Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

JHC · #16 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

Whoa there!
What logic is faulty? Where did I even attempt to employ logic? I made an observation about the nature of the law and said I agreed with the court decision. How can my logic be faulty?
And where did I equate "'partial birth' with killing a full term baby"?
Kindly don't toss me in with "millions of other people" just so you can label me!

Brutality is, admittedly, subjective. I would say that there is something especially brutal and disturbing about the doctor looking directly at the fetus'/baby's head and then plunging a sharp instrament into it.

I support the decision because it bans a procedure in which the fetus/baby is half-way out of the women before being killed and is then removed the rest of the way. It's not like the women is avoiding the birth procedure here.
They might as well remove it without stabbing it.
If it really isn't viable, it'll die and the result is the same as an abortion.
If it is viable and can live outside the womb, then thank goodness we didn't stab it in the head!

The faulty logic lies in your ignorance of abortion procedures. How do you think a fetus is killed in all other cases of abortion?

You say: "I would say that there is something especially brutal and disturbing about the doctor looking directly at the fetus'/baby's head and then plunging a sharp instrament [sic] into it". The only way you could possibly equate this as being MORE brutal than other abortion methods without consideration of stage of pregnancy, has to be your ignorance of abortion in general.

Viability of the fetus is what most people, and I suspect yourself included, are concerned about. Just because the fetus is partially out of the womb does not mean it is either late term or viable or either of these.

A partial birth abortion does not mean that a woman goes into the normal full term birth process and then the BABY is murdered as it evacuates the birth canal. Unfortunately, that is what people think when they hear "partial birth".

The only technical difference between partial birth abortion and any other kind of abortion is that the fetus is killed outside the womb after labor is induced. It isn't necessarily performed late term even. In many cases, it is used as a method that will preserve the health of the woman's uterus or cervix when other abortion methods would not be as safe.

Even a miscarriage is a birth. The difference being that labor was the bodies natural response to a pregnancy gone wrong. The fetus is presumably already dead but often the fetus is still alive when the miscarriage begins.

Do you understand?

You can't possibly be MORE offended by the brutality of "partial birth" abortion as opposed to a D&C where a fetus is scraped off in shreds like a pimple or as in Suction and Aspiration, sliced up and sucked out of the uterus.
What you take offense at is the that "partial birth" abortions are performed on a fetus that is viable/in the normal process of birth/late stage - but that's not what "partial birth abortion" means.

Imperator · #17 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

Fairly big news:

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.

well said and I agree...

Dilettante · #18 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

The only technical difference between partial birth abortion and any other kind of abortion is that the fetus is killed outside the womb after labor is induced. It isn't necessarily performed late term even. In many cases, it is used as a method that will preserve the health of the woman's uterus or cervix when other abortion methods would not be as safe.
...

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.

SamInTheSouth · #19 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

My Way News - Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure

My first impression of this is that it may be another nail in the coffin of the GOP's 2008 election hopes.

This is a massive wakeup call to Pro-Choice Republicans, that the anti-abortion plank is not just there to get enough votes to pass tax cuts, it's really there and these guys are really on the Supreme Court.

I'd say the Democrats just picked up 5 points in the Womens vote.

Partial birth abortion is an abhorred practice and the vast majority of the country is against its use.

doniston · #20 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

Finally, some progress in the courtroom. One of the most gruesome and appalling methods of abortion has been banned by the court.

Good to know I am not the only one horrifed enough to outlaw such practices.

I am in full agreement with this action. it is about time.

doniston · #21 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

And, yet, abortion remains legal.

You won the battle, but you'll lose the war...

For someone who purports to be non pro-choice (against abortion) you sure give a good immitation of pro choice.

Marley · #22 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007

Roe v Wade should go the way of Dred Scott by the same means.

Steve · #23 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

But, you can't back that statement up now, can you?

Call it a hunch.

How long has the Supreme Court been a "conservative" court? If it was going to happen, it would've happened by now...

iamwhatiseem · #24 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007

I completely support this particular ban...as I believe better than 90% of the population that knows what it is does/would also.

It is truly a barbaric act.

JHC · #25 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007

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.

And your gynecological/obstetric experience is...?

Quote:

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.

Then your real argument is not against this particular method of killing a fetus but the idea of killing a fetus unless it is "necessary".

That's a separate argument and the fact that you cloaked your belief in the partial-birth-abortion-is-particularly-brutal argument makes it seem as if you are insecure in your own judgement.

There is no need to beat around the bush. Abortion is horrible. The problem lies in the fact that neither you nor I are medical professionals capable of judging when an abortion is medically necessary and what method to use. Neither are you or I currently facing an unwanted pregnancy and are therefore equally ill equipped to make a judgement about what is best for the mother. Neither are you or I God and are only equipped to make moral judgements based on our own personal belief system.

I'm happy for you if this ruling eases your trepidation about abortion in some small way. I'm also disappointed in your stunningly frail argument (or judgement if you prefer but I'm trying to be kind).

I think the ruling is wrong because it represents exactly the kind of hidden agenda that you inadvertantly portrayed in your posts.

I apologize if this sounds harsh.

SamInTheSouth · #26 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

There is no need to beat around the bush. Abortion is horrible. The problem lies in the fact that neither you nor I are medical professionals capable of judging when an abortion is medically necessary and what method to use. Neither are you or I currently facing an unwanted pregnancy and are therefore equally ill equipped to make a judgement about what is best for the mother. Neither are you or I God and are only equipped to make moral judgements based on our own personal belief system.

There is never a medical reason for performing a partial birth abortion.

SamInTheSouth · #27 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007

This is what our Democrat Candidates for President think:

ttp://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1451

BarackObama.com | Sam Graham-Felsen's Blog: Open Thread: Supreme Court Decision

John Edwards for President-Edwards Statement On Supreme Court Ruling On Federal Abortion Ban

Disgusting sickos. All three of them.....

JHC · #28 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheBurgh

There is never a medical reason for performing a partial birth abortion.

Are you a medical professional specializing in this field? And assuming that you are, are you talking about a reason that saves the womans life or just her uterus or cervix?

For that reason, you didn't mention the woman at all. Were you talking about a medical reason from the view of the fetus?

Also, there is no medical reason for the majority of all abortions let alone partial birth. So again, what's your particular beef with partial birth abortion as opposed to the other methods which are equally gruesome and result in the same condition for the fetus, (dead)?

Dilettante · #29 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

And your gynecological/obstetric experience is...?

...based solely on the findings of congress and court.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

Then your real argument is not against this particular method of killing a fetus but the idea of killing a fetus unless it is "necessary".

That's a separate argument and the fact that you cloaked your belief in the partial-birth-abortion-is-particularly-brutal argument makes it seem as if you are insecure in your own judgement.

There is no need to beat around the bush. Abortion is horrible. The problem lies in the fact that neither you nor I are medical professionals capable of judging when an abortion is medically necessary and what method to use. Neither are you or I currently facing an unwanted pregnancy and are therefore equally ill equipped to make a judgement about what is best for the mother. Neither are you or I God and are only equipped to make moral judgements based on our own personal belief system.

I'm happy for you if this ruling eases your trepidation about abortion in some small way. I'm also disappointed in your stunningly frail argument (or judgement if you prefer but I'm trying to be kind).

I think the ruling is wrong because it represents exactly the kind of hidden agenda that you inadvertantly portrayed in your posts.

I apologize if this sounds harsh.

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!

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.

JHC · #30 (**permalink**) 04-18-2007

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.