What are your opinions

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
What are your opinions
11
Sat, 10-09-2004 - 8:39am

on the two candidates last night wrt thier answers re: stem cell research along with abortion.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 10-09-2004 - 9:18am

Both issues are very close to my heart for two reasons:


1. My sister almost died when pregnant with her second (very wanted) child. The child was developing without a skull or a brain and spinal fluid was leaking into my sister's blood stream. She had to have an abortion...a late term abortion. If the procedure is outlawed, people like my sister could die. I know there is a medical clause but who decides? Would my sister have to go to court to get an abortion to save her life? The child would not have lived outside of her body. It would have lived for maybe one to two hours and it would have been pointless for my sister to die to give birth to a child that couldn't live outside the womb.


2. My DH died painfully from brain cancer. He couldn't control his bowels, he was completely bedridden and he was blind in one eye before he died. Six months before he died he ran a marathon. My world view doesn't hold that cells in a petri dish..cells that only have the potential of life...cells that might be destroyed and were created artifically...are more important than living, human suffering human beings.


To me, it seems wasteful to throw away embroyos that have been over created in a fertility treatment. Either adopt them out (which is very rare) or let them used for research.


I am not going to argue either of these points...I am radically too close to both situations and it is very painful. The last time I put the scenario about my DH out there, another poster responded with "are you against death" Well, that is a pretty painful question to ask a widow with two small children. I am not against death but I am against suffering needlessly if we have the potential to solve some of that suffering.


I just put this post in so some posters could see how these situations effect people in every day life.


"I do not want to be a princess! I want to be myself"

Mallory (age 3)

      &nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 10-09-2004 - 9:27am
Well, I am pro choice and I am definitely for stem cell research.

I think that John Kerry handled himself excellently in the face of that woman's question regarding abortion. As far as I was concerned, he hit the nail right on the head. I don't necessarily believe in abortion, but who am I to say it isn't right for someone else in some other situation (i.e.--a teenager raped by her father). I want my daughters to have that option, I want my nieces to have that option.

As for stem cell research, I think that George Bush needs to open his eyes a little. I think that there are more people in this country who back stem cell research than he might believe. I have a niece with a congenital birth defect (brittle bone disease) who could possibly pass this disease on to her children (a 50-50 shot--and she got it from her dad). I would love to see some progress made on any disease. I think that LIFE is so important, but if these embryos are never going to see life, then why not use them to the advantage of all the people that ARE alive and all the babies that WILL see life?

I think each candidate made themselves VERY clear.

Leigh Anne

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2004
Sat, 10-09-2004 - 4:56pm
Here is an editorial in favor of Kerry.

http://www.familiesonlinemagazine.com/politics_endorsement.html

Gerri

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sat, 10-09-2004 - 7:05pm

I line up 100% with what Kerry said last night.

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 10-09-2004 - 10:24pm

You might want to do more research.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sat, 10-09-2004 - 11:29pm

I'll be honest - I don't feel like reading the entire thing in detail.

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 10-09-2004 - 11:31pm
The life clause isn't good enough. It needs to be *health* of the mother with the procedure at the discretion of the physician. Period.

KJ

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2004
Sun, 10-10-2004 - 12:19am
I reposted just this section, because if you don't know what a "Partial Birth Abortion" is, it may help to read the actual wording. If you still don't feel like reading it, here it is in a nutshell:

Labor is induced and the baby is partially delivered (if head first, the entire head is out, if breech, any part of the of the baby's trunk past the naval is outside of the mother's body). The physician drills a hole in the baby's skull and sucks its brains out, and then delivers the dead baby.

That is a "Partial Birth Abortion". This type of abortion can only be performed later in pregnancy (because of the process of aborting the child... labor does not have to be induced in early pregnancy, the baby isn't partially delivered in early pregnancy) so many people wrongly believe that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 makes it illegal to get an abortion after the first trimester. That is not the case. It specifically bans THIS particular procedure.

Does that help? It may be worth it (when you have time) to go back and read the entire Act. I think that there is a knee-jerk reaction to say that this is an all-encompassing abortion ban.

The PPFA website says,

"- Abortion ban, S.3, is sent to conference with the House of Representatives (September 17, 2003).

- Congress passes S.3, dangerous ban on abortion, endangering women's lives for political gain (October 22, 2003).

- The president signs abortion ban, the first federal legislation since Roe v. Wade to criminalize abortion, imperiling women's health (November 5, 2003)." <>

Lydia

This Act may be cited as the `Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds and declares the following:

(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Sun, 10-10-2004 - 8:53am

Also - Kerry specifically said he didn't vote for the late term abortion ban because there was no exception clause.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sun, 10-10-2004 - 11:40am

Ok, now I'm confused - according to Lydia's post above (thanks, Lydia) the 2 are seperate procedures - not all late term (by late term I'm referring to anything beyond the 1st trimester) abortions are partial-birth.


Regardless of Kerry's views on the subject, I do not support an all out ban on

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Pages