Third Party & Independents: Archives

C’mon, Misha, I thought you knew something about the law. The judge is not condoning partial birth abortions across the board. The judge is stating that the law banning the procedure must make accomodation for those rare instances when a woman’s life and the unborn’s life are mutually and exclusively in jeopardy. The judge is stating the ban must provide an allowance for someone other than the government to decide which is to live and which is not under these circumstances, (e.g. the mother, family, Dr. etc.) The government is specifically precluded by the Constitution to deprive life without due process, hence, in a decision between saving the life of the mother or child, where both cannot be saved, a provision must be made in the ban for someone other than the government making that decision. To allow the law as currently formed to prevail, the government in such circumstances would be making the decision by law in favor of the unborn and against the mother without due process (for which time for due process to take place would not be available.)

It was an intelligent and consistent decision. Let the lawmakers redraft the law to allow for such a decision to be made by the mother, family and Dr., and this judge will have no problem with the law being in contradiction to the Constitution.

I’ve always stayed on the sidelines regarding abortion because, overall, I think medical issues should be strictly between doctor and patient.

But at the same time I’m deeply troubled by the practice of abortion under any and all circumstances and then trivializing the practice by calling it a “right to choose.” Killing isn’t a “right”, but under certain circumstances it may be necessary. I just can’t see how not wanting to have a baby could be one of those circumstances. The real “right to choose” should come before the pregnancy begins, shouldn’t it?

But this third-trimester “partial birth” abortion business is an even more troubling issue and one that’s even harder to justify. While I have little doubt that the anti-abortion folks are using this as an entry point for ending all abortions, I really can’t imagine the pro-abortion crowd is very comfortable with it either. Eight months into a pregnancy is a little late to decide that you were raped.

In my perfect world, there would be no abortion at all and no reason to even discuss it. But it isn’t a perfect world and I don’t think this tragedy will ever end as long as we populate the earth.

and the judge in this instance was a conservative judge, who stated in his ruling that this was a abhorrent procedure…

but judges have to rule by law…not politics.

what i find insane is that misha call this a judicial assault….however, if the judge ruled in favor of this law remaining as it was, then misha would be praising him for his wise judicial foresight….

man i hate people……

David- You completely misread the decision. this is not to do with the situations where the LIFE of the mother is at stake. That is already protected under the laws of self-defense. This is to do where her health is impaired in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. Please read carefully the quote I highlighted for you. The judge said that unless there was NO potential benefit to ANY woman from this procedure, this law had to be struck down. that is radical, lawless and devoid of constituional backing.

Do you, david, agree that a mother should be able to end the life of a 8 and a half month old unborn child just because it will be a minor impairment to her health? (if you do, please explain what you think of the procedure I proposed above, where they deliver the same child, but then let the child die). The pro-choice movement is really pushing itself to the logical limit of its views and its gonna make most americans rather sick to see the results.

Rob- this statement: “but judges have to rule by law” makes no sense. What exactly law is this judge upholding? the congress passed a law banning this barberic procedure and this judge has struck it down based on a completely implausible, ahistorical and illogical reading of the constitution.

This is a judicial assault because judges are continuing their practice saying that unborn children cannot possibly matter under the law- no matter what science, logic or even the overwhelming majority of the American people think on the issue (as is the case with partial birth abortions). The judiciary has highjacked the abortion issue and its a shame.

One step closer to infanticide…

But then who are we to question the revived pagan practice of infanticide? After all abortion has a long historical and cultural significance. It’s only with the rise of the oppressive anti-choice religion of Christianity that abortion was outlawed. Of course the history of Christian western civilization is that of destroying indiginous cultures. Abortion is just one aspect of those cultures Christianity brutally wiped out.

Infanticide was common in all well-studied ancient cultures, including those of ancient Greece, Rome, India, China, and Japan. The practice of infanticide has taken many forms. Child sacrifice to supernatural figures or forces, such as that allegedly practiced in ancient Carthage, is one form; however, many societies only practiced simple infanticide and regarded child sacrifice as morally repugnant. The end of the practice of infanticide in the ancient world coincided with the rise of Christianity as a major religion. The practice was never completely eradicated, however, and even continues today in areas of extremely high poverty and overpopulation. Female infants, then and now, are particularly vulnerable.

One frequent method of infanticide in antiquity was simply to abandon the infant, leaving it to death by exposure. Another method commonly used with female children was to severely malnourish them, resulting in a vastly increased risk of death by accident or disease. In some cultures this is thought to have been an open and accepted practice, while in others it may have been practiced privately, with the passive acceptance of society.

…Many historians believe the reason to be primarily economic, with more children born into families than the family is prepared to support. However, this does not explain why infanticide would occur equally among rich and poor, nor why it would be as frequent during decadent periods of the Roman Empire as during earlier, less affluent, periods.
wikipedia

This is a slightly different topic but I think it underscores the underlying problem of abortion in the first place. ‘Unwanted’ pregnancy. Which isn’t really correct. Pregnancy isn’t really the issue.. is it? To be perfectly honest it is children that are unwanted. Pregnancy is a symptom not a disease.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Nearly five infants under the age of 1 are killed in the United States each week, according to a CNN review of FBI statistics.

In the wake of several highly publicized cases of apparent infant slayings, government officials and crime experts say there is little reliable information on the extent of the crime, but FBI figures provide some measure of it.

The report is based on 1995 numbers, the most recent available, and shows 249 infants were killed that year. cnn.com

NOTOTH,
In a perfect world there would be two parents for every child. In a perfect there would be adoptive parents for every unwanted child.
I can’t see that this is a viable method of birth control, even though that is what the pro-life folks would have you think. I’m sorry that I haven’t done more research on this topic, and am only reacting to the article that was posted.
What David stated in his post was what I also heard on the report.

Abortion is a bad thing that should be avoided (except in cases of birth defects, incest or disease) but it is a woman’s right to choose, because we cannot let anyone else make the decision.

The problem with abortion rights was the way they were created. Roe vs. Wade was a horrible way to make law. The shortcut caused us generations of trouble. It should have gone through legislatures. We would have come to a reasonable political compromise on a contentious issue. Women make up more than half of all voters, so presumably their voices would count. Now we have both extremes claiming to be the only moral voice and pushing to debate to stupid extremes. My daughter needs my permission to get her wisdom teeth pulled, but could get an abortion without me even being informed. Partial birth abortion lets you get away with murder on a technicality.

What would happen if Roe were repealed tomorrow? Nothing at first. Legislatures would have to take up the issue and eventually the laws would come to reflect the will of the people. I suspect the will of the people would make legal abortions with restrictions. Partial birth would never pass muster and my daughter would probably have to inform her mother or me if she wanted a procedure. Reasonable. Nut cases on both sides would rave and wail, but the issue would lose its resonance.

Thank goodness the federal judge actually has some judgement and has exposed this ban for what it was. Political Fodder for the rabid anti-abortionists.

Misha once again you totally mischaracterize the issue. This seems to be a common tatic of the right.

Partial birth abortion in the third trimester is an extremely rare event. It is only considered when the health of the mother is at steak. Which is exactly the reason the judge stated that the ban was unconstitutional.

I suggest those who think this is not a serious issue should immediately run to the hospital and donate a kidney, since this is clearly not a life threatening situation and would help many people. It’s only a few weeks of discomfort. So Misha, and Eric. are you ready to volunteer your kidney?

Misha, after reading the article you reference I fail to see that which has you so upset.
For a woman to be so inconvenienced as to have her life in danger, I would think that even the right to lifers could see the logic in allowing this procedure. As I said before, I fail to see how this could be considered a viable means of birth control. Any woman who has gone to the trouble to carry a fetus nearly to term should be given the benifit of the doubt.

Misha, you put a hypothetical to me. I normally don’t respond to them, but, in this case it is instrumental to do so. You asked “Do you, david, agree that a mother should be able to end the life of a 8 and a half month old unborn child just because it will be a minor impairment to her health?”

There is nothing more precious to an individual than their health. Ask any of 500 million who are currently sick in the world. The government has no role in determining who’s health should suffer and whose yet to be lived life should be prevented under such a circumstance. Such a decision needs to be made in a matter of hours or as many as days. This is not enough time for due process under law to make such difficult determinations. If a family must consider this rare procedure, circumstances being as unique as the members involved, none but the family and Dr. should make the decision and they alone should carry the responsibility for their decision.

If the government makes such decisions, it will inevitably make onerous and occasionally horrific ones for which every member of society must bear the responsibility. It is best to leave such extremely difficult decisions to the family and the Dr. There is no perfect answer here, but, there is the Consititution which dictates that life nor health may be deprived without due process. It really is that simple a matter. Society must provide due process if it is to make these decisions, and given the circumstances under which such decisions will almost always be made, due process cannot timely, nor fairly and impartially be made.

I think the most interesting part of what I was trying to say in my post and responses has been missed by those who are so quick to attack me here. Partial Birth Abortion can be replaced with a safer procedure- one which threatens the health of the mother less and kills the child in a less brutal way. That is- the child can first be delivered and then be put to death (that way they wouldn’t have to use the tools of sucking the child’s brain in while the child is still IN the womb).

Now there is a reason why I would assume all of you would oppose a procedure, even if it would help the HEALTH of the mother (since this decision affects only those cases where health but not life is at stake, for reasons I stated above). Why is it that you would oppose a procedure that would be safer for the mother? Because the killing of the same baby would take place in a different location? Think about it…

That was really the point of my post- the pro-abortion position has now hit its logical conclusion and it is clear to see where it has merged with outright infanticide in this partial birth abortion sphere.

And on David’s point, the law already determines those things. You are not allowed to take another person’s life unless your life (NOT your health) is at risk. The law says this because every person is equal under the law, so a lesser interest (health) cannot trump a higher interest of another (right to life). The only way around this is to say that the unborn child has a lesser right to life than the same child located outside of the womb (Even if that child is fully developed at 8 months!). Since that argument would fail on logical examination, the pro-aborts are left to flail their arms and appeal to the judiciary.

Rocky, i think you misunderstood my post and the decision at issue.

You said: “For a woman to be so inconvenienced as to have her life in danger, I would think that even the right to lifers could see the logic in allowing this procedure.”

But the judge said: “this gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in which any women could potentially benefit from it”

The difference here is that you think this decision is only about when the life of the mother is at stake, but it is NOT about that. It is about when the procedure is benefitial to ANY woman, in any way. Notice that the right to life of the child is nowhere in that equation- the unborn child just does not matter.

That, my friend, is why I am so upset. If the court had weighed the interests of the unborn child with that of hte mother, it could have concluded that when BOTH have their lives at stake, the state cannot choose. But when its the life of the unborn child against a lesser interest of the mother, the weight of justice is clearly with the unborn child.

misha….

“pro-abortion”????

yeah like all of us that are “PRO-CHOICE” are out there saying….yay abortion!!!

i’m gonna have 3 this week!

abortions clinics giving away 2for1 discounts……earlybird specials…..

please…..

abortion is a horrible thing to have to go through….

but it’s the woman’s right to choose to go through with it…..

i am pro-choice, but to say pro-abortion gives it a nasty spin which is unfair.

Misha, you state there is a safer and less cruel procedure. What is the basis of that statement?

I think, quite frankly,that is a fiction you have created. Your assumption that the procedure is cruel also is not backed up by the facts. The faetus is not removed alive.

Propoganda creating distorted Frankenstein images do not convince me of your argument, just that you will use any means to accomplish your goal regardless of facts, or morality.

rob & Misha, now we are down to the rub, which all discussions about abortion come to. As leftie extremists love to tout that all soldiers are baby killers, Misha loves to bring all pro-choice folks down to that same level. And the inevitable sticking point is that Pro-lifers want a black and white rule they can use as a stop n go light for launching murder charges, and Pro-choice folks want some flexibility so that such difficult decisions are made by those capable of decision and who will most directly be affected and responsible for their decisions.

The Pro-life position is akin to laws in Muslim countries where an offense has but one punishment, and there is no equivocation. Steal - amputate a hand, peeping tom - pluck an eye. Thankfully our legal system was designed to be flexible and to weigh all the circumstances and all the consequences to all parties affected before meting out justice, and the hope is held out in American law, that justice shall fit not just the crime, but, the circumstances under which it occured. It is not a perfect system by any means, but, it usually is the best that can be found in the world today.

Hence in America, justifiable homicide is not an oxymoron, and abortion is not a decision to be made by the government only. China reserves the right to make the decision about abortion, forcing it upon couples who exceed their child quota. A perfect example of what can happen when the government seeks to make moral decisions for its citizens.

The Chinese government says if one child over the limit is permitted to be born, 3 or more adults will starve in the future due to overpopulation and lack of resources. It is a very logical approach, but, one which diminishes freedom of individual choice in the realm of deeply personal moral and ethical decisions, in much the same way that Misha proposes. Long live Big Brother - or long live personal moral freedom to choose.

Not that we are very consistent. By the same argument, recreational drug useage should be a personal choice of adults, not one curtailed by government and turned into a victimless crime. It is amazing to me that in the U.S. a person may go to prison for smoking pot on a Saturday night with friends, but, a Dr. and parents can abort an 8 month fetus with legal protection.

The laws of a nation are a kind of psychological profile of its inhabitants. The U.S. needs help desperately. We have speed limit laws, which no one abides, are almost universally unenforced, and which cost thousands upon thousands of innocent victims lives each year. But we have the best law enforcement that money can buy to sniff out cannabis and a legal system intent upon clogging our courts and prisons with offenders of the crime of getting passive. We are in deep psychological trouble in this country as a society. The schism of our personality shows up ever more ardently with each Presidential election.

You want to save lives, Misha, lobby for speed limit enforcement. Lobby for mandatory license revocation for DUI. Every hour spent on these issues will save far,far,far more lives than banning abortion would. To be a nation of integrity, we would have to prioritize what activities take innocent lives in the largest numbers, and work that list down from the top. Late term abortions would be at the bottom of the list in numbers of ‘victims’. Try feeding and housing the homeless and enforcing traffic laws if saving innocent lives is such a high priority. For every dollar and hour spent, 10’s of thousands more lives would be saved in these areas than from banning abortion.

Greg- there is a Born Alive Infant Protection Act that stops the procedure I talked about- it is real and it happens. But that is NOT the point, and I am getting a little frustrated that people seem to be missing, seemingly on purpose.

Here we have a baby that is completely indistinguishable from a premature newborn, and you guys think that if the mother’s health will be impaired in ANY WAY (not her life, mind you), then she can kill that child and that right to kill the child is constitutionally protected. That is a radical position that is taken by a small % of Americans (even most people who identify as pro-choice supported this ban)- and for good reason, because it is illogical and immoral.

I will state this again, and hope I will not be misunderstood this time- PLEASE read it carefully- partial birth abortion is the moral equivalent of delivering the child and then killing her. And, because it is done in such a cruel manner (if you have any doubt of this, please go read any description of what they actually do to the child- imploding her skull with a vacuum tube and sucking our her brain), it might be even worse. So in defense of the mantra of protecting the mother’s choices, you are willing to let her commit infanticide. We do not let people in this country take human life unless their life is also at stake. There is no moral, logical or legal reason why an unborn child at 8 months should be treated differently under the law. Are you seriously going to argue that a baby at 8 months is not a human being?

If you would stop with the ad homonym attacks and address that point, I would greatly appreciate it. Please explain to me why the law should not offer equal protection to these children in terms of the standard needed to take their lives.

Rob- In the 1850s, there were many people who advocated keeping slavery legal, even though they themselves did not own slaves and did not want to. In my pre-civil war history course we called these people pro-slavery advocates, not pro-choice on slavery advocates (after all, they would not want to MAKE anyone own a slave- and many considered slavery very unfortunate).

David-

Your argument, once again, misses the point. The law in our country does balance between the interests of different people in terms of their lives- that is, there is a standard, a very good one, we have set up for when you can take human life. When your life is threatened you can take human life, but in no other circumstance. All I am saying is that we should apply that same standard to all people- regardless of whether they are located in the womb or not.

That is not government imposition of anything more than simple murder laws that are the most fundamental rule in any society. When the government says to me “you cannot take the life of another person unless your life is also at stake” it is not taking away from any options that I should have had in the first place. Anti-murder laws an assault on freedom they are not “big brother”, and so your argument fails on its face. (you know I agree with you on drug laws- since a person taking drugs is harming no one but themselves).

Also, abortion takes the lives of 1.3 million children a year, a bigger killer than any of the problems you stated.

Now a little example to point out why your drunk driving analysis is not a strong argument at all. Possit, for the moment, that the law said that every person who is from Slovinia in this country could be killed without justification. Sure, that would be a problem that would not affect all that many people, but I would fight that policy nevertheless. Wouldnt you? Or would you say “hey, tell the Slovinians die, we should worry about drunk driving.”? The problems of drunk driving on one hand, and denial of justice to a group of people on the other are not related.

My priority, David, is to have this country live up to its promise of equal protection for all, in every sphere. I just see abortion as the greatest denail of that equal protection to a huge class of human beings we currently have today. That is why I care so passionately about this.

the problem comes when we fight so hard to get even the most obvious infantacide stopped- convince the overwhelming majority of even pro-choice people- and the courts go and strike it down based on a completley implausible reading of the constitution. I am sure you can at least respect how frustrating that is. or maybe not.

Misha, the left doesn’t see a fetus as a child, so they will reject your argument of infanticide. For the left, you don’t become a human being (and inherit all of the rights) until you crown out of your mother.

Regarding the law, the issue of “The health of the mother” is open to any given Doctor’s interpretation and is therefore the left’s attempt to essentially bypass the law.

In a perfect world, there would be no abortions. Alas, too many in this world have been endoctrinated into believing it is a God given right, without thinking about what is actually being done. In general, I avoid the abortion issue altogether because it is a political non-starter. The only thing for certain is that it is a horrible procedure. My favorite thing though is to listen to is men who passionately and hysterically talk about “defending their right to choose”. Maybe its just me, but there is something funny about listening to one of these guys.

Aldaron- when we have a previous debate on this board about abortion, many of the arguments against me had to do with viability. Polls show that even most democrats believe a child at 8 month is a human being. This is why I am so shocked and sickened by the responses to this thread. I would have thought that given the previous discussion of viability being the touchstone for the left, when we have a completely viable child, these people would be willing to grant them some semblance of human rights. I guess that was too much to ask for :(

Misha, I belive you missed the point of what I was trying to make. The only time that this procedure should be used is in the event that the mothers’s life or physical well being is in danger.
I suppose that we should belive that the woman would give up her life for the life the unborn. It probably sounds cynical, but I think that we, as human beings, are rarely that noble.
Regardless of whether the “baby” is killed inside or outside, its still dead.

Misha, you miss the point. And debating this with you is an exercise in futility. For example you say killing is only warranted in self defense under our laws. WRONG! Invading Iraq was not self defense and we are killing our own GI’s in an offensive action.

You want to charge that a citizen is born when an egg is fertilized. SORRY - that is the bottom line of your argument and it just doesn’t fly with the majority of Americans. Live with it, already. You take my legal arguments once again and reduce them to arguing that citizenship with full protections under the constitution are afforded to a fertilized egg. SHOW ME WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IT SAYS THAT !!!!

IT DOESN”T. Sheeshhh… and I though we were going to have a rational debate on the judge you referenced and his jurisprudence. But, NO! You want to tread back to the only argument you have, a fertilized egg is an American Citizen. It is a minority opinion and you will need to come up with a better argument that this if you ever hope to increase its numerical support standing.

misha…

please understand what i am saying….

i am not advocating partial birth abortion…

i in no way think it is a good procedure that any one should just be able to have done….

the judge ruled on this case the way he did because the law lacked provision for medical emergency of the life of the mother….that was the only reason he struck down the law.

not to make it easier for people to have this procedure done….

there are no lines of unwed mothers going….great now i can get rid of this parasite that i have been carrying for 8 months…..okay? that is not happening….

i admire your passion on this subject, i really do….what concerns me is your inflexibility to understand that for every woman that decides to have an abortion done, from just a few days into pregnancy to a few weeks in, and to the extreme of partial-birth, that there are stories and factors involved that you are not looking at.

you have stated that your position is that life happens at conception, and on that logic even things such as the morning after pill would be murder…

i pose a question….say abortion stops….totally…..and in some cases we lose women’s lives to birth, (god’s will), and in others we give birth to babies with severe birth defects, and in some cases we have 12 year old girls having babies, and in some cases we have happy healthy babies that no one wants….

who is going to take care of those 1.3 million babies? anti-abortion folk cry from the mountaintop until that little kid is out of the womb….then, when the mother looks around….she notices that those same folks have wiped their hands of her.their job is done.

Misha, I appreciate your frustration. I have the same frustration on some issues, two of which I discussed above. I know you are sincere and passionate about your position. To win this battle in America, however, you are going to have to change the perception that we don’t have far more important problems in this country than government deciding on a woman’s state of health and weighing that against the potential life as a citizen in the U.S. of an unborn, unintelligent, unexperienced, growth of organized cells within a woman’s womb.

I know many want to view a fetus as all warm, cuddly, beautiful, and full of promise. But the fact of the matter is, a fetus is property of the mother and her family, and has nothing whatsoever to contribute to society prior to birth. And as the property of the mother, the Government has no right to tell the mother what to do with that fetus until it ceases to be a fetus by the act of birth. For the government to do otherwise, is for it to deprive liberty to the mother and family without due process. That is the obstacle anti-abortionists must hurdle. And it is a very high hurdle indeed.

rob, you make an excellent point. Many anti-abortion folks are also standing up for ending government programs designed to help those who are unable to help themselves. They call it welfare or socialism, but, you called it right, every person is on their own once they are born - and if they work hard, get good grades in school, use their brains, nothing unfortunate will happen to them and therefore government has no reason to help born individuals. The hypocrisy of such views is astronomical.

David- the tone of your argument shows a large ammount of irrationality, and I sorry for that. This debate on this thread is about 8 month old unborn children which the majority of americans, democrats AND republicans, recognize as human beings and have VOTED to protect as such (which is why this bill passed by an overwhelming majority in Congress!). You cannot ignore this clear fact, no matter how much you want to think that opposite to partial birth abortion is a “minority opinion.” Show me where in the constitution it says that the majority cannot protect unborn children from being killed? Of course, it says that NOWHERE :) The judge had nothing but judicial fiat to displace the will of the majority on this issue.

Also, the law only allows PRIVATE parties to take life in self-defense of their lives. Since mothers are private parties, with no government mandate, they should be held to that same standard. The iraq argument was a non sequitor, and I think you know that (as the soldiers were not acting as private parties).

I said nothing about citizenship, I talked about HUMAN RIGHTS (rights that non-citizens visiting this country, resident aliens ect. have). Please tell me where I used “citizen” in any of my arguments about abortion. Since i never have, you are arguing against a different argument from a different person.

If you refuse to address my direct points and insist that I am making points about rights of citizens that I have not made nor have i ever made, I refuse to continue playing around hoping that you will actually get on topic. good day.

Rocky said: “The only time that this procedure should be used is in the event that the mothers’s life or physical well being is in danger.”

I think physical well being is too broad. i think this procedure should be used only in the circusmtances where the law allows the taking of human life- that is, when a reasonable person would believe the mother’s life is at stake.

Ok, a couple more points:

1. The unborn child is only “property” of the mother as long as the law defines it as such. Few people doubt that a child at 8 months is a human being, and our law does not allow human beings to own other human beings (see the 13th ammendment). This does not only apply to citizens, this applies to all people (so you cant enslave a non-citizen and bring him over to this country and own him). We had an era where people could own other people, and the arguments were much the same as you just made above. The question, is, of course, at what point does the unborn child become a human being. That is a question that Americans disagree on- but at least most agree that at such a late stage, the child is a human being.

Also note that an unborn child contributes as much to society as an infant…

2. Rob said: “the judge ruled on this case the way he did because the law lacked provision for medical emergency of the life of the mother”. But what the judge actually ruled was “this gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in which any women could potentially benefit from it.” Any potential benefit to any women is far far different from emergancy medical exception.

3. What to do with 1.3 million human beings who will not be killed by abortion- that is indeed a very difficult question. I have always said that I am in favor of providign support for children, who are incapable of taking care of themselves. And I beleive most americans would be as well.

But putting that aside- poverty, disability ect. are not good enough justifications to take human life, nor should they be. We would never think of killing of 1 million newborns because they are poor or disabled. We recognize that their situation is unfortunate, and we may or may not be able to do enough to help them, but we never consider allowing them to be killed by their parents as a viable solution to this admittedly difficult problem.

I am sure if Congress had abided by the guidelines set down by the Supreme Court the last time it ruled on this procedure and made an exception for a woman’s (you know the citizen), health under the law it would not have struck down again, not once, but twice. The co-equal third branch of government has made itself heard on this subject. I for one applaud the Courts decision.

Such a devisive issue….

David… this “SHOW ME IN THE CONSTITUTION” argument can be applied to almost anything. The Constitution was written using ink dipped pens in 1776. There are many issues they did not forsee.

Misha…. these guys are passionate about keeping “their right to choose”. I feel your passion, but supporters of abortions simply have a different definition of what constitutes life than you. You could show them a million sonograms of fetuses/babies at various ages and it wouldn’t make a difference…. they will not address the act itself and the morality of it. They will phrase the debate as “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion” (because I have a sneaking suspicion they harbor some guilt about the whole thing) and then misdirect the whole debate to lack of social programs etc. I’ve never understood how a liberal can be so against war and yet defend abortion like rabid animals.

There is no resolution to this debate. One day science will tell us for sure but until then I have always decided to err on the side of caution and treat them as growing, feeling, beings. Afterall, that is what they will become if left alone.

Mr. Martin, it is rare that you are so wrong on a point of view. Let your child be kidnapped and ask the court whether or not you have claim to that child?

You do! The child belongs to you, and to no others. Owning parental rights to a child does not slavery make. Just what do you think adoption decrees are? They are contracts of transfer of ownership - ownership of parental rights to govern the entire growth and development of a child.

“Also note that an unborn child contributes as much to society as an infant…”

Pray tell, please define the contributions to society of the unborn child? This ought to be good.

Look folks, if the law acknowledges that at conception the fetus constitutes a human being with all of the protections and privileges of a born child, a pandora’s box is opened that trades back and forth liberties freedoms between the mother and fetus.

Under the laws in all states in the U.S. parents have an obligation to preserve and protect the lives of their children with due diligence. Define a fetus as a human being under the law, is to put the liberty of smoking mothers, alcohol or medicated mothers, mothers who participate in sports activities, mothers who drive older cars, mothers who are obese, mothers who are unmarried all at risk of losing liberty as a result of the detrimental effects or accidents that may occur to the mother during pregnancy.

A pregnant mother who has an accident in her vehicle for which she is at fault, and which results in the spontaneous abortion of the fetus, will be subject to negligent manslaughter charges. Is this really where women and American’s want to go? I don’t think so. But, that is precisely where we will go if we define the fetus as a human being with constitutional rights as such. Think about it. It is Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World —— Misha’s argument will take us there if adopted into law.

David, these are very easy, and I appriciate that since I have my first day of second year law school tomorrow and still got soem work to do :):

1. “Pray tell, please define the contributions to society of the unborn child?” None- just like the newborn child contributes nothing. that was my point. Yet, they both have human rights, regardless of whether they contribute anything.

2. To answer all of the points you just made, just think of a mother pregnant with child the same way that you would think of a mother carrying around her newborn. As far as a I know, smoker mothers are not held liable for second hand smoke to their infants. Moreover, if a mother got into a car crash with her child in the seat her to her, she would not be held any more liable as far as I know.

There is nothing novel, complex or difficult here- if we just apply the same principles of all that we apply to all caretakers who are watching out for newborns, we can build a body of law that both protects the life of fragile children without going too far (that is, without holding smokers liable for all possible harms of second hand smoke ect ect..)

David, we are in agreement on this issue. Allow me to clarify my earlier statement. The Supreme Court when it last ruled on this issue (the case escapes me, but tomorrow with a clear head and sleep I will remember it), ruled that an exception must be made for health of the woman. I was merely pointing out that Congress when it re-wrote the law after the Supreme Courts ruling once again left out the exception, and in so doing virtually assured that it would be struck down by the federal courts again, which it has, twice.

I find this type of abortion repugnant, but I have to acknowledge, like you that that women as citizens have rights a fetus should not ever enjoy. And children until they reach they age of the majority are in the care and custody of their parents, and while I would not label them property pre-se, my children—all four—certainly belong to me in the eyes of the law. I am held liable for their transgressions, I feed them, cloth them, take care of them when they are sick, educate them, pay them, discipline them, nurture them, love them; they are mine until I die…

Aldaron, my “Show me in the Constitution” comment was in response to Misha attempting to establish Constitutional protections for the unborn which supercede those of the mother. Such provisions DO NOT exist in the Constitution.

I agree with you, our Constitution is very antiquated in many regards, and not up to the challenge of providing clear direction on a host of issues facing us as a nation today of deeply estranged groups of people.

But, then, the Constitution itself is partly responsible for that. It established in its language that some humans were entitled to rights and others were not. All men are created equal - thus depriving blacks of manhood, women of voting rights, and children of almost any rights save those granted by their parents.

America needs a new Constitutional Convention, but, of course that is as likely as ending greed around the world.

Mr. Martin, we do agree. I apologize for missing the meaning of your comments. I stand corrected.

Misha said, “There is nothing novel, complex or difficult here- if we just apply the same principles of all that we apply to all caretakers who are watching out for newborns, we can build a body of law that both protects the life of fragile children without going too far”

So, Misha, you then advocate abortion by accidental means. So if we ban all legalized abortion, your willing to open the door legally to accidental abortion of various kinds, falls down the stairs, accidental ingestion of the wrong medication, over overdoses. Good lord, can you not see what this leads to for women who choose to have abortions despite the laws against it? You will have women risking their own lives, and the welfare of their spouses and other children all in the attempt to acquire an abortion by the only means allowed by law, an accident.

As a young person in Detroit, by the age of 9, (1959) I was already aware of the hushed references to backroom abortions and the stigma that was attached. The stories about women’s death, inability to ever have children again, and busts by police of abortion hacks, were prevalent in the inner city of Detroit. I don’t ever want women to have to make those kinds of decisions again.

As a libertarian, I think there is an inconsistency in your logic. Libertarians generally agree that laws cannot mandate or coerce humans to act against their nature. Abortions can be minimized by various social support systems, but, can never be eradicated. It violates human nature to limit choice and abortions will continue regardless of whether they are legal or illegal. When legal, they can be performed after informed choice and options education, and they can be performed antiseptically giving a family back its mother and wife relatively whole. When illegal, the reverse was true and will be true again.

Greater good for the greatest number, is, and will always be my standard. Making abortions criminal, creates greater harm to greater numbers than keeping it legal, informed, counseled, and safe, with options made available to mothers contemplating abortion. How does one give a woman options if she is contemplating abortion as an illegal activity? Who will know she is pregnant if she does not want the child? No one, therefore, no options for the mother or child.

I absolutely agree that no legal abortion should be performed (save in life saving emergencies) without insuring that the woman and family know what all their options are and asked to consider the weight of their decision with their religious leader (if appropriate), Dr., family members, and reproductive counselor for the purpose of gaining insight and understanding of what the act can mean.

But banning abortion altogether brings greater harm to greater numbers. That is my position in a nutshell. I have known 3 women who have had abortions all of whom have gone on to become absolutely wonderful mothers. I can guarantee their lives and that of their subsequent children would be far worsened by their having had to spend prison time pennance for the abortion decisions as young women. Greatest good for the greatest number. It is the only standard that holds up for me on this issue.

David- your utilitarian philosophy has the fundmental flaw that undermines all attempts to standerize such issues without taking into account more than “Greater good” rather than human rights. You say:
“Greater good for the greatest number, is, and will always be my standard.”

But how do you detemrine who the greater “number” are? Do unborn children count? If not, why not? after all, they have more of their lives aheas of them, so shouldnt their good count more on a utilitarian caculus? or at least the same? If you count the good of the 1.3 million unborn children killed every year, I think the calculus changes very very quickly…

But this is not how I decide matters of import- to me utilitarianism is a crock. I much prefer Kantianism and rights. As a libertarian, as you pointed out, I believe that the government should not interfer with people’s private choices as long as those choices do not violate someone else’s rights. So if I want to take drugs- the government has no right to stop me. Yet, if I want to rape, murder, or steal- the government has not only the right but the obligation to stop me. Even if it is my nature to murder or rape, the government should stop me.

I do not think its right that those three unborn children had to give their lives, never having a choice, just so those mothers and their subsequent children could have better lives. No person has the right to make that decision for another person.

Our country is not built on the concept of greatest good for the greatest number of citizens- I know you wish it were. It is built on the proposition that all people are equal, and that there are certain rights that all people have that we must honor regardless of what harms come from honoring those rights. So I believe we cannot throw people in internment camps, just because WWII is dangerous. We cannot own slaves because it helps the southern economy. We cannot throw people in guantanamo without due process just because the war on terror is dangerous. And we cannot kill unborn children because those who want them dead have a lot of political power while the unborn children have none.

I believe every person’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be protected under the law- even if their life is seen is unimportant or inconvinent to much of the political establishment. I know you dont agree- but perhaps someone reading this might re-think their position on abortion if they think about it in that way. If not, all I can do is keep trying. Its been a good debate as always, though- i will try to do better next time.

The myth of partial birth abortion continues. Misha uses this myth to promote his anti-choice position, ignoring science and factual information in favor of fantasy and inflamatory arguments. I quote Dr. Howard Dean here:

“As a physician, I am outraged that President Bush has decided that he is qualified to practice medicine. There is no such thing in the medical literature as ?partial birth abortion.? But there are times when doctors are called upon to perform a late term abortion to save a woman?s life or protect her health. Today President Bush made it a crime for a doctor to perform such medically necessary procedures when a woman?s health is at stake.”

Misha you are just repeating the fear tactics of the right wing propoganda machine. Your ignorance here is astounding.

To further expose your fraud, Misha, I will expand.

Statistically speaking, only .004 percent of abortions in the US are D&X abortions, and in each case the abortion is performed under extreme circumstances. The American Medical Association policy forbids performing D&X unless there are abnormalities in the fetus incompatible with life, and when D&X is considered safer than all other methods (AMA Policy H-5.982). For that matter, most medical associations forbid performing an abortion at all following the 21st week, except in cases where the fetus is already dead or where the mother?s life is clearly endangered by the pregnancy.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Women’s Association oppose this ban. And why shouldn’t they? The most respected medical associations in the country oppose a law that will imperil the lives of women who have been entrusted to their care.

AGOG has stated its position clearly: “Intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill-advised, and dangerous.”

If it is ever enforced, this ban will put doctors in jail for providing the best and safest health care to women. This dangerous ban prevents women, in consultation with their families and trusted doctors, from making decisions about their own health.

Many medical procedures are not pretty or gentle.
Misha, your use of a hypothectical situation that does not exist anywhere in reality, using a procedure that is an extremely rare procedure, and is medically the only moral and just thing to do in the proper situation, and distorting the facts is the only way you can seem to advance your arguments which fly in the face of good judgement and honesty.

This is the immorality of the so called anti abortionists. No lie is beneath them

Misha, you say you are starting your second year of law school so I’ll argue your point from the Federal Common Sense Law (Supreme Court 1830-40 case history) view.

Our legal and medical standard for death states that life ends at the point where the brain can no longer function without artifical support. Knowing that one law can not be in direct conflict with an other standing law. It only makes common sense that life must begin when a person has brain activity and can survive without the direct support of the mother or artifical support. Therefore, the 8 month old fetus you are talking about may or may not be a legal person due to the many factors during the pregnacy.

Additionally, the law may not place undo burden upon a citizen or society. Therefore, if you force a women to have the baby agaisnt her will, is society responsible for that child’s welfare, education, etc. or is the mother? Both add varies degrees of burdens to the parties and thus would not pass standing case history.

Furthermore, a mother could be held legally responsible for the death of an unborn child. The intent of the law is to protect the unbron child from willful harm. Therefore, a DA could bring charges to any person who, through evidence, demostrated the willful intent to harm or cause death to said child.

As a lawyer you will be froced to use only facts and case history to prove or disprove a case and as a judge you will be asked to balance your rulings between the laws’ intent, the letter of the law, and the facts presented in the case by using your common sense and experience. Was this judge right in his decission? Yes, based on the question posed to the court and the facts presented by the lawyers much like the 2000 Presidentail Election ruling of the Supreme Court.

In that case, the court was asked only to judge the question; “Should the votes be counted?” If the court would of been asked the following question; “Was the votes constitional?” there would of been a whole different outcome. As a lawyer student you must realize that you must argue points of law based on case history or by precedent, personal feelings or emotions will not stand up under review by a higher court.

Greg- There is absolutely no evidence that the procedure banned in this circumstance is primarily used to protect the life of the mother- so the fraud is the one you are putting foward. There is evidence that it can be used to protect the health of the mother (notice how you lump those two together- Life, which is a reason for taking human life, and Health, which has never been under our law or the laws of any civilized country)- but the people have wisely decided that the life of the 8 month old unborn child is more important than mere health considerations (health can be stretch to any length- including mental health, minor inconvinience).

Again, you fail to address the breadth of the judge’s statement that I quoted- as every person on this thread who disagreeed with me failed to adddress it. Gee, I wonder why that is. .004 of 1.3 million is a large number of people killed. I propose that we adopt the same standard for partial birth abortion that we adopt for all taking of human life- that is, human life can only be taken when someone else’s life is at stake. If you believe that partial birth abortion is only done when the mother’s LIFE is at stake, you would support that. Please answer this directly- if you dont like this current law, can we adopt this as our legal standard? If so, we can be in agreement on this.

But of course, you and the other pro-aborts, dont actually believe that. This is why you applaude judges like this who say that partial birth abortions must be allowed unless there is NO benefit of ANY KIND to ANY woman. The American people have seen that position for the, to sure your terms, immoral fraud that it is. Unfortunately, the judiciary is in your pocket- for now. Maybe you are reasonable and actually believe in partial birth abortion only when the life of the mother is at stake. IN that case, you will accept my proposal and I will freely admit I was wrong about you. so lets hear it…

Also, I would like to know what you think of the procedure banned by the Born Alive Infact Protection Act- in which the doctor delivers the child and then puts her to death as a safer alternative to partial birth abortion or other late term abortions. Do you think that is also a monsterous infringement on the other’s right to end the life of her “fetus”?

Henry- you seem to be more reasonable, but I am not sure where you get your position from. You say: “Our legal and medical standard for death states that life ends at the point where the brain can no longer function without artifical support.”

Are you saying that a premature baby who is living on machines is considered legally dead and anyone can kill her without legal consequences? How about someone who is on a machine durign a coma? I believe those people are still protected by the law (in fact, I am sure of it). Being sustained by artificial means is certainly not a reason to exclude a perosn from legal protection. Dont you agree?

Misha, the Kantian-Utilitarian Ethic is my standard when it comes to government and social policy, and the difference between your idealism and my pragmatism is very likely just a few decades of life experience. I was very idealistic at your age, and still preserve a bit of it today, but, practice law a few years. I guarantee your idealism will not go unaffected nor unchanged. This is not to demean or devalue idealism, it is as important to the human species as accumulated wisdom is.

If you have not read Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, I strongly recommend it. It speaks directly to this issue of government’s role in our personal lives. All manner of evil can be perpetrated and perpetuated in the name of idealism, and has been. You are a Libertarian, that is good. The Libertarians are the watchdogs and defenders of our rights to life without government intrusion and coercion.

Shall we throw suicides into your idealistic equation, alcoholism, drug addiction, and how about wasted lives in our prisons draining the rest of us of our resources? Equality is a joke as long as government treats victimless crimes harsher than white collar and political office crime which hurt all. Equality is a joke, as long as racial profiling imprisons innocent victims for no other reason than the color of their skin. Equality is a joke as long as a democracy cannot accurately and fairly count its citizen’s votes, and has to have a layer of Representatives More Equal than the people, between the people and its government. And equality is a joke when a woman with 5 children she cannot support is forced by the government to have a sixth and hold her responsible for its welfare.

Is every potential life really as sacred as you make out? If we do not sanctify the nobility of life for the living, how can you possibly hope to win a debate based on the unborn, whose very status of being unwanted, can be an impediment to its promise of equality in life if born?

Misha, we already have adoption agencies who profit from white under 2 year old female babies and can’t give away 5 or 8 year old black male children. When this society is ready to adopt, love, and care for all unwanted babies equally which the government says MUST be born for no other reason than two cells met, then I will be willing to accede to your position, and not a minute before.

Idealism is good, but without its twin, pragmatism, it will utterly fail as a standard by which to live and govern, imperfect beings that we are.

Greg said to Misha: “Your ignorance here is astounding.”

Greg, you have valuable points to make in this discussion as does Misha and others here. Please protect your privilege to make them here at WatchBlog by observing our policy Critique the Message, Not the Messenger”

Given enough sharing of our views, we will all display ignorance here. WatchBlog is a place to become informed through differing perspectives. Let us not allow ignorance from our point of view to be used as a weapon here, or we will all be shot, eventually.

Watchblog manager and Misha, what I attacked were patently false statements, not Misha himself. Ignorance is not an attack on a person, simply their lack of factual knowledge.

Misha, there is no evidence you have provided to back your statements which do not square with medical fact. That is because they do not exist except in your mind. I have provided you with AMA policy if you choose to read it.
You are attempting make a distinction between the health of a mother or her life. You ignoredmy request for you to donate a kidney since it would not be a risk to your life. Perhaps all Americans should be required to donate one kidney since this would reduce the number of deaths by renal failure . This seems to be the conclusion of your rather twisted logic.

You also fail to recognize that the faetus is not viable in these situations. A minor fact that you ignore.

The real distinction here is medical necessity which is the way that doctors make the deicision to use this process. This is a medical decision not a legal decision, which is what the Judge was stating. Your attempts to mischaracterize the standing do not ring true.

I believe doctors should practice medicine, not lawyers. I believe science and facts should be used instead of propoganda when discussing this issue. The judge is not swayed by your phoney arguments, Misha, nor am I.

Misha, in response to your question of a baby or person on life support systems, the courts have consistently left the matter to removing this equipment up to the families. Take the current case in Flordia for example. The argument going to the Supreme Court is not if the family has the right to remove the life support equipment, rather the question being presented to the judges is who has the right to make that decission. As the person is married, over 21 does the husband retain that right or does the parents? To further complicate this argument, the state has introduced law that gives the state the right to choose which may or may not be constitutional.

You seem to be worried about saving life; however, the moment that determines when actual life begins and the burden to the person and/or society has to be considered in the ruling. Again, look at the question asked to the court. It is not when does life begin, but is the law constitutional on the grounds that it does not protect the mothers rights of self determination.

Gerg, your argument that the D&X procedure is safer than other methods does not take in consideration of the inherent problems and complications that any medical operation has. From infection to uncontroled bleeding, this operation has its side effects. However, at 8 months a “C” section could be done which would allow the baby to be removed intact and is safer for all concerned. Nevertheless, you than have to face the question of burden on the mother and society. Does forcing the mother to give brith against her will violate her civil and constitutional rights? Who will pay for the raising of the child fopr the next 18 years?

Besides, I think Misha’s argument is not over the right of the proceedure, but has to do more with the right of the judge to overturn federal law that she agrees with.

Misha, you are clearly an intelligent person, yet you continue to create fiction instead of quote fact.

To wit, a fetus is not a person by law.I give you a link to a recent Houston Chronicle story LINK

Judicial activism is being performed by the courts and judges who refuse to follow case law, not the judges in this case.

You also listed as a fictional fact that 1.3 million abortions were performed in the U.S. The number is more likely near the last CDC estimate of 854,000, not the 50% higher number you fabricated.

There were no viable fetuses killed by the D&X method.

While fiction may be entertaining and provocative, it does not further you stance.

Henry, I never said D&X is a perfectly safe procedure. It is only optioned when no other safer procedure exists. This is purely a medical decision to be made by the doctor (who is medically trained to make these kind of choices) and patient. Lawyers have no pervue in this arena and should not.

I have no idea what you mean by forcing the mother to give birth. I never came close to saying that.

Misha’s characterization of this entire issue is phoney to me. He proposes a fictional account of something that doesn’t occur and uses it to foward his argument against abortion.

Greg, lawyers will always have rights in every aspect of our lives. To say they don’t have prevue in this area is to state that they have no right to sue the doctor on behalf of the patient for mistakes made. Case history has proven this claim wrong.

What I mean by forcing a woman to give brith against her will is simple. If the current law is allowed to stand and the woman decideds that she does not want to give brith to the child at, lets say 7 months 28 days, than according to this law the court could force her to have the child. Although you may think that this may or could not happen, I would just ask you to go to your doctor and ask him/her if they have the right to medically treat you agianst your will. The answer may surprise you.

Any mecical or family member may ask the court for this right stating just cause. However, the courts have limited these actions to include mental health, unconsiousness, etc. It is not impropable for the court to order a mother to give brith to a child against her will.

Misha,
I would call a procedure to save a woman’s life a benefit.
I for one would like to see the source of your statistics. What are the facts?

Wow, lots to respond to- I will take some quick stabs, since it would take too much time to get to every point. If there is any particular point that I missed that you want me to address please post it, and I will do my best to do so.
1. David- since you are a philosophy major, I expect you actually understand that Kantianism and utilitarianism are completely at odds and cannot be fit into the same box. Much of Kants work was to refute the fallacies of utilitarianism, and replace concern with “welfare” with concern for individual rights.

2. The fact that every person on this thread who disagrees with me refuses to address the actual scope of the decision in a passage from the ACTUAL decision that I have now quoted 3 times on this thread is very humorous and a sign that you don’t actually want to debate the merits of the case and want to build a straw man argument.

3. The kidney example is a false one- the real example would be “say it was a choice between me being injured in a non-fatal way and killing another person, which would I choose?” The law requires that I can only take human life.

4. partial birth abortion takes place at 7 or 8 months, WELL passed the stage of viability. Its humorous to me that you demand that I site medical journals for my contentions, but you make patently false statements like this without any attempt to back them up.

5. Now to use some facts to expose the half-truths and lies you put forward. You claim that “The American Medical Association policy forbids performing D&X unless there are abnormalities in the fetus incompatible with life, and when D&X is considered safer than all other methods”- yet this association unanimously supported the partial birth abortion ban that Clinton vetoed (and which was now enacted under Bush by an overwhelming majority of Congress- including most democrats). So how can you use an organization that supports a partial birth abortion bill.

Here is another one:

But Dr. Haskell said in a tape recorded interview with the AMA’s American Medical News: “…and I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective (not medically necessary) in that 20-24 week range … In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.” An article in the L.A. Times (8/28/96) listed some of the medical reasons for this type of abortion. They included cleft palates, cystic hygroma, (both easily corrected problems) and cystic fibrosis. The medical conditions present in the mother that warranted this type of abortion were, “depression, chicken pox, diabetes, vomiting …” In other words, even those partial birth abortions that are done for the “health of the mother” or because of a “defective fetus” are often performed for minor, easily correctable conditions. Dr. C. Everett Coop, former U.S. Surgeon General, stated, “… in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can’t be a necessity for the baby.”

Note this portion- “They included cleft palates, cystic hygroma, (both easily corrected problems) and cystic fibrosis. The medical conditions present in the mother that warranted this type of abortion were, “depression, chicken pox, diabetes, vomiting …’” (http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9313pb.asp)

This is why the quote I offered up is SO important, because any of these reasons, which are not medical emergencies can be of “some benefit” to the mother, and thus would require allowing this gruesome killing to take place.

Also, the bill already has a life-of-the-mother exception, so the only thing you are fighting for is allowing abortions in less than life-threatening situations.

Here is another good one

In 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (1997), estimated that the method was used 3,000 to 5,000 times annually. “In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Fitzsimmons said.” (The New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997, p. A11.)

Here is another one, also from the previous source

In a written submission to the House Judiciary Committee in June, 1995, the late Dr. James McMahon – who is considered to be the developer of the method – explicitly acknowledged that he performed such abortions on babies with no “flaw” whatever, even in the third trimester, for such reasons as mere youth of the mother or for “psychiatric” difficulties. Indeed, even at 29 weeks — well into the seventh month — one-fourth of the babies that McMahon aborted had no “flaw,” however minor. Moreover, McMahon’s submission showed that in a “series” of about 2,000 such abortions that he performed, only 9% were performed for “maternal [health] indications,” and of that group, the most common reason was “depression.”

So lets see, the medical organization you cited supports the ban except in the life of the mother (just like this bill); the doctor who originally created it admits that its only done 9% of the times for serious medical reasons; the NY times quotes executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers admitting that its usually done for non-medical reasons. Of course, I doubt if I found you 5000 more articles, quotes, facts from doctors or anyone else that you would admit the true facts about this procedure, so I am not going to bother any further and would suggest to anyone who is interested in this procedure which even most democrats supported banning go do their own independent research.

Oooo.. I got an even better one, here is a letter of the American Medical Association endorcing the ban in 1997:

May 19, 1997 The Honorable Rick Santorum United States Senate 120 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Santorum: The American Medical Association (AMA) is writing to support HR 1122, “The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997,” as amended. Although our general policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated. HR 1122 now meets both those tests. Our support of this legislation is based on three specific principles. First, the bill would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician’s judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. Second, the bill would clearly define the prohibited procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation what act is to be banned. Finally, the bill would give any accused physician the right to have his or her conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial commenced. In this manner, the bill would provide a formal role for valuable medical peer determination in any enforcement proceeding. The AMA believes that with these changes, physicians will be on notice as to the exact nature of the prohibited conduct. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine. Sincerely, P. John Seward, MD Executive Vice President American Medical Association

Do any of these facts matter even the least bit to you?

since I clearly exposed the mistakes (I wont accuse my opponents of lieing like they did to me) of the otehr side- especially the rather humerous fact that the medical association that was cited by the people going after me on this thread actually supports the ban, I will point out one mistake I made. From my reading just now, it appears that partial birth abortion takes place ay time after the 22nd week- which is still way too late for most Americans (as shown by the overwhelming support for this ban), but earlier than I have stated on this thread.

Now I would urge those who attempted to cite various medical associations (hint hint) that actually support a partial birth abortion ban to admit they made a similar mistake and we can all move on :) Also, the same goes for those who made it seem like these were only done in the case of serious threat to the life of the mother…

Misha said: “David- since you are a philosophy major, I expect you actually understand that Kantianism and utilitarianism are completely at odds and cannot be fit into the same box.”

Sorry Misha, you are not keeping up on your philosophy - Check out “The Utilitarian Kantian Principle (Cornman, Lehrer)”.

The unification of Kantian Duty ethics and Utilitarian outcome ethics have been around at least since I studied it in philosophy in 1977-78.

It is a powerful philosophy which states that an action ought to be performed in a situation if, and only if, performing the action treats as mere means as few people as possible in the proscribed situation, and treats as ends as many of the people in the situation as possible. Also, the action must be prescribed by any of the utilitarian rules that do not violate the human treatment rule above, and is not overridden by another utilitarian rule which does not violate the human means/end rule in the given situation.

2. The fact that every person on this thread who disagrees with me refuses to address the actual scope of the decision in a passage from the ACTUAL decision that I have now quoted 3 times on this thread is very humorous and a sign that you don’t actually want to debate the merits of the case and want to build a straw man argument.

Misha, you are pedanticly hung up on two words and missing the forest argument. The problem is yours it appears to me. Change the language of the law so that the DR. and family may take the mother’s health into consideration, and the judge has no problem. As you well know, health detriments can cascade from minor maladies to death under certain circumstances. While saving the child may result in degradation of the mother’s health, can and will the Dr. provide a written guarantee that the mother’s diminished health state after giving birth won’t compound to serious conditions to follow or even death? Of course not.

Misha, I take exception to your statement that everyone has not commemented on the scope of the case. Like I said before the undo burdens (i.e. memtal, phisycal, and financial) placed on the mother and society are to uphold the ruling. Your constent argument that somehow the majority has the right to control the self determination of the minority lays in contrast to the oath you will be asked to take as a lawyer. For it is your sworn duty to use every means legally available to you to protect your client, going along with the majority just because fails to live up to this obligation.

Henry- I do not believe the majority has the right to control the minority if the minority is acting within its rights. that is, if the minority is taking actions that do not violate anyone else’s rights. I am merely pointing out here that the majority agrees with me on this very obvious fact- that the children who are the victims of the partial birth procedure deserve legal protection. If it was merely the mother’s right to have cosmetic surgery or any other personal surgery (heck, even if the woman wanted to commit doctor assisted suicide), I would agree with your view. But the fact of the matter is we have the life of the unborn child at stake. All I am saying is that the majority has realized this rather obvious fact and has used its constitutional power to rightfully protect this class of people from being killed unless they threaten the lives of mothers.

I do not think i am right because i am in the majority on this issue, I think that this is one area where the pro-life people have managed to convince the majority that we are correct. It is frustrating that the courts, with little to no constitutional grounding, take this protection away from late-term unborn children- and that many people on this board praise them for it.

Misha, again you are arguing from an unproven foundation. Your statement and thus the problem with the pro-life stand assumes that life begins sometime before brith. In making that asumption, your would have to argue that death begins sometime after the body decays.

Additionally, the law places undo burden on the mother and society. As a citizen explain why I should have to support and provide the environment needed for that unborn child to grow up.

Like I said to Greg, are you willing to force a person to give brith to a child agianst their free will. If that is yes than what will stop our government from passing laws in the future that makes all little girls and boys under sertilation treatment or force adults from having sex all together. Although the pro-life may have convinced the majority that they think that they are right does not mean that they are or the courts should allow the law to stand. If all you had to do was convince the majority that your point of view was right to make a law constitutional than slavery and oppression would still be the norm in this country. The courts and the laws of this land is not to impose the will of the majority, but to protect the right of the one. Failure for the courts to uphold this basic ruling leads to this country moving away from democacy and into the bliss of dictatorship.

Once again, Misha, you use distortion and dishonest data to support your thesis.

You mix data on all abortions with intact D&X procedures. This procedure is not reccomended by anyone except in extreme circumstances.

Was that the version of the bill passed into law Misha? Or is that another attempt at confusing the issue on your part? The AMA does not support the law.

I point you to the AMA: AMA POLICY

You have quoted biased sources and propoganda that only proves you cannot find factual data. Your sources of information are clearly your problem. Rather than research scientific sources, you use what are clearly biased sources of information. I have news for you, Misha, those are not facts, but a distorted echo chamber. I’ll provide you with similar “facts” which I know you won’t believe.

” So, what was next for the recreant Anti-Abs? agenda? Fabricating new terminology. Thus enters ?Partial Birth Abortion?. This term has no scientific validity & was designed by the Anti-Abs to mislead people into thinking that babies were being killed while a woman was in labor. Total nonsense!
1st off, not even 1% of abortions occur after the 21st week of pregnancy (according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Most states outlaw such with these exceptions: 1) to save the life or health of a women experiencing a deteriorating health problem- most often diabetes or heart disease. Or 2) the delivery of the fetus can go terribly wrong, threatening the life of the woman. There are generally 2 options when either of these 2 scenarios play out: 1) a D&X abortion (Dilation & Extraction- the true scientific term for Partial Birth Abortion) where the cervix is dilated, the fetus is delivered feet-first, its brain is removed via a needle-sized vacuum tube, shrinking the head, killing the fetus so it can be removed with less damage to the woman. Only about 0.04% of abortions are a D&X. The 2nd option is the riskier (to the woman) hysterectomy- removal of the uterus.
D&X?s are known by only 1 other term, & it?s not Partial Birth Abortion, but Intrauterine Cranial Decompression, or ICD abortion. PBA is a totally ad hoc term created by Anti-Abs for the sole purpose of deceiving layfolk in to believing, yet again, that abortionists are monsters. Typical of their lies is this incident: ?On 7/19/95, on the radio show Focus on the Family a Dr. Dobson referred to PBAs as “Nazi era experimentation” in which doctors “suck the brain matter out of a living, viable baby for use in medical experiments”. Of course, this is typical of the Anti-Abs- calling anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi, even as they are the 1s who murder innocents & terrorize people via the Internet, & outside abortion clinics. An online Pro-Ab website relates this other lie: ?Senator Rick Santorum, one of the leaders in the Senate of a D&X ban, said that the procedure is a gruesome form of infanticide. [The term infanticide refers to the killing of a newborn infant; it is not applicable to an unborn fetus during a D&X procedure.] Senator Santorum also said that it is a lie to argue that a D&X is sometimes required to protect a woman from a serious health risk. But if he truly believed that statement, then he would not have objected to President Clinton’s request that an exemption be added to the bill in cases of serious health risks to the woman. After all, if there was no risk of a devastating health problem, then the exemption would never be exercised, and there would be no harm in including it in the bill.?”

Hmmm, this lie has been tried before hasn’t it?

Lying or using “factual” lies won’t make your case, Misha. Try using reality instead of hysterical rants.

Henry, I still don’t get what forcing a woman to have a baby has to do with anything I said.

I suggest next time you need medical attention that you rush over to the ABA , since you feel laywers belong in the doctor/patient relationship.

I never proposed that a doctor could not be prosecuted or sued for malpractice.

Greg, like I said, I didnt expect facts to convince you. I offered you quotes from executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (!!!) that completley disprove your contention that partial birth abortion is done only for the life or health of the mother. I also gave you a quote from the man who created the procedure (!!!) who said it was not done primaraly for health reasons.

This bill already allows the procedure in the most extreme cases- where the mother’s life is at stake. that is a provision in the bill. You are arguing against a straw man, and I should hope that is clear for most to see.

I usually enjoy debates on this board, but this one is more frustrating than anything. You have made unsubstantiated claims that this procedure never takes place except in emergancy circumsntacs, and I offered you evidence from the creater of hte procedure AND from a top provider of abortions to prove you wrong. Of course, none of this matters to you in the least, which doesnt surprize me. I will let the readers of watchblog decide who is really being dishonest here- Have a good day.

Greg, sorry about the miss up, but earlier Aug. 30 10:47 a.m. you commented that “the real distinction was a medical one” However you fell to realize the rights of the mother. Thus as stated in the judges decission the rights and welfare of the mother must be included in the law. By limiting your argument to the moment, you fail to take in consideration that the welfare of the mother goes far beyond the moment of brith. The legal and financial obligations that it takes to raise a child must also be taken into the equation when the mother and doctor makes the decission.

Misha, I’m sorry you feel that nobody is convinced about your argument; hoever, as a law student you must come to realize that a judge can only answer the question as it is proposed by the one bringing the charges. For example, if a DA only seeks a first degree murder charge against a person, the only thing a defense lawyer has to is to prove that there was no premeditation involved in the crime. Even though his client may claim that his action resulted in the taken of the life, the judge or jury can only consider murder one in their deliberations. I know that this may seem unfair to a layman, but our court system is set up in a way that allows only the question in front of the court at the time to be considered in the ruling.

Futhermore, my claim is based on common sense law that is allowed to be used only by laymen in defense or bringing of charges. The case history was brought back in the time when educated lawyers were not a dime a dozen, yet is still effective in todays courts. The base of the ruling was cited by the Supreme Court allows the common person using common sense of right and wrong to debate the points of law in open court.

This is one of those powder keg issues with virtually no chance of universal agreement, which is why I sort of cringed when I saw Misha’s original post. I guess it’s for exactly that reason that it needs to be discussed openly and extensively, though I doubt that there will be many opinions changed either way.

But the thing that bothers me just a bit is how these debates are framed. The abortion issue, it seems to me, is mostly about one solution to the “problem” of unwanted pregnancy, isn’t it? Let’s set aside medical emergencies for the moment and focus on that majority of abortion procedures.

I suggest that abortion and most unwanted pregnancies are merely symptoms of the real issue, which is lack of personal responsibility. If folks can somehow come to a solution to that thorny issue, instead of creating or expanding yet another government program, then the rest of it will take care of itself. If we continue to debate whether unborn kids should be eliminated or adopted, we’re still just treating symptoms.

Just one problem, Misha, Your sources are known for distortion. The one doctor you quoted is an admitted liar. Being a law student you should know better than to use those kind of sources, but then this isn’t a court room…..

NOTOTH,
I’m with you, the debate of when life begins will never be won by neither side until both realize it is the result of not the cause of the problem.

So what can we do? We could sterlize all children above 10 years old, but I don’t think that would go over to well with the public. What people need to know and understand that just like cats and dogs a female goes into heat every month. It is only during time that she is able to produce an egg which can be fertilized by a male. Since women it seems can not control themselve during this time our education system needs to start teaching boys how to handle the situation. Just like a cat, the female human can be played with until the feelings are oppressed and/or satisfied.

However, in todays society most men are to dumb and women to protective to openly discuss how best to deal with this time of the month.

Bet your a real charmer with the ladies, Henry.

How about joining the 21st century, and setting aside your mysogyny?

We all know that the real issue in this debate is about the desire of some men to control women.

Greg, at least I understand and know how to play with the heat without letting the fire burn me.

“We all know that the real issue in this debate is about the desire of some men to control women.”

Hmm… interesting how in poll after poll (as i have pointed out on this board serveral times), the support AND opposition to abortion is equal among the genders. But why let facts get in the way of a nice-sounding argument, eh? :)

Misha, I heard an interesting tidbit last night. Unmarried women are in a majority pro-choice, married women are in a majority pro-life. Haven’t found the source data poll to verify it, but, if true, there is a real debate to be had regarding that trend.

Misha, facts? You mean if it’s on the internet it’s true?

Interesting definition of facts.

Who heads every coalition you quoted, Misha?

By the way Misha that comment about controling women wasn’t directed at you. I do believe you are sincere in your beliefs. I don’t agree with the “magic hat” argument you are trying to make. I think it’s based on false assumptions and fantasized circumstances that don’t bear much resemblence to reality.