Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Diuretic · #91 (**permalink**) 04-22-2007

All true but I feel better for it. Sometimes the atmosphere can be so stifling, intellectually I mean, that it's good just to let rip. My language was as colourful as my thinking was sloppy, but buried in my mini-rant were some home truths. The US Supreme Court is now well in the sphere of influence of the Bush Administration. The legislature does have some real whackos in it. I mean people in the US were bagging that Scots blowhard from London, Galloway, but fair dinkum some of the people you allow into Congress are neanderthals compared to even Galloway.

Now to the point. This a medical issue but religion is invoked. For me that indicates the paucity of thinking about the issue. In a nominally secular society like the US, religion should have no place in public policy. But there it is.

The policy should be decided without reference to any religion. The policy should be strongly advised by the medical profession - preferably medical advisers that are disciplined enough to keep their religious views out of their medical judgements. The policy should be decided on grounds that focus on the woman and her right to choose whether or not she should give birth to the child. Her decision should be informed by medical advice - secular medical advice. Above all, the wellbeing of the mother is of prime importance.

Dilettante · #92 (**permalink**) 04-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diuretic

All true but I feel better for it. Sometimes the atmosphere can be so stifling, intellectually I mean, that it's good just to let rip...

I know what you mean. Sometimes you just gotta blow off some steam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diuretic

Now to the point. This a medical issue but religion is invoked. For me that indicates the paucity of thinking about the issue. In a nominally secular society like the US, religion should have no place in public policy. But there it is.

The policy should be decided without reference to any religion. The policy should be strongly advised by the medical profession - preferably medical advisers that are disciplined enough to keep their religious views out of their medical judgements. The policy should be decided on grounds that focus on the woman and her right to choose whether or not she should give birth to the child. Her decision should be informed by medical advice - secular medical advice. Above all, the wellbeing of the mother is of prime importance.

Are you you talking about this particular bill or about abortion law in general?

If the latter, then you're acting as if the primary question is already decided. The primary question is whether or not basic human rights extend to humans any time prior to birth. At present, there's considerable disagreement on that question in the United States.
That isn't really a medical question, since it deals with human rights.

And if that question is answered such that some pre-borns are recogized as having human rights, then the wellbeing of the mother naturally bows in importance to the life of the child, and her right to choose whether or not to give birth yields to the right of the child to live.

The court answered it one way in Roe v. Wade, but the population hasn't really come to any consensus. This latest ruling indicates that the court now entertains at least some measure of doubt as to the veracity of the previous ruling.

Nemo · #93 (**permalink**) 04-22-2007

Do you think that the Supreme Court's decision is decisive? Do you think it was well timed? (Is abortion a wedge issue again for the next election?) What if the Democratic Congress decides to repeal the statute? Do you think the voters will respond? How?

goober · #94 (**permalink**) 04-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemo

Do you think that the Supreme Court's decision is decisive? Do you think it was well timed? (Is abortion a wedge issue again for the next election?) What if the Democratic Congress decides to repeal the statute? Do you think the voters will respond? How?

I don't think this decision will stand the test of time. I think you've made the Supreme Court a major issue going into the 2008 election, and I think this issue falls 60-40 in favor of the Democrats. The GOP has been successful in firing up a good portion of the 40% with some pro-choice language, but focusing on other issues when addressing the other 60%. I think this makes the 60% more likely to vote on this issue.
If the Congress does act, Bush would veto a bill that repealed the partial Birth Abortion law, (maybe it should be attached to the Iraq Supplemental funding bill?), there is not enough support to override a veto.

Diuretic · #95 (**permalink**) 04-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

I know what you mean. Sometimes you just gotta blow off some steam

Are you you talking about this particular bill or about abortion law in general?

If the latter, then you're acting as if the primary question is already decided. The primary question is whether or not basic human rights extend to humans any time prior to birth. At present, there's considerable disagreement on that question in the United States.
That isn't really a medical question, since it deals with human rights.

And if that question is answered such that some pre-borns are recogized as having human rights, then the wellbeing of the mother naturally bows in importance to the life of the child, and her right to choose whether or not to give birth yields to the right of the child to live.

The court answered it one way in Roe v. Wade, but the population hasn't really come to any consensus. This latest ruling indicates that the court now entertains at least some measure of doubt as to the veracity of the previous ruling.

On the question of human rights - interesting. I suppose this isn't the thread but the concept of foetal rights is fascinating.

On Roe v Wade, of course the court is gunning for it. It's an activist court now, it will no doubt find a legal basis to dump the precedent.

htperr6565 · #96 (**permalink**) 04-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

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.

you could easily say that "it irritates me that someone supports the new law" and end your pissing match with yourself

Marcus1124 · #97 (**permalink**) 04-27-2007

Quote:

goober
I don't think this decision will stand the test of time. I think you've made the Supreme Court a major issue going into the 2008 election, and I think this issue falls 60-40 in favor of the Democrats. The GOP has been successful in firing up a good portion of the 40% with some pro-choice language, but focusing on other issues when addressing the other 60%. I think this makes the 60% more likely to vote on this issue.
If the Congress does act, Bush would veto a bill that repealed the partial Birth Abortion law, (maybe it should be attached to the Iraq Supplemental funding bill?), there is not enough support to override a veto.

The ban on partial birth abortion, which even some good pro-choice liberals have correctly referred to as infanticide, is supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people. There are not even a majority of votes in either house right not to pass a law repealing it.

I say it is time to start putting video of this proceedure up on UTube and buying network air time, and just silently list the names of every single elected official who opposed this ban, or has criticized this ruling. Anyone have any problem with that?

timj219 · #98 (**permalink**) 04-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

The ban on partial birth abortion, which even some good pro-choice liberals have correctly referred to as infanticide, is supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people. There are not even a majority of votes in either house right not to pass a law repealing it.

I say it is time to start putting video of this proceedure up on UTube and buying network air time, and just silently list the names of every single elected official who opposed this ban, or has criticized this ruling. Anyone have any problem with that?

I think you're right. This law won't be repealed. And pro choice advocates would be foolish to spend too much time fighting for it.
As for the pictures, anti abortion groups have used pictures of aborted fetuses to good effect in the past and video of any abortion procedure on the web would probably be an effective tool. Just like video of battle casualties makes people think about the actual consequences of invasion and occupation. In both cases the only people whose opinions are changed are those who have avoided thinking through the consequences of our choices. Depending on how big a percentage that is, it might have a real effect.

doniston · #99 (**permalink**) 04-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemo

Do you think that the Supreme Court's decision is decisive? Do you think it was well timed? (Is abortion a wedge issue again for the next election?) What if the Democratic Congress decides to repeal the statute? Do you think the voters will respond? How?

I( think most people recognize R-v-W as no more than a rallying point and haveing no real relevance. they don't have to overturn R v Wade. just pass different legislation. And that won't happen for a long time if ever, because the concept of a fetus being a full fledged baby or human being, is contrary to logic and reality. Yah, I know the thread is about PBAs, but for the same reason R-v-W won't be overturned, the same is true of this bill. people are starting to get smart.

Marcus1124 · #**100** (**permalink**) 04-30-2007

Quote:

doniston
I( think most people recognize R-v-W as no more than a rallying point and haveing no real relevance. they don't have to overturn R v Wade. just pass different legislation. And that won't happen for a long time if ever, because the concept of a fetus being a full fledged baby or human being, is contrary to logic and reality. Yah, I know the thread is about PBAs, but for the same reason R-v-W won't be overturned, the same is true of this bill. people are starting to get smart.

It is no more "contrary to logic and reality" than the logic employeed by sick, disgusting people who have ever supported partial birth abortions, which are NEVER medically neccesary (as opposed to simply completing the delivery and giving the baby a fighting chance to live).

Why should a baby be a legal citizen only after it is completely out of the birth canal? Why shouldn't citizenship be confirred at the moment it begins to emerge? There is absolutely no biological difference in the child in those few moments.

Furthermore, the law has any number of examples of treating the unborn as the equivalent of any other person, such as laws which consider the killing of a pregnant woman's baby in an assault as murder, or how about the endangered species act, which treats the killing of unborn members of protected species just as killing of a born one. Do the unborn offspring of spotted owls really deserve more legal considerations than human beings?

doniston · #**101** (**permalink**) 04-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

It is no more "contrary to logic and reality" than the logic employeed by sick, disgusting people who have ever supported partial birth abortions, which are NEVER medically neccesary (as opposed to simply completing the delivery and giving the baby a fighting chance to live).

You are preaching to the choir here. I happen to agree with you.

Quote:

Why should a baby be a legal citizen only after it is completely out of the birth canal? Why shouldn't citizenship be confirred at the moment it begins to emerge? There is absolutely no biological difference in the child in those few moments.

Since I am totally opposed to the process of PBA, Your approach had never come to mind, as to me, the time element here would be almost immaterial, but I would suggest that "logic" would dicate it wait for total birth process to be completed. That's when Birth Records are instated.

timj219 · #**102** (**permalink**) 04-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

It is no more "contrary to logic and reality" than the logic employeed by sick, disgusting people who have ever supported partial birth abortions, which are NEVER medically neccesary (as opposed to simply completing the delivery and giving the baby a fighting chance to live).

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagree. Much as I abhor abortion, I am not willing to countenance misleading statements when combatting it.

Marcus1124 · #**103** (**permalink**) 04-30-2007

Quote:

timj219
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagree. Much as I abhor abortion, I am not willing to countenance misleading statements when combatting it.

You're the one who has been mislead. The left has been perpetrating the myth that PB abortions are sometimes neccesary by citing the fact that sometimes early termination of the PREGNANCY is neccesary for the health of the mother. When the AMA says that PBA is never neccesary, they mean that there is no MEDICAL reason effecting the mother why the baby could not simply be fully delivered, rather than having the delivery halted and the baby killed prior to full emergence.

Yes, sometimes it is neccesary to terminate the PREGNANCY, but NEVER the child!

timj219 · #**104** (**permalink**) 04-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

You're the one who has been mislead. The left has been perpetrating the myth that PB abortions are sometimes neccesary by citing the fact that sometimes early termination of the PREGNANCY is neccesary for the health of the mother. When the AMA says that PBA is never neccesary, they mean that there is no MEDICAL reason effecting the mother why the baby could not simply be fully delivered, rather than having the delivery halted and the baby killed prior to full emergence.

Yes, sometimes it is neccesary to terminate the PREGNANCY, but NEVER the child!

That is a material misrepresentation of the facts.
You can disagree with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists if you want to but it's not right to misrepresent their position.

Dilettante · #**105** (**permalink**) 04-30-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by timj219

That is a material misrepresentation of the facts.
You can disagree with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists if you want to but it's not right to misrepresent their position.

Are you sure he isn't correct? I haven't read anything from the college, but I have difficultly imagining how the act of killing the fetus/baby is, itself, of any benefit to the health of the mother. Are you sure the "medically necessary" part isn't the early "delivery" part of the procedure?

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode