Would the Democrats move on abortion?

[BH]

I live about 50 miles south of Dallas, TX.

Where I live is very much Republican country. I often vote Democrat more than I do Republican and believe it or not most of the Republicans around here do not mind there being a safety net for the poor, a lot think Iraq a mistake and perhaps the military does get too much of the Federal budget. . Many understand the arguments against the death penalty too and while wanting it to continue would not loose too much sleep if it was ended if it was done so becuse too many people on death row are later shown to be innocent. They also know in many ways that their economic interests are probably represented by the Democrats and they have admitted it so.

But the thing that gets them is abortion. They just cannot stand the idea of an innocent baby being killed. I wonder how many of these Republicans would go back to the Democratic Party if the Democrats were more Pro-life? The question is would the Democratic Party do it if so and should it?

 

[bilby]

I doubt that they would, and they most certainly shouldn't.

 

[none]

Tell them no human being has the right to be tethered to another human being against their will

 

[skepticalbip]

I think that both parties have taken extremist stands. I think that the overwhelming majority of both Dem and Rep members would accept a system of graduated controls where during the first trimester the choice was up to the woman but during the third trimester there would be need to be a show danger to the mother or gross deformity of the child.

Of course there will always be the extremes on one end declaring that "life begins at conception" and on the other end declaring that a woman has the right to decide the day of delivery that they want an abortion.

 

[bilby]

I think that both parties have taken extremist stands. I think that the overwhelming majority of both Dem and Rep members would accept a system of graduated controls where during the first trimester the choice was up to the woman but during the third trimester there would be need to be a show danger to the mother or gross deformity of the child.

Of course there will always be the extremes on one end declaring that "life begins at conception" and on the other end declaring that a woman has the right to decide the day of delivery that they want an abortion.

I am sure that there must be some extremists who declare that a woman has the right to decide the day of delivery that they want an abortion; But I have yet to meet one.

"Life begins at conception" extremists, on the other hand, are two a penny.

Your dichotomy appears to be distinctly unbalanced. But I agree that a compromise should be acceptable to a majority on both sides. Most pro-choice people I have met basically are already at the stage you describe, and are just waiting for the pro-life camp to budge one nanometer from their absolute extreme point on the spectrum.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think that both parties have taken extremist stands. I think that the overwhelming majority of both Dem and Rep members would accept a system of graduated controls where during the first trimester the choice was up to the woman but during the third trimester there would be need to be a show danger to the mother or gross deformity of the child.

Of course there will always be the extremes on one end declaring that "life begins at conception" and on the other end declaring that a woman has the right to decide the day of delivery that they want an abortion.

I am sure that there must be some extremists who declare that a woman has the right to decide the day of delivery that they want an abortion; But I have yet to meet one.

"Life begins at conception" extremists, on the other hand, are two a penny.

Your dichotomy appears to be distinctly unbalanced. But I agree that a compromise should be acceptable to a majority on both sides. Most pro-choice people I have met basically are already at the stage you describe, and are just waiting for the pro-life camp to budge one nanometer from their absolute extreme point on the spectrum.

Granted there are many more nuts on the "life begins at conception" end but there are certainly nuts on the other end too.

http://liveactionnews.org/there-is-no-federal-law-protecting-the-preborn-from-abortion-at-any-time/

While some states have restrictions on abortion, all states permit abortion into the ninth month for certain exceptions— and eight states allow abortion until birth for any reason (Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington State).

The reason those eight states have abortion until birth for any reason is because of pressure from activists groups that demanded it. The official Democrat party position supports them, while Republican party supports the other extreme. I hate to bring Trump in but this was what one of his comments during the third debate was about which Clinton refused to respond to.

 

[blastula]

She didn't respond?

WALLACE: I'm going to give you a chance to respond, but I want to ask you, Secretary Clinton, I want to explore how far you believe the right to abortion goes. You have been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late*term, partial*birth abortions. Why?
CLINTON: Because Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case. The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who toward the end of their pregnancy get the worst news one could get, that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account.
WALLACE: Mr. Trump, your reaction? And particularly on this issue of late*term, partial*birth abortions.
TRUMP: Well, Ithink it's terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that's OK and Hillary can say that that's OK. But it's not OK with me, because based on what she's saying, and based on where she's going, and where she's been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day. And that's not acceptable.
CLINTON: Well, that is not what happens in these cases. And using that kind of scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate. You should meet with some of the women that I have met with, women I have known over the course of my life. This is one of the worst possible choices that any woman and her family has to make. And I do not believe the government should be making it. You know, I've had the great honor of traveling across the world on behalf of our country. I've been to countries where governments either forced women to have abortions, like they used to do in China, or forced women to bear children, like the used to do in Romania. And I can tell you: The government has no business in the decisions that women make with their families in accordance with their faith, with medical advice. And I will stand up for that right.

 

[BH]

I have to admit I have a problem with being able to abort a baby a day before its due date, no extreme factors involved like it may kill the mother to deliver or have a c-section because her health is very bad for some reason.

Farrell Till, when he was alive, posted over at SKeptical Review Online why he didn't think a fetus the first few weeks or month was a human being despite material that was still alive. It went along with the argument that the "baby" or fetus up to a certain point could split into two babies and then reform back into one with in a certain time. The "baby" could also die and be reabsorbed into the body of the mother which it could not do at a later date. And it wasn't simply size of the fetus either. Someway somehow the fetus at an early stage chemically could be broken down by the mother but later could not. The fetal body is formed in such a way ealry on where these chemicals will dissolve its body if it dies but later its chemistry changes where it can't be dissolved. It's been a while since I read his article and may be confusing things.

Also, a fetus does not even have a brain capable of developing or having rational thought until so much time after conception. Up till this point it seems similar to me to being a person born but is brain dead. They are alive but have no mind. A hospital life support keeps a person alive in the case of being someone who has been born but is brain dead and the mother's body is kinda like a life support machine for a fetus with a still nondeveloped brain or undeveloped brain capable of actual thought. If it is okay to pull lifesupport on someone brain dead and it is not murder of a human being why is it murder to abort a fetus that has no functioning brain developed or is so underdeveloped it cannot think or have a personality.

I can see where the first month or so could arguable be iffy that we are dealing with a human being in the fullest sense of the word instead of just growing tissue but if you are developed enough to be able to survive outside the womb then it is a different matter in my opinion.

I personally would not want an abortion no matter what time of fetal development but that is just me and my gut feelings. I can't say I am being completely rational and admit I just do not have all the answers I wished I had on the subject. It humbles me.

 

[skepticalbip]

She didn't respond?

No she didn't respond to the Democrat party position of defending the right of the mother to decide for any reason to have an abortion up to the point of giving birth. She made an emotional appeal by referring to tragic situations that all states already recognize as valid reasons for late term abortion.

 

[Valjean]

I live about 50 miles south of Dallas, TX.
But the thing that gets them is abortion. They just cannot stand the idea of an innocent baby being killed. I wonder how many of these Republicans would go back to the Democratic Party if the Democrats were more Pro-life? The question is would the Democratic Party do it if so and should it?

I can appreciate a strong moral stand, but the pro life crowd always struck me as more motivated by conventionalism than true respect for life.
They often oppose sex ed and accessible contraception. They usually support the death penalty, and they passionately support the military. I doubt if many of them are vegetarians.

 

[credoconsolans]

She didn't respond?

No she didn't respond to the Democrat party position of defending the right of the mother to decide for any reason to have an abortion up to the point of giving birth. She made an emotional appeal by referring to tragic situations that all states already recognize as valid reasons for late term abortion.

But the argument is mostly unreal. The critics hang their arguments on a situation that almost never exists.

Next to no women have an 'abortion' at 9 months. They are too close to delivery and it is safer for them to go ahead and deliver.

If you're saying that at the point the woman wants the doctor to kill the baby once it's born, then you're dealing with an entirely different matter.

Even women who want their babies, if the baby dies in the womb late in the pregnancy, most doctors recommend them carrying it to term anyway and delivering.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[credoconsolans]

I have to admit I have a problem with being able to abort a baby a day before its due date, no extreme factors involved like it may kill the mother to deliver or have a c-section because her health is very bad for some reason.

Farrell Till, when he was alive, posted over at SKeptical Review Online why he didn't think a fetus the first few weeks or month was a human being despite material that was still alive. It went along with the argument that the "baby" or fetus up to a certain point could split into two babies and then reform back into one with in a certain time. The "baby" could also die and be reabsorbed into the body of the mother which it could not do at a later date. And it wasn't simply size of the fetus either. Someway somehow the fetus at an early stage chemically could be broken down by the mother but later could not. The fetal body is formed in such a way ealry on where these chemicals will dissolve its body if it dies but later its chemistry changes where it can't be dissolved. It's been a while since I read his article and may be confusing things.

Also, a fetus does not even have a brain capable of developing or having rational thought until so much time after conception. Up till this point it seems similar to me to being a person born but is brain dead. They are alive but have no mind. A hospital life support keeps a person alive in the case of being someone who has been born but is brain dead and the mother's body is kinda like a life support machine for a fetus with a still nondeveloped brain or undeveloped brain capable of actual thought. If it is okay to pull lifesupport on someone brain dead and it is not murder of a human being why is it murder to abort a fetus that has no functioning brain developed or is so underdeveloped it cannot think or have a personality.

I can see where the first month or so could arguable be iffy that we are dealing with a human being in the fullest sense of the word instead of just growing tissue but if you are developed enough to be able to survive outside the womb then it is a different matter in my opinion.

I personally would not want an abortion no matter what time of fetal development but that is just me and my gut feelings. I can't say I am being completely rational and admit I just do not have all the answers I wished I had on the subject. It humbles me.

Why do we pull the plug on brain dead bodies? Because it's the brain and not the body that makes that body a person. And most everyone understands that. This is why it's legal.

Anti-choice people are mostly perfectly OK with this.

Only with babies, they get blinded by sentimentality even when the situation with fetuses is exactly the same. The part of the brain that holds the 'person' isn't developed until very late in the pregnancy. Up until then, it's no different than a brain-dead body.

 

[skepticalbip]

No she didn't respond to the Democrat party position of defending the right of the mother to decide for any reason to have an abortion up to the point of giving birth. She made an emotional appeal by referring to tragic situations that all states already recognize as valid reasons for late term abortion.

But the argument is mostly unreal. The critics hang their arguments on a situation that almost never exists.

Next to no women have an 'abortion' at 9 months. They are too close to delivery and it is safer for them to go ahead and deliver.

If you're saying that at the point the woman wants the doctor to kill the baby once it's born, then you're dealing with an entirely different matter.

Even women who want their babies, if the baby dies in the womb late in the pregnancy, most doctors recommend them carrying it to term anyway and delivering.

- - - Updated - - -

Granted it is rare (maybe not as rare as you assume though) but are you saying that all states should be required to allow abortions for any reason up until the time of birth? That is what the argument is about.

That is what the activists are demanding. That is what the activists have accomplished in eight states. The Democrat party policy supports these activists.

 

[PyramidHead]

The part of the brain that holds the 'person' isn't developed until very late in the pregnancy. Up until then, it's no different than a brain-dead body.

I would contest this point and say that the 'person' doesn't develop until a considerable time after birth. There is nothing morally problematic, to me anyway, about ending the life of an entity with less interest in its continued existence than a rabbit or a dog. The only way to make it problematic is to insist that there's something morally special about being a member of our species, which I reject. The fact is simply that nobody is harmed by abortion or even early infanticide if anesthesia is used. Actual persons are harmed when a baby is brought to term against the wishes of its mother--not least of all (perhaps most), the person the baby will become.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I live about 50 miles south of Dallas, TX.

Where I live is very much Republican country. I often vote Democrat more than I do Republican and believe it or not most of the Republicans around here do not mind there being a safety net for the poor, a lot think Iraq a mistake and perhaps the military does get too much of the Federal budget. . Many understand the arguments against the death penalty too and while wanting it to continue would not loose too much sleep if it was ended if it was done so becuse too many people on death row are later shown to be innocent. They also know in many ways that their economic interests are probably represented by the Democrats and they have admitted it so.

But the thing that gets them is abortion. They just cannot stand the idea of an innocent baby being killed. I wonder how many of these Republicans would go back to the Democratic Party if the Democrats were more Pro-life? The question is would the Democratic Party do it if so and should it?

Abortion is an area of law wherein there are disparate views regarding the moral aspects where legislation will satisfy one camp but not the other.

Making abortions illegal doesn't make them unpopular either.
We also recognize the woman's right to choose as she is the one who has to carry it for 9 months.
Then through legislation and case law (precedent) plus consultation with scientific/medical experts abortion is legal up to fetal viability. In addition where a birth would endanger the life of the mother or the baby would be born with serious defects then legislation
Also the mother has to carry the baby the law has given her the right to choose.
Fetal viability is the scientific consensus as to define the point where the baby is able to exist outside the womb.
It would be an error to go backwards on this.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The part of the brain that holds the 'person' isn't developed until very late in the pregnancy. Up until then, it's no different than a brain-dead body.

I would contest this point and say that the 'person' doesn't develop until a considerable time after birth. There is nothing morally problematic, to me anyway, about ending the life of an entity with less interest in its continued existence than a rabbit or a dog. The only way to make it problematic is to insist that there's something morally special about being a member of our species, which I reject. The fact is simply that nobody is harmed by abortion or even early infanticide if anesthesia is used. Actual persons are harmed when a baby is brought to term against the wishes of its mother--not least of all (perhaps most), the person the baby will become.

The issue is the point where the baby can operate independently of the mother's life support system; fetal viability. Based on scientific consensus that is the point where the baby becomes a person with full rights under law.
Re your last point moving the law away from the mother's right to choose would be a step backwards. However the limit is usually fetal viability with exceptions to extend this such as if the mother was seriously endangered or the baby is found to be in a vegetative state.

However, given the mother has 24 weeks to decide it is considered reasonable to prosecute after this point. However some believe it takes up to 28 weeks before fetal viability but we can say 24 to 28 weeks as there is no precise date for this (fetal viability).

 

[BH]

I live about 50 miles south of Dallas, TX.

Where I live is very much Republican country. I often vote Democrat more than I do Republican and believe it or not most of the Republicans around here do not mind there being a safety net for the poor, a lot think Iraq a mistake and perhaps the military does get too much of the Federal budget. . Many understand the arguments against the death penalty too and while wanting it to continue would not loose too much sleep if it was ended if it was done so becuse too many people on death row are later shown to be innocent. They also know in many ways that their economic interests are probably represented by the Democrats and they have admitted it so.

But the thing that gets them is abortion. They just cannot stand the idea of an innocent baby being killed. I wonder how many of these Republicans would go back to the Democratic Party if the Democrats were more Pro-life? The question is would the Democratic Party do it if so and should it?

Abortion is an area of law wherein there are disparate views regarding the moral aspects where legislation will satisfy one camp but not the other.

Making abortions illegal doesn't make them unpopular either.
We also recognize the woman's right to choose as she is the one who has to carry it for 9 months.
Then through legislation and case law (precedent) plus consultation with scientific/medical experts abortion is legal up to fetal viability. In addition where a birth would endanger the life of the mother or the baby would be born with serious defects then legislation
Also the mother has to carry the baby the law has given her the right to choose.
Fetal viability is the scientific consensus as to define the point where the baby is able to exist outside the womb.
It would be an error to go backwards on this.

Yeah, I was reading some statistics in one of August Bebel's Woman and Socialism yesterday about abortion. He said America had the highest rate of abortions and this was recording statistics in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The strange thing is he says he think abortion is a great moral wrong and implied socialists for the most part thought so too. It is interesting to see how such things flip. Usually the socialists are for a woman's right to abortion nowadays.

 

[prideandfall]

I think that both parties have taken extremist stands. I think that the overwhelming majority of both Dem and Rep members would accept a system of graduated controls where during the first trimester the choice was up to the woman but during the third trimester there would be need to be a show danger to the mother or gross deformity of the child.

Of course there will always be the extremes on one end declaring that "life begins at conception" and on the other end declaring that a woman has the right to decide the day of delivery that they want an abortion.

wow you are just all about the false equivalencies with politics lately aren't you?
care to just change your username to moore-coulter?

 

[prideandfall]

Granted it is rare (maybe not as rare as you assume though) but are you saying that all states should be required to allow abortions for any reason up until the time of birth? That is what the argument is about.

actually it's a lot rarer than what you're smugging about, and that is not what this or any argument is ever about because D&E and late term abortions are pretty much just a fantasy created by forced-birthers to scare monger.

That is what the activists are demanding. That is what the activists have accomplished in eight states. The Democrat party policy supports these activists.

is it even possible to see out from under the pile of bullshit you've been heaping on these forums the last couple of days?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I can understand how "let the woman decide for herself" can be viewed as an 'extreme' position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk