Michigan Votes Forum

crazycajun:

 there is one problem with your theory, sane.

that is that there are TWO persons involved with every pregnancy. the person of the mother, and the person of the child.

No, there is nothing wrong with my "theory" or position on this.  In fact, all you have done is pointed out a key observation I made above:

That is, a prime disagreement that crops up the abortion discussion is the matter of "personhood" in respect to the status of a fetus and embryo, etc.  There are many different theories and beliefs as to when personhood begins -- even among people who oppose abortion.   

This bill is an attempt by incompetent government to step in and settle that question by fiat, with a solution or definition that may or may not reflect actual truth, which none of us really can know empirically.  The only legitimate and ethical posture to take on such matters in a free society is that each individual is entitled to hold and act on his or her own beliefs in such cases.  This is particularly so when the freedoms of fully formed, viable and living individuals we universally agree are "persons" would be trumped by something that is not universally recognized and in reality is only conjecturally a person.

crazycajun:

 i don't think that there IS a medical necessity.

that makes killing a viable baby in the womb MURDER.

That is your opinion.  Your statement is not a fact and cannot be accepted as a fact.  

It has been pointed out to you that obstetricians and gynecologists, who are informed in these matters and whose views are credible do not share your opinion.  It appears you are poorly informed.  

At most you could observe that the question of medical necessity for use of D&X procedure is not universally agreed upon in the medical profession.  I would have to agree with that because it is true.  But the fact that there is disagreement in the medical community over use of a procedure means little.  That is common.  It also underscores the importance of preserving and protecting personal choice in matters of such an intensely personal matter as pregnancy. 

Further, the matter of a fetus being a person is one upon which there are many and diverse views.  You are entitled to your opinion on the issue, but in a free society you are not ethically entitled to impose your opinion or view on anyone else.

 there was a man, who, in a british court of law, espoused the idea that his (soon to be) ex wife deserved to die, as did most, if not all, other cheating women in britain.

he was so successful in his arguements that he was allowed to put four of them to death.

now, we can both agree that while cheating wives may certainly deserve punishment of some sort or other,putting them to death is a little extreme.

this issue is not a matter of universal agreement. you will not find universal agreement anywhere you look, especially in the medical profession. what i'm looking for is the REASON for performing the proceedure. looking for the condition that it seeks to cure, and, possibly, whether or not there is an ALTERNATIVE that has not been explored, or the mother is not willing to exercise despite medical advice.

by the way, the man was HENRY VIII.

 we are asked to believe that the majority of abortions of all types are the result of rape or incest. this is simply not true. if it were, our law enforcement system is very far behind the times on this issue. each and every abortion for rape or incest is an opportunity to procure D.N.A. EVIDENCE OF THE CRIME.

i take it this has not been happening, because there has not been a corresponding spike in rape or incest convictions in the last few years.

one must only conclude,therefore, that the rash of abortions has been at the capricious request of the mother, with no thought given about health concerns (as verified by your volunteering a method of abortion that carries great risk to the mother) or the future of the child being aborted.

you mention several times the term MOTHER AND CHILD. the two are separate, yet as one. that is why killing a baby in the womb by a thief or murderer on the street tacks on a separate murder charge to cover the life of the baby. why is it ACCEPTABLE to kill the same baby in the same womb by a doctor at the mother's request?

killing can sometimes be justified, but murder is always wrong.

 sorry, but it's not only MY opinion. it's the opinion of several hundred district attorneys who have already prosecuted murderers for killing women who were pregnant. each and every one of those cases had TWO victims. the mother and the child.

in one case the woman was only three months pregnant. (surely a lump of cells cannot be considered a victim of murder in your opinion)

now, if you uphold the sanctity of a woman's body, which allows her to make life and death decisions for the fetus carried therein, why do you not extend that same sanctity to the woman's body when it is violated? such sanctity must be upheld at the same level for each circumstance, not just SPECIAL PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.

i notice that this sanctity only extends to the fetus, not to the person who was ALSO a part of that woman's body during the process of that violation. i notice that the fetus is punished by death, but the violator gets away scott free.

please explain that variance in the sanctity of the woman's body.

 "At most you could observe that the question of medical necessity for use of D&X procedure is not universally agreed upon in the medical profession.  I would have to agree with that because it is true."

if the medical community doesn't agree what the medical necessity is, then it must not be a medical necessity.

C.P.R. is a medical necessity only when the patient has stopped breathing and has no heartbeat.

no breathing, no heartbeat,= medical necessity.

not only do the professionals disagree on the medical necessity for using the proceedure, they are extremely vague in defining what circumstances qualify as that necessity. they won't even hazard a guess. so, i can only take it that they do not agree that ANY circumstance known so far would qualify as that necessity, while leaving themselves open to the option that ONE DAY THERE MAY BE SOMETHING THAT MAKES THAT PROCEEDURE MEDICALLY NECESSARY.

at one point, it was considered medically necessary to burn women to cure them of witchcraft.

SaneMichigander:

crazycajun:

 there is one problem with your theory, sane.

that is that there are TWO persons involved with every pregnancy. the person of the mother, and the person of the child.

No, there is nothing wrong with my "theory" or position on this.  In fact, all you have done is pointed out a key observation I made above:

That is, a prime disagreement that crops up the abortion discussion is the matter of "personhood" in respect to the status of a fetus and embryo, etc.  There are many different theories and beliefs as to when personhood begins -- even among people who oppose abortion.  

and this bill is government's attempt at ERRING ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION. since we don't know when 'personhood' begins, (some hold out that 'personhood' doesn't happen till after the third marriage' ) it's better to start at the beginning, just in case 'personhood' actually starts at conception.

This bill is an attempt by incompetent government

<wait a minute, isn't this the SAME incompetent government that you claim has all the answers?>

 

to step in and settle that question by fiat,

<this is not settling by fiat, but by standardized legislation. your representative can oppose this bill, it is not being PUSHED THROUGH like it were if it were done by FIAT.>

 with a solution or definition that may or may not reflect actual truth, which none of us really can know empirically.

 

<the TRUTH is something that courts are not very interested in. FACTS on the other hand, are quite persuasive. the TRUTH is always subjective, which is why you promise to tell the TRUTH, but you are ASKED ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE.>

 The only legitimate and ethical posture to take on such matters in a free society

<who ever told you that we are in a free society? we are a nation of LAWS, not of MEN. and all men are bound by that law. you are allowed to speak freely, but you are NOT allowed to libel or slander. you are allowed to travel freely, but you are NOT allowed into my home unless i invite you. >

 is that each individual is entitled to hold and act on his or her own beliefs in such cases.

<you are allowed to hold and act on your own beliefs, but you are NOT allowed to harm others by those beliefs. you can pray or not as you wish, but you'd better not hold a human sacrifice.>

 This is particularly so when the freedoms of fully formed, viable and living individuals we universally agree are "persons" would be trumped by something that is not universally recognized and in reality is only conjecturally a person.

<is it conjecture to state that, when allowed to grow up, become educated, and reach maturity, that fetus will become a person?>

 

 you do a masterful job of dancing around this issue. why not just admit that you do not know what the condition, disease or malady is that would REQUIRE a partial birth abortion, or any abortion for that matter, but that you support a woman's ability to choose whether or not her child dies.

that woman has a right to life, so does the child in her womb.

crazycajun:

 you do a masterful job of dancing around this issue. why not just admit that you do not know what the condition, disease or malady is that would REQUIRE a partial birth abortion, or any abortion for that matter, but that you support a woman's ability to choose whether or not her child dies.

No, I am not dancing around the issue.  But you are.

I have stated directly that I have no pretense to expertise in the field of medicine.  I also have stated directly that I both respect and accept the opinion of qualified and recognized experts in not only the field of medicine generally but in the specialties of obstetrics and gynecology.  Both of those specialties bear directly on the matter of women's reproductive health.  Experts in those fields have concluded that D&X may the best choice of procedures to protect a woman's health in certain circumstances.  They make no bones about qualifying that statement, as well they should.  That is the conservative approach to these things because it keeps options open to best deal with individual cases.  

Talk about dancing around ... If I am not mistaken, you are not a medical expert, but you are someone who has posted repeatedly here to rant against the absolute evils of government controlled, cookie cutter health care.  But in this case, you type off the other side of your keyboard to advocate that the government step in and mandate what medical procedures may be used on women, thereby prescribing cookie cutter health care if ever there was anything that fit that description.   

You are very right that I support a woman's right to choose and control what medical procedures, if any, will be used when it comes to matters concerning her own body or what is lodged in her own body.  You are very right that I support a parental right to choose -- decide -- whether a child lives or dies, if that child (like a fetus) is incapable of living on its own.  I support the ideal of a free society that allows for individual control over one's own body and being.  Those things should and must be fundamental in a free society like ours.

that woman has a right to life, so does the child in her womb.

The free woman whose body is capable of living on the strength and function of its own heartbeat and lungs, and its own fully functioning brain certainly has a right to her own life.  I know of no reasonable person who would seriously (or even in jest) argue otherwise.  

Whether a fetus in the womb, which by definition is completely dependent on the mother for its life and sustenance has such an inalienable natural right is conjectural, controversial, open to much discussion and probably never will be a settled matter among reasonable people.  Calling it a "child in her womb" not only obscures the fact of conjecture and controversy but places all arguments in favor of your proposition in the class of fallacious circular reasoning by making your premise and conclusion one in the same thing.

The fact that reasonable people of good will can and do disagree on the question of if and when an embryo or fetus assumes the character and thus is entitled to the status of a human person -- including its own absolute right to life -- tells us something important.  In the end, our personal view of the matter is based on what we think or believe, not on empirical knowledge.  Perhaps one day we will have such knowledge but for now we don't.  For the government to step in and arbitrate this matter is a high-handed exercise in thought control, completely out of place in a society that prides itself on protection of the right to personal beliefs and conscience.  

This legislative bill, if passed, would quickly lead to a ban on abortion by arbitrarily endowing embryos and fetuses with the full status of human individuals.  It also would go a lot farther.  In the end, it almost certainly would expose any woman whose "baby" dies in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) to government examination, in order to determine her criminal culpability.  That is both cruel and out of place in a nation of free people.

The only right posture in conundrums like this is to advocate for the preservation of individual choice -- the right to hold one's own beliefs and have one's own conscience, and to behave accordingly.                

Hi, again,

I was awfully busy the last two days and couldn't reply but have been following the thread of this discussion.

This whole argument boils down to what value the child in the womb has.  I will say that the child must be called such because if he/she were removed early due to problems, he/she would continue to grow and develop further as any normal human would.   And this is what must be addressed: the baby who is preborn must be accorded full civil rights simply because he/she is a human being who is simply at the earliest stage of human development that we all passed through.

As I mentioned in my post earlier, this child can never be considered 'part' of the the woman's body because he may be male, have a different blood type, and the body is programmed to e xpell him/her at the right point for further growth.  A tooth will never be other than a tooth, or a kidney a kidney; the woman's blood flows freely within these and the body recognizes it as its own.  Not so with the human child still within the womb.

But if we can agree on that very obvious point: that the child is a separate and distinct entity, with his/her own gender, blood type, brain, eye color, even latent talents that can be totally different from his/her mother, then the next point to be discussed is the WORTH of this separate entity.  Is he or she entitled to recognition as a human?

This is what you are arguing about.  If the child has intrinsic worth, then all the opinions of medical doctors as to whether it should die or not is moot; they are bound to help it live. And to help the mother in the process.  I really don't see a conflict between the two.  There is no need to pit one against the other; both should be served and helped. 

As a woman who at one time faced an unwanted pregnancy, I well know the fear and uncertaintly that goes along with suddenly feeling trapped with something I absolutely didn't want.  I also knew that these emotions and feelings were nothing to base an irreversible decision on.  At that time I knew lots of other young women who faced the same decision, and could see that many chose abortion simply becasue they didn't want the bother of a pregnancy or dealing with adoption or motherhood.  There were no crises, no physical problems, no unsolvable situations...these women simply didn't want to be bothered.  I will make this statement: most women who chose abortion use extreme situations to justify their choice.  If they really wanted to, they could have handled the situation.

The women who went ahead and had their babies were so absolutely glad that they did. They found that making that choice gave them fresh reasons for living, for making plans and goals, and for looking ahead to a positive future, even if the present wasn't so good.  Those who chose abortion told me they regretted the decision and usually it was made out of fear of what other people would do or say. 

As for me, I chose life for my daughter and adoption for her.  It was hard, but I never regretted either decision. Even losing her to adoption gave me a reason to live and better my life because I was always thinking ahead to when I would finally meet her..  It wasn't an obsession, just a good feeling that I wanted her to be proud of me.  And she was.  We've known each other for several years now.

Just remember, a pregnancy is only nine months, but death is forever. Carrying a child may be an inconvenience, but it's over before you know it, and the rewards for giving life are tremendous.

A 'woman's right to choose' is a lie.  Usually she's making the choice with misinformation, emotional duress, and pressure from those around her who don't want to be bothered.

And as for partial birth abortion, just consider this: for all those so-called medical reasons for this procedure (which OBs say don't exist), if a woman wants the child, the baby is delivered early and whisked down to the neonatal unit for expert care.  If she doesn't want the child, the little one is pulled out feet first up to the neck, then stabbed in the neck, the brains sucked out, the skull collapsed, and the now dead body removed.  Why?

Even if a woman doesn't want to carry the baby nine months, is she entitled to the child's death?  Why not deliver early (preemies have survived after just 16 weeks in the womb), give the child the care it needs, and let a loving family adopt him or her?

THat child in the womb could be you, me, or our son or daughter, or friend or future husband.  Only humans fit that description, and all humans deserve the right to life.

bye.

 i guess it comes down to this.

when a mother "chooses life", then there are TWO free people on this planet.

when a mother "chooses death" then there is only one.

now, having the choice, how many women CHOOSE TO DO THE RIGHT THING?

banning abortion does not penalize a woman for choosing to do the right thing.

legalizing abortion punishes the child for the woman choosing to do the wrong thing.

if you believe that a child in the womb has no worth, this is totally acceptable to you.

it seem that the posters on the left have repeatedly refused to place any value at all on the life in the womb. they believe that it is not 'life' until it is born. as if passing through the birth canal magically bestows 'life' upon it. the truth is, it COULD be 'life' months before. this is common empirical knowledge that the left refuses to acknowledge.

and no, we do not seek to criminalize stillbirth. never have, never even brought it up.

can you say honestly that an abortion is EVER the right thing to do?

 when is a "person" free to kill another person?

only in self defense, or in defense of another "person".

 not in defense of INCONVENIENCE, but death or great bodily harm.

crazycajun:

 when is a "person" free to kill another person?

only in self defense, or in defense of another "person".

 not in defense of INCONVENIENCE, but death or great bodily harm.

 

You would like to boil this issue down to right or wrong. Such a simple concept. It is always right, or always wrong. Murder is always wrong, except in defense of ones selve, or in defense of someone else, or in defense of one's country, or when determined by man's law. Or when you decide it is justified.

You think you have the right to decide for a woman, any woman, whether she should give birth to a child. Think of the power that concept gives you over the body of a woman.

Think about this. If men gave birth, there would be no discussion in this forum about the rights of men to decide whether to have a child or not. Women would not dare question what men do with their bodies.

jmangan:

crazycajun:

 when is a "person" free to kill another person?

only in self defense, or in defense of another "person".

 not in defense of INCONVENIENCE, but death or great bodily harm.

 

You would like to boil this issue down to right or wrong. Such a simple concept. It is always right, or always wrong. Murder is always wrong, except in defense of ones selve, or in defense of someone else, or in defense of one's country, or when determined by man's law. Or when you decide it is justified.

You think you have the right to decide for a woman, any woman, whether she should give birth to a child. Think of the power that concept gives you over the body of a woman.

Think about this. If men gave birth, there would be no discussion in this forum about the rights of men to decide whether to have a child or not. Women would not dare question what men do with their bodies.

 

Your statement about men cannot be proven, isn't true, and is an example of the sweeping statements you so dislike.  And besides, it's irrelevant to the argument. 

And women who choose abortion ARE giving birth; they're just delivering a dead child instead of a live one.  Abortions are forced early births, before nature intended, and are harmful to the woman's body, much more so than delivering on time and naturally.

And women do control their bodies all the time; but they have no right to control another's body.  Once a life begins in the womb, it deserves the right to be born.  I find the argument that because an unborn child hasn't reached viability, it can then be killed at will extremely noxious.  That's just saying that the dependent among us have no rights, and the weaker one is, the fewer rights and protections one has.

Surely you're aware that the early feminists hated abortion and looked on it as something men forced on women to protect themselves. 

Real feminists don't kill babies.

veritasamo:

Your statement about men cannot be proven, isn't true, and is an example of the sweeping statements you so dislike.  And besides, it's irrelevant to the argument.

I hardly can disagree with that.  But you undermine your own argument in your closing remark:

Surely you're aware that the early feminists hated abortion and looked on it as something men forced on women to protect themselves. 

Real feminists don't kill babies.

The question is, do you want to base the discussion on unproven facts, sweeping generalities, and irrelevancies, or not.  Since you raise the issue, please make a choice.   

Now, you assert:

And women who choose abortion ARE giving birth; they're just delivering a dead child instead of a live one.  Abortions are forced early births, before nature intended, and are harmful to the woman's body, much more so than delivering on time and naturally.

You are making a semantic argument in the first sentence.  That is what always clouds and in the end makes real discussion of this issue difficult, if not virtually impossible.

The second sentence is a sweeping generality that is not supported by medical facts and reality.

Now:

And women do control their bodies all the time; but they have no right to control another's body.

Women have been denied the right to control what happens with their bodies by law and court decision that bans the use of the medical procedure known as Intact Dilation and Extraction in late term abortions, which the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asserts may be the safest procedure to use, for the woman.  The procedure is politically described as "partial birth abortion."  Its description is hideous.

However, the same law and court decision leaves open use of a procedure known as Dilation and Evacuation, in which the result for the fetus is exactly the same -- death -- with the added little twist of dismemberment before removal from the womb.  It also is a hideous procedure, perhaps moreso than the banned one.  In short, the law and court decision protects and preserves not a single fetal life, but prohibits the living, breathing woman from choosing a procedure that may best protect her own health.

Once a life begins in the womb, it deserves the right to be born.  I find the argument that because an unborn child hasn't reached viability, it can then be killed at will extremely noxious.  That's just saying that the dependent among us have no rights, and the weaker one is, the fewer rights and protections one has.

This is your opinion, passionately stated.  I do not particularly agree.

Especially I disagree that the state should dictate and force its will upon competent individuals in these matters.   

I disagree greatly with your third sentence, which actually makes an argument for negating the "do not resuscitate" and "no extraordinary life support measures" wishes and instructions in my living will.  The difference between me and a fetus -- or baby if you wish to call it that -- or even neonate or infant child that requires technological life support, is that I am a physically, intellectually and emotionally fully developed and competent adult.  Thus, I am able to anticipate circumstances and am fully capable of expressing my own wishes as to what is to be done with my body should I become dependent on others for keeping me alive.  

A fetus, or a neonate or infant on life support is not capable of those things, and thus is dependent on others not merely for sustaining life but making life and end of life decisions in its regard or behalf.  In my opinion the only truly competent people to make those decisions are the mother, and after birth, the mother and father jointly, since both will be held responsible for looking after the child from there on out.

Surely you're aware that the early feminists hated abortion and looked on it as something men forced on women to protect themselves. 

Real feminists don't kill babies.

The question is, do you want to base the discussion on unproven facts, sweeping generalities, and irrelevancies, or not.  Since you raise the issue, please make a choice.   

Now, you assert:

And women who choose abortion ARE giving birth; they're just delivering a dead child instead of a live one.  Abortions are forced early births, before nature intended, and are harmful to the woman's body, much more so than delivering on time and naturally.

You are making a semantic argument in the first sentence.  That is what always clouds and in the end makes real discussion of this issue difficult, if not virtually impossible.

The second sentence is a sweeping generality that is not supported by medical facts and reality.

I find you hard to follow since everything you don't agree with you excuse with it being 'a sweeping generality unsupported by medical facts.'   What medical facts and what medical experts are you referring to?  I can find just as many, if not more, who would state that human life begins at conception.  And just as many doctors and publications that state that abortion, especially in the later two trimesters is rarely necessary to protect the life of the mother.  And I can find research that has followed women who have had these early and later abortions and which have found that the vast majority have them for reasons of convenience and not necessity.

If we want to reduce everything to bare facts, they are these: the child in the womb is indeed a 'living, breathing' human being.  He or She is 'breathing' through their blood with the exchange of oxygen molecules made possible by the placenta.  Oxygen is absolutely necessary to his or her life just as with a born person.  The unborn child also breathes in the fluid surrounding it into its lungs as practice for birth when the babe will have to start supplying its own oxygen from the air around it, instead of the exchange of gasses in the blood.

It is living because it is growing quickly through the cells that divide and rapidly reproduce.  In a mere nine months it develops from a tiny embryo to the newborn too big to reside any longer in its mother's body.

Therefore, since it is a human being by virtue of its DNA/chromosomes, and a living being, by virtue of its cell division, need for nutrients, and use of oxygen, why should it be discriminated against solely by where it happens to be residing.

You haven't answered any of the points I raised except by excusing them away with their being 'semantic' or 'sweeping' or 'unsupported.'  Where is the proof?  Where are the facts to support your arguments?  I find your arguments very weak and not based at all in fact.

You would give the preborn humanity to a certain degree, but supercede the child's right to life totally to the mother based solely on the fact that the babe is dependent on her for nine months.

What you constantly overlook is that the child, in this situation, has NO right to speak for itself, and you would deny us the right to defend it.  The adults you mention above in end of life situation still have the ability to choose for themselves.  The unborn doesn't.

A 'woman's right to choose' needs to be finished with the addition of 'death for her child'.  Surely, a woman who finds herself in this situation can choose help for both herself and her child.  There are tons of resources for her to go to for this help, but the baby has none. 

A pregnancy lasts only nine months, but death is forever.  What a horrible choice to force on another human being who has absolutely no way to defend him/herself.

As Mother Theresa once said: it is true poverty to decide that another must die for me to live as I wish.  (or something like that; I forget the exact words but that's the gist of it.)

veritasamo:

jmangan:

crazycajun:

 when is a "person" free to kill another person?

only in self defense, or in defense of another "person".

 not in defense of INCONVENIENCE, but death or great bodily harm.

 

You would like to boil this issue down to right or wrong. Such a simple concept. It is always right, or always wrong.

 

<right here is where you put your foot into your mouth.>

Murder is always wrong, except in defense of ones selve, or in defense of someone else, or in defense of one's country, or when determined by man's law. Or when you decide it is justified.

<MURDER IS ALWAYS WRONG. KILLING IS SOMETIMES JUSTIFIED. it's truly a simple concept that you refuse to grasp. it is NEVER justifiable to kill an unborn in the womb, and you cannot show where it is.>

You think you have the right to decide for a woman, any woman, whether she should give birth to a child. Think of the power that concept gives you over the body of a woman.

<i exercise no power over a woman, i only hold her responsible for her decisions on what she does, just like everyone else. i hold YOU responsible if YOU wantonly kill, but i hold no power over you. you would give a woman the POWER TO KILL AT WILL. THAT is a very awesome power indeed.>

Think about this. If men gave birth, there would be no discussion in this forum about the rights of men to decide whether to have a child or not. Women would not dare question what men do with their bodies.

<if men gave birth and while gestating, killed the infants they carried, women would indeed question what they did with the BEING WITHIN THEIR BODIES. they would hold them responsible for the loss of life. they would uphold the RIGHT TO LIFE of the being in their bodies. and if that being was put there by a rapist or incestuous relative, they would hold that rapist or relative RESPONSIBLE for the crime they committed. >

 

Your statement about men cannot be proven, isn't true, and is an example of the sweeping statements you so dislike.  And besides, it's irrelevant to the argument. 

And women who choose abortion ARE giving birth; they're just delivering a dead child instead of a live one.  Abortions are forced early births, before nature intended, and are harmful to the woman's body, much more so than delivering on time and naturally.

And women do control their bodies all the time; but they have no right to control another's body.  Once a life begins in the womb, it deserves the right to be born.  I find the argument that because an unborn child hasn't reached viability, it can then be killed at will extremely noxious.  That's just saying that the dependent among us have no rights, and the weaker one is, the fewer rights and protections one has.

Surely you're aware that the early feminists hated abortion and looked on it as something men forced on women to protect themselves. 

Real feminists don't kill babies.

 

 well said.

 so, let's boil that down.

if you cannot make your own decisions about your life, you have no right to life.

if you are too weak, to frail, too young, to immature, or too incapacitated, you have no right to life and it's okay to kill you.

did you know that it is against the ethics of doctors to NOT attempt recessitation? that's why there is a legal form you have to sign. they fought against that ideal long and hard. states fought against it long and hard as well. the fact that you had to put it into your will speaks loudly to the importance of the resistance to such an abhorant idea. to them, except in the case of abortion on demand, life should be preserved.

now, i could understand using this proceedure IF the mother's life were in danger from the fetus. but IT NEVER IS. they are NEVER DEFENDING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

they are ALWAYS KILLING THE BABY.

when you MIRACULOUSLY  BESTOW LIFE by passing that baby through the birth canal, you ALSO MIRACULOUSLY BESTOW ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVELEGES THEREOF, INCLUDING CITIZENSHIP.

we disagree on when those rights should be recognized. you wish to be able to kill babies, and that cannot be done if we recognize that baby as having rights. your LUMP OF FLESH arguement goes out the window pretty quickly, but you stick to it.

even we will recognize that it is occasionally necessary to sacrifice one life to save another, but YOU are not saving any lives by allowing abortions, you are only sacrificing innocent lives. as you cannot show one single circumstance that NECESSITATES that sacrifice, we must take it that there are none. 

 so, sane...

are you saying IT'S OKAY TO KILL THE BABY TO DEFEND LIFESTYLE???

I gather that your actual response to my post begins here:

veritasamo:

I find you hard to follow since everything you don't agree with you excuse with it being 'a sweeping generality unsupported by medical facts.'   What medical facts and what medical experts are you referring to?  I can find just as many, if not more, who would state that human life begins at conception.  And just as many doctors and publications that state that abortion, especially in the later two trimesters is rarely necessary to protect the life of the mother.  And I can find research that has followed women who have had these early and later abortions and which have found that the vast majority have them for reasons of convenience and not necessity.

First of all, I have cited sources of my information.  You have not cited sources for yours.

Far more important is the remainder of your statement above -- particularly your bit about being able to find many sources supporting your arguments.  I'm sure you can.  But that does not necessarily validate your arguments.  It only demonstrates that the matter is controversial and remains unsettled.  And that is the key point.  What anti-abortionists seek is for government to step and by fiat declare their position to be the law of the land.  In a civil and free society that is a questionable way to settle controversial issues, especially issues like abortion, which are in fact intensely personal matters.  

That is why I oppose legislation that restricts access to abortion.  

If we want to reduce everything to bare facts, they are these: the child in the womb is indeed a 'living, breathing' human being.  He or She is 'breathing' through their blood with the exchange of oxygen molecules made possible by the placenta.  Oxygen is absolutely necessary to his or her life just as with a born person.  The unborn child also breathes in the fluid surrounding it into its lungs as practice for birth when the babe will have to start supplying its own oxygen from the air around it, instead of the exchange of gasses in the blood.

Actually, you stated things more accurately earlier, by noting the "human life begins at conception."  I actually agree with that, even though there is not universal agreement even over when "conception" can be said to occur.  But I do not agree that "human life" necessarily equates to "human being," and I have plenty of company on that score.  The latter is a far more complex term, that implies "humanity" and "personhood," and the question over when that occurs in the development of an embryo or fetus or even a neonate of infant or child remains up in the air.  In fact, it is that question upon which many conflicting views about abortion spin.  

The very fact that knowledgeable, intelligent, educated, decent, religious, thinking people of good will can not agree on that point tells us something:  It is a very individual matter. As such, and given the diversity of views on the question, it is my belief our government should step out of the debate and leave the question to individual conscience, which will direct individual decisions as to abortion and childbearing.

By the way, your reference to fetal "breathing" is misleading.  As long as the fetus remains in the uterus it draws all its oxygen -- an absolute necessity for survival -- from the umbilical cord attached to the placenta, which is attached to the mother.   

It is living because it is growing quickly through the cells that divide and rapidly reproduce.  In a mere nine months it develops from a tiny embryo to the newborn too big to reside any longer in its mother's body.

Therefore, since it is a human being by virtue of its DNA/chromosomes, and a living being, by virtue of its cell division, need for nutrients, and use of oxygen, why should it be discriminated against solely by where it happens to be residing.

You just keep making the same assertions wrapped in different words.  And your use of the phrase "discriminated against" in reference to a fetus sheds far more heat than light on the discussion.  In order to be "discriminated against" and have "rights" a fetus would have to be a human person.  That is just common sense, and even ant-abortionists recognize its truth by pushing for legislation like the bill in question here.  The problem is, the question of "personhood" is a philosophical one that is a matter of individual view, belief and faith, and the answers are diverse.  It is not a question that yields to empirical proof -- as we see every time the discussion arises.  People can and do look at the same set of verifiable facts and come up with diverse conclusions as to what they mean.

You see here, you are fully entitled to draw your own conclusions, and to air them.  I will support and defend your fundamental right to do that to my own death.  

As a freedom lover, though, I also will vigorously oppose your efforts to impose, by government force, your beliefs or conclusions on others who do not share them.      

You haven't answered any of the points I raised except by excusing them away with their being 'semantic' or 'sweeping' or 'unsupported.'  Where is the proof?  Where are the facts to support your arguments?  I find your arguments very weak and not based at all in fact.

That is because the points you raise tend to be "sweeping," as if they were the only facts or truths of the matter.  I have pointed out The arguments you make typically spin around the definition and meaning of words, which is, by definition, an exercise in semantics.  Of course, as explained above, that is the whole nut of the argument in the first place -- how we view the fetus, or as you would have it, child or baby -- in the womb as to its personhood and entitlement to rights.

You would give the preborn humanity to a certain degree, but supercede the child's right to life totally to the mother based solely on the fact that the babe is dependent on her for nine months.

What you constantly overlook is that the child, in this situation, has NO right to speak for itself, and you would deny us the right to defend it.  The adults you mention above in end of life situation still have the ability to choose for themselves.  The unborn doesn't.

I don't really know what to make of your argumentative assertions about my position.

You state that when I am on advanced life support, I have the ability to express my end of life wishes?  Do you really believe that?  There I lie, unable to breathe on my own, unconscious, with little to no detectable activity in the intellectual centers of my brain, and you tell me that from such a position I can direct my fate?  I'm going to be polite and simply say that such an assertion is preposterous.  I am completely at the mercy of the people around me, and I must totally rely upon their good will and integrity in carrying out the instructions I crafted in advance.   The last thing that I want, or that is right is to have the Michigan Legislature or any other government entity interfere with executing my wishes, which I have expressed in advance, in anticipation of such a dreadful event.  

You are correct that the unborn (fetus or baby -- take your choice) never has an opportunity to articulate its desire in this regard.  That is because it cannot.  It has no free will, and is totally dependent upon its mother and other mature humans around it for survival.  Some, because of profoundly damaged brains, never will be able to make their own decisions, on anything even after birth.  And so, it falls to the parent to make those decisions, including the life or death ones.  You may not agree with a particular parental decision, but it is beyond the scope of your authority and responsibility to overrule it, it at this point.  Anti-abortionists seek to change that situation, and dictate by government force intensely personal decisions by others, that derive from individual personal beliefs that rightly belong to those others. 

A 'woman's right to choose' needs to be finished with the addition of 'death for her child'.  Surely, a woman who finds herself in this situation can choose help for both herself and her child.  There are tons of resources for her to go to for this help, but the baby has none.

I don't agree with you on that either, but have it your way as you wish.  To be fair though, you should note that advocates of choice do specify either life or death.  They advocate for preservation of the right to make a choice.

As they say, if you don't approve of abortion don't have one, but don't interfere with others' right to make their own choices.   

By the way, I know many many people who advocate for individual choice, but none who advocate abortion.  And certainly none who applaud fetal death.  

A pregnancy lasts only nine months, but death is forever.  What a horrible choice to force on another human being who has absolutely no way to defend him/herself.

More inflammatory rhetoric that resolves nothing.  This is just another way of making your impassioned argument without really supporting it. 

As Mother Theresa once said: it is true poverty to decide that another must die for me to live as I wish.  (or something like that; I forget the exact words but that's the gist of it.)

Mother Theresa was a remarkable and wonderful and generous person. I think that is a wonderful thought.  Perhaps you should use it when you counsel women who are contemplating abortions.  Do you think it will give them great comfort as they wrestle with their very personal dilemma of conscience?    

 how is it that you can rally for your RIGHT TO BREATHE CLEAN AIR over the RIGHT OF A PROPERTY OWNER TO ALLOW SMOKING IN HIS ESTABLISHMENT, but refuse to believe that an unborn human being has the RIGHT TO LIFE?

when did YOUR right to life start?

does YOUR right to life extend beyond the point that you need to be put on a respirator and other advanced life support methods?

according to you, it doesn't.

you are too frail, to weak, and too feeble to make decisions for yourself. you may be comatose, in which case, like that child in the womb, receiving all it's support from someone else, unable to make those decisions for yourself.

you, like that unborn child, have to rely on the morals and values of those around you. and you, like that innocent life in the womb, must live or die with the consequences.

by the way, if your spouse disagrees with your 'expressed wishes', and continues to pay the bills, you will be kept on life support for as long as she wishes, no matter what your wishes were.  no hospital wants to get in between an ASSISTED SUICIDE LAWYER and a grieving spouse.

now, as an invalid who has lived a long and hopefully happy life, you may wish to fritter away what's left of your life and call it a 'QUALITY OF LIFE' issue and a personal choice.

now, please tell us why we should stand silently while a mother takes away the life of an otherwise perfectly healthy baby at the beginning of their life? you have every opportunity to speak for yourself, that innocent child has no such opportunity.

you wouldn't like it if we TOOK THAT OPPORTUNITY AWAY, and just decided arbitrarily that, as soon as your butt hits the ventilator, that your life is forfiet, as you are no longer a 'person' while in a coma, now would you?

 oh, by the way... can you say that you believe that a woman has the right to CHOOSE to kill her child?

crazycajun:

 how is it that you can rally for your RIGHT TO BREATHE CLEAN AIR over the RIGHT OF A PROPERTY OWNER TO ALLOW SMOKING IN HIS ESTABLISHMENT, but refuse to believe that an unborn human being has the RIGHT TO LIFE?

Equating a woman's body with a piece of real estate is archaic, offensive and outright preposterous.  

when did YOUR right to life start?

That is a very good question.  I believe it probably started when I emerged from the womb fully formed with a sound heartbeat and capable of breathing on my own after the traditional slap on the backside to get me going.  But other people may and probably do differ.  That is their prerogative.  They should not try to force their beliefs on others.  Get it? 

does YOUR right to life extend beyond the point that you need to be put on a respirator and other advanced life support methods?

according to you, it doesn't.

I have said no such thing.  I do know that my wishes are reflected in my living will, which contains end-of-life instructions to those who those who will assume the right and responsibility to make my end of life decisions should I become profoundly disabled.  I trust they will follow my instructions and will not be interfered with by thuggish government in so doing.

you are too frail, to weak, and too feeble to make decisions for yourself. you may be comatose, in which case, like that child in the womb, receiving all it's support from someone else, unable to make those decisions for yourself.

Actually, I am not too frail, etc., to make my own decisions.  Else I would not be sitting at a computer wasting time on silly junk like this.  I've chosen that course. 

Beyond that, what is your point?  I've covered end of life instructions in my written instructions, which were prepared anticipating that maybe one day I might be profoundly incapacitated.  No fetus I've ever heard about has the capacity to so control or influence its own destiny.

you, like that unborn child, have to rely on the morals and values of those around you. and you, like that innocent life in the womb, must live or die with the consequences.

Precisely.  I do not want the government barging in, dictating what is or isn't "moral" or what "values" my family and I must hold and making our decisions for us.  It is both our right and and responsibility to make our own choices. 

by the way, if your spouse disagrees with your 'expressed wishes', and continues to pay the bills, you will be kept on life support for as long as she wishes, no matter what your wishes were.

That is about 180 degrees off the way my lawyer has explained the situation.  It also is why my physicians, and a few trusted other people have been provided copies of my legal directive.

Quite frankly I will rely on my lawyer, who is a competent practitioner, for legal advice, rather that some internet guy who posts to a forum like this under a pseudonym, and who I know from experience quite often -- as in this case -- plays fast and loose with facts.

now, please tell us why we should stand silently while a mother takes away the life of an otherwise perfectly healthy baby at the beginning of their life? you have every opportunity to speak for yourself, that innocent child has no such opportunity.

What you describe is infanticide, and as you describe it infanticide is recognized as immoral and illegal almost universally in America these days.  It is not the same thing as abortion, which is the termination of a pregnancy.  

you wouldn't like it if we TOOK THAT OPPORTUNITY AWAY, and just decided arbitrarily that, as soon as your butt hits the ventilator, that your life is forfiet, as you are no longer a 'person' while in a coma, now would you?

First of all, no ventilator will be attached to my butt, since that is not where I breathe from or through.  Is that where you draw your breath?

Beyond that, you make it clear you think the government should nullify end of life directives and not permit people to make those decisions for themselves. That is another point upon which we disagree.    

 please describe the difference between partial birth abortion, where the child is PARTIALLY removed from the birth canal and killed, and infanticide, where the child is FULLY removed from the birth canal and killed.

please tell us what magic happens in those few inches that makes one acceptable, and the other murder.

 by the way, IF that 'person' in the womb COULD talk, as you can, what do you suppose HIS request would be about HIS end of life?

YOU get to make that choice. the child doesn't. should we leave YOUR end of life choices up to your mother, and hope she loves you enough to respect you as a person?

I left my life up to my mother. Matter of fact, so did everyone else. That's the point. She has the choice.

 did she KEEP that choice throughout her entire life?

in other words, CAN SHE STILL KILL YOU IF SHE WANTS TO ????

you dems treat DOGS better than you treat babys in the womb. there is a NO KILL SHELTER you guys are raising money for on the blogs.

are DOGS more important than babies????

don't answer that, we already know what the answer is...

I didn't intend to answer that.

I'm intrique by your method of discussion, asking questions that answering would sink the discussion further to your level of reasoning. Kind of weird.

 i am appalled by your apparent lack of regard for human life.

but you are a citizen of this nation just as i am. and as such, entitled to your opinion.

i am of the opinion that killing innocent people is wrong. you are not.

i am of the opinion that babies in the womb are little people. you are not.

if a baby in the womb is 'born' early, they can and do survive to become 'big people'.

i recognize the rights of that little person. you do not.

nothing in our law says you have the right to choose to do the wrong thing and get away with it.

so, it seems that you are in an untenable position of your own making.