Abortion Debate

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Dunlavy

It's her life, her body, her child. Not everyone has the blessing of being in a situation when they can take care of a child, should they still have to bear through child-birth for the sole-purpose of it being taken away?

Yes, for the same reason why you shouldn't euthanize old people. My grandmother was very ill towards the end of her life, and my parents and I took care of her. My folks tried to do it themselves, but they're senior citizens in their own right, and mom couldn't handle it. They could've put her in a nursing home (thus hastening her death and taking all the emotional pain and physical exhaustion brought by caring for a bed-ridden parent), but instead, I moved back in and took "the night shift".

When things were at their most difficult, we would go to bed at night hoping for EVERYONE's sake that Nana would just slip away in the night, but we weren't that lucky. Taking care of her was purely a labor of love, and respect for her as a human being. We each probably erased 5 years off our own lifespans in that time.

I realize there's a component to the mother/child relationship that I'll never understand, so the parallel might not be accurate. But I say we should give human life the respect it deserves, and not be too cavalier about ending it just to save ourselves heartache, pain, or other misfortunes.

[Dunlavy]

So does that mean we should not respect the life and decisions of the mother-figure, herself? To respect life is to respect the choices they've made, whether good or bad. It's a question of philosophy and beliefs.

If there was perhaps a religion that had no say in this debate, one that even stated that it would agree to abortion, would this debate be thought of as prejudice? To deny rights that a religion and/or their personal beliefs?

Who says that they are not respecting life? Is mercy in guarunteeing them no pain considered wrong?

[richlevy]

Well, the abortion debate in Kansas has certainly heated up with this . I would bet that even many staunch pro-lifers would balk at what is being attempted here.

TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas attorney general, a staunch opponent of abortion, has demanded the medical records of nearly 90 woman and girls who had late-term abortions, saying he needs the material to investigate crimes.

The two abortion clinics involved in the case say the state has no right to such personal information and are fighting the request in the Kansas Supreme Court.

But Attorney General Phill Kline insisted Thursday he needs the records because he has "the duty to investigate and prosecute child rape and other crimes in order to protect Kansas children."

So he's trying to force his way into their medical records to protect them.

Sex involving someone under 16 is illegal in Kansas, and it is illegal in the state for doctors to perform an abortion after 22 weeks unless there is reason to believe it is needed to protect the mother's health.

So is he looking for victims or potential defendents?

The clinics said Kline demanded their complete, unedited medical records for women and girls who sought abortions at least 22 weeks into their pregnancies in 2003. Court papers did not identify the clinics.

The records sought include the patient's name, medical history, details of her sex life, birth control practices and psychological profile.

The clinics are offering to provide records with some key information, including names, edited out.

You know, after looking at how the law may be abused by an overly zealous AG, I may actually be forced to admit that Rush Limbaugh is right about something . Of course, in Rush's case, he pretty much admitted to being an addict.

Now from this document (PDF) from health and human services, it appears that the AG would require victims consent to release documents related to an abuse investigation, so his first argument that he is seeking these womens information to protect them won't fly.

Will this HIPAA Privacy Rule make it easier for police and law enformcement agencies to get my medical information?

Answer
No. The Rule does not expand current law enforcement access to individually identifiable health information. In fact, it limits access to a greater degree than currently exists, since the Rule establishes new procedures and safeguards that restrict the circumstances under which a covered entity may give such information to law enforcement officers.

For example, the Rule limits the type of information that covered entities may disclose to law enforcement, absent a warrant or other prior process, when law enforcement is seeking to identify or locate a suspect. It specifically prohibits disclosure of DNA information for this purpose, absent some other legal requirements such as a warrant. Similarly, under most circumstances, the Privacy Rule requires covered entities to obtain permission from persons who have been the victim of domestic violence or abuse before disclosing information about them to law enforcement. In most States, such permission is not required today.

Where State law imposes additional restrictions on disclosure of health information to law enforcement, those State laws continue to apply. This Rule sets a national floor of legal protections; it is not a set of “best practices.”

Even in those circumstances when disclosure to law enforcement is permitted by the Rule, the Privacy Rule does not require covered entities to disclose any information. Some other Federal or State law may require a disclosure, and the Privacy Rule does not interfere with the operation of these other laws. However, unless the disclosure is required by some other law, covered entities should use their professional judgment to decide whether to disclose information, reflecting their own policies and ethical principles. In other words, doctors, hospitals, and health plans could continue to follow their own policies to protect privacy in such instances.

This document from the same source actually says that providers can be forced to give up the information.

[jaguar]

I believe life starts at conception. If left alone, those cells mature into a human baby.

Yes but if I step on an acorn, I kill an acorn, not an oak tree.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Well, the abortion debate in Kansas has certainly heated up with this .

Well, your durn tootin. All life is precious so the Attorney General should track these women down and kill them.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Well, your durn tootin. All life is precious so the Attorney General should track these women down and kill them.

I don't think he wants to murder them. A scarlet letter and some time in the stocks would probably suffice for him. Of course, he could just find the ones who were raped and have them relive it over and over in a courtroom.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't believe he won't persecute to the best of his ability, otherwise he wouldn't have started this crap.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't believe he won't persecute to the best of his ability, otherwise he wouldn't have started this crap.

Don't you have a way with words.

Sad, eloquent, true.

[richlevy]

PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds signed a series of anti-abortion bills, including one that requires doctors to tell women the procedure ends the lives of humans, his office announced Thursday.

The bill-signings further tighten state abortion restrictions that some characterize as among the toughest in the nation.

One of the four new laws requires doctors to inform pregnant women, in writing and in person, no later than two hours before an abortion that the procedure ends the lives of humans and terminates the constitutional relationship women have with their fetuses.

...snip...

A fourth new law establishes a state task force to study the history of abortion since 1973 and to see if other laws need changing. Abortion opponents said science, medicine and technology have changed considerably since the Roe v. Wade decision.

This is just peachy. Imagine all of the new psuedo-science that can be included here. Abortion causes cancer, acne, hair loss?

[OnyxCougar]

severe cramps? infections that may cause sterility? uncontrollable hemorraging? death?

[Elspode]

Controversial Wichita abortionist Dr George Tiller was shot to death today...at church. This will undoubtedly turn out to be a crime committed by someone who reasoned that they were saving the lives of future unborn children. Therefore, it can be assumed that "Thou shalt not kill" is arbitrary, even to the religious. Since they've killed Dr Tiller, doesn't that pretty much follow that it is okay to kill anyone, at any time, for any reason, as long as you think it is a really, really *good* reason?

[extreme sarcasm] Praise God. [/extreme sarcasm]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090531/...ler_shooting_3

WICHITA, Kan. – Media outlets are reporting that late-term abortion doctor George Tiller has been shot and killed at his church in Wichita, Kan.

Anonymous police sources told The Wichita Eagle and other media that the 67-year-old doctor was killed Sunday morning at Reformation Lutheran Church.

Police spokesman Gordon Bassham would not confirm the victim's identity pending notification of relatives but said a 67-year-old "high-profile individual in the community" was shot and killed.

Tiller has been among the few U.S. physicians performing late-term abortions. His clinic has repeatedly been the site of protests for about two decades and he was shot and wounded by a protester in 1993.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They caught him..

The gunman fled, but a 51-year-old suspect was arrested some 170 miles away in suburban Kansas City three hours after the shooting, Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz said.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Elspode

it is okay to kill anyone, at any time, for any reason, as long as you think it is a really, really *good* reason?

...or detain them indefinitely. Same rationality.

[Radar]

Abortion doesn't kill people. In fact not a single human death has ever occurred in the history of all abortions other than the deaths of young girls getting botched back alley abortions from butchers because some jackasses wanted to violate the fundamental right of all women to get an abortion if they so choose by making an illegitimate law.

I could care less at which point human life begins. I care about when human rights begin, and those begin at birth and not a second before.

It wouldn't matter if a fully-sentient human being was inside the body of another and they were capable of speech and begged for their life. As long as they reside within the body of another person (regardless of how they got there...it doesn't matter why someone got pregnant) and they have never been born (this prevents the idiots from using an example of someone kidnapping someone and sewing them into their own body)... they have ZERO human rights.

Killing any organism within the confines of your own body is not murder. It doesn't matter if it's a tumor, a tapeworm, or even a fully sentient human being. It has no rights.

We each have SOLE DOMINION over our own body and its contents. Our decisions as to what will or won't live within the confines of our body is not to be questioned any more than someone would question god as to why babies die. We are the GOD of our own body and no other person, group of people, or government has any say in what we do with the contents of our body.

Once again we see how the hypocritical right-wing zealots and religious wing nuts claiming to respect the "sanctity of life" don't really care about the sanctity of human life if that human happens to be an abortion doctor helping women with a medical procedure that they have every right to get.

No person, group of people (regardless of their number) or government has any authority whatsoever to forcibly prevent or punish an abortion any more than a single woman would have the authority to force all other women to get an abortion.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They caught him..

Supposedly this guy has a history of mental illness too.