Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban - Page 6 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Diuretic · #76 (**permalink**) 04-21-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

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.

I try not to get into the abortion debates, but I think I may have strayed into one.

Oh well.

But the debate isn't about a definition. I mean whether or not you call a foetus an "unborn human" or I call an unborn human a "foetus" isn't the point. It actually avoids the point.

Diuretic · #77 (**permalink**) 04-21-2007

The introduction of vivid descriptions of the procedure doesn't illuminate the debate. The only light is from the flames.

I could troll through a series of handbooks on surgical procedures and describe them in vivid detail and have the average reader reaching for a bucket in which to vomit. Yet each of those procedures, which would cause revulsion because I could describe them so that the reader's mind would develop a mental multimedia presentation, would be designed to restore the patient to health. So what's the point of describing abortion procedures? It's merely to bludgeon your opponent. It's pure propaganda and a logical fallacy, using emotive words.

I could do the same in a debate on the death penalty. I hope I never do though.

Annie · #78 (**permalink**) 04-21-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diuretic

The introduction of vivid descriptions of the procedure doesn't illuminate the debate. The only light is from the flames.

I could troll through a series of handbooks on surgical procedures and describe them in vivid detail and have the average reader reaching for a bucket in which to vomit. Yet each of those procedures, which would cause revulsion because I could describe them so that the reader's mind would develop a mental multimedia presentation, would be designed to restore the patient to health. So what's the point of describing abortion procedures? It's merely to bludgeon your opponent. It's pure propaganda and a logical fallacy, using emotive words.

I could do the same in a debate on the death penalty. I hope I never do though.

I'll agree, all surgery will make most of us vomit, otherwise more of us would be doctors or nurses. On the other hand, if you read about open heart surgery and the alternative of passing it by, which would you choose?

If the reasons for partial birth abortion is the 'health of the mother' which includes issues that are of the ilk of 'inconvenient timing' in the 8th month, seems like there should be some community standards.

Those standards seems to me to have been called into account with the SCOTUS ruling. The invite for 'life of the mother' argument was there, but not 'health of the mother' which has been stretched to accomodate the size 2 going up to a 6.

Diuretic · #79 (**permalink**) 04-21-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Annie

I'll agree, all surgery will make most of us vomit, otherwise more of us would be doctors or nurses. On the other hand, if you read about open heart surgery and the alternative of passing it by, which would you choose?

Of course, you'd be silly to refuse the procedure due to its "ugh" factor. It's much better to work out a risk analysis and go from there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Annie

If the reasons for partial birth abortion is the 'health of the mother' which includes issues that are of the ilk of 'inconvenient timing' in the 8th month, seems like there should be some community standards.

Those standards seems to me to have been called into account with the SCOTUS ruling. The invite for 'life of the mother' argument was there, but not 'health of the mother' which has been stretched to accomodate the size 2 going up to a 6.

Can I make reference to my own jurisdiction? I'm not dodging your point (I haven't read even a summary of the latest ruling so I'm in blissful ignorance here). Community standards don't apply here. And you know I'm quite okay with that. If you can bear an overly legalistic analysis then here it comes (if you can't then just ignore this bit).

Abortion is illegal in my state.

Quote:

CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT 1935 - SECT 81

81—Attempts to procure abortion

(1) Any woman who, being with child, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, unlawfully administers to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or unlawfully uses any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to be imprisoned for life.

(2) Any person who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she is or is not with child, unlawfully administers to her, or causes to be taken by her, any poison or other noxious thing, or unlawfully uses any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to be imprisoned for life.

Pretty unambiguous I would have thought. But wait, there's more:

Quote:

CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT 1935 - SECT 82

82—Procuring drugs etc to cause abortion

Any person who unlawfully supplies or procures any poison or other noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever, knowing that it is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she is or is not with child, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years.

We've got all the bases covered, I tell ya.

But abortions happen and they happen a lot. How can they? Well they can because of this:

Quote:

CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT 1935 - SECT 82A

82A—Medical termination of pregnancy

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 81 or 82, but subject to this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under either of those sections—

(a) if the pregnancy of a woman is terminated by a legally qualified medical practitioner in a case where he and one other legally qualified medical practitioner are of the opinion, formed in good faith after both have personally examined the woman—

(i) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve greater risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or greater risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, than if the pregnancy were terminated; or

(ii) that there is a substantial risk that, if the pregnancy were not terminated and the child were born to the pregnant woman, the child would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped,

and where the treatment for the termination of the pregnancy is carried out in a hospital, or a hospital of a class, declared by regulation to be a prescribed hospital, or a hospital of a prescribed class, for the purposes of this section; or

(b) if the pregnancy of a woman is terminated by a legally qualified medical practitioner in a case where he is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination is immediately necessary to save the life, or to prevent grave injury to the physical or mental health, of the pregnant woman.

(2) Subsection (1)(a) does not refer or apply to any woman who has not resided in South Australia for a period of at least two months before the termination of her pregnancy.

(3) In determining whether the continuance of a pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to the physical or mental health of a pregnant woman as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(i), account may be taken of the pregnant woman's actual or reasonably foreseeable environment.

(4) The Governor may make regulations—

(a) for requiring any such opinion as is referred to in subsection (1) to be certified by the legally qualified medical practitioners or practitioner concerned in such form and at or within such time as may be prescribed and for requiring the preservation and disposal of any such certificate made for the purposes of this Act; and

(b) for requiring any legally qualified medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy, and the superintendent or manager of the hospital in which the termination is carried out, to give notice of the termination and such other information relating to the termination as may be prescribed to the Director-General of Medical Services; and

(c) for prohibiting the disclosure, except to such persons or for such purposes as may be prescribed, of notices or information given pursuant to the regulations; and

(d) declaring a particular hospital or a class of hospitals to be a prescribed hospital or a prescribed class of hospitals for the purposes of this section; and

(e) for providing for, and prescribing, any penalty, not exceeding two hundred dollars, for any contravention of, or failure to comply with, any regulations.

(5) Subject to subsection (6), no person is under a duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this section to which he has a conscientious objection, but in any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection rests on the person claiming to rely on it.

(6) Nothing in subsection (5) affects any duty to participate in treatment which is necessary to save the life, or to prevent grave injury to the physical or mental health, of a pregnant woman.

(7) The provisions of subsection (1) do not apply to, or in relation to, a person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes such a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother where it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.

(8) For the purposes of subsection (7), evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of twenty-eight weeks or more shall be prima facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive.

(9) For the purposes of sections 81 and 82, anything done with intent to procure the miscarriage of a woman is unlawfully done unless authorised by this section.

(10) In this section and in sections 81 and 82—

"woman" means any female person of any age.

It's not an issue here. We do have a "Right to Life" movement here but no-one takes much notice of them. Abortion is not seen here as a religious or moral issue in the main (a minority does but they don't have the numbers to persuade the state parliament to change the law), it's seen as an issue between a woman (and her partner) and her medical practitioner.

I know that abortion in the US is a battleground occupied by religious zealots, right wing nutters, evangelicals, political conservatives, misogynists and political opportunists on the one hand and on the other side, lunatic Dworkinist separatist feminists with hairy armpits and legs, the ACLU, effete leftists, ordinary leftists, moderate women's groups and soccer moms that don't want to see their daughters get knocked up at high school and see their lives spiralling downwards because the state wants to force their sixteen year old daughters to give birth.

Yes I'm exaggerating for effect and quite enjoying it. But, I'm trying to make a point. I'm not claiming moral superiority for my community as against your society. That would be arrogant and very rude. I'm simply point out why I don't like to stray into the abortion debate. For me it's a non-issue. I'm happy with our - I have to say this - rather ingenious way out of the dilemma that American society has forced on itself.

But if I do get into the debate in the American context I want to be able to argue it logically (well as logically as I can). Roe v Wade was about privacy. It was about limiting the right of the state to intrude into the life of the individual. It confirmed what your nation's Founding Fathers had so cleverly put into your Constitution. The Right in America want to destroy Roe v Wade because they need the evangelical conservatives' support. The political Right don't really care about abortion, but they do know if they don't attack it - lately through the now reactionary US Supreme Court - that their evangelical supporters will desert them. And given America is the most religious country of all the Western liberal democracies that's important to them. So, regardless of the hypocrisy of their professed preference for putting the individual above the collective state, they will, bare-faced seek to use the the coercive power of the state to force a woman to have a baby. She has no choice, the state says she must give birth. Stalin would be pleased.

So, for me the debate from the Right is rank hypocrisy. The constant playing with words, is it "unborn human" or is it "foetus" are just distractions from the real game. The Right of course will attack the "medical establishment" because medicos will trot out scientific evidence - not opinion - about the stages of human development and try and wrestle with both the medico-scientific evidence and the ethical issues involved. That's far too hard for the Right. They need to keep it simple because they know that the average voter in America (or anywhere else for that matter) doesn't want to listen to heavyweight debates about medical ethics and scientific knowledge about human development. Nope, no sir. Can't have that when all that's necessary is to show pictures of a foetus sucking its thumb in the womb, a picture that naturally appeals to our human emotions (we're instinctively conditioned to be protective to human life, especially when it looks like a baby).

So the debate in this forum and in any other forum you care to identify - including the mainstream media - focusses largely on the irrelevancies surrounding this really difficult topic.

And that's why I don't like to get involved.

Annie · #80 (**permalink**) 04-21-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diuretic

Of course, you'd be silly to refuse the procedure due to its "ugh" factor. It's much better to work out a risk analysis and go from there.

Can I make reference to my own jurisdiction? I'm not dodging your point (I haven't read even a summary of the latest ruling so I'm in blissful ignorance here). Community standards don't apply here. And you know I'm quite okay with that. If you can bear an overly legalistic analysis then here it comes (if you can't then just ignore this bit).

Abortion is illegal in my state.

Pretty unambiguous I would have thought. But wait, there's more:

We've got all the bases covered, I tell ya.

But abortions happen and they happen a lot. How can they? Well they can because of this:

It's not an issue here. We do have a "Right to Life" movement here but no-one takes much notice of them. Abortion is not seen here as a religious or moral issue in the main (a minority does but they don't have the numbers to persuade the state parliament to change the law), it's seen as an issue between a woman (and her partner) and her medical practitioner.

I know that abortion in the US is a battleground occupied by religious zealots, right wing nutters, evangelicals, political conservatives, misogynists and political opportunists on the one hand and on the other side, lunatic Dworkinist separatist feminists with hairy armpits and legs, the ACLU, effete leftists, ordinary leftists, moderate women's groups and soccer moms that don't want to see their daughters get knocked up at high school and see their lives spiralling downwards because the state wants to force their sixteen year old daughters to give birth.

Yes I'm exaggerating for effect and quite enjoying it. But, I'm trying to make a point. I'm not claiming moral superiority for my community as against your society. That would be arrogant and very rude. I'm simply point out why I don't like to stray into the abortion debate. For me it's a non-issue. I'm happy with our - I have to say this - rather ingenious way out of the dilemma that American society has forced on itself.

But if I do get into the debate in the American context I want to be able to argue it logically (well as logically as I can). Roe v Wade was about privacy. It was about limiting the right of the state to intrude into the life of the individual. It confirmed what your nation's Founding Fathers had so cleverly put into your Constitution. The Right in America want to destroy Roe v Wade because they need the evangelical conservatives' support. The political Right don't really care about abortion, but they do know if they don't attack it - lately through the now reactionary US Supreme Court - that their evangelical supporters will desert them. And given America is the most religious country of all the Western liberal democracies that's important to them. So, regardless of the hypocrisy of their professed preference for putting the individual above the collective state, they will, bare-faced seek to use the the coercive power of the state to force a woman to have a baby. She has no choice, the state says she must give birth. Stalin would be pleased.

So, for me the debate from the Right is rank hypocrisy. The constant playing with words, is it "unborn human" or is it "foetus" are just distractions from the real game. The Right of course will attack the "medical establishment" because medicos will trot out scientific evidence - not opinion - about the stages of human development and try and wrestle with both the medico-scientific evidence and the ethical issues involved. That's far too hard for the Right. They need to keep it simple because they know that the average voter in America (or anywhere else for that matter) doesn't want to listen to heavyweight debates about medical ethics and scientific knowledge about human development. Nope, no sir. Can't have that when all that's necessary is to show pictures of a foetus sucking its thumb in the womb, a picture that naturally appeals to our human emotions (we're instinctively conditioned to be protective to human life, especially when it looks like a baby).

So the debate in this forum and in any other forum you care to identify - including the mainstream media - focusses largely on the irrelevancies surrounding this really difficult topic.

And that's why I don't like to get involved.

I would happily join you, if I didn't believe in God and life. Sigh, wish not oftentimes. See, I understand the problems with being young and pregnant, or married and pregnant-again. I understand the difficulties of not enough money to go around. Then there is the inconvenience of none of these being the innocent baby's fault.

The blame lays somewhere, but not here. However, who is empowered? Uh yeah.

goober · #81 (**permalink**) 04-21-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Annie

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.

Health of the Mother is more than a loophole.
This procedure is not done very often, late term abortions are usually for the Health of the Mother or because testing has shown serious defects in the fetus.
A woman who wants an abortion because she doesn't want a child will usually obtain one early in the pregnancy. Late term abortions are usually done for real medical reasons.

Basically, this law says that even if the doctor believes that this procedure is required to save the life of the mother, he should just let the mother die.

Sure, they say there can be appeal to the courts, but what other medical procedure requires a lawyer?

Annie · #82 (**permalink**) 04-21-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

Health of the Mother is more than a loophole.
This procedure is not done very often, late term abortions are usually for the Health of the Mother or because testing has shown serious defects in the fetus.
A woman who wants an abortion because she doesn't want a child will usually obtain one early in the pregnancy. Late term abortions are usually done for real medical reasons.

Basically, this law says that even if the doctor believes that this procedure is required to save the life of the mother, he should just let the mother die.

Sure, they say there can be appeal to the courts, but what other medical procedure requires a lawyer?

True, if 5k per year is not often. Of those, most are healthy babies of healthy mothers. So why abort? Pending divorce, change of heart, all of which put the mother at 'mental risk.' Sorry, put the baby up for adoption.

Diuretic · #83 (**permalink**) 04-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Annie

I would happily join you, if I didn't believe in God and life. Sigh, wish not oftentimes. See, I understand the problems with being young and pregnant, or married and pregnant-again. I understand the difficulties of not enough money to go around. Then there is the inconvenience of none of these being the innocent baby's fault.

The blame lays somewhere, but not here. However, who is empowered? Uh yeah.

I'm trying really hard to stay out of the abortion debate but it's drawing me back.

I'm not taking issue with your points (above). But it occurred to me that belief in God is a personal issue. Belief in God has nothing to do with whether or not abortion, a medical procedure, should be legal or illegal. Belief in God is personal, abortion as a public policy is not personal. The choice to have an abortion or not have an abortion is personal. One has nothing to do with the other.

Diuretic · #84 (**permalink**) 04-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Annie

True, if 5k per year is not often. Of those, most are healthy babies of healthy mothers. So why abort? Pending divorce, change of heart, all of which put the mother at 'mental risk.' Sorry, put the baby up for adoption.

You've assumed your own conclusions there. The issue is - correct me if I have this wrong - about choice. The way I see it the state has no right to tell a woman she must give birth to a baby. I've argued in these forums for less intrusion by the state into the life of an individual. Now that's often characterised as a libertarian point of view. Maybe, but I'm a social libertarian not an economic libertarian (along the lines of Hayek for example). I believe the state has no right to tell a woman, "you will give birth." There's more to be said on that but I'll stop here and see where the discussion goes.

Dilettante · #85 (**permalink**) 04-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diuretic

You've assumed your own conclusions there. The issue is - correct me if I have this wrong - about choice. The way I see it the state has no right to tell a woman she must give birth to a baby. I've argued in these forums for less intrusion by the state into the life of an individual. Now that's often characterised as a libertarian point of view. Maybe, but I'm a social libertarian not an economic libertarian (along the lines of Hayek for example). I believe the state has no right to tell a woman, "you will give birth." There's more to be said on that but I'll stop here and see where the discussion goes.

I predict that anyone who is pro-life will try and correct you and say it is primarily about life, not choice.
The pro-life line of argument would be that that mother's choice not to give birth does not entitle her to murder her unborn baby any more than her choice not to raise a kid would entitle her to murder her newborn infant.
The pro-choice side will immediately dismiss the word "murder" when applied to any unborn "baby". From there perspective, there is no baby, there is only a lump of tissue, so it cannot be murdered any more than a tumor.

Anyway, my point is that arguing for the "rights of the mother" will never convince anyone who's pro-life to change their mind because, from their point of view, you're arguing that a mother had the right to murder her child.

Diuretic · #86 (**permalink**) 04-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

I predict that anyone who is pro-life will try and correct you and say it is primarily about life, not choice.
The pro-life line of argument would be that that mother's choice not to give birth does not entitle her to murder her unborn baby any more than her choice not to raise a kid would entitle her to murder her newborn infant.
The pro-choice side will immediately dismiss the word "murder" when applied to any unborn "baby". From there perspective, there is no baby, there is only a lump of tissue, so it cannot be murdered any more than a tumor.

Anyway, my point is that arguing for the "rights of the mother" will never convince anyone who's pro-life to change their mind because, from their point of view, you're arguing that a mother had the right to murder her child.

You're entirely right. But when legislators and Supreme Court judges get caught up in those arguments and eschew an objective, logical approach, it all gets quite silly.

doniston · #87 (**permalink**) 04-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

Basically, this law says that even if the doctor believes that this procedure is required to save the life of the mother, he should just let the mother die.

?

not so, all it says is that the fetus cnnot be aborted in this manner, It does not deni the right to a C'Section to save the life of the Mother, and which competant authority says is the safer method.

Dilettante · #88 (**permalink**) 04-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diuretic

You're entirely right. But when legislators and Supreme Court judges get caught up in those arguments and eschew an objective, logical approach, it all gets quite silly.

I'm not sure what the objective, logical approach to this question would be.

And if it isn't for the legislators or courts to decide when to apply legal rights, then who should be making those decisions?

Diuretic · #89 (**permalink**) 04-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

I'm not sure what the objective, logical approach to this question would be.

And if it isn't for the legislators or courts to decide when to apply legal rights, then who should be making those decisions?

Difficult innit? It's too easy to allow emotion, religious beliefs, personal backgrounds, etc to get in the way. I'm not suggesting that of you Dilettante, I was referring to the decision-makers.

The US Supreme Court has sufficient fundie whack jobs to get the job done. They are not going to make their decisions based on fair interpretation of the constutition on this. Those fundies have made up their minds that abortion is going to be illegal in the States. They'll wipe out Roe v Wade and they'll do it with their considerable legal knowledge and expertise. Whackos they are, stupid they ain't. On what basis will they do this? Because God doesn't like it and the Bible says so. Somewhere in the Bible there is a stricture against abortion. And that's good enough for them.

Some of your federal legislators are whacko fundies. You have flat-earthers and fundie creationists in those chambers. Just goes to show, any loon can get elected. In the land of the dumbarses, the half-brain is King*. So flat-earthers and creationists will get elected because a significant number of Americans in various electorates think that the Earth is flat, was made in seven days by god and is a few thousand years old and we descended from Adam and Eve. So some dumbarse from dumbarse-ville is going to stand up and say abortion should be illegal because god loves life and although god is happy to see someone cop a lethal injection based only on the probability of his or her guilt, god doesn't want abortions. And that's that. No further correspondence will be entered into.

That's what's wrong.

Now please attack my views because I need to sharpen them up.

*This is not a general attack, it's for those areas of the US that specialise in returning fundies to Congress.

Dilettante · #90 (**permalink**) 04-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diuretic

Difficult innit? It's too easy to allow emotion, religious beliefs, personal backgrounds, etc to get in the way. I'm not suggesting that of you Dilettante, I was referring to the decision-makers.

The US Supreme Court has sufficient fundie whack jobs to get the job done. They are not going to make their decisions based on fair interpretation of the constutition on this. Those fundies have made up their minds that abortion is going to be illegal in the States. They'll wipe out Roe v Wade and they'll do it with their considerable legal knowledge and expertise. Whackos they are, stupid they ain't. On what basis will they do this? Because God doesn't like it and the Bible says so. Somewhere in the Bible there is a stricture against abortion. And that's good enough for them.

Some of your federal legislators are whacko fundies. You have flat-earthers and fundie creationists in those chambers. Just goes to show, any loon can get elected. In the land of the dumbarses, the half-brain is King*. So flat-earthers and creationists will get elected because a significant number of Americans in various electorates think that the Earth is flat, was made in seven days by god and is a few thousand years old and we descended from Adam and Eve. So some dumbarse from dumbarse-ville is going to stand up and say abortion