Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions - Page 4

tau_neutrino · 04-19-2007, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

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?

Suicide is illegal? To my knowledge it's not in the US.

**Pokerface** · 04-19-2007, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

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

"What? You want an abortion? It's for your health, you say? Well, let's see when the docket's free... does eleven months from tomorrow work for you?"

"Oh, it won't be a problem by then anymore? Well great!"

**Pokerface** · 04-19-2007, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tau_neutrino

Suicide is illegal? To my knowledge it's not in the US.

ATTEMPTED suicide is illegal in some states. Helping others commit suicide is illegal everywhere but... Oregon?

thebleakaffinity · 04-19-2007, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

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.

You're right, I don't have a soul, because souls are made up. But just because you think a medical procedure is "icky" doesn't mean it shouldn't be performed. I don't think I could watch open heart surgery, but that doesn't mean I don't think they should be performed.

Read Sordavie's link. I know it's long and written in academic jibber-jabber, but it really does clarify the notion of abortion being murder.

Oh, and suicide is only illegal so that the police/social services can intervene. It's not about suicide being morally wrong, it's about preventing the mentally ill from committing self-harm.

**CingularDuality** · 04-19-2007, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

ATTEMPTED suicide is illegal in some states. Helping others commit suicide is illegal everywhere but... Oregon?

I think that it's still legally vague in many states...

Quote:

Originally Posted by sordavie

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

You did this in another thread, as well, and I want to scold you for it. You're a smart guy, and I believe that you knew exactly what Squid meant when he used the word "semantics".

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmericanHeritageDictionary

se·man·tics (sĭ-măn'tĭks)
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
2. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.

The first two definitions are clearly labeled as technical definitions for the field of linguistics. The third one is the common definition. I'm sure you were aware of that.

Please don't intentionally choose a definition other than the one that is obviously being used simply to antagonize someone. It's not respectful, and is, therefore, against the rules of this forum.

E-Male · 04-19-2007, 10:47 AM

From the Washington Post today:

'A Shift on Abortions
The Supreme Court upholds a ban on partial-birth procedures -- and imperils the right of women to choose.

Thursday, April 19, 2007; Page A26

YESTERDAY'S Supreme Court ruling upholding the ban on the procedure known as partial-birth abortion is not apt to prevent any abortions: Most likely, the tiny percentage of women who would have undergone this admittedly gruesome procedure will instead opt to terminate their pregnancies by another procedure, equally, if not more, gruesome. But the 5 to 4 ruling, whose result is most easily explained by a change in the court's membership since it overturned a similar statute seven years ago, will certainly prevent some women from choosing the abortion procedure that their doctors believe would be safest in their individual cases.

Even more chilling, though, are the implications of the court's approach. Supporters of abortion rights have reason to be alarmed by the majority's decision, for the first time since Roe v. Wade, to uphold an abortion restriction that makes no exception for a woman's health; its elevation of the importance of the state interest in protecting the fetus throughout pregnancy; and its cavalier willingness to uphold the law absent proof that it "would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases." That analysis, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized in the dissent she read from the bench, represents a dramatic departure: It "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court."

The most immediately disturbing aspect of the ruling is the majority's breezy dismissal of medical evidence that the partial-birth procedure is sometimes in the best interest of a pregnant woman's health. After the court overturned Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000 in part because it lacked a health exception, Congress moved to get around that inconvenience by issuing a legislative finding that the procedure is never medically necessary. Three separate district courts, upheld by three appeals courts, found that this was unreasonable and unsupported by medical evidence. The majority ruling, by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, overcomes this obstacle by simply asserting that the law can withstand legal challenge when "medical uncertainty persists."

Tell that to a woman whose doctor believes that performing the partial-birth procedure would provide a better chance of allowing her to bear children in the future. Nearly as galling is the majority's paternalistic pretense that the law can be justified by Congress's interest "in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession" and in protecting pregnant women from making a choice they may come to regret.

..."

Those arguing for this ruling, and increased state-control over women, are moralizing on behalf of a very paternalistic society. Men seeking more guns and more control over women.

Howl on ...

E-Male · 04-19-2007, 11:01 AM

And, form the evil, liberal, New York Times a related comment on the ignorance, gendered, and moralistic character of the recent decision:

Editorial
Denying the Right to Choose

"Among the major flaws in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision giving the federal government power to limit a woman’s right to make decisions about her health was its fundamental dishonesty.

...

It severely eroded the constitutional respect and protection accorded to women and the personal decisions they make about pregnancy and childbirth. The justices went so far as to eviscerate the crucial requirement, which dates to the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, that all abortion regulations must have an exception to protect a woman’s health.

As far as we know, Mr. Kennedy and his four colleagues responsible for this atrocious result are not doctors. Yet these five male justices felt free to override the weight of medical evidence presented during the several trials that preceded the Supreme Court showdown. Instead, they ratified the politically based and dangerously dubious Congressional claim that criminalizing the intact dilation and extraction method of abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy — the so-called partial-birth method — would never pose a significant health risk to a woman. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has found the procedure to be medically necessary in certain cases.

Justice Kennedy actually reasoned that banning the procedure was good for women in that it would protect them from a procedure they might not fully understand in advance and would probably come to regret. This way of thinking, that women are flighty creatures who must be protected by men, reflects notions of a woman’s place in the family and under the Constitution that have long been discredited, said a powerful dissenting opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer.

...

For anti-abortion activists, this case has never been about just one controversial procedure. They have correctly seen it as a wedge that could ultimately be used to undermine and perhaps eliminate abortion rights eventually. The court has handed the Bush administration and other opponents of women’s reproductive rights the big political victory they were hoping to get from the conservative judges Mr. Bush has added to the bench. It comes at a real cost to the court’s credibility, its integrity and the rule of law."

As with much that has gone on during the Bush Administration, we again see a highly politicized use of law and a process that is 'fundamentally dishonest' from the same Admin that brought us the most dishonest war the West has ever waged. Next step will be to have Haliburton replace doctors :-) (that is a joke...)

**TheFeniX** · 04-19-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-Male

Men seeking more guns and more control over women.

.......... nevermind. This comment just speaks for itself.

**CingularDuality** · 04-19-2007, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-Male

From the Washington Post today:

'A Shift on Abortions
The Supreme Court upholds a ban on partial-birth procedures -- and imperils the right of women to choose.

Thursday, April 19, 2007; Page A26

...Even more chilling, though, are the implications of the court's approach. Supporters of abortion rights have reason to be alarmed by the majority's decision, for the first time since Roe v. Wade, to uphold an abortion restriction that makes no exception for a woman's health; its elevation of the importance of the state interest in protecting the fetus throughout pregnancy; and its cavalier willingness to uphold the law absent proof that it "would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases." That analysis, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized in the dissent she read from the bench, represents a dramatic departure: It "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court."...

This is what disturbs me the most... I don't understand the legal reasoning behind outlawing a woman's right to protecting her health. Whatever happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Why in the world would we give a fetus rights over an actual person?

As quoted in your next post, this is the first ruling of this new court that seriously undermines the court's credibility. They didn't make this decision rationally and legally, they used their own personal beliefs instead of interpreting the Constitution. This is a very bad thing.

Kerostasis · 04-19-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

They didn't make this decision rationally and legally, they used their own personal beliefs instead of interpreting the Constitution.

You know, there are an awful lot of people who don't interpret the constitution as prohibiting Congress from regulating abortions...

**Pokerface** · 04-19-2007, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

You know, there are an awful lot of people who don't interpret the constitution as prohibiting Congress from regulating abortions...

Which amendment allows them to do so? I must've missed whichever one it was.

Kerostasis · 04-19-2007, 04:30 PM

Which amendment allows them to regulate my ability to drive a car? Thats not explicitly in there either, but Congress has taken it upon themselves to regulate just about everything you can think of. I'm not familiar with the exact legal arguments involved in letting them regulate everything from who builds my air conditioning to how I can pay for my medical bills, but where's the distinction that makes the taking of young life so much harder to regulate?

Justice Ginsburg's dissent contains lots of complaints about the law in question, and the courts ruling, but none of them make your point that Congress just doesn't have any regulative authority to begin with. I think you're pulling that one out of thin air.

E-Male · 04-19-2007, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

.......... nevermind. This comment just speaks for itself.

Of course, we can deny that these issue have no relationship to gender and power, particularly gendered (male) power. Let's pretend that they are disconnected from the broader context of male domination over the institutional apparatus that embodies and maintains these power relationships. Lets just turn a blind eye to gender and gendered power while we discuss the operation of predominately male institutions.

Ok, all those male voices out there, together now, rise up and shout, 'this is not about gender, this is not an excercise of institutionalized male power'.

Howl on, men, howl on ...

**Pokerface** · 04-19-2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Which amendment allows them to regulate my ability to drive a car?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.. It's not an amendment; it's in the original unamended text. And even then, they don't regulate an average person's ability to drive a car. That's usually a state thing (per Amendment 10, unless it touches on the aformentioned Article).

There's the distinction. This is a state matter, not a federal one. Hell, homicide (the everyone-agrees-on-it version where a 40 year-old non-fetus shoots another 40 year-old non-fetus in the head) is a state crime, not a federal one.

**TheFeniX** · 04-19-2007, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-Male

Of course, we can deny that these issue have no relationship to gender and power, particularly gendered (male) power. Let's pretend that they are disconnected from the broader context of male domination over the institutional apparatus that embodies and maintains these power relationships. Lets just turn a blind eye to gender and gendered power while we discuss the operation of predominately male institutions.

Ok, all those male voices out there, together now, rise up and shout, 'this is not about gender, this is not an excercise of institutionalized male power'.

Howl on, men, howl on ...

What exactly does gun control have to do with partial birth abortions?

Here's a protip about effective arguing: going off-topic is bad enough. Going off-topic at the end of your rant merely causes a roll-eyes effect on people who may support one issue but not the completely irrelevant one. Your last few comments are where a person is supposed to drive the argument home to the reader, not make them take a step back and think "what the Hell?"

Her comment is nothing more than a jab at the male gender. While I can understand that considering the circumstances, this comment was worthless by assuming that all people who are pro-life are pro-gun. Oh and for the record, there are a number of women in this country who are pro-life. Unless you think Neo-conservatism is limited to men.

The sad part is: I'm pro-choice. Always have been, always will be. But the way in which this article was ended just stinks.

04-19-2007, 10:47 AM	#51 (permalink)
E-Male Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Ottawa Age: 45 Posts: 883	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions From the Washington Post today: 'A Shift on Abortions The Supreme Court upholds a ban on partial-birth procedures -- and imperils the right of women to choose. Thursday, April 19, 2007; Page A26 YESTERDAY'S Supreme Court ruling upholding the ban on the procedure known as partial-birth abortion is not apt to prevent any abortions: Most likely, the tiny percentage of women who would have undergone this admittedly gruesome procedure will instead opt to terminate their pregnancies by another procedure, equally, if not more, gruesome. But the 5 to 4 ruling, whose result is most easily explained by a change in the court's membership since it overturned a similar statute seven years ago, will certainly prevent some women from choosing the abortion procedure that their doctors believe would be safest in their individual cases. Even more chilling, though, are the implications of the court's approach. Supporters of abortion rights have reason to be alarmed by the majority's decision, for the first time since Roe v. Wade, to uphold an abortion restriction that makes no exception for a woman's health; its elevation of the importance of the state interest in protecting the fetus throughout pregnancy; and its cavalier willingness to uphold the law absent proof that it "would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases." That analysis, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized in the dissent she read from the bench, represents a dramatic departure: It "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court." The most immediately disturbing aspect of the ruling is the majority's breezy dismissal of medical evidence that the partial-birth procedure is sometimes in the best interest of a pregnant woman's health. After the court overturned Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000 in part because it lacked a health exception, Congress moved to get around that inconvenience by issuing a legislative finding that the procedure is never medically necessary. Three separate district courts, upheld by three appeals courts, found that this was unreasonable and unsupported by medical evidence. The majority ruling, by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, overcomes this obstacle by simply asserting that the law can withstand legal challenge when "medical uncertainty persists." Tell that to a woman whose doctor believes that performing the partial-birth procedure would provide a better chance of allowing her to bear children in the future. Nearly as galling is the majority's paternalistic pretense that the law can be justified by Congress's interest "in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession" and in protecting pregnant women from making a choice they may come to regret. ..." Those arguing for this ruling, and increased state-control over women, are moralizing on behalf of a very paternalistic society. Men seeking more guns and more control over women. Howl on ... __________________ E-Male

04-19-2007, 11:01 AM	#52 (permalink)
E-Male Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Ottawa Age: 45 Posts: 883	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions And, form the evil, liberal, New York Times a related comment on the ignorance, gendered, and moralistic character of the recent decision: Editorial Denying the Right to Choose "Among the major flaws in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision giving the federal government power to limit a woman’s right to make decisions about her health was its fundamental dishonesty. ... It severely eroded the constitutional respect and protection accorded to women and the personal decisions they make about pregnancy and childbirth. The justices went so far as to eviscerate the crucial requirement, which dates to the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, that all abortion regulations must have an exception to protect a woman’s health. As far as we know, Mr. Kennedy and his four colleagues responsible for this atrocious result are not doctors. Yet these five male justices felt free to override the weight of medical evidence presented during the several trials that preceded the Supreme Court showdown. Instead, they ratified the politically based and dangerously dubious Congressional claim that criminalizing the intact dilation and extraction method of abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy — the so-called partial-birth method — would never pose a significant health risk to a woman. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has found the procedure to be medically necessary in certain cases. Justice Kennedy actually reasoned that banning the procedure was good for women in that it would protect them from a procedure they might not fully understand in advance and would probably come to regret. This way of thinking, that women are flighty creatures who must be protected by men, reflects notions of a woman’s place in the family and under the Constitution that have long been discredited, said a powerful dissenting opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer. ... For anti-abortion activists, this case has never been about just one controversial procedure. They have correctly seen it as a wedge that could ultimately be used to undermine and perhaps eliminate abortion rights eventually. The court has handed the Bush administration and other opponents of women’s reproductive rights the big political victory they were hoping to get from the conservative judges Mr. Bush has added to the bench. It comes at a real cost to the court’s credibility, its integrity and the rule of law." As with much that has gone on during the Bush Administration, we again see a highly politicized use of law and a process that is 'fundamentally dishonest' from the same Admin that brought us the most dishonest war the West has ever waged. Next step will be to have Haliburton replace doctors :-) (that is a joke...) __________________ E-Male

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links