dy156

I know in the musical Elphie was accused by Glinda of "flying off the handle" and it was kind of a big deal when she flew off into the western sky, but "flying off the deep end"? Maybe some mixed metaphors there.

Rather than spend more time discussing the debate- I actually want to address a few points that were debated, and hopefully get this thing back on track.

I'm about as conservative as one can get. In fact, this is yet another instance where I think you can, if you're being intellectually honest, go so far to the right that you come out on the left, and prove once again that a spectrum is a poor metaphor for the range of political thought.

As a general rule, I'm adamantly against aborting a viable fetus. It's terrible. What's more, the age of viability has gone down dramatically since Roe v. Wade, and I think that the courts have done a poor job of upholding stupid laws that restrict abortions, while not really facing and upholding the reasons for the Roe decision. Prime example: parental notification laws. I'd rather a 16 year old have a clump of cells sucked out in the first few months, rather than follow the steps to get a court order or notify her parents, make sure she's dotted the i's and crossed the t's to comply with the restrictions on abortions and followed the law imposed by supposedly conservative state legislatures and judges; meanwhile that clump of cells has grown into a fetus that should not be aborted, but she's followed the law, dotted the i's and crossed the t's, and therefore she gets to have the abortion, because "Roe v. Wade makes abortion legal." That was not at all the intention. In fact, if I recall, Justices O'Conner and Stevens wrote in that opinion about viability of the fetus.

In the same pissed-off-because-so-called-conservatives-are-intellectually-dishonest-and-have-made-this-arch-conservative-distraught-about-the-Republican-party rant, I think we've missed the boat on "partial-birth abortions" too. I mistrust the government, and especially the Congress. The life-threatening-to-the-mother standard mentioned is actually very high, and every doctor I know has an inordinate (although often unsubstantiated) fear of lawyers. Doctors that might be making a decision about whether to abort a third-term pregnacy are faced with an extremely complex problem. Maybe it's not clear cut that the situation is life threatening, but the risk to the mother is great, and the probability of a healthy child is very slim. In that case, I'd place my trust in a doctor to make those tough calls. The doctor has not only been through education, both lengthier and more rigorous, than that of most legislators, Congressmen, and judges lack in the field, but has also worked ungodly hours in their specialty to give them experience upon which to base their decision and rely. They have at their disposal sophisticated sonogram and other medical equipment, and the state of the art will always outpace legislation governing it. I've had friends who have had stillborn children, and thankfully the mother was in no danger. But I'd rather leave every option open to the doctors that specialize in that area of medicine. The recent story about the mkother that had advanced cancer, but was kept alive so that she could deliver a baby was heart warming. But what if the situation were reversed? A mother with a severe disease was about to give birth to a baby that would likely have little chance of survival. It's a tough call, and in the gray area of what is right, but I'd rather a specialist doctor make that tough call than a politician.

I'm against the partial birth abortion ban, but I question any "conservative" that contradicts me and places more trust in lawmakers and judges than doctors in their support of it.