Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante
...based solely on the findings of congress and court.
|
The court was split decidedly left right and not a single one of the judges is a gynecologist or obstetrician...and neither are you. The left/right split seems to indicate that the opinion about the particular brutality of a partial birth abortion is exactly that - opinion and apparently not related to law. There is no logical reason to ban partial birth abortions vs any other abortion method in my opinion. It seems obvious to me that this is a ploy to undermine Roe V Wade. Therefore, it is cloaked.
Quote:
|
JHC, read my posts. I never made any sort of "argument" against this procedure because of its brutality. I merely included the words "brutal and disturbing" in my opinion of it (an opinion I still hold). And I even put them in paranthesis!
|
Fine. Your opinion is illogical because you specifically said it had nothing to do with the stage of pregnancy but with the "particularly brutal" tactics. Compared to WHAT?
Quote:
And yes that was a little harsh. You accused me of "cloaking" my arguments, being insecure, beating around the bush and having "stunningly frail" judgement. I don't think that was quite warranted.
And since we are discussing the courts decision, not making it for them, then our expertise are irrelevent here. If we have to be medical professionals to have an opinion on abortion than we'd all better get military and poli-sci degrees before we ever comment on Iraq.
|
If we are discussing the courts opinion, and I believe their opinion is illogical and a disguise, then I also believe that your agreement with it is illogical and a disguise. If you'd like to argue that partial birth abortion should be illegal because it is particularly brutal, you should go read up on the other methods. Without considering the stage of the pregnancy and viability of the fetus, your left comparing slicing and dicing and scraping to crushing or puncturing. GROSS!
Here are your original specific remarks:
Quote:
|
Commentary: The description of the procedure (see above) seems to be fairly narrowly defined. It is notably not a ban on abortions past a certain period of pregnancy, but a ban a (particularly brutal and disturbing) method of abortion. I, personally, support the decision.
|
Not related to stage of pregnancy but on the particular methodology which you specifically call "particularly brutal". What can you tell me about other methods that would convince me this one is particularly brutal? Then I'd have to eat my hat.
Otherwise, I get the distinct impression that what you really mean to say is that you disagree with abortion altogether unless, possibly, there is some line in the sand where the womans health or life are jeopardized. I can respect that as an opinion and the arguments that go with it.
After I made that assertion you made another post that seems to indicate that I was correct.
Look here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante
That right there captures why I see no problem with this ruling.
The law "makes it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion when the 'entire fetal head' or 'any part of the fetal trunk past the navel' is outside the woman's uterus."
If the health of the women allows for the "birth" of half the fetus/baby, how on earth is the women helped by the doctor stabbing that half before the rest is "born"? It's not like crushing the skull when it's already outside is going to make removing the rest any easier.
If the fetus isn't viable, then it will die without the doctor having to stab it to death. If it is viable, then the doctor sure has hell shouldn't be stabbing it.
The actual act of the abortion in this procedure (i.e. the killing of the fetus) is either utterly unnecessary (it wasn't viable) or serves only to kill a living human (it was viable). It doesn't do the woman any good.
That's why this procedure is so disturbing. If the women's body won't survive birth, then it makes perfect sense to kill and cut up the fetus in utero so it can be removed in smaller, easier pieces. It's disgusting, but it can be necessary.
But this? This is also disgusting but it serves no purpose.
|
Do you really think that the left/right split was based upon the overwhelming preponderance of gynecological/obstetrical testimony supporting your opinion?
I don't.