Late term (AKA partial birth) abortion issue solved?

Several times now Doug and I have argued about this issue, and we had a standing bet that he wouldn't be able to find me a licensed doctor willing to do such a thing 'on a whim', to use his words.

Here is the bet:

Find me a doctor willing to perform one of your "partial birth abortions" on a fully healthy, viable, near-term fetus for no other reason then the mother has decided she doesn't want it now. You'd find doctors prescribing psychiatric care for someone making such a request, not surgery.

I'll tell you what, I'll bet any of you arguing to ban it $100! I live in liberal Los Angeles, if it's do-able in the US it'd be do-able here. Call around, find a doctor out here willing to do it exactly as described under those circumstances. I'll drive to him/her, confirm his/her credentials as a MD licensed to practice in the state, then mail the first one of you to refer me to such a doctor $100. I don't think my $100 is in any danger.

http://babydb.male4malescorts.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=17&topic_id=3751&mesg_id=&page=&mode=full#3812

That was months ago, it closed the thread nicely as pretty good evidence that this issue is all just empty blather from the right, who's only goal is obviously ending all abortions for any reason.

Surprisingly he brought it up again in another thread:

http://babydb.male4malescorts.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=17&topic_id=5892&mesg_id=&page=&mode=full

Apparently, after months of searching, the best he can come up with is this:

>>My $100 bet still stands! You know, the one you went

>>silent on: find me one doctor willing to do one of your late-term

>>'partial birth abortions' when it's not medically necessary

>>(on a whim, to continue using your words) and you'll have my

>>$100 as soon as I confirm it with the doctor and his license

>>with his state. Hell, find me one doctor willing to do such

>>a thing in a non-emergency setting and I'll never bring it up

>>again!

>

>Pay up, bitch. From your favorite magazine:

>

>http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031222&s=ayrey

First off, I don't read that magazine. Unlike NeoConartists, I don't think that most liberals need any central 'authorities' to tell us how to think and give us our talking points.

But on the issue, I may well owe him silence, I suppose the birth of a child with: Dandy-Walker malformation or variant (fetal brain defect), two parts of her brain missing completely, other areas malformed, a heart defect, and acute limb irregularities does not constitute an 'emergency'. So I suppose I'll never bring it up here again. Sorry Dougie, that will not keep me from responding if you bring it up though...

But given the heart wrenching tale of sorrow, testing, research and pain this woman went through I don't see how anybody could categorize it as 'on a whim'. Who thinks I owe Doug $100?

RE: Late term abortion issue solved?

I think you should give the money to the poor woman!

>But given the heart wrenching tale of sorrow, testing,

>research and pain this woman went through I don't see how

>anybody could categorize it as 'on a whim'. Who thinks I owe

>Doug $100?

James, I am so disappointed in you. I can't believe that you would make your decision as to whether you would adhere to your Word based upon a poll - much less a poll in a forum where you know that far more people agree with your position than with mine on this abortion issue.

But since you've disappointingly done so, let's not depend upon paraphrases of the bet you offered. Let's quote it directly:

"My $100 bet still stands! You know, the one you went silent on: find me one doctor willing to do one of your late-term 'partial birth abortions' when it's not medically necessary (on a whim, to continue using your words) and you'll have my $100 as soon as I confirm it with the doctor and his license with his state."

Now I think that you owe the $100 if I could find - as you admit I did - a case of partial birth abortion being done "when it's not medically necessary." And I think if you look at your original bet offer - not the one quoted where you re-iterated it - you will see that was all that was necessary.

As you know, the whole point of the debate we had - the whole reason we were discussing it in the first place - was because I was asking you whether you support this heinous, brutal procedure even when it's not done to save the life of the mother.

And you answered by saying that my question was irrelevant, because you believed it was ONLY done for that reason, i.e., in a medical emergency to save the mother's life, and then you even bet me that I couldn't find a doctor who would do this procedure when that wasn't the case. Clearly, I did. And by the way - there are A LOT of other instances where this procedure is done for reasons having nothing to do with the life of the mother - but I am not going to post them if you're not going to honor your bet.

The ONLY issue that we were discussing, James, is whether these procedures are ever performed in cases OTHER THAN when they are necessary to preserve the life of the mother. That is an objective test. You were wrong about that, and so you should really live up to your end of the bet.

Don't try to wiggle out of it by using the subjective test of whether it's done on a "whim" as opposed to some non-whimsical but still NON-MEDICAL reason - which you inserted into a parenthesis in the second offer, but not the first. That was never the issue.

The only issue was whether this procedure is performed in cases other than when it's necessary to save the life of the mother. You said it wasn't, and would pay $100 if I could prove that it was. I did prove that, and you should pay.

This is the only post I'll write on the issue. The $100 ain't important to me, but your Word should be to you. And if your conscience doesn't compel you to honor your word - and you're willing to hide behind "see-all-my-nice-liberal-friends-say-I-am-right,' that's your choice.

RE: Late term abortion issue solved?

>I think you should give the money to the poor woman!

I think, if he's not going to honor his bet and he wants to give the money instead to a deserving victim, he should give it to the poor 7 1/2 month old baby who had its skull drilled open with scissors and its brain matter sucked out and its head collapsed so that its mother could kill it before it had a chance to be fully born.

I'd say the baby is much more deserving of your sympathy than the mother who ordered it slaughtered.

i think the $100.00 should be donated to one of the following.

#01 a center that provides the late term procedure.

#02 an organization that helps fight the anti-choice radicals.

#03 planned parenthood.

#04 a homeless shelter that houses unwanted kids.

Excuse me, paraphrase? You're the one that "wins" arguments by restating things, I provided the full text of the bet, with link.

Here it is again:

Find me a doctor willing to perform one of your "partial birth abortions" on a fully healthy, viable, near-term fetus for no other reason then the mother has decided she doesn't want it now. You'd find doctors prescribing psychiatric care for someone making such a request, not surgery.

I'll tell you what, I'll bet any of you arguing to ban it $100! I live in liberal Los Angeles, if it's do-able in the US it'd be do-able here. Call around, find a doctor out here willing to do it exactly as described under those circumstances. I'll drive to him/her, confirm his/her credentials as a MD licensed to practice in the state, then mail the first one of you to refer me to such a doctor $100. I don't think my $100 is in any danger.

The link again:

http://babydb.male4malescorts.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=17&topic_id=3751&mesg_id=&page=&mode=full#3812

That's cute, the way you throw out the healthy, viable, near-term fetus part.

What in the world would be gained by delivering such a fetus? It's fine, I take it, to mandate the birth of such a child as long as you're not forced to come up with the enormous medical and ongoing care costs involved in actually raising it? Think about that the next time one of your candidates cuts things like disability (all fraud, you know) or special education!

What's gained, your god is somehow appeased even though such a child wouldn't have survived delivery or lived more then a few years without advanced, extraordinary measures?

RE: Late term (AKA partial birth) abortion issue solved...

<<and you're willing to hide behind "see-all-my-nice-liberal-friends-say-I-am-right,' that's your choice>>

i am by far not in his "nice-liberal-friends-say-i-am-right" group; in fact, i agree with many of the basic premises you argue, with the biggest exception being religion and abortion. i am not a democrat, but can basically agree with them on many social issues. i stopped giving any support to the republican party over 20 years ago; though i tend to lean towards them on fiscal issues, i am not a republican. i AM a capitalist. now that i said that for clarification issues, i agree one-hundred percent with jamesk840s' position; and don't think he owes you the money. i consider the abortion example you found a matter of medical necesity.

i'll end with a quote from ayn rand from "the objectivist", oct 1968,6:

"Abortion is a moral right - which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved: morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

one more partial quote of ayn rand in "the objectivist forum", june 1981, 3:

"The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility: it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future,and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child's physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse.

I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror....

By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?"

i have to think you are aware of ayn rand; therefore realize she is as far from liberal as you can get. perhaps, realizing this isn't an issue strictly drawn between democratic and republican lines, you would even reconsider your position and not think you have to spew an antiabortion view just because it's seen by many as a strictly republican idea. don't get me wrong; i'm not doubting that you may have this opinion about abortion legitimately; but you sometimes come across as "automatically taking the republican line".

>What in the world would be gained by delivering such a fetus?

>It's fine, I take it, to mandate the birth of such a child as

>long as you're not forced to come up with the enormous medical

>and ongoing care costs involved in actually raising it? Think

>about that the next time one of your candidates cuts things

>like disability (all fraud, you know) or special education!

Don't you understand that this same "rationale" is equally applicable to the murder of any child - especially a disabled child - regardless of whether it's inside or outside the womb? If the child had developed this same condition 3 months outside of the womb, rather than 7 1/2 months inside the womb, why would it be wrong to kill it then (if you think it would)?

Don't all of your same arguments justifying its murder in the womb apply equally - I mean, how can anyone argue that it's wrong for a woman to kill her disabled 2 year old child unless they are willing to pay the costs of raising it!

>What's gained, your god is somehow appeased even though

>such a child wouldn't have survived delivery or lived more

>then a few years without advanced, extraordinary measures?

Don't you see how much bigotry and stereotype you rely on in your argument?

Guess what, James? It's possible to oppose the murder of babies without being a religious fundamentalist! There are reasons why one may think it's wrong for a baby to be slaughtered other than because some religious official dictates it! Some people think it's wrong and should be illegal to kill babies even though they have no religiuos beliefs!

Do you think it's wrong for a woman to murder her baby 3 months outside the womb? Does that mean you are trying to appease your God by thinking that?

I never said anything about God or about any religious doctrine. Isn't it self-evident that one can argue that the murder of babies is wrong without having to cite any such thing.

I know it's comforting for you to believe that everyone with a different political view than you is some drooling, uneducated, religious fundamentalists incest-practicer from Kentucky. But when you reveal this view, it only exposes your bigotry.

RE: Late term (AKA partial birth) abortion issue solved...

>i am by far not in his "nice-liberal-friends-say-i-am-right"

>group; in fact, i agree with many of the basic premises you

>argue, with the biggest exception being religion and abortion.

I don't understand this. I never said one word here ever about religion. How do you know that your views on that topic are different than mine? As I just explained to James, it's possible to think that the slaughter of babies is wrong on grounds on than religious ones. I would have thought that was readily apparent.

> i am not a democrat, but can basically agree with them on

>many social issues. i stopped giving any support to the

>republican party over 20 years ago; though i tend to lean

>towards them on fiscal issues, i am not a republican. i AM a

>capitalist.

Yes, and you sound like you're a libertarian. And we are likely in agreement on most "social issues" as well, in opposition to the view of most Republicans (and most Democrats, for that matter) on such issues.

But the first principle of libertarianism is that adults should have the right to whatever they want without governmental interference (read what they want; ingest whatever drugs they want; sodomize; refuse to hire or rent to someone on any grounds they think they want, including race, etc.) as long as the act does not directly harm another human being.

That's why I don't think libertarian principles justifies abortion. The pure immorality or irreligiosity of the act doesn't justify its prohibition. It's the fact that another human being is harmed - quite severely; it's murdered by the act - that justifies its prohibition.

now that i said that for clarification issues, i

>agree one-hundred percent with jamesk840s' position; and don't

>think he owes you the money. i consider the abortion example

>you found a matter of medical necesity.

Not even James argues that this was a case of "medical necessity." The context of our discussion was whether or not PBA's are ever performed in cases where doing so isn't necessary to save the life of the mother. You can argue (grotesquely, I think) that the human life which was slaughtered here was so defective and deficient that it was "medically necessary" to wipe that life out of existence (a rather Nazi-like power you have arrogated unto yourself).

But nobody can argue, and James, to his credit, isn't arguing, that this was a case where this procedure was "medically necessary" for the mother. She could have delivered that child without a single problem. She just didn't feel like it - the burden of the baby was too much for her, so she had it murdered.

>i'll end with a quote from ayn rand from "the objectivist",

>oct 1968,6:

>

> "Abortion is a moral right - which should be left to the

>sole discretion of the woman involved: morally, nothing other

>than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can

>conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition

>she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

>

>one more partial quote of ayn rand in "the objectivist forum",

>june 1981, 3:

>

> "The question of abortion involves much more than the

>termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire

>life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an

>enormous responsibility: it is an impossible responsibility

>for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor;

>particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough

>not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it

>to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death

>sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their

>future,and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of

>slavery to a child's physical and financial needs. The

>situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even

>worse.

> I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who

>would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a

>horror....

> By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the

>lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?"

>

>i have to think you are aware of ayn rand; therefore realize

>she is as far from liberal as you can get. perhaps, realizing

>this isn't an issue strictly drawn between democratic and

>republican lines, you would even reconsider your position and

>not think you have to spew an antiabortion view just because

>it's seen by many as a strictly republican idea. don't get me

>wrong; i'm not doubting that you may have this opinion about

>abortion legitimately; but you sometimes come across as

>"automatically taking the republican line".

>

>

>

>

>i think the $100.00 should be donated to one of the

>following.

>

>#01 a center that provides the late term procedure.

>#02 an organization that helps fight the anti-choice

>radicals.

>#03 planned parenthood.

>#04 a homeless shelter that houses unwanted kids.

Taylor, this is so nice. It's great that in the spirt of the New Year, you are thinking about charities.

But allow me to add a suggestion to the list, which, in my view, deals with much needier children who sadly, need great help.

I've been doing a lot of work lately with the Adult Agorophobia Foundation, which is dedicated to helping adults who have become afflicted with a terrible, debilitating disease - even once they turn 18, or even 21, they remain afraid to leave their homes. It's not very common (thank God), but it devestates the lives of the children-adults whom it affects and their families.

Whoever can find it in their hearts to reach out and help this organization would be doing a great deed.

RE: Late term (AKA partial birth) abortion issue solved...

>Not even James argues that this was a case of "medical

>necessity." The context of our discussion was whether or not

>PBA's are ever performed in cases where doing so isn't

>necessary to save the life of the mother.

Doug, where, exactly, did I ever say any such thing in connection with the bet???

>You can argue (grotesquely, I think) that the human life which was

>slaughtered here was so defective and deficient that it was

>"medically necessary" to wipe that life out of existence (a

>rather Nazi-like power you have arrogated unto yourself).

You love to twist things into murder of a living child. How exactly would sections of the child's brain go missing 3 months after birth? I know if such a thing ever happened to me I would want no extraordinary measures taken to extend my life (which would most likely be necessary for even a successful birth of this particular fetus), and would even request euthanasia for myself in such a situation beforehand (living will) if it was a possibility in this backasswards country.

>But nobody can argue, and James, to his credit, isn't arguing,

>that this was a case where this procedure was "medically

>necessary" for the mother. She could have delivered that

>child without a single problem. She just didn't feel like it

>- the burden of the baby was too much for her, so she had it

>murdered.

So no matter how poorly developed, every zygote conceived should be born? Even if it will have a life of pain, corrective operations just to continue 'living' as a vegetable; if we have the medical science to sustain its life (even on a respirator and heart/lung machine in a bubble for its entire 'life'), we must? And not even because god says so, because you say so?? Yet at the same time your candidates oppose guaranteed medical care, cut disability, and cut school programs such as special education. The vast right-wing hypocrisy, yep!

PFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTT.

RE: Late term (AKA partial birth) abortion issue solved...

>>argue, with the biggest exception being religion and

>abortion.

>

>I don't understand this. I never said one word here ever

>about religion. How do you know that your views on that topic

>are different than mine? As I just explained to James, it's

>possible to think that the slaughter of babies is wrong on

>grounds on than religious ones. I would have thought that was

>readily apparent.

>

i agree with you on this matter. a quick perusal shows you discussing religious rights, etc; but nothing stating your religious views, as far as i checked. i apologize for making that leap. i agree completely with you that you can make moral decisions without religion. in the case of abortion, it seems to me the moral right or decision lies strictly with the woman involved, and no one else.

>

>But the first principle of libertarianism is that adults

>should have the right to whatever they want without

>governmental interference (read what they want; ingest

>whatever drugs they want; sodomize; refuse to hire or rent to

>someone on any grounds they think they want, including race,

>etc.) as long as the act does not directly harm another

>human being.

>

no, i am not a libertarian. an objectivist. but that wouldn't pertain to this thread, so am trying not to digress.

>That's why I don't think libertarian principles justifies

>abortion. The pure immorality or irreligiosity of the act

>doesn't justify its prohibition. It's the fact that another

>human being is harmed - quite severely; it's murdered by the

>act - that justifies its prohibition.

>

i agree libertarian principles don't justify murder (what you call abortion). the case you found in, i believe, 'the nation' clearly indicates the medical belief that the 'potential' human being in question would never be a viable human being, and was already "harmed - quite severely" before birth. in a case like this, only a mother or both parents should be able to make such a heart-rending decision. in the end i believe the living have to take precedence over the not-yet-living in a case such as this.

so, based on the quote from jamesk840s' post below, i reiterate my opinion that he does not owe the $100, based on the part stating "on a fully healthy, viable, near-term fetus for no other reason then(sic) the mother doesn't want it now".

Here is the bet:

Find me a doctor willing to perform one of your "partial birth abortions" on a fully healthy, viable, near-term fetus for no other reason then the mother has decided she doesn't want it now."

>

>Not even James argues that this was a case of "medical

>necessity." The context of our discussion was whether or not

>PBA's are ever performed in cases where doing so isn't

>necessary to save the life of the mother. You can

>argue (grotesquely, I think) that the human life which was

>slaughtered here was so defective and deficient that it was

>"medically necessary" to wipe that life out of existence (a

>rather Nazi-like power you have arrogated unto yourself).

>

>But nobody can argue, and James, to his credit, isn't arguing,

>that this was a case where this procedure was "medically

>necessary" for the mother. She could have delivered that

>child without a single problem. She just didn't feel like it

>- the burden of the baby was too much for her, so she had it

>murdered.

i'm perfectly willing for any free-thinking person to come to their own conclusions regarding the above two paragraphs.