SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (11048)10/24/1998 7:53:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
think of it then. @ 100K adoptions/yr, and 1.5M abortions per year, if abortions were banned, that's a lot of "unwanted" kids. Gas chambers, anyone? We can't have unwanted children weighing down couples' and women's right to unencumbered freedom to be without the burdens of children.



To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (11048)10/24/1998 8:22:00 PM
From: one_less  Respond to of 67261
 
Dan,

<<I posted half of it to brees, he didn't care to connect the dots though. Adoptions, 100k/year. Abortions, 1.5m/year.>>

I can't connect the dots because I'm not sure this statistic means what you imply it does. I'd like to see a change in the Consciousness of Americans. There is some indication that the upcoming generations may not see sex in the same casual sportiness as it is currently viewed. It would be nice if as a culture we could establish a foundation of support for planning for pregnancy and supporting the purposeful planned parenting of children.

It was a nice concept "Planned Parenting" that the clinics picked up in the seventies and eighties. Either it failed or the proponents had a different idea all along. I don't know anyone who goes to a clinic because they are ready to plan their family life.

One of the reasons sex and unwanted pregnancies has reached the level that it has, is the (don't worry, we can make it safe for you doctrine). To a large part participants in the 1.5m/year category ought to be outraged over this. When people did worry that there could be the consequense of pregnancy, there was a whole lot more consideration made before entering into a sexual relationship. Most people were much more prepared to deal with pregnancies. Most of the pregnancies were wanted. The 1.5/year statistic comes with the safe sex doctrine.

You claim and some of the conservatives claim we could return to those conditions of the 1950s. I think your both basing your stance on myth. I don't think we will see a recurrence of the nineteen fifties. Neither the barbarack back ally coat hanger abortions nor the leave it to beaver households.

Corporations restructure all the time when things aren't working. Why can't the Government. Never mind, I think I know, I used to be a teacher.



To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (11048)10/24/1998 10:00:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
re The pro-life movement is trying to ban abortions. All of them. You too, right Dwight? You want to take up the "furthest fringe" fear mongering thing with Mr. K. too? mrknowitall and I seem to agree on one way to reduce abortions, if on nothing else.

I revert to my former statement, which I have posted to you before. It's up to you to go find it. I'm not going to do your work for you.



To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (11048)10/24/1998 10:02:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
According to Planned Parenthood, under "Healthy and Unhealthy Relationships", "Sexual abuse includes unwanted touching, fondling, watching and talking, and being forced to look at another person's sex organs."

plannedparenthood.org

ah, but that section was under the heading "Teen Issues", so I guess that doesn't apply to "adults" like Clinton. So I guess that is why Planned Parenthood won't back Paula Jones, but instead defends Clinton.

under "Abortion", "Abortion and the Law", and "Why Planned Parenthood Opposes S.6/H.R. 929 and Other Attempts to Ban a Safe and Needed Abortion Method", and "S. 6/H.R. 929 Deliberately Creates Confusion About Abortion and Its Incidence" (you have to click titles to get there):

"After the point of viability, abortions are rare and are performed to protect the life and health of women. There is no evidence that healthy women carrying healthy fetuses are able to obtain abortions after the point of viability. To our knowledge, no doctor has said he has performed an abortion after viability on a healthy woman with a healthy fetus; no woman has said she had an abortion in that circumstance."

and under "Abortions after 24 Weeks of Pregnancy":
"Only one out of every 10,000 women who have abortions have them after 24 weeks. These are performed only when there is a serious threat to a woman's life or health or if the fetus is severely deformed."

then we find, on the same site, under "Abortions after Fetal Viability":
"In addition to abortions for medical indications such as these, abortions after viability also are sought by a very small number of women in extremely difficult life situations, such as very young girls who conceal their pregnancies or who may be victims of incest; women who abuse alcohol or other drugs; or women who suffer severe mental or emotional impairments."

under "What Is Fetal Viability?", we see:

"A fetus is viable when it reaches an "anatomical threshold" when critical organs, such as the lungs and kidneys, can sustain independent life. Until the air sacs are mature enough to permit gases to pass into and out of the bloodstream, which is extremely unlikely until at least 23 weeks gestation (from last menstrual period), a fetus cannot be sustained even with a respirator, which can force air into the lungs but cannot pass gas from the lungs into the bloodstream.(5) •While medical advances have increased the survival of infants born between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation, the point of viability has moved little over the past decade; at the earliest, it remains at approximately 24 weeks, where it was when the Supreme Court decided Roe"

then under "How Is Viability Determined?"

- Viability is a medical, not a legal term. The point of viability varies with each pregnancy and must be determined by physicians on a case-by-case basis, as recognized by the Supreme Court in cases since Roe.
- In Colautti, the Supreme Court defined viability as occurring "when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support."
- In Danforth, the Supreme Court said, "[I]t is not the proper function of the legislature or the courts to place viability, which essentially is a medical concept, at a specific point in the gestation period ... and the determination of whether a particular fetus is viable is, and must be, a matter for the judgment of the responsible attending physician."

"In the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which established the right to abortion throughout the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to privacy extends to the decision of a woman, in consultation with her physician, to terminate a pregnancy. That right, according to the court in Roe, is not absolute and must be balanced against the state's legitimate interest in protecting both the health of the pregnant woman and the developing human life. According to Roe, at the point of fetal viability (when the fetus has the capacity for sustained survival outside the uterus), the state's interest in protecting potential life becomes compelling, and the state may proscribe abortion, except when necessary to preserve the woman's life or health.
In Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth(1) (1976) and Colautti v. Franklin(2) (1979), the Supreme Court made clear that viability is a medical determination, which varies with each pregnancy, and that it is the responsibility of the attending physician to make that determination."