Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions - Page 5

Kerostasis · 04-19-2007, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

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.

And yet the arguments used in court and in the dissenting opinion had nothing to do with state's rights and everything to do with medical exceptions. Hmm. I guess Planned Parenthood should have hired you on as one of their lawyers.

Yet somehow I suspect that if a state passed the exact same law, you would still be complaining about it...for example, Nebraska passed what basically was the same law a few years ago, and the Supreme Court knocked that one down already. For health reasons.

Steeler · 04-19-2007, 06:15 PM

Right, because being secure in one's person trumps state's rights in this case. Hence, any ban without a health exception is patently unconstitutional (in my, and until recently the SCOTUS's opinion), because it removes agency from a woman in the status of her own body. And any ban with a health exception (or a rape or incest exception) implies that the act is not murder, which undermines the moral urgency for the ban to begin with, and the whole thing falls apart.

It basically comes down to whether you think it's murder or not. Few minds can be swayed on this point.

War.mongeR1 · 04-19-2007, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

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.

Not one of you has answered my questions. Don't avoid this one, please.

**snooggums** · 04-19-2007, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

Quote:

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1 View Post
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.

Not one of you has answered my questions. Don't avoid this one, please.

Since the procedure the court allowed to remain banned that we are discussing (a specific partial birth abortion) occurs in the second half of the second trimester your appeal to emotion is not relevant and does not deserve an answer.

**Pokerface** · 04-19-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

And yet the arguments used in court and in the dissenting opinion had nothing to do with state's rights and everything to do with medical exceptions. Hmm. I guess Planned Parenthood should have hired you on as one of their lawyers.

Yet somehow I suspect that if a state passed the exact same law, you would still be complaining about it...for example, Nebraska passed what basically was the same law a few years ago, and the Supreme Court knocked that one down already. For health reasons.

You're absolutely right on all counts.

The Supreme Court dropped the ball by not calling out the US Congress for sticking its nose where it has no legal basis for going. While I'd be flattered if PP wanted me for a lawyer, I'd rather be a SC Justice.

If a state passed the same law, I'd still be against it, but not for the same legal reason, obviously. States have the legal ability to muck around in lives like that if they want, but ability doesn't mean obligation.

I'd be against it for the simple reason of the side of the fence I come down on with regard to Steeler's most recent post; I don't think abortion is murder. Sad? Yes. Cause for great grief and remorse? Absolutely. Something I'd want anyone I know to go through for ANY reason whatsoever? Not on your life. But I wouldn't want to (legally) stop them if they felt it was needed, because I think that it's a personal choice and not murder.

**Pokerface** · 04-19-2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

Not one of you has answered my questions. Don't avoid this one, please.

That reminds me of my funniest religion class ever.

When your right-wing zealot teacher comes in wearing a birthday hat that says "Life Begins At 40!", it can inspire some GREAT conversation.

Kerostasis · 04-19-2007, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

That reminds me of my funniest religion class ever.

When your right-wing zealot teacher comes in wearing a birthday hat that says "Life Begins At 40!", it can inspire some GREAT conversation.

Too good to pass up

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 04-19-2007, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

Not one of you has answered my questions. Don't avoid this one, please.

I will take a stab at it. But I have an two bad teeth and the pain killers (with the aid of a couple of beers

) have altered my mental capabilities just a smidgen.

So anywho....

Partial birth abortions do not mean the baby is about to be borne. It just means, I think, that the cervix must be dilated because the fetus is to large for a normal abortion. The fetus is "removed" a certain percentage out of the female before it is terminated. The reason for it, as has been stated in some of the other posts, is that it presents less potential for harm to the woman. This is because the fetus is expelled in a more natural manor. It is this more natural manor that has so many people upset. Humans have this tendency to use the whole "If it walks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck then it must be a duck" methodology of determining sameness.*

But it really isn't the same. The fetus is not (or very rarely anyway) viable. At this point a normal abortion can still be performed. And this new ruling doesn't stop those normal abortions or alternate methods. The doctor can perform a "C" section. Or they can try and do it like they would have a month or so before. The problem is the chance of harm to the woman is, of course, greater.

If that isn't enough of an answer then go look the stuff up. But please don't just read the anti-abortion stuff. And please don't just read the pro-choice stuff. Read both then go and read a couple of medical opinions about it all.

I think this does bring up an interesting question. But I only think it does. It could be interesting because of the Lortab and Heineken Light.

In short it is about trying to save the fetus at the various stages. Would technology that allowed a fertilized embryo to be easily and safely removed from the womb into a artificial womb change this discussion any? This is, for the time being, purely theoretical. But if this was possible would the debate change any?

I think it would. I think the woman could then say "I don't want to have a child" and those that believed that this zygote, embryo, fetus is a human being could then front the money to "save" it. If they didn't want to pay this money it would be on their head?

I hope I don't come out of this opium induce haze in a couple of days** and regret this post.

*Mainly because it is just so damn effective most of the time.

**I am still working. I am amazed at the quality of my code while in this state. I actually write better stuff when at a certain level of intoxication. Fewer bugs anyway. I confirmed this with my last root canal. I compare the two days before, the two days of and the two days after. There was actually more code and fewer bugs. Go figure.

War.mongeR1 · 04-19-2007, 10:52 PM

Thank you all for answering the question directly. I highly disagree, but at least some of ya'll have the guts to answer the tough questions. Life at 40. That's funny. When you brought that up, how did your teacher respond?

**Pokerface** · 04-19-2007, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

Thank you all for answering the question directly. I highly disagree, but at least some of ya'll have the guts to answer the tough questions. Life at 40. That's funny. When you brought that up, how did your teacher respond?

He tried to pass it off as a joke. We took it to the extreme logical limits for the next 40 minutes.

I <3 my Jesuit education.

Steeler · 04-20-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

Thank you all for answering the question directly. I highly disagree, but at least some of ya'll have the guts to answer the tough questions.

Technically, he didn't. He just had the patience to explain the fallacy inherent in your question.

Kerostasis · 04-20-2007, 01:10 PM

The implication was that the writer of the editorial was going off topic, not that your post was going off topic. It was an editorial on birth control, and all of a sudden she threw in some random comments on gun control, making the unsubstantiated assertion that both of them are strictly male-power-over-females issues, and therefore certainly couldn't have any logical standing as issues in their own rights.

**leejo** · 04-23-2007, 07:42 PM

Another member sent me this article today (you'd be surprised!):

http://www.reason.com/news/show/119795.html

Quote:

The court cited one nurse's account of this procedure. The doctor, she said, "delivered the baby's body and arms -- everything but the head." At that point, she said, "The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out... The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out."

GG SCOTUS.

Tempest · 04-26-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Liberals are in fact perfectly happy for the government to get its hands on the issue. They want the government to ensure mamixum possible propagation of abortion in all forms, even to the extent of paying for it and limiting dissemination of information on alternate paths.

WTF? You make us sound like we are all coat-hanger wielding maniacs.

What is the point in only outlawing this one procedure? If the sanctity of human life is at issue, why not just outlaw all viable late term abortions?

Kerostasis · 04-26-2007, 06:42 PM

There's a lot of people who have tried just that. And the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional.

Your point?

04-19-2007, 06:15 PM	#62 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,921	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions Right, because being secure in one's person trumps state's rights in this case. Hence, any ban without a health exception is patently unconstitutional (in my, and until recently the SCOTUS's opinion), because it removes agency from a woman in the status of her own body. And any ban with a health exception (or a rape or incest exception) implies that the act is not murder, which undermines the moral urgency for the ban to begin with, and the whole thing falls apart. It basically comes down to whether you think it's murder or not. Few minds can be swayed on this point. __________________

04-19-2007, 10:52 PM	#69 (permalink)
War.mongeR1 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 1,210	Re: Supreme Court upholds ban on partial-birth abortions Thank you all for answering the question directly. I highly disagree, but at least some of ya'll have the guts to answer the tough questions. Life at 40. That's funny. When you brought that up, how did your teacher respond? __________________ "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