pregnancy. 

However, that said, I am pro-choice.  You can wonder how that can be?  I don't think that I have the right to say what another woman does with her body.

But, I never saw partial birth abortions as a pro-life or pro-choice situation.  It doesn't fit in the realm of anything but murder.  It also was never legalized in all states.  Most states had a cesarean surgical procedure, but not this.  Has anyone actually read how one of these are done?  They half deliver the child (legs and torso) then puncture the skull and drain the babies brain.  Sorry, but that does not fit in the same category as aborting a 12 week old fetus.

The law does still allow for medical procedures to be performed if the mother is risking death.  *But* it also states that the Doctor has to prove that it was the only option.

There has only been once in my life that I have ever heard of this type of procedure being necessary for both the mother and child.  But, that was a C-section procedure.  My best friend's Aunt started her family when she was in her 40's.  Her first child was fine.  About 5 months into her second pregnancy she got very sick and realized that her baby was not doing well, either.  After many tests they found out that the baby had an extreme case of Downs syndrome, and that it's internal organs were growing on the outside of its body.  The baby would not live if it made it full term, so the best answer for both was to abort it.  She didn't try to have another baby after that because she had a feeling that she just shouldn't.

In all, I totally agree with this law.  It's not outlawing abortion- it's outlawing a very cruel procedure that looks a bit too much like murder in my eyes.

If that's the case,then the article doesn't explain it very well. I was under the impression that the bill was about outlawing ANY form of procedure that could kill the baby any time after the first trimester and before the birth.  I didn't know it was about a very particular procedure that consists of puncturiung the brain of the half-born baby.

Maybe I didn't read right. I must improve my reading skills.

Has anyone read the "fine print" in this new law? Where can I find it? This reminds me of back in the 70's...and.....I've read some stories about women going into labor that weren't even aware they were pregnant...(not sure quite how that could happen but...) I wonder where they'd fit into this...hmmm...All this is so awful isn't it? That a LAW has to be passed to stop the kinds of procedures that KarmaGirl described above..how absolutely barbaric!! Maybe they should make the doctors that perform such atrocities go through some kind of psychotherapy to make sure they're sane >
I want to thank you for educating me a little more on the subject...I had no idea that the issue surrounded "partial birth". I suppose I had better start paying a little more attention the the entire issue instead of just reading "headlines"
Again...how utterly barbaric!!

Personally, I think abortions should be outlawed. And sterilization should be incorporated. Especially for these crack smoking mothers who have six children to get welfare and the poor babies are born addicts with mental problems. One crack baby and she loses her ability to infect children and steal from society to support her drug habit.

For everyone else except Rape victims and medical situations, Responsibility is the answer. If you get a woman pregeant, you should marry her and give her baby, a father, a mother and a family unit. I feel sorry for these single mothers who have to take all the responsibility for the rest of their lives(except the crack mothers). If you can't get along with the mother, use birth control and stop thinking about your own five seconds of pleasure. If you did use birth control and it didn't work, too bad. You put it there, and enjoyed it, now you have to take responsibility for your actions. The other solution would solve the problem completely. Abstinence. Can't do that, you stud? Take RESPONSIBILITY