Third Party & Independents Archives

Abortion Debate Rages On

A landmark decision was handed down today by the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of banning certain abortion procedures. The court voted 5-4 to uphold a ban passed by the U.S. Congress on a certain type of so-called partial-birth abortion.

In this procedure (and I am over-simplifying here), performed after twelve weeks of the pregnancy has passed, the fetus is partially extracted from the womb, its skull is pierced, killing it, and the rest of the extraction is then carried out. Sounds pretty gruesome to me. The court made the correct decision.

This ruling does not affect the vast majority of abortions. According to information taken from the above referenced article, approximately one million abortions are performed every year, and 90% of those take place within the first twelve weeks. In 2000, the last year data is available for this type of abortion, 2,200 of these dilation and extraction procedures were performed. If those numbers remained fairly constant, we’re talking about 2,200 procedures out of 1 million being affected. Do the math… that equates to 1/5 of one percent, hardly a number that should cause alarm among all of the “abortions for everyone” activists.

Don’t get me wrong… I am staunchly, absolutely, and unequivocally in the “pro-choice” camp. As much is it bothers me personally (there actually are forms of preventative birth control, ya know), I recognize the right of a woman to have absolute dominion over her own body. And it is more complicated than that…

There comes a point when the embryo growing in the woman’s belly takes shape and becomes a little human with fingers and a heart and some actual brain activity. When exactly is that magic point where it is no longer a tadpole (complete with tail) and could be considered a baby with full rights as a separate life? Great question… Now, I’m no doctor… I don’t even play one on TV, but it seems to me that the medical community should come up with some kind of reasonably agreed upon point where, were the fetus outside of the womb, it could survive. Of course I am not talking about surviving completely on its own. Not even a full term baby could do that (they don’t generally have the skills to get a job to help them earn money for food just yet). No, what I mean is that if the baby could survive, like many prematurely born babies (with hospital help) do, outside of the womb, then maybe we should be considering it a little human life even when still inside of the womb. No one would argue that it should be legal to kill a one day old baby. Why should it be any different for a baby still in the belly (again, assuming it can be reasonably called a “baby” at this point)?

Personally, I say we make all late-term abortions illegal (except in extenuating circumstances, of course). By the time the first trimester ends, the woman has had ample opportunity to decide whether or not she wants to have the baby. Remember, 90% of all abortions take place in the first trimester. This is a sound and responsible (?) practice.

Now then… a note about the particular article referenced above… One thing I cannot stand is poor journalism. The following is taken directly from this article, written by the Associated Press:

“It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case…”

This is passive-aggressive editorializing. The court didn’t ban this procedure. The Supreme Court does not have the power to create laws that “ban” anything. The United States Congress does have that power. By using the term “ban” the AP article implies that it was the justices of the Supreme Court who made the law, and not Congress. No, the Supreme Court upheld the ban of this procedure, which is something different entirely. The job of the Supreme Court is to rule on issues of constitutionality. Agree with this decision or not, the court simply ruled that the ban is indeed constitutional. They did no “banning” themselves.

Posted by Doug Langworthy at April 18, 2007 9:11 PM
Comments
Comment #217405

Doug Langworthy,

Thanks for this lap dog obediance to right wing anti abortion nutcases. I forgive you for your ignorance, but this decision was selectively entered into by the Supremes. They bear the consequence for meddling in medical procedures. I sincerely hope that fruit is born by them. There was no exceptions in the law they were deciding upon. They are killers and deserve the same justice they have meted out.

Posted by: gergle at April 18, 2007 9:40 PM
Comment #217410

gergle
35,000,000 dead babies since Roe v Wade. Kinda calling the kettle black aren’t you?

Posted by: KAP at April 18, 2007 9:57 PM
Comment #217412

gergle
The Supreme Court only upheld what congress passed in both houses. THAT VOTE INCLUDED DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at April 18, 2007 10:06 PM
Comment #217418

So the physicians, the experts, should have no say?

the leading association of obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman.

Someone tell me, that if this procedure is safest for the woman, why the court, non-medical experts, should have the say?

This has always been something that should remain between the woman and her doctor.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 18, 2007 10:23 PM
Comment #217427

Womanmarine
Both houses by a wide majority voted for the ban. That did include DEMOCRATS in that vote. They even think it’s BARBARIC.

Posted by: KAP at April 18, 2007 10:47 PM
Comment #217428

Sorry, isn’t this law and Supreme Court ruling a way of stating that it is not acceptable to use late term abortion as a form of birth control?

Posted by: Honest at April 18, 2007 10:50 PM
Comment #217429

KAP: So?

I guess you missed the point. That for some women it’s the safest procedure if one must be done.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 18, 2007 10:50 PM
Comment #217430

KAP,

Please explain what excluding abortion for health reasons, and what this procedure has to do with viable babies.

Your ignorance is astounding.

Since you wish to save 35,000,000 babies, how may have you adopted? There’s plenty still born who cannot be cared for by their parents. You want to intervene in this personal matter as long as you don’t have to deal with the consequence.

Posted by: gergle at April 18, 2007 10:54 PM
Comment #217444
Personally, I say we make all late-term abortions illegal (except in extenuating circumstances, of course).

This was ALREADY the state of affairs before the ban. The ban only affects partial birth abortions, which were ONLY legal when the mother’s health was at risk.

There are only two times this method was used. (1) The physical health of the mother was at risk due the pregnancy, or (2) The mental health was at risk. This was usually in cases where the child was seriously deformed and would have died almost immediately after childbirth.

Once again, these were NOT abortions made on demand. You could not and cannot walk into a doctor’s office and simply schedule a late term abortion. This ban is not on what women can decide to do, it bans what options doctors can give pregnant mothers when their life is at risk.

Even if you are pro-life, this should be one of the last kinds of abortion procedures you should want banned, because, again, it is only used to save mothers’ lives or in cases where the baby will die soon anyway.

Posted by: Max at April 19, 2007 12:03 AM
Comment #217468

FACT - No aenesthesia is required to do surgery on the brain. It is only required to cut the scalp and open the cranium. That is because the brain has no sensory nerves of its own. The Brain can’t feel a thing in terms of physical insult.

Since the bones of a fetus’ skull are not yet fused, this procedure does not require damage to the cranial plates only partially formed. The only potential experience depending on length of term, for the fetus to experience any pain at all is in piercing the scalp.

Doug is right. This procedure ‘sounds’ gruesome to a majority of Americans. But the science of it is that it is no more potentially painful to the fetus than a knee scrape on the sidewalk to a toddler.

So, “sounds” aside, this procedure is not about pain or cruelty, it is about whether one accepts the sanctity of life at conception, or not. And on that majority opinion is not so great.

Did the courts make the right decision in light of the facts? That can never be answered except by individual values.

Those who place a high premium on keeping government out of our personal lives and decisions as deciding to become a mother or not, can argue the Court was wrong and this decision constitutes yet another drop on the slippery slope of government invasion of our personal lives.

On the other hand, those who place a higher value on the concept that human life and rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness begin at conception, can argue the Court’s decision was the right one. One’s priority on these two particular issues determine whether one is comfortable with the Court’s decision and the Republican Congress’ law.

This issue will never be permanently resolved. There will be courts in the future which will reverse this decision in all likelihood, and later reverse it back again. It gives Americans something to get ‘morally or politically indignant’ about, and on which, they will never agree in any permanent consensus on the issue.

Given that perspective, I believe THIS court made the right decision, just as the next court that reverses it, will have made the right decision for itself and time in American history. This is a pendulum issue based on personal values, not a Constitutional issue based on edicts by our founding fathers, who in their time regarded the high infant mortality rate from all manner of causes and reasons, a simple fact of life.

In fact, plausible arguments can be made that our founding fathers would have feared government intrusion into our personal lives on this issue more than any moral objection to voluntarily terminating fetal development for cases of incest or rape.

It is a pendulum issue without permanence in law. That much can be said as historical fact. One more historical fact is evident in this issue. It is a healthy sign about our system of government and politic, that Americans can be so divided on an issue such as this without having to resort to civil war or revolution to resolve it, if albeit, on a temporary basis from one generation to the next.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 19, 2007 3:16 AM
Comment #217482

David,

You’re right about the Constitution saying nothing about abortion.

It also says little about privacy.

It does say something about cruelty and freedom. This is both cruel and restrictive on freedom from intrusive government. It imposes more than personal values, it imposes religious values on people who may not agree with the theological arguments about life.

The court, it may be argued intruded itself into our personal lives with Roe v. Wade. If that is so, then the court is continuing to do so.

Stating that it’s about personal values is true. Imposing personal fanatical values upon others is a deep intrusion into liberty. Stating that it is a right decision either way is both a cop out, and means you have no real belief in liberty, in my opinion.

Beyond the phoniness of the mumbo jumbo of the court, what you are doing is imposing these religious values upon women of poverty and the dire consequences of this voo doo medicine. Women of means will always be able to purchase freedom from this tyranny simply by removing themselves from the court’s jurisdiction and the reach of religious nut cases.

Posted by: gergle at April 19, 2007 6:02 AM
Comment #217549

“If women are not free to decide for themselves without shame and without apology when and whether they will become mothers, they cannot be free. If women are not free, then no one can be free.”

Sunsara Taylor

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 19, 2007 12:00 PM
Comment #217575

gergle, very well said.

“Imposing personal fanatical values upon others is a deep intrusion into liberty.”

For me, this is it in a nutshell. Imposition of values + Intrusion on liberty = State Control.
It’s Un-American.

Tim Crow, great quote.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 19, 2007 12:47 PM
Comment #217595

A woman does have a choice on whether or not she gets pregnant. It’s called sex. Don’t have sex and you wont get pregnant.

Birth control is not 100% and abortion as birth control is immoral and appalling.

Posted by: Joseph Ragsdale at April 19, 2007 1:43 PM
Comment #217608

Justice Kennedy, said for the majority, that we should not worry about the health of the woman using this procedure because there may be other procedures doctors may follow.

This is a case of justices practicing medicine without a license.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at April 19, 2007 2:22 PM
Comment #217611

“So the physicians, the experts, should have no say?”

Funny, over 90% of M.D.s state they would not perform any abortion(late term or otherwise) because it would violate their Hippocratic oath of “Do No Harm”.

This is a great day for America. Someday, when Roe v Wade is overturned, we will have finally eliminated the last relic of our barbarian ancestors(along with slavery and polygamy) and become a true civilized people.

Posted by: Duane-o at April 19, 2007 2:29 PM
Comment #217614

Joseph,

No, it isn’t immoral or appalling. Everyone has sex. The birth rate proves it. It may be something you don’t want to admit to yourself, much like the complete and utter failure of abstinence education, but it none the less is fact.

You are not the arbiter of morality. It may not be your choice to abort an unintended pregnancy, but the moral choice in many cases is to terminate the pregnancy before a child is produced. Many children are neglected and abused.

Child abuse in its various forms has remained a relatively steady occurrence in contemporary American society. The reported number of children victimized in 2003 is 906,000 (U.S. Department of Health 2005a). The majority (60.9%) of children experienced neglect and 18% experienced physical abuse (U.S. Department of Health 2005b). Children aged 0-3 years suffered the highest rate of victimization (16.3%) with 79% of an estimated 1,500 cases of fatalities from abuse. Parents, mainly single mothers, are the vast majority of perpetrators (80%) (U.S. Department of Health… 2005b). It is important to note that these figures represent those cases that come before a court of law. The actual numbers of unreported abused and neglected children is suspected to be much higher.

Your supposed “moral” stance would subjugate thousands more to abuse and neglect, as well as submit many single mothers to lives of poverty. There is no morality in that, just self agrandizing righteousness and ignorance.

Posted by: gergle at April 19, 2007 2:37 PM
Comment #217615

Duane-o,

Nice stat. Which orifice did you pull that out of? Want to back it up?

Posted by: gergle at April 19, 2007 2:42 PM
Comment #217619

Gergle said: “The court, it may be argued intruded itself into our personal lives with Roe v. Wade. If that is so, then the court is continuing to do so.”

No, Gergle, that is neither a rational nor logical argument. Roe v. Wade did not mandate abortions on those who did not want them. That would have been an intrusion on personal liberty. Roe v. Wade protected a woman’s right to decided to when she will become a mother from the state making that decision for her. Those who don’t believe in abortion LOST NOTHING in the way of personal choice or liberty by Roe v. Wade. They are free to NOT have an abortion of they choose.

Overturning RvW would imprison women for making a personal choice about when and if they become a mother. That is intrusion upon personal choice by government.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 19, 2007 2:58 PM
Comment #217620

I say “gergle for President” !!
You are on a roll, and are definitely not without support.
Seriously, thank you!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 19, 2007 3:00 PM
Comment #217621

Duane-o said: “Someday, when Roe v Wade is overturned, we will have finally eliminated the last relic of our barbarian ancestors(along with slavery and polygamy) and become a true civilized people.”

No, what we will have a vastly overpopulated society making injustice and poverty and suffering increase for ever growing numbers of people. Population density is afterall, the one common source for 99.9% of all of mankind’s problems. If we all lived on separate islands, there would be no war, little violence, no starvation, no abuse, no want for things we didn’t have on our own little island.

Those who want to lift all curbs on population growth have not contemplated or appreciated the kind of world and loss of quality of life that would portend, I suspect. 10’s of millions of people in the world die of starvation and malnutrition already. That is a direct result of overpopulation in areas not able to sustain the needs of those people.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 19, 2007 3:04 PM
Comment #217622

“Imposing personal fanatical values upon others is a deep intrusion into liberty.”

“You want to intervene in this personal matter as long as you don’t have to deal with the consequence”

“For me, this is it in a nutshell.
Imposition of values + Intrusion on liberty = State Control.
It’s Un-American.”

Man. You guys don’t have the same concern about imposing values upon others and intruding on their liberty when we talk about taxes.

Amazing how people can be all about rights and freedoms one minute and totally against them the next.

Posted by: kctim at April 19, 2007 3:06 PM
Comment #217623

gergle, I agree with Sandra regarding your lucid comments about the wealthier not losing their right to abortion if it is banned for those less affluent locked into the banned legal jurisdiction by absence of means.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 19, 2007 3:07 PM
Comment #217628

David,

Thank You.

I didn’t think that Roe v Wade intruded into our personal lives, I said some felt it did. Frankly that argument has never made any sense to me, either. Perhaps I distorted it: by intruding into State’s right they were infringing on the State’s right to self regulate through their legislatures, or the people’s choice.

I’m sure Rhinehold could say it better than I.

Sandra,

Thanks, but
Waaay too many skeletons in my closet:)

Posted by: gergle at April 19, 2007 3:30 PM
Comment #217643

But shouldn’t we apply the same concern to all of our individual freedoms?
If we don’t want govt imposing personal fanatical values upon others for abortion, should we also not want that for other things like taxes and marriage?

I know this thread is about abortion and abortion rights, but I honestly think there is a connection in how some people don’t wish to attribute the same rights they demand for this issue to other issue’s.
“Freedom of choice” should not only apply to abortion should it?

Posted by: kctim at April 19, 2007 4:17 PM
Comment #217644

kctim, your last comment is a bit naive. Society as large as ours is constantly weighing individual rights and protections against the greater good of the society and its longevity for all. That is what makes these issue complex, and not black and white as many choose to see them.

One can be BOTH for personal liberty and choice and for regulation and constraints on individual behaviors which pose a threat to others or the survival of the society. There is no hypocrisy in such a stance, at all. It is a reflection of a person’s ability to ratio things, or, in other words, to be rational.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 19, 2007 4:22 PM
Comment #217651

So its ok to take away personal liberties and choice for one person but not for another, based on the issue?
So, overall, our individual rights and freedoms, are determined by the views of the majority and we must abide by them because somebody else has determined they are what is best for us?

Isn’t this why our country is in the mess it is now?
You’ve seen and heard all the name calling between the parties.
The “brainwashed Christians” imposing their morals on us and the “wussy liberals” dictating how we live our own lives.
Why do they do this? Because they don’t want somebody with a different view than their own, telling them how to live.

Wouldn’t it be easier to just respect everybody’s rights and freedoms?

In a truly free country, people should not be able to tell a woman she must have a child just as they should not be able to tell others who they must care for and support.

Posted by: kctim at April 19, 2007 4:50 PM
Comment #217658

I’m not sure I could vote for Gergle for Prez as Sandra would suggest… what, with big G calling me a “lap dog” and all… but I do enjoy his/her posts.

David touched on something a little further up in the comments section:

“I believe THIS court made the right decision, just as the next court that reverses it, will have made the right decision for itself and time in American history.”

This is quite profound. One of the biggest criticisms of this decision is that it ignores precedent, and this criticism does not hold water…

The Supreme Court is under no obligation to follow precedent. If that were the case we would still have segregation in its mandated form (a case could certainly be made that we still unofficially have it!) as over a hundred years of precedent, at the time of Brown v Board of Ed., would dictate that segregation and its “seperate but equal” philosophy was indeed the correct way to go. I do not think there would be too many people around today that would publicly argue that the Supreme Court should have followed precedent in that case.

This decision could very well be reversed one day by a different court with different members. Of course then it will be the “lap dogs of the right wing nutcases” that will be saying the court should have followed precedent.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at April 19, 2007 5:40 PM
Comment #217666

Doug, we’re supposed to be moving forward. Ending segregation moved us forward as a nation, but what this Supreme Court ruling did is take women backward. Indeed, it could kill them.
Don’t expect the majority of women to be grateful that these male judges made this decision over our fate, and in complete defiance of what our doctors think is safest for our health.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 19, 2007 6:11 PM
Comment #217676

Adrienne,

Fair enough, if that is your stance… I was simply pointing out that the Supreme Court is under no obligation to follow “precedent” when deciding what it thinks is correct.

The argument that the SC should be “moving forward” is different altogether from the argument that they should be following “precedent”.

Posted by: Doug at April 19, 2007 6:34 PM
Comment #217824

To all the men on this subject:

Abortion, and the right to it, is NOT your issue. It is a woman’s issue. It should be debated and decided by women.

There is only one time…and one time only…that you men have a valid opinion. I’ll get to that in a minute.

A woman’s right:

1.) Men, will you ever have a menstrual period?

2.) Men, will you ever carry a fetus to term?

3.) Men, do you think women are too stupid to stand up for their rights and need defending by you?

4.) Men, do you think that the courts will reverse almost all precident and let YOU decide whether a woman should have an abortion or not?

Of course, all the answers to the above are a resounding “NO”.

Men, you have NO voice in the abortion debate, which is why I am not giving you my opinion of freedeom of choice here. It’s not my place. I have NO right to enter the abortion debate.

The only time, men, you have a valid opinion on the abortion debate is 5 seconds before you have sex with a woman.

If you stop, zip up your pants and go home, you have made the statement that you are against abortion.

If you continue on and have sex, you are for abortion rights.

But be aware.

The moment you have sex, you have given up ALL your rights. The right to have or not have that child is out of your hands. The right to be a part of that child’s life is gone. The right to parent that child, the right to love that child is gone. The courts are almost 100% in favor of the mother. The only right you have is to pay child support for 18 years…and 22 years if that child goes to college.

Remember:

1.) Abortion rights are a woman’s issue. Stay out of it.

2.) The only time you have a valid point is when you either zip up your pants and go home…or continue on and have sex.

Me personally, I like my rights too much to have them stripped by the courts.

Zip it up and make a statement.

Posted by: Jim T at April 20, 2007 12:20 PM
Comment #217834

You totally miss the reasoning behind being anti-abortion Jim T.
It is NOT about controlling a womans body.
It IS about protecting the life of an innocent child.
Are men not allowed to help the most defenseless of us all?

Posted by: kctim at April 20, 2007 1:49 PM
Comment #217835

Thank you Jim T….you and gergle make a heckofa support group !!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 20, 2007 1:52 PM
Comment #217837

kctim,

Check with the courts. No…we ARE NOT allowed to protect the most defenseless of all.

No…we are not allowed to decide what’s best for a woman’s body.

No…we are not allowed to be a parent to that child.

No…we are not allowed to have ANY input (pun not intended) into the abortion debate, or the child’s mere existance once we have deposited our sperm.

Thank you court system of America…who sides with the mother almost 100% of the time…and discriminates against the father almost 100% of the time.

You want to save the most defenseless of our society?

Zip up your pants and go home.

Posted by: Jim T at April 20, 2007 1:57 PM
Comment #217838

Sandra,

I’m just trying to stand up for men’s rights. When it comes to the abortion debate, we have no voice. None.

Since we have no voice, the abortion debate is strictly a women’s debate, and should be debated and decided by women and women alone.

I bet, however, you’ll see the same breakdown as with any other debate. A few on the radical side of women’s right to abortion on demand…a few on the radical side of ending all abortions…but most will the “I would never have an abortion, but I would never deny someone else’s right to one” group. Whaddyathink?

Posted by: Jim T at April 20, 2007 2:11 PM
Comment #217841

Jim T…I agree that there are woman on both sides of the issue too. Just look back into all the posts and threads on the subject. It is men who are the most vocal and prolific, however.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 20, 2007 2:28 PM
Comment #217843

Jim T, as an afterthought, even though gender might not have been the basis for their decision, the male voice certainly outnumbers the female in the Supreme Court…….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 20, 2007 2:31 PM
Comment #217845

Sandra,

You’re right. But guys need to shut up and let women decide this.

SCOTUS needs to recognize that men, in reality, have no voice in ending the life of a child…or sustaining it.

It’s time for women across the political spectrum to put up their dukes and slug it out, pro or con, and men need to just shut up and accept the decision they come up with.

Posted by: Jim T at April 20, 2007 2:38 PM
Comment #217848

You know…for all the advancements made, for all the ground gained by clawing and scratching our way, it’s still pretty much a mans’ world out there.
Now let’s sit back and see how many critics that statement brings out ;)

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 20, 2007 2:50 PM
Comment #217854

Sandra,

You’re pretty much right. I won’t be a critic. It’s still pretty much a man’s world, and any woman who tries to wrest power from us is labeled a “bitch” or “ice queen” or a “bull-dyke”.

Personally, I’m ready for a woman president.

I figure you all can’t screw up the world any more than it already is…and you might do better. Who knows? Go for it.


Posted by: Jim T at April 20, 2007 3:20 PM
Comment #217855

Which is it Jim T?
Do men just need to shut up and disregard a human life because its the womans body or do men have no say because the courts say so?

You ignored what I said though. It is not about a woman or her body, it is about not killing another human being.

“You want to save the most defenseless of our society?

Zip up your pants and go home”

OR vote for non-whipped Representitives who will let you care and help the defenseless.

And why is it that you can get away with telling people to “zip up and go home” if they want to prevent abortions, but telling people to “zip up and go home” is the only 100% way to not get pregnant is scoffed at?

Posted by: kctim at April 20, 2007 3:20 PM
Comment #217866

You know, the thing is that this applies to all fetuses. i.e. you have a stillborn at 26-40 weeks, and you have to get it out. You can:
a) have painful labor (the worst part is the head)
b) c-section
c) cut the baby into peices and remove it
d) turn it feet first, suck its brains out, and remove it.

The procedure mostly applies to dead babies in vitro with hydrocephalus, whose heads are twice the size as normal. Now, c-section would be the legal way to remove the fetus.

I know someone who had a “partial birth abortion” at around 20 weeks. She had twins. One had died, the other hadn’t yet formed lungs, and she went into HELLP (she had 30 minutes to deliver or die). VERY rare, but it happened to her. Now she would have a c-section instead. So the Supreme Court is mandating she be cut open by her doctor if this happens again.

Life can be horrific and ugly and terrible. We are saying that since difficult decisions effect only a few people, we’ll make it our business to tell them what their answers are going to be.

Posted by: jemyr at April 20, 2007 4:13 PM
Comment #217868

“Life can be horrific and ugly and terrible. We are saying that since difficult decisions effect only a few people, we’ll make it our business to tell them what their answers are going to be”

Why not? We do it with taxes and marriage.

Posted by: kctim at April 20, 2007 4:18 PM
Comment #217869

Eating my own words:

I suppose it pays to read the actual law they passed. The law only applies to living fetuses/babies. So, as an example, the worst case scenario is that it applies to a child who has severe hydrocephalus and will only live a few minutes when born, and the woman has to have a c-section instead of a D&X. And if a woman is in hellp with a child on the edge of viability then she would be required to deliver as well.

Still, I think it’s none of my business.

Posted by: jemyr at April 20, 2007 4:19 PM
Comment #217870

*sigh* I hate the internet. I read a pro-lifer site on what the law said. NO, there is no provision if the fetus/baby is already dead. So it does apply to stillborns.

Posted by: jemyr at April 20, 2007 4:23 PM
Comment #217871

kctim,

I thought I made it perfectly clear that we, as men, have absolutely no rights (via court decisions) in deciding to abort or not to abort. The courts are absolutely clear on this. We’re just window dressing.

What are you going to do? Huh? Duct tape a woman to a chair or bed for nine months and force her to deliver that child? Look, if a woman wants to abort a child and the courts back her decision 100% (per usual), then nothing or nobody is going to stop her. Not you…not representatives…not anyone. If the state she lives in bans abortion, she’ll go to another state…or another country…whatever it takes.

This is where you need to stop and think. If she really wants an abortion THAT BAD…do you really want her to be the mother of your child?

I answered your question about defending the most defenseless in our society.

It take real balls to zip up your pants and go home. You may be derided, laughed at and heckled if your actions get out. But two things you can say for yourself:

1.) You acted like a man and took responsability for not killing a baby. And,

2.) You thought with your big head, instead of the little one.

Those that can only think with their little head have only themselves for the situations they get themselves into.

Posted by: Jim T at April 20, 2007 4:29 PM
Comment #217872

*(#)%*()#&%(!!!! It does say living. I am stopping now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act#Partial-birth_abortion_defined_by_law

Posted by: jemyr at April 20, 2007 4:29 PM
Comment #217875

kctim said: “Why not? We do it with taxes and marriage.”

Touche’ kctim. That was an excellent retort.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 20, 2007 4:44 PM
Comment #217876

Sandra, an article appeared just this week depicting the government’s new survey of wages. You are right. Women still aren’t paid what men are for the same work. Which makes inflationary trends like health care that much more out of reach for breadwinner women, vs. men.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 20, 2007 4:46 PM
Comment #217878

Via court decisions, ok, gotcha.

But you are still stuck on “its the womans right to control her own body thing,” and that is not what I asked.
I asked about the rights of the infant human being. Does it have rights?
Via court decisions, it is a crime to kill an unborn child and its mother. Ask Scott Peterson.
Via court decisions, a woman can kill her baby before she gives birth, but not five minutes after.

You see, the majority of people do not care what a woman does with her own body. But they do care what she does to the body inside her.

“It take real balls to zip up your pants and go home”

Hey, I totally agree with you. I was just curious why the people who normally scream “quit pushing your religious values on us” when somebody mentions the same thing concerning getting pregnant, say nothing when its said concerning abortion.

Posted by: kctim at April 20, 2007 4:54 PM
Comment #217894

kctim, you are playing fast and loose with definitions. A fetus is not an infant. An impregnated developing egg in a woman’s womb is also not a human being by a great many people’s definition anymore than a sperm or egg is. I have known of many persons of adult age that I would not call human beings in the sense of that term connoting something positive. Adolph Hitler or Stalin or Charles Manson for example, I do not consider human beings in the sense that human beings are a good and awesome entity to behold.

If “YOU” choose to define the merging of two cells as a human being, and infant, etc. that’s fine, you do not have to have an abortion, no one will force you to.

On the other hand, you have no just right to force your definitions on others, especially if they are rooted in religious beliefs. Freedom of religion, not enforced religion is the rule of this land.

And just as the values of some does not, and should not, force you or yours to have an abortion, the values of yours and those like you should not force others to not have one if that is their choice.

A man aborts human life everytime he chooses masturbation over rape. A woman aborts human life with every hormone contraceptive she takes while sexually active. Should s/he be punished? The Catholic Church did so in Medieval times. We really should not go backwards toward that standard.

In my view, abortion has always been a natural option for sexually capable humans and abstinence is just another form of abortion. The egg wants to conceive. The sperm wants to conceive. But, as civilized human beings, we are not governed by our eggs and sperm, but, brains with a capacity for rational thought, deliberation, and greatest of all, “Choice” which is the cornerstone of ALL freedom.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 20, 2007 6:50 PM
Comment #217936

Kind of funny that a congressperson can’t make proper decisions for a woman unless the congressperson happens to be a woman.
I guess now we’re gonna have to expand government so that we have a men’s congress to decide upon men’s issues, a women’s congress to decide upon women’s issues, a Black congress to decide upon Black issues, an Indian congress to decide upon Indian issues, a corporate congress to decide upon corporate issues, an immigrant congress to decide upon immigration issues, a military congress to decide upon military issues, etc.! Yeah, if you aren’t a “part” of a particular group you just shouldn’t have any voice in the matter. It’s just impossible not to be bigoted and discriminatory in some way without actual group affiliation, right?
Let’s have this many different Supreme Courts too just to make sure they get it right on the judicial side.

JD

Posted by: JD at April 21, 2007 1:32 AM
Comment #217943

JD, this nation would implode long before we could erect such discrete walls of separation in our institutions of government. Your point however, was very astute and strong.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 21, 2007 2:29 AM
Comment #217955

kctim,

You have brought up a very interesting question.

If you murder a pregnant woman, you can be charged not only with the murder of the woman, but the unborn child as well.

However, if the woman decides to kill the unborn child, it is not murder.

Also, if you kill the woman and her unborn child, it is called an unborn child…not a fetus. But if a woman goes to an abortion clinic…it is a fetus…not an unborn child.

So which is it?

Let’s just say that the woman is 4 months pregnant.

So many people would argue that it is not an unborn child…that it is a fetus, a mass of tissue and nothing more. But those very same people, in a murder case, call that fetus an “unborn child”.

So which is it? Fetus or unborn child?

Is it a result of political correctness?
Is it a matter of socitial vengence and outrage?
Is it the old “you’re FOR abortion but AGAINST capital punishment”?

One thing for sure. It is inconsistant and irrational.

If it is an unborn child, it deserves the protection of the law (no abortion). If it is a fetus, then prosecution for TWO murders makes absolutely no sense.

All of this goes back to my arguement that women, and women only, need to decide…and then let us know what’s what.

Posted by: Jim T at April 21, 2007 9:39 AM
Comment #217977

Doug, you asked:

“No, what I mean is that if the baby could survive, like many prematurely born babies (with hospital help) do, outside of the womb, then maybe we should be considering it a little human life even when still inside of the womb. No one would argue that it should be legal to kill a one day old baby. Why should it be any different for a baby still in the belly (again, assuming it can be reasonably called a “baby” at this point)?”

I was born one month premature, so I’d wager I’ve given this question more thought than most. Here’s the answer I’ve come up with: It should be different for a baby still in the belly for the simple reason that there is no way to provide a child in the womb with the rights of a full “person” without taking away those same rights from the mother. If a baby in the womb is to be protected in the same manner as a baby out of the womb, then we would need to restrain a mother from being able to drink… that’s giving alcohol to a minor, after all. We would need to be able to prevent her from smoking… providing cigarettes to a minor. To prevent her from engaging in dangerous/strenuous activities… endangering a minor. Effectively, the government would need to assume full control over a pregnant woman’s life in order to guarantee the safety of the unborn child, in the process stripping the basic rights and freedoms of the mother. Every miscarriage or birth defect would need to be investigated as a possible murder or child abuse, with the mother of the child the presumptive suspect. Isn’t it obvious why this is untenable?

Posted by: Jarandhel at April 21, 2007 1:40 PM
Comment #217981

I just can’t seem to keep my mouth shut on this….therefore I feel the need to weigh in again.
Sitting here reading through these posts, I’m gratified that there are some men with the sensitivity and prudence to cut us a little slack !
It’s really difficult to describe the feeling I get when reading the male statements that are literally stripping us bare and making our bodies and minds a public spectacle. Kind of like when a woman is the victim of rape and must go through a public hearing and court procedure for hours, days at a time and relive the ordeal indefinitely just to put the rapist away.
Can you even come close to imagining how degrading it is?
I’d love to throw out a discussion on E.D. maybe…we can imagine the discomfort that would cause, when you have such an intimate relation with that “part” of you. I mean you name it for cripes’ sake! Maybe we could legislate something wonderful for you if you become unable to participate in the procreation process. How humiliating, huh???? And you call us the weaker sex……….
I realize this is ludicrous, and may even get bounced off here, but damnit….leave us alone to deal with intimate, personal, traumatic ordeals with people of our choice…..not the whole damn world!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 21, 2007 2:14 PM
Comment #217990

Okay, a couple of questions.

If one procedure it illegal, another procedure is legal, both at the same age of the fetus, what is the difference? The fetus dies either way.

If these procedures, from my understanding, usually to save the life of the mother, why is one okay and one not? Especially when the not-illegal procedure is SOMETIMES the safest of the two in that particular circumstance? Then the life of the mother isn’t important?

Frankly, I don’t get it.

And someone tell me what medical procedures have been ruled as illegal either by federal law/statute or supreme court decision?

Thanks.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 21, 2007 3:26 PM
Comment #217993

Jarandhel,

Interesting… That’s all I can say… those are great points. All questions that should probably be raised… it’s such a complicated issue with the rights of so many in question (women and unborn children). I don’t understand why so many on both sides of the issue want to demnize the other… Pro-choicers are not “anti-lifers” like the right would lead us to believe. And… pro-lifers are not “anti-women” like the left would lead us to believe. All of the personal attacks in the posts above are completely unfounded and, quite frankly, aren’t even worth the time it has already taken me to type and address… but questions like the ones you raised are valid and should be added to the discussion.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at April 21, 2007 3:46 PM
Comment #217995
All of the personal attacks in the posts above are completely unfounded and, quite frankly, aren’t even worth the time it has already taken me to type and address…
So, Doug….I didn’t notice that you had any particular requirements or formats we were to follow in “your” posts. If you’re wanting to restrict or specify the tone of response, then you picked a bad subject to start with. Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 21, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #218002

Sandra… point taken on the choice of topic and how it lets peoples’ emotions get the best of them… but I don’t recall calling it “my” post as I certainly understand the community nature of this site… I’m sorry you took my last post so personally… all I was saying is that we shouldn’t try to demonize those that disagree with us… no one who has taken the time to add their thoughts are bad people, regardless of on what side of the debate one falls…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at April 21, 2007 5:05 PM
Comment #218015

Doug, I’m not trying to beat you up or make this a personal thing between the two of us….you are the editor and the door is wide open.
There have been some very caustic, hateful and graphic comments made in here, which makes it extremely difficult to neutralize the atmosphere. There are 3 female posters in here now, and one is still trying to get a legitimate question answered and only gets a vitriolic comment repeated. You men are not getting attacked because you are not, nor will ever be the target of this incredibly divided, and divisive issue.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 21, 2007 5:54 PM
Comment #218036

Doug:

Interesting… That’s all I can say… those are great points. All questions that should probably be raised… it’s such a complicated issue with the rights of so many in question (women and unborn children). I don’t understand why so many on both sides of the issue want to demnize the other… Pro-choicers are not “anti-lifers” like the right would lead us to believe. And… pro-lifers are not “anti-women” like the left would lead us to believe. All of the personal attacks in the posts above are completely unfounded and, quite frankly, aren’t even worth the time it has already taken me to type and address… but questions like the ones you raised are valid and should be added to the discussion

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with you here; pro-lifers, by definition, have already decided that unborn children should be morally and legally equivalent to children which have been born. They believe that abortion is murder and should be outlawed. This position, by its very nature, requires stripping the mother’s rights and freedoms in order to effectively enforce it, as I pointed out in my last reply to you. How can stripping pregnant women of their rights be anything but anti-women?

Posted by: Jarandhel at April 21, 2007 8:56 PM
Comment #218042

“And someone tell me what medical procedures have been ruled as illegal either by federal law / statute or Supreme court decision.” womanmarine

I may be wrong, but I believe the medical practice of assisted suicide is considered illegal.

JD

Posted by: JD at April 21, 2007 9:57 PM
Comment #218045

JD:

Had to dig pretty hard for that one.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 21, 2007 10:05 PM
Comment #218134

David R.
Of all the arguments against abortion, why doesn’t the baby have a right to live one, is the only one I have trouble with. To me, its a very valid question and one I cannot answer.
To be honest, I really don’t think the majority of those against abortion are trying to control a womans body, but are trying to protect the baby.

JD
“All of this goes back to my arguement that women, and women only, need to decide…and then let us know what’s what.”

I see that you are just as confused as I about this.
Unborn child? Fetus? Pretty hard to say.
Anyway, thanks for your input. I wasn’t arguing against your belief, in fact, I kind of have the same. But as I said to David, that really is the one question I have the hardest time with when discussing this issue.


Posted by: kctim at April 23, 2007 9:41 AM
Post a comment