Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions - Page 3

tau_neutrino · 04-18-2007, 10:43 PM

My 2 cents:

It's a woman's body; it's her choice. Others shouldn't try to force their morals and beliefs onto her.

**USN_Squid** · 04-18-2007, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tau_neutrino

My 2 cents:

It's a woman's body; it's her choice. Others shouldn't try to force their morals and beliefs onto her.

So, isn't suicide illegal? Why?

By the way, those of you that are pro-choice don't want me to have the choice to own a gun, or the choice to send my tax money to the school of my choice. What's with all the semantics?

**sordavie** · 04-18-2007, 11:27 PM

Hm. Judith Jarvis Thomson gave us some highly compelling reasons 36 years ago for the conclusion that whether you think abortion is morally permissible or not is not a matter of whether the fetus is alive or a person. I don't understand why people still think that that's the focal point of the debate. It hasn't been for a long time.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/P...02/thomson.htm

War.mongeR1 · 04-18-2007, 11:28 PM

Ok, the debate on abortion is one issue, but partial-birth is another issue. I can guarantee that if you were to personally witness a partial-birth abortion, you would definately change your opinion. If you can witness one and STILL think it's fine and dandy, then you are a sick individual with no soul.

Do you pro-partial-birth abortion rights folks really understand what the procedure entails? It's absolutely horrifying. This is beyond a woman's right to choose. It's straight murder at this point. If a woman was to have the baby at her home, and throw it in a dumpster, she would be tried for murder. How is this any different except that they are crushing the baby's skull or sucking the brains out, BUT with a license to do so. I call BS on this one. I'm glad this insane act has finally been dealt with by the govt.

**sordavie** · 04-18-2007, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

What's with all the semantics?

What question are you asking about the study of the meaning of parts of language?

Kerostasis · 04-18-2007, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

I can guarantee that if you were to personally witness a partial-birth abortion, you would definately change your opinion. If you can witness one and STILL think it's fine and dandy, then you are a sick individual with no soul.

Although I share your revulsion with the procedure, you are aware that there are doctors who do this for a living, right? Presumably they have witnessed multiple partial-birth abortions, and they haven't changed their opinions.

War.mongeR1 · 04-19-2007, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Although I share your revulsion with the procedure, you are aware that there are doctors who do this for a living, right? Presumably they have witnessed multiple partial-birth abortions, and they haven't changed their opinions.

And it must take an even sicker individual to want to do this and accept money for doing it. Just because there are people willing to do anything for the allmighty dollar doesn't quite justify it.

**USN_Squid** · 04-19-2007, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sordavie

What question are you asking about the study of the meaning of parts of language?

It's just a comment on the political framing of the terms. Both sides of any argument use it, but I don't care for it that's all.

War.mongeR1 · 04-19-2007, 12:15 AM

If you think this practice is ok, then please watch this. It is obviously biased and pro-life, but as the person who posted it quotes, "Ignorance sustained by denial is crippling this nation's response to abortion. When something is so horrifying that we can't stand to look at it, perhaps we shouldn't be tolerating it!"

Warning! It is VERY graphic!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLk3-yYesRU

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 04-19-2007, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

And it must take an even sicker individual to want to do this and accept money for doing it. Just because there are people willing to do anything for the allmighty dollar doesn't quite justify it.

So the doctor who performs abortions to save a womans life is a sick individual?

While they may not do the partial birth abortion being discussed, they do remove fetuses that are fully formed but have sever defects. For example the brain never formed or the lungs did not develop. Rare but it does happen.

These things happen. One woman I knew was carrying a child whose brain formed on the outside of the skull. This was not discovered until late into the pregnancy. She was having problems with the pregnancy and was very sick. It was a difficult pregnancy from the beginning but, because her and her husband where morally against abortion, decided to continue it. The military didn't or couldn't perform the operation because it was against the rules. I think it was because it was so late in the pregnancy. Or maybe they had to get it approved through a bureaucratic authorization process. I don't know all the details because they didn't, understandably, like to discuss it. I do know that she and her husband had to find another doctor to do it and had to pay for it themselves.

Yes this is, thankfully, rare. But it does happen.

I am not saying that this ruling affects this kind of case. But I don't know. Doctors know and they, along with the patient, should be the ones to decide. Not some group of elected officials.

Steeler · 04-19-2007, 12:31 AM

War, I happen to think knee surgery is pretty ungodly to watch, but that doesn't in and of itself make the procedure wrong. Asking us to decide this issue strictly on the visual gruesomeness of the subject is a pure appeal to emotion of the most visceral sort and offers little to the discussion.

I think it's important to remember that there are some really critical and pressing medical reasons for late-term abortions that crop up from time to time and have nothing to do with the wider debates of "personhood" or "privacy" and everything to do with medicine. From tumors to blood intermixing, to severe birth defects that render the fetus non-viable, there are plenty of urgent cases that require this very specialized level of medical care and this otherwise very ugly procedure. Banning the procedure itself in all circumstances is, for some people, literally a death sentence. And this constant pressure on the health industry to prosecute or just persecute doctors for providing medical treatment moves us toward what the UK is seeing - less comprehensive medical care for women.

It will be interesting to see how this law shapes up on the enforcement side. Ashcroft, around the time this law was being drafted, attempted to do blanket subpoenas on national medical records, tagging potential abortions. One wonders if he had intended to immediately begin prosecuting doctors and/or women for this.

Edit: El_Gringo beat me to it.

War.mongeR1 · 04-19-2007, 12:33 AM

The law DOES make an exception for the life of the mother, rape, incest, and things of the sort. What they are banning is indiscriminate partial-birth abortions that are done just because the baby is unwanted. Please understand that.

And there is a big difference between getting knee surgery and an abortion. Even if you get a leg or an arm lopped off, you're body parts don't have brains of their own. Blood and guts don't bother me in the least. It's seeing a fully formed little person being killed and ripped apart that bothers me.

Remember, this is partial-birth abortions we're discussing here. What's the difference between the week before a scheduled birth, and after a scheduled birth? Would you find it ok for a mother to kill their baby AFTER it was born naturally? What if it was premature? Would it be ok for mothers to have the options to kill the babies in nurseries or the NICUs? PLEASE answer this question with honesty and sincerity.

Steeler · 04-19-2007, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Congress passed the law in response to the court’s ruling in the Nebraska case, responding specifically to the majority’s insistence in that case that the law must include an exception for circumstances when the banned procedure was necessary for the sake of a pregnant woman’s health.

Congress provided an exception only to save a pregnant woman’s life, as Nebraska had, declaring that the procedure was never necessary for a woman’s health.
Justice Kennedy, in addressing the need for the health exception, said on Wednesday that it was acceptable for Congress not to include one because there was “medical uncertainty” over whether the banned procedure was ever necessary for the sake of a woman’s health. He said that pregnant women or their doctors could assert an individual need for a health exception by going to court to challenge the law as it applied to them.

Justice Ginsburg said that this approach was unrealistic and “gravely mistaken.” She said that requiring “piecemeal” litigation “jeopardizes women’s health and places doctors in an untenable position.”

Emphasis mine.

Only life of the mother, not health. There's a hell of a wide range between the two, medically speaking. and I don't see anything in here about rape and incest. Incidentally, why would it be ok to kill a product of rape or incest? Why the double standard?

Quote:

Kennedy:
“Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child,” he said, adding: “It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form.”

This is the worst kind of paternalistic bulls*** and I'm glad Justice Ginsburg very loudly said so.

Quote:

Ginsburg:
Justice Ginsburg objected vehemently that “this way of thinking reflects ancient notions of women’s place in the family and under the Constitution — ideas that have long since been discredited.”

She cited century-old Supreme Court cases that upheld a paternalistic view of women’s place in society and contrasted those with more recent cases, including one she successfully argued to the court in 1977 and one in which she wrote the majority opinion in 1996, that rejected “archaic and overbroad generalizations” and assumptions about women’s inherent dependency.

It's very clear that this is not about banning "partial-birth abortion" which is a ginned-up marketing phrase for a valid medical procedure. This is about banning abortion, period. This is just what they can currently get away with because the imagery involved is graphci enough to stir an emotional response.

Kerostasis · 04-19-2007, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Congress passed the law in response to the court’s ruling in the Nebraska case, responding specifically to the majority’s insistence in that case that the law must include an exception for circumstances when the banned procedure was necessary for the sake of a pregnant woman’s health.

Congress provided an exception only to save a pregnant woman’s life, as Nebraska had, declaring that the procedure was never necessary for a woman’s health.
Justice Kennedy, in addressing the need for the health exception, said on Wednesday that it was acceptable for Congress not to include one because there was “medical uncertainty” over whether the banned procedure was ever necessary for the sake of a woman’s health. He said that pregnant women or their doctors could assert an individual need for a health exception by going to court to challenge the law as it applied to them.

Justice Ginsburg said that this approach was unrealistic and “gravely mistaken.” She said that requiring “piecemeal” litigation “jeopardizes women’s health and places doctors in an untenable position.”

Emphasis mine. Remember also that this man is the swing vote on a 4-4-1 court.

**snooggums** · 04-19-2007, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judge_Leo

Bleak I hope your opinion will change after you have a couple "parasites" running around your house leaving fingerprints on everything and crawling into bed to snuggle on Saturday mornings.

If it is running around your house it is no longer a parasite and has become a person. Until birth the fetus lives completely off of the mother's health, and barely contributes by boosting her immune system.

Pregnancies often have complications and problems can crop up late in the pregnancy, this is when people make tough decisions to end a pregnancy for the health of the mother. People who are simply aborting because they don't care about the child will do so in the first trimester before the fetus causes them health issues.

This law prohibits a safe procedure for the mother during that time, instead deciding for that person and the doctor that this surgery is never ever possible. If it was written with the mother in mind it would simply say that they require two doctor's approvals before surgery. It could no longer be considered elective but still remain for emergency usage. This law is simply and anti-abortion measure.

Quote:

Justice Kennedy, in addressing the need for the health exception, said on Wednesday that it was acceptable for Congress not to include one because there was “medical uncertainty” over whether the banned procedure was ever necessary for the sake of a woman’s health. He said that pregnant women or their doctors could assert an individual need for a health exception by going to court to challenge the law as it applied to them.

Courts don't work fast enough for short term medical issues. Kennedy made a bad decision.

04-18-2007, 10:43 PM	#31 (permalink)
tau_neutrino Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: San Diego, CA Age: 26 Posts: 1,038	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions My 2 cents: It's a woman's body; it's her choice. Others shouldn't try to force their morals and beliefs onto her. __________________ TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

04-18-2007, 11:27 PM	#33 (permalink)
sordavie Join Date: Nov 2005 Age: 27 Posts: 1,928	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions Hm. Judith Jarvis Thomson gave us some highly compelling reasons 36 years ago for the conclusion that whether you think abortion is morally permissible or not is not a matter of whether the fetus is alive or a person. I don't understand why people still think that that's the focal point of the debate. It hasn't been for a long time. http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/P...02/thomson.htm __________________

04-18-2007, 11:28 PM	#34 (permalink)
War.mongeR1 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 1,212	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions Ok, the debate on abortion is one issue, but partial-birth is another issue. I can guarantee that if you were to personally witness a partial-birth abortion, you would definately change your opinion. If you can witness one and STILL think it's fine and dandy, then you are a sick individual with no soul. Do you pro-partial-birth abortion rights folks really understand what the procedure entails? It's absolutely horrifying. This is beyond a woman's right to choose. It's straight murder at this point. If a woman was to have the baby at her home, and throw it in a dumpster, she would be tried for murder. How is this any different except that they are crushing the baby's skull or sucking the brains out, BUT with a license to do so. I call BS on this one. I'm glad this insane act has finally been dealt with by the govt. __________________ "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

04-19-2007, 12:15 AM	#39 (permalink)
War.mongeR1 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 1,212	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions If you think this practice is ok, then please watch this. It is obviously biased and pro-life, but as the person who posted it quotes, "Ignorance sustained by denial is crippling this nation's response to abortion. When something is so horrifying that we can't stand to look at it, perhaps we shouldn't be tolerating it!" Warning! It is VERY graphic! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLk3-yYesRU __________________ "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

04-19-2007, 12:31 AM	#41 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,925	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions War, I happen to think knee surgery is pretty ungodly to watch, but that doesn't in and of itself make the procedure wrong. Asking us to decide this issue strictly on the visual gruesomeness of the subject is a pure appeal to emotion of the most visceral sort and offers little to the discussion. I think it's important to remember that there are some really critical and pressing medical reasons for late-term abortions that crop up from time to time and have nothing to do with the wider debates of "personhood" or "privacy" and everything to do with medicine. From tumors to blood intermixing, to severe birth defects that render the fetus non-viable, there are plenty of urgent cases that require this very specialized level of medical care and this otherwise very ugly procedure. Banning the procedure itself in all circumstances is, for some people, literally a death sentence. And this constant pressure on the health industry to prosecute or just persecute doctors for providing medical treatment moves us toward what the UK is seeing - less comprehensive medical care for women. It will be interesting to see how this law shapes up on the enforcement side. Ashcroft, around the time this law was being drafted, attempted to do blanket subpoenas on national medical records, tagging potential abortions. One wonders if he had intended to immediately begin prosecuting doctors and/or women for this. Edit: El_Gringo beat me to it. __________________

04-19-2007, 12:33 AM	#42 (permalink)
War.mongeR1 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 1,212	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions The law DOES make an exception for the life of the mother, rape, incest, and things of the sort. What they are banning is indiscriminate partial-birth abortions that are done just because the baby is unwanted. Please understand that. And there is a big difference between getting knee surgery and an abortion. Even if you get a leg or an arm lopped off, you're body parts don't have brains of their own. Blood and guts don't bother me in the least. It's seeing a fully formed little person being killed and ripped apart that bothers me. Remember, this is partial-birth abortions we're discussing here. What's the difference between the week before a scheduled birth, and after a scheduled birth? Would you find it ok for a mother to kill their baby AFTER it was born naturally? What if it was premature? Would it be ok for mothers to have the options to kill the babies in nurseries or the NICUs? PLEASE answer this question with honesty and sincerity. __________________ "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links