Visit the U.S. Politics Online Discussion Forum Archives!

Sponsored by:

U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum  

Bookmark Us! E-Mail DONATE NOW! Photo Gallery Document Archives Quiz! Register to Vote!!!
Go Back   U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum > Political Arenas > Judiciary

Judiciary A forum to discuss court decisions and the judicial system in general

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2007
Crystal's Avatar
Crystal Crystal is offline
Administrator
The cake is a lie.

 
Member Since: Apr 2004
Location: a lake in Texas
Posts: 7,427
Blog Entries: 1

United_States     Texas

Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

I've deleted several posts for being off topic. Please be mindful of the subject when posting and stay on topic. Thanks.
__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!



Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2007
Hudson Hudson is offline
Secretary of Defense

 
Member Since: Feb 2004
Location: US
Posts: 2,610

United_States     China

Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus1124 View Post
Typical how liberals constantly miss the point, whether you think their SHOULD be a constitutional right to an abortion is completely irrelevant to whether or not there IS ONE. There isn't, abortion, like most other issues of public policy is left by the constitutition to the people to settle through their democratically elected representatives. Don't like it? Don't bitch about judges accurately reading and applying the law (in this case the Constitution), bitch to your representative to CHANGE the law (in this case, by Amendment)
The problem is that until there is a definitive medical definition of when life begins, this debate will never be solved.

As for legal intrepreatation, SCOTUS looks at precedent from previous rulings, the original intent of the Constitution, and to the application of the law. See Mulbury v Madison for more info.
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2007
Dilettante's Avatar
Dilettante Dilettante is offline
Secretary of Defense
Hoping to one day be a Secretary of Offense.

 
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,595

Pennsylvania     United_States

Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson View Post
The problem is that until there is a definitive medical definition of when life begins, this debate will never be solved.
Technically, its a question of which life obtains and which is denied "personhood" and its associated human rights.

And that's more of a philosophical question than a medical one.

But you're right in noting that, until it is answered to everyone's satisfaction, the debate will not end.
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2007
doniston's Avatar
doniston doniston is offline
Permanently Banned
Just getting better HEH HEH

 
Member Since: Oct 2005
Location: southern Cal
Posts: 10,548

United_States     United

Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal View Post
I've deleted several posts for being off topic. Please be mindful of the subject when posting and stay on topic. Thanks.
perhaps you should note that you have virtually CANCELED the Thread as well. PAR FOR THE COURSE.
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2007
goober's Avatar
goober goober is offline
President

 
Member Since: Apr 2005
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,333

   
Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

The law does not have an exception for the health of the mother clause.
In the past this would have been enough to doom it.
The belief of many was that this clause was left out on purpose, so that the court could strike down the law. This would give the right a symbolic victory (We passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban), without energizing the womens right movement on the left (relax ladies, the court struck it down).
What happened is that the right now has the bar set higher, to fire up the Pro-Life vote, they need to call for widening the ban on abortion. Which will only further energize the Women's Rights voters on this issue, especially in the race for the White House in 2008.
__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2007
Hudson Hudson is offline
Secretary of Defense

 
Member Since: Feb 2004
Location: US
Posts: 2,610

United_States     China

Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante View Post
Technically, its a question of which life obtains and which is denied "personhood" and its associated human rights.

And that's more of a philosophical question than a medical one.

But you're right in noting that, until it is answered to everyone's satisfaction, the debate will not end.
You are arguing more about sencient life which is more philosophical than medical. I am arguing the basics of life regardless if one is sencient or not. And if one argues your point, then the argument is a continuation of the human/sub-human philosophical debate. Would you agree?
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2007
Hudson Hudson is offline
Secretary of Defense

 
Member Since: Feb 2004
Location: US
Posts: 2,610

United_States     China

Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by doniston View Post
perhaps you should note that you have virtually CANCELED the Thread as well. PAR FOR THE COURSE.
But rules are rules are rules are rules.
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2007
Annie Annie is offline
Town Council Member

 
Member Since: Apr 2007
Location: Chicago Metro
Posts: 102

   
Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
The law does not have an exception for the health of the mother clause.
In the past this would have been enough to doom it.
The belief of many was that this clause was left out on purpose, so that the court could strike down the law. This would give the right a symbolic victory (We passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban), without energizing the womens right movement on the left (relax ladies, the court struck it down).
What happened is that the right now has the bar set higher, to fire up the Pro-Life vote, they need to call for widening the ban on abortion. Which will only further energize the Women's Rights voters on this issue, especially in the race for the White House in 2008.
Actually there was an opening for doctors to appeal to the courts on the 'life of the mother.' I believe they are acknowledging that the in fact loophole of 'health of the mother' is no longer in existence.
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2007
3.14 3.14 is offline
Permanently Banned
Convert to the BPR - Beer Pizza Religion

 
Member Since: Nov 2006
Location: New Delhi (at least till I piss off someplace yet again)
Posts: 5,329

India    
Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson View Post
But rules are rules are rules are rules.
Any plans for the May Day holiday (or are you still in the US)?

Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2007
Dilettante's Avatar
Dilettante Dilettante is offline
Secretary of Defense
Hoping to one day be a Secretary of Offense.

 
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,595

Pennsylvania     United_States

Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson View Post
You are arguing more about sencient life which is more philosophical than medical. I am arguing the basics of life regardless if one is sencient or not. And if one argues your point, then the argument is a continuation of the human/sub-human philosophical debate. Would you agree?
I'm merely pointing out that no one (that I know of anyway) denies that a fetus is alive, nor even that it represents human life.
A zygote represents human life. A person whose brain is rotted away and is sustained merely by life support represents human life.
No one argues that these things/people are alive or that they are not of the human species.

The argument is over what specimens of human life are to be granted "human rights".
Reply With Quote
  #71 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2007
Diuretic Diuretic is offline
Secretary of Defense

 
Member Since: May 2006
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 3,021

Australia     United

Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante View Post
I'm merely pointing out that no one (that I know of anyway) denies that a fetus is alive, nor even that it represents human life.
A zygote represents human life. A person whose brain is rotted away and is sustained merely by life support represents human life.
No one argues that these things/people are alive or that they are not of the human species.

The argument is over what specimens of human life are to be granted "human rights".
I really hate to be picky, no, I really do - but since words are instruments of reason - I take objection to your idea that human rights are "granted".

A person whose brain has rotted away is still a human being and so is different from a zygote or a foetus.
__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh
Reply With Quote
  #72 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2007
Dilettante's Avatar
Dilettante Dilettante is offline
Secretary of Defense
Hoping to one day be a Secretary of Offense.

 
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,595

Pennsylvania     United_States

Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic View Post
I really hate to be picky, no, I really do - but since words are instruments of reason - I take objection to your idea that human rights are "granted".
Perhaps we could substitute "granted" for "legally recognized" then?
The debate is over which collections of living human tissue we legally recognize as having rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic View Post
A person whose brain has rotted away is still a human being and so is different from a zygote or a foetus.
Different how, other then in size and development obviously.
In saying that the brain-dead individual is a human being and the fetus is not, are you saying anything other than that the brain-dead individual has rights not recognized as belonging to the fetus?
But that's the entire point of the debate; what rights should be recognized as belonging to unborn humans.
Reply With Quote
  #73 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2007
Diuretic Diuretic is offline
Secretary of Defense

 
Member Since: May 2006
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 3,021

Australia     United

Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante View Post


Different how, other then in size and development obviously.
In saying that the brain-dead individual is a human being and the fetus is not, are you saying anything other than that the brain-dead individual has rights not recognized as belonging to the fetus?
But that's the entire point of the debate; what rights should be recognized as belonging to unborn humans.
Yes, I'm saying that the brain-dead human being is indeed a human being. A foetus isn't a human being. An "unborn human" is an oxymoron. A human being is born, by definition. Before birth the organism isn't a human being.
__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh
Reply With Quote
  #74 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2007
Dilettante's Avatar
Dilettante Dilettante is offline
Secretary of Defense
Hoping to one day be a Secretary of Offense.

 
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,595

Pennsylvania     United_States

Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic View Post
Yes, I'm saying that the brain-dead human being is indeed a human being. A foetus isn't a human being. An "unborn human" is an oxymoron. A human being is born, by definition. Before birth the organism isn't a human being.
Diuretic, THAT is the entire abortion debate! If everyone considered "unborn human" an oxymoron, then we wouldn't have a debate. Many people (myself included) don't think its that simple.
Reply With Quote
  #75 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2007
Annie Annie is offline
Town Council Member

 
Member Since: Apr 2007
Location: Chicago Metro
Posts: 102

   
Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

As you can see from my post numbers, I'm new here. This is a really long post, but I think it relevent to this conversation. I just want to say a thank you to the poster that directed me to this site, I'm impressed by the thinking people from all sides of the issues. For those reading this particular post, while I am pro-life, I'm not of the religious right:

The Corner on National Review Online

Quote:
Philly Inquirer Supreme Court Cartoon -- Do They Really Think This Is Only a CATHOLIC Issue? [Andy McCarthy]

I might have thought it was a humanity issue. After all, consider the following, from a shrieking 2005 ABC News story by Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, manifestly conveying outrage over the inhumanity of coercive interrogation methods allegedly used by the CIA on certain high-level terrorist detainees:
According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.
Now, consider the Supreme Court majority opinion this week in Gonzales v. Carhart. The five justices ridiculed by the Inquirer explained that, in the usual abortion,
[a]fter sufficient dilation the surgical operation can commence. The woman is placed under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. The doctor, often guided by ultrasound, inserts grasping forceps through the woman's cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes. Once the fetus has been evacuated, the placenta and any remaining fetal material are suctioned or scraped out of the uterus. The doctor examines the different parts to ensure the entire fetal body has been removed.
By contrast, in partial birth abortion, or "intact D&E," the same justices observed,
the doctor extracts the fetus in a way conducive to pulling out its entire body, instead of ripping it apart. One doctor, for example, testified: "If I know I have good dilation and I reach in and the fetus starts to come out and I think I can accomplish it, the abortion with an intact delivery, then I use my forceps a little bit differently. I don't close them quite so much, and I just gently draw the tissue out attempting to have an intact delivery, if possible."... Rotating the fetus as it is being pulled decreases the odds of dismemberment.... A doctor also "may use forceps to grasp a fetal part, pull it down, and re-grasp the fetus at a higher level—sometimes using both his hand and a forceps—to exert traction to retrieve the fetus intact until the head is lodged in the [cervix]."...

In the usual intact D&E the fetus' head lodges in the cervix, and dilation is insufficient to allow it to pass.... [Dr. Martin] Haskell explained the next step as follows:

At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and "hooks" the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger. [T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient....

This is an abortion doctor's clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus... The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp... He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used....

Dr. Haskell's approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and "the process has evolved" since his presentation.... Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced "so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through." ... Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus' skull.... Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it.... Some doctors performing an intact D&E attempt to remove the fetus without collapsing the skull.... Yet one doctor would not allow delivery of a live fetus younger than 24 weeks because "the objective of [his] procedure is to perform an abortion," not a birth.... The doctor thus answered in the affirmative when asked whether he would "hold the fetus' head on the internal side of the [cervix] in order to collapse the skull" and kill the fetus before it is born.... Another doctor testified he crushes a fetus' skull not only to reduce its size but also to ensure the fetus is dead before it is removed. For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has "some viability to it, some movement of limbs," according to this doctor, "[is] always a difficult situation."
Me: I've been watching the interrogation debate pretty closely for the last few years. I haven't yet seen the Philadelphia Inquirer and its fellow-travelers depict mitres on the heads of those religious zealots at ABC News, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, etc. Nor had it occurred to me until now that only Catholics are exercised by barbarity.

04/20 08:27 AM
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On