Social and Civil Liberty Issues

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 147 (Ban partial birth abortion )

FreeSpeaker — Sun, 31 May 2009 23:58:47 GMT

mytwocents:

Well said Freespeaker,

You have articulately stated the bottom line.

Thank you.

But for clarification:

The bottom line on this bill being introduced in the Michigan Legislature is that it serves no useful purpose, for reasons stated above. I.e., federal law already bans the performance of so-called partial birth abortions in a statute upheld by the US Supreme Court. The only thing introducing such a bill in Michigan accomplishes is to create divisiveness and foster hatred. It is propaganda.

The bottom line on abortion in general is that it is legal in the United States, and has been so in accord with US Supreme Court decisions for 36 years. It is time for the anti-women’s-rights (anti-abortion) faction to accept this fact and work toward keeping abortion safe and making it rare by promoting and striving for social rather than legislative change.

As for propaganda …

It certainly does seem to work. Today’s news carries accounts of the murder of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas, as he entered his church to attend religious worship services. Tiller was well known as a doctor who performs late-term abortions, which anti-abortion factions aggressively characterize as “murder” in their propaganda campaigns. They have characterized Tiller as a “mass murderer.”

News accounts of Tiller’s murder describe Dr. Tiller as “a favored target of anti-abortion protesters.” His Wichita clinic has been the site of anti-abortion demonstrations, the clinic was bombed in 1985, he was shot in both arms by an anti-abortion terrorist in 1993.

Tiller’s slaying is unquestionably murder, the deliberate slaying of a viable, adult human being. It can be said, with more than fair certainty, that he is a victim of propaganda that turned him into a despicable subhuman object in the eyes of his slayer.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 147 (Ban partial birth abortion )

mytwocents — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:11:14 GMT

Well said Freespeaker,

You have articulately stated the bottom line.

However, for me personally, partial birth abortion has become an issue for the reason that so many people support abortion promoters (and yes, not only are there people who are simply pro-choice, but people that take a step further to make some more money in their own ludicrous and lucritive business), unwittingly. My co-workers and neighbors are so ignorant of the procedures and motives behind the agenda. When they hear of it, they deny that partial birth abortions really take place. It is such a horrific thing, that they would not support it, and do not want to believe it actually happens. When these same people are presented with the facts, they shrug their shoulders, seeming not to be able to figure it out. They continue supporting "pro-choice" activists and keep their stance, turning a knowing and blind eye. I find it dispiccable. How can their opinion even be respected? They continue to support the very thing that they themselves find horrific. Why? Because if it is legal than it must be o.k? good? right? I am hoping that people will look deeper into this issue and be able to take a stance based on their own thoughts, and not what they heard someone say on TV.

Partial Birth abortion is one procedure that when exposed to enough people, hopefully, some of them may start thinking on their own. I am afraid that these people are fed lines from pro-choice activists, and embrace them, not knowing how far this agenda has gone. I hope that hey will see how far, and be able to say for themselves... STOP! At least to this one act.

Yes, there are other gruesome procedures. In the future, politically speaking, there may be a specific gestation time established that when reached, must allow the baby to grow until term. The mother could be provided with support and helped with finding parents who would adopt.

To me, getting people to THINK, is hopeful. Propaganda is so powerful. There is so so much of it out there. "The poor poor women need to be able to kill their baby in order to have a life" "they need that choice"...it is bologna, but it is believed by the masses.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 147 (Ban partial birth abortion )

FreeSpeaker — Thu, 28 May 2009 16:01:53 GMT

Fact is, this bill is unneeded in Michigan, because federal law, upheld by a US Supreme Court decision already bans the performance of so-called partial birth abortions.

The federal law will not save the life of any late term fetus that becomes a candidate for abortion, however. (Nor would any Michigan law that could pass Constitutional muster.) That is because equally gruesome procedures in which the fetus is killed in the womb, then dismembered and removed piece-by-piece remain perfectly legal. All the ban has done is limit women’s choices of medical procedures that may be used to best serve their needs and interests.

Which really does make partial birth abortion a non-issue, if you think about it rationally at all. It is just a political wedge that serves only to create divisiveness.

There are several rants above in this thread, aimed less against partial birth abortion than they are against abortion in general. A recurring premise – both articulated and unstated – is that a fetus, or even a fertilized egg, zygote or embryo is a “person” entitled to all the rights of a real person as traditionally recognized in our society. Upon this hinges the argument that abortion is murder, and so cannot be legal at any stage of pregnancy.

The problem, and the controversy over abortion actually whirls around that premise, which is far from universally accepted as true. It is a fact that considerable diversity of opinion or philosophical-religious view exists within our society as to when “personhood,” and thus the protection of ordinary human rights begins.

Further, there is no existing way to test or prove conclusively and objectively when personhood truly begins in the course of a pregnancy. In the end, that determination becomes a matter of personal opinion. That is what makes abortion such an intractable issue to deal with politically.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 147 (Ban partial birth abortion )

christopher21 — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:10:45 GMT

“partial birth abortions”.....suck this is the worst thing one can ever do.

christ.

Find Lawyer

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 147 (Ban partial birth abortion )

mytwocents — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:19:34 GMT

You are right, Gypsy. My strongly held views definitely get in the way of listening unbiasedly to the facts. I am SO disheartened by what our society has come to accept as o.k. I don't agree with it and don't really know what to do. I am trying to find my voice, and have a LOT of work to do when it comes to debating any issue. I am just plain lousy at it. I have a very strong belief system. I do believe that there is a "right" that applies to everyone, and a "wrong" as well. It is wrong to kill a human being. Even in war, I could not kill the enemy on the battlefield. It is wrong for a bully to push a crippled child (or any child) and then laugh at how they fall. Some things are just wrong. I cannot understand how a woman feels that she has the right to kill a human life, inside or out of her body.

I understand your point about it being the court's interpretation of our constitutional right to choose. But what about our constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The woman and the child inside of her: two brains, two seperate heartbeats, two complete and completely different sets of DNA...two very different people who should BOTH have that right.

The court ruled the way it did because this case was presented. Norma Mccorvey had no motives. Her lawyers did.

We have no idea of what bright, genius individuals who should have had the right to be here; are not...because of this case.

I live in a country where a baby that is born, that was supposed to be aborted, but somehow survived, is left to die. Because the woman wanted it to die, nobody touches it. Even though procedures and instruments are at hand to save the life, it is left to expire. It is treated as a diseased animal, though it is one of our own. I cannot grasp how anyone could think this is o.k. The land of the free...and barbaric.

I have lived my life so far away from politics. It is another language to me. I feel unqualified to discuss this issue with you. I am reading more and trying to learn this language (of politics) so that I can communicate effectively.

Take care.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 147 (Ban partial birth abortion )

gypsy — Sun, 17 May 2009 14:02:50 GMT

You would do well to take your own advice. You are using Norma McCorvey's motives, which may have been different at the time she brought this to court, only she knows, as reason enough to deny the courts ruling that women have a constitutional right to privacy. You fail to see, because of your strongly held views against abortion, that Norma McCorvey is not the issue, no matter her motives. The issue is the courts interpretation of our constitution as it applies to all women.

Whether women who make the decision to abort suffer is irrelevant to their right to make that choice. We all must live with the results of our decisions. Because a decision may be regretted is not enough reason to take the right to make it away. Freedom is being able to make bad, as well as good decisions.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 147 (Ban partial birth abortion )

mytwocents — Sat, 16 May 2009 15:00:30 GMT

So you don't think that the fact that Norma Mccorvey was not seeking an abortion, nor the right to choose an abortion has any bearing on this case? She was presented by two adult lawyers seeking this FOR their own motives. This case had nothing to do with Norma, yet she was the sole reason that this case was ever presented to the court! I have no respect for the side that brought her into this. They should have found a legitimate case. A woman who was actually seeking what was being fought for. The point is that Norma Mccorvey was not seeking this for herself nor for any other woman in the country. The lawyers sought her out and used her for theri own purpose, regardless of what she wanted.

This case has had a huge impact in our country and finding out the truth about what it was really based on is a responsible thing to do for anyone who has interest in this kind of legislation. When you listen to the news...do you just believe what you are being fed?? Or do you look into it a bit to see what was really going on?

The lie that I am referring to is that she would have wanted this for herself. This case was based on her situation, her poor, her not being able to abort and wanting to. Her wanting to have the right to choose...like many other women. Many young women would tell that they wished they did not have that right. Especially after living with their regretful decision for years. Because of the opition this case ensured, they chose to abort, and now they suffer. There is more suffering in women that have chose to abort than I am sure you have taken the time to imagine. Everything that was fought for in this case, was nothing that Norma Mccorvey wanted. and this right to choose is for the women. It detrimental to them, to us and our society.

Research, and then think about what you have found, instead of only how you can support your opinion. And then think about the meaning of someone else's input.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 147 (Ban partial birth abortion )

gypsy — Sat, 16 May 2009 13:45:40 GMT

mytwocents:
By the way, does anyone realize that Roe vs. Wade was based on a lie? Norma Mccorvey is the real name of the woman represented as "Jane Roe". She is a pro-life activist who was too young to know what two female attorneys were using her for in this case. She was NOT seeking an abortion during this case. She was working with an adoption lawyer who presented her to two female attorneys searching for a "vessel" with which to bring this case. Strange that they could not find a legitimate one. Norma had her two baby boys adopted, with no intention of abortion. She regrets the role she played and the disrespect for life it has brought to our country. Please read her story.

In the spirit of your suggestion that people search for the truth, I offer these facts.The Supreme Court decision Roe vs Wade was not based on a lie. It was decided based on the 9th amendment to the constitution. The lie you refer to was Norma McCorvey's lie about how she became pregnant. She claimed to be raped by three men and a woman, in an attempt to get an abortion. She later admitted she had become pregnant by her boyfriend. This had no bearing on the court case, and was not argued as a critical point by her attorneys. My research also shows she had her baby, during the court proceedings, a girl, and put her up for adoption.

She has had a couple of religious experiences sense her days as Roe. She become a born again Christian, and more recently a Catholic. She also lived for many years with her same sex partner in Texas, and has become a voice for the pro-life movement.

These developments in her life have no bearing whatsoever on the Supreme Court decision, and for either side of the abortion issue to seek some sort of justification for their position by dissecting Ms. McCorvey's life is disingeniuous. Roe vs. Wade articulated the constitutional right of privacy for a woman, and has stood the test of time for 36 years, through both right and left leaning Supreme Courts.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 147 (Ban partial birth abortion )

mytwocents — Sat, 16 May 2009 03:03:27 GMT

There are many women who choose abortion because it is a legal option. The fact that it is legal does make a huge impact on the number of lives affected. I do understand what you are saying, but sadly, not enough people have that kind of sense.

We have the same values here. I wish that what you've stated would be taught in the homes. The sad truth is that not everyone believes this way, and they simply will not teach their children the way we would our own. But maybe their children will listen to us.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 147 (Ban partial birth abortion )

MichL1 — Sat, 16 May 2009 01:55:02 GMT

mytwocents:

Well said Sane Michigander,

Shall we explore our options? How can we reduce the number of abortions?

By parents teaching their daughters that their value does not lie in being merely decorative, that intercourse doesn't equal love, that any boy who requires intercourse to stick around isn't worth your time. By parents teaching their sons that sleeping with someone doesn't make you a man, that a real man protects and values the women in his life, that having a man's body doesn't make you a man in fact.

Until PARENTS teach that to their children (no abdicating to the schools to do your job) the number of abortions will not decrease.

BTW -- Women were having abortions long before Roe vs Wade and they will continue to have them if Roe vs Wade is ever overturned. Debating over whether abortion should be legal is like debating whether the fire started in the living room or the dining room. Either way, it's too late and your house is ashes. Both sides should be coming together on the prevention end of things.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 147 (Ban partial birth abortion )

mytwocents — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:54:19 GMT

Well said Sane Michigander,

Shall we explore our options? How can we reduce the number of abortions?

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 147 (Ban partial birth abortion )

mytwocents — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:40:58 GMT

I am surprised that no one brings up the issue of how the mentality that it is o.k. to NOT want your child affects our society as a whole.

Giving a woman the right to choose was supposed to limit births to the babies who would be wanted and loved. Does anyone find it strange that child abuse is increasing at a rapid pace in our society?

Performing an abortion at such a late stage has nothing to do with saving anyone's life. This procedure actually puts the mother more at risk. If the mother's health was compramised and an abortion was necessary to save her life, the doctor would perform a "c-section". Anyone who says this procedure is performed when the mother's health is compramised, is ignorant and at loss for any legitimate reason.

Let's face it; the majority of abortions, at any stage, are the result of the woman choosing convenience over the responsibility to care for the human life inside of her. Convenience; hardly substantial. A normal pregnancy is 9 months of a woman's life. Nine months dedicated to caring for another individual. It is difficult and it is a sacrifice and it is rewarding and satisfying. When a woman chooses to terminate the life (at whatever the stage) in her womb, she will grieve. At some point she will grieve. For herself, and for the life that she ended. Post traumatic stress from an abortion happens in 91% of women who've made that choice (this is an estimate that you can debate if you really have nothing better to say). It is something that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

If we all would step back and look at the whole picture, any woman is better off carrying her child to term. The woman who chooses to abort a healthy fetus will suffer more for the rest of her life than she would have through that difficult nine months.

The sad thing is that instead of people rallying to support these pregnant women until their child can be born, and given to parents (adoption) who cannot wait to love and care for a child, the people choose to encourage abortion. Why not fight to make adoptions easier? I have heard so many people say that they are pro choice because they believe that every child should be wanted and loved. How ignorant. Do they have any idea how many couples cannot concieve and would be ecstatic to be able to adopt? Giving these "unwanted" babies to one of these couples would result in a child being wanted and loved. It is obvious that abortions have not led to to children being wanted and loved by looking at the growing child abuse rate.

And abortion clinics are raking in the dough. It is a killing business. People don't realize the number of women who are cohersed into making this decision.

I wish people would step back and look at the whole picture.

I am a single mother of five children. I considered having an abortion during my fifth pregnancy. I only considered it because it was an option that society had given me. I am glad that I made the right decision; to keep my baby. This is not just the right decision for me, but for anyone who faces this choice. I cannot imagine the pain I would experience every day had I chose to abort. Shame on the society that has fought to provide such an option. These people have no idea of the consequences that the women who choose to abort, suffer every day. It could have been a nine month struggle, but for there new found "right to choose" (since Roe vs, Wade) it is a life long anguish.

By the way, does anyone realize that Roe vs. Wade was based on a lie? Norma Mccorvey is the real name of the woman represented as "Jane Roe". She is a pro-life activist who was too young to know what two female attorneys were using her for in this case. She was NOT seeking an abortion during this case. She was working with an adoption lawyer who presented her to two female attorneys searching for a "vessel" with which to bring this case. Strange that they could not find a legitimate one. Norma had her two baby boys adopted, with no intention of abortion. She regrets the role she played and the disrespect for life it has brought to our country. Please read her story.

Anyone who refers to this case in order to justify the "right to choose" should be regarded as ignorant of the facts. These are people who obviously have not made the effort to find the truth. It is difficult to debate the issue with those who do not think for themselves, nor search for the truth, but rather agree with the trend. It is easy to be close minded with such little education. Information is at the fingertips of almost every American, and I do wish that people would start taking responsibility for their opinion by having enough education to back it up.

When it comes to the abortion issue, I do believe that there is more than one motive. It really is not just about the poor female who should have the right to choose. If it were, she would be supported, and not just coralled to the factory. C'mon folks...THINK.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 147 (Ban partial birth abortion )

crazycajun — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 03:11:29 GMT

we've also learned much from those on the left. keep chipping away at the target, a little bit at a time.

the 'frustration' you feel over YOUR abortion 'rights' being taken away is the same 'frustration' we feel every time the left introduces a new (innefective) gun law.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 147 (Ban partial birth abortion )

crazycajun — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 03:07:14 GMT

it IS the only thing they DON'T want to do FOR THE CHILDREN.

you can't even FORCE them to stop doing it.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 147 (Ban partial birth abortion )

Michpatriot — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:12:30 GMT

Just do it for the children.

I've noticed that the only people that are for abortion weren't aborted.

Typical lib outlook, as long as I am okay let them kill the babies...Disgusting.

Lock & Load