BAIPA - sleeper issue?

[Bdarg]

If one is “pro life”, then a priori, one needs to be “pro-social welfare” to support said life and “pro-sex education” to insure that all life is wanted.
Unfortunately the argument too often becomes one of pro-mother’s life verses pro-fetus’ life in a situation where neither win. On top of that, those in the pro-fetus camp are often the same people that argue constantly to cut or eliminate the social programs that would support, care for and educate that unwanted fetus. To argue for life and then deny sustenance to those unwanted, problem plagued children only once they are born into this world and beyond hypocrisy.
As for the viability of the unborn in a second or third term abortion, these are not on demand spur of the moment decisions to abort a pregnancy, they are not a form of traditional birth control, and they are most always the result of a non-viable fetus that is in danger of damaging a mother, who desperately wants a child, to a point that she may not be able to ever have a child. We can all imagine the horror of a mother and father having to make such a decision. I am certain that it is not a whimsical decision.
First trimester is a different story, but then viability is not currently an issue in the first trimester.
Sorry to abort your red herring so early in this election spin season.

 

[LuciferSam]

Hold on a bloody minute. You say you aren't touching the abortion issue with a ten foot pole, but come up with this? Again, the ONLY thing this law does is clarify that any child who is completely out of his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is afforded equal rights. If you have a problem with your legal requirements with your required care for neonates, I suggest you take it up with the legislation that addresses it. This is the same lame argument that the fair traders try to make.

I would say that while this issue may be a consequence of abortion, it has nothing to to with abortion. It's about consent of the wishes of the dying. Obviously the baby can't consent to grant power of attorney to the mother or designate her as health care surrogate. This would give her the right to issue do not resuscitate or do not feed orders as might be the case with an elderly dying relative. I would argue that in the case of a newborn these should be her powers by default in cases in which the baby is on the edge of survival such as a failed abortion. You could argue about the morality of late-term abortions, but that is another issue.

 

[6thGen]

A quick googling of this subject brings up the alternate title of this bit of propaganda -- Why Jesus Would Not Vote for Barack Obama. Since Jesus mentioned serving the least among us thousands of times in my Bible, and his opposition to abortion zero times, I think it is sort of presumptuous of the author to assume Jesus was a single issue voter.

This exchange shows just why some decisions should be between a doctor and patient. When people try to find a backdoor to get what they want, they often end up creating some horrible legislation that has no bearing on the real world, such as BAIPA. Elective abortions are generally performed in the first trimester, before a woman begins to show and far before the fetus would be viable. The late abortions that would normally result in a fetus born alive are usually performed to save the mother, and normally everything possible is done to save the baby. This is a waste of time and taxpayer money to legislate a cure for a problem that really doesn't exist.

It's interesting to me that these special interest groups are willing to try to trick the electorate, and waste legislators time as they try to deflect a election time attack and everyone fiddles as Rome burns.

Do you make all of your decisions by article titles that come up on Google searches? If you'd bother to read the rest of what I said here, or if you had a better handle on the history of your candidate, or if you'd even bother to read the article, you'd know the article title was a reference to something Alan Keyes said. Since you cited the legislation as "horrible", what specifically is horrible about it? If it was so horrible, why did it pass unanimously and why didn't NARAL oppose it?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ207.107

To say the problem doesn't exist is to turn a blind eye to reality. If the problem doesn't exist, and jdarg, this is one for you as well, would you support a ban on elective abortions in the third trimester? What about the first?

 

[6thGen]

If one is ?pro life?, then a priori, one needs to be ?pro-social welfare? to support said life and ?pro-sex education? to insure that all life is wanted.
Unfortunately the argument too often becomes one of pro-mother?s life verses pro-fetus? life in a situation where neither win. On top of that, those in the pro-fetus camp are often the same people that argue constantly to cut or eliminate the social programs that would support, care for and educate that unwanted fetus. To argue for life and then deny sustenance to those unwanted, problem plagued children only once they are born into this world and beyond hypocrisy.

Wrong. Failure to support government funded welfare is far different than putting the child on the street. I believe that social programs is more efficiently run in the private sector.

As for the viability of the unborn in a second or third term abortion, these are not on demand spur of the moment decisions to abort a pregnancy, they are not a form of traditional birth control, and they are most always the result of a non-viable fetus that is in danger of damaging a mother, who desperately wants a child, to a point that she may not be able to ever have a child. We can all imagine the horror of a mother and father having to make such a decision. I am certain that it is not a whimsical decision.
First trimester is a different story, but then viability is not currently an issue in the first trimester.
Sorry to abort your red herring so early in this election spin season.

Again, wrong. Elective late term abortions are legal as a form of birth control. If you'll support a ban on them, I'll listen. Otherwise, the red herring is yours.

 

[6thGen]

I would say that while this issue may be a consequence of abortion, it has nothing to to with abortion. It's about consent of the wishes of the dying. Obviously the baby can't consent to grant power of attorney to the mother or designate her as health care surrogate. This would give her the right to issue do not resuscitate or do not feed orders as might be the case with an elderly dying relative. I would argue that in the case of a newborn these should be her powers by default in cases in which the baby is on the edge of survival such as a failed abortion. You could argue about the morality of late-term abortions, but that is another issue.

That's the best argument I've read thusfar, and completely valid. However, the law doesn't go into that much detail, it only makes the distinction previously mentioned. BAIPA opens the door to discuss the morality of late-term abortions, which is where this thread is now.

 

[Jdarg]

Wrong. Failure to support government funded welfare is far different than putting the child on the street. I believe that social programs is more efficiently run in the private sector.



Again, wrong. Elective late term abortions are legal as a form of birth control. If you'll support a ban on them, I'll listen. Otherwise, the red herring is yours.

Sorry, not wrong, just not right in your opinion.

 

[6thGen]

Sorry, not wrong, just not right in your opinion.

So failure to support government funded social programs is no different than believing that those needing assistance should receive none at all? Here is your quote "To argue for life and then deny sustenance to those unwanted, problem plagued children only once they are born into this world and beyond hypocrisy."

Where did I say that?

 

[Jdarg]

So failure to support government funded social programs is no different than believing that those needing assistance should receive none at all? Here is your quote "To argue for life and then deny sustenance to those unwanted, problem plagued children only once they are born into this world and beyond hypocrisy."

Where did I say that?

I think he was making the point that Republicans tend to cut funding to social programs that would help these kids.

6thGen- this discussion needs to end. There will never be a productive argument here. Both sides are on opposite sides of the fence, actually, on the opposite sides of the universe. A cosmic disaster wouldn't bring us closer on this issue.

Lucifer is right- BAIPA is the subject at hand. And there are many people who are not pro-choice that don't support BAIPA.

 

[6thGen]

I think he was making the point that Republicans tend to cut funding to social programs that would help these kids.

6thGen- this discussion needs to end. There will never be a productive argument here. Both sides are on opposite sides of the fence, actually, on the opposite sides of the universe. A cosmic disaster wouldn't bring us closer on this issue.

Lucifer is right- BAIPA is the subject at hand. And there are many people who are not pro-choice that don't support BAIPA.

I know what point he was trying to make, but you take incredibly hyperbolic cheap shots, then tell me "this discussion needs to end". When the issue is discussed, as Lucifer did, I addressed it. When I'm told that I support bringing children into this world and then dumping them on the street with no regard for their welfare, I'll discuss that. You two brought it up. I said you (he) were (was) wrong, I asked you to point to where I said such and you told me to end the discussion. You have absolutely no basis for claiming the high road here.

 

[Jdarg]

I know what point he was trying to make, but you take incredibly hyperbolic cheap shots, then tell me "this discussion needs to end". When the issue is discussed, as Lucifer did, I addressed it. When I'm told that I support bringing children into this world and then dumping them on the street with no regard for their welfare, I'll discuss that. You two brought it up. I said you (he) were (was) wrong, I asked you to point to where I said such and you told me to end the discussion. You have absolutely no basis for claiming the high road here.

I am not claiming the high road. I see that here, as in most other conversations with you, it will go on for infinity. You think I am completely wrong, and I think you are completely wrong. A discussion with you never feels productive or educational. Have a great day!

Oh, please respond and have the last word. I'm handing it to you on a plate.