tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post557438958925689031..comments2023-05-05T06:38:34.592-04:00Comments on IMHO: My Position on AbortionNiceguy Eddiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-70718126658640548902009-10-07T18:25:50.483-04:002009-10-07T18:25:50.483-04:00With regards to the 'doctrine of choice,' ...With regards to the 'doctrine of choice,' you've got it dead on. It's not a perfect compromise, but it is a principled one.<br /><br />Regarding the "abuse" aspect of incest, it's like I said: If the sex is forced (non-consesual) then already meets the requirement for rape, the with extra baggage is superfluous. If it's consensual (say, a brother and sister, 18 and 17 years of age) now that's INCEST, but why grant an exception for abortion over it? Why not just say rape, and codify that this includes ANY non-consensual form of concepcion, regardless.<br /><br />As for partial birth... Like I said, if an MD can provide a scenario, then fine, I can be pursuaded. But I've just never been presented with one. You say "a few % points," and yes, I realize that can mean a lot of people... But I'd like spmething more specific. If it's used 10,000 times a year, to decrease the number of death by 1... I don't see that as 'worth it', especially when that level of reduction could just be within the sampling margin of error. If it's restricted to only those high risk cases, and used 100 times to save 10 lives? Yeah, I could see that. But I haven't yet heard the numbers or scenario's yet that would change my mind.<br /><br />Also my biggest beef with partial-birth is the LATENESS that it tends to be used, and the fact that two inches farther you a LIVE BIRTH. If you're talking about doing it in the first trimester, then yeah, I guess I could see that. But my understanding is that it's typically used later on. I could be wrong about that, like I said: I could be talked out of it, but I'd need some numbers to go by.<br /><br />(And thanks for "two #1's" catch! I'll fix that!)Niceguy Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-63726507351682984752009-10-06T23:09:09.242-04:002009-10-06T23:09:09.242-04:00I forgot to mention the so-called "partial-bi...I forgot to mention the so-called "partial-birth abortion" part. What if that is considered "preferable" because it decreases the odds of harm or death for the woman? Even if you're talking about a few percentage points in difference, then there are women being harmed or killed because that procedure is banned, while other abortive procedures would still destroy the fetus. Does that principle hold up under those conditions? That would seem to be an effect on people based on the "ickyness" of the procedure.Brabantionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-90957504361103364552009-10-06T22:43:44.431-04:002009-10-06T22:43:44.431-04:00The Doctrine of Choice is pretty clear on this, th...The Doctrine of Choice is pretty clear on this, then. For a certain amount of time, the mother's choice can't be violated. After that point, excepting medical concerns, the "baby" has rights. I agree that it can be cut back to the first trimester.<br /><br />"Is an embryo OK to destroy provided that it's conception was sufficiently icky?"<br /><br />Don't you think that incest has a very strong element of abuse inherent to it? We recognize age as a mitigating factor in whether "consent" exists, so why shouldn't familial relations be a factor as well?<br /><br />"'Anti-Choice' is the only moniker we should use."<br /><br />You're not actually advocating the use of "anti-choice" from the left, it's just a "way things ought to be" comment, right?<br /><br />By the way, you have "1)" listed twice.Brabantionoreply@blogger.com