NationStates Jolt Archive

Anti abortion people (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion), rejoice. You got a decision you wanted.
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and
President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice
Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.Oh yeah, they're also apparently smarter than doctors when it comes to this particular medical treatment. Ugh.

Edit: Arthais has a fuller explanation of the ruling:
There are TWO forms of late term abortions:

1) dilation and extraction (D&X) in which the fetus, alive, is partially removed, feet first, until just before its head. At which point the living, and partially outside the womb fetus, is killed. Usually by crushing its head or severing its spine

2) dilation and evacuation (D&E) in which the fetus is killed in womb, broken into parts, and removed via tools/vaccum

The two proceedures are effectivly basically the same level of invasiveness, the same cost, the same difficult, present the same risks, and basically do the exact same thing. Just two ways of getting there.

Late term abortions make up about 10% of all abortions. Of them about 80% are D&E types.

This law bans ONLY D&X type of late term abortions. ONLY THEM. You are correct, there is no health exception.

D&E late term abortions are still perfectly legal on a federal level.

Some states have banned BOTH, however the states that have banned both require a health exception. A nebraska law that did NOT have a health exception was kicked recently by SCOTUS.

In every state, in EVERY SINGLE ONE, it is absolutly, perfectly legal for a woman to be give a late term D&E abortion. The only reason that this law was deemed constitutional is because SCOTUS did not think it placed any real burden on women given that D&E abortions (which, as mentioned are the far more common among the two) are still allowed by the federal government, with or without the health care rationale.

No woman can constitutionally be denied a late term abortion for health reasons. At best, she can be denied one TYPE of one. An equally viable one is still very much legal.

Meh, 3rd term abortions are only allowed in my state if the mother's life is in jeopardy. Nothing changes for me.

I'm pro-choice, but I believe it is a baby once it can survivie outside the mother.

Meh, 3rd term abortions are only allowed in my state if the mother's life is in jeopardy. Nothing changes for me.

I'm pro-choice, but I believe it is a baby once it can survivie outside the mother.

That's the thing--this ruling upholds a law which removes the health of the mother exception.

Oh yeah, they're also apparently smarter than doctors when it comes to this particular medical treatment. Ugh.

This is why I say the supreme court is an inherently bad thing. It doesn't have the expertise to make these decisions and unlike legislatures it does not have the capacity to conduct its own independent fact finding. Judicial review should be scrapped.

And maybe, if it were, and people relied less upon courts to 'safeguard' their rights, they'd actually pay more attention to electoral politics, instead of it being the sporting event/puppet show that it currently is.

They're willing to let women die to prevent them from having a choice.

That's the thing--this ruling upholds a law which removes the health of the mother exception.

Actually no.

This subsection [imposing penalties] does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act#Life_of_the_mother): wikipedia, for consolodation purposes.

Actually no.



Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act#Life_of_the_mother): wikipedia, for consolodation purposes.

Sorry, but you're mistaken. Life in jeopardy =/= health of the mother. The second, which has been the standard until today, is much broader than the first. According to this ruling, the first is now the standard.

Anti abortion people (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion), rejoice. You got a decision you wanted.
Oh yeah, they're also apparently smarter than doctors when it comes to this particular medical treatment. Ugh.

Urg, to both this decision and to Jolt going so freaking slow.

This law is just so wrong that it's amazing that people haven't replacing congressmen on this and this alone. This is what happens when we empower the pharisees.

Meanwhile, a few excerpts from this nonsensical law.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html

(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion -- an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing deliveryof the dead infant -- is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

Ok, ignoring all of the absurd language you ave ONE reason why they claim it should be banned that is actually based on reason rather than posturing.

Apparently, according to congress, it is never medically necessary.

A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

So, wait, it's NEVER medically necessary but they may present to a board if it is?

and...

subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

So they openly admit that sometimes it IS medically necessary and the physicians are not liable in this instance. Didn't they just say they were NEVER medically necessary?

Um, am I the only one who notices that the law is not only contradicting itself but in a pretty basic way. Absurd.

Oh, but it gets better.

(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.

(2) Such relief shall include

(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and

(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion.

It makes it legal for the "father" to sue the woman for aborting unless he gave permission. So now the medical decisions of a woman must be okayed by "her man".

Oh, but that's not the end of the absurdity. Wouldn't it be nice if it was?

(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

So apparently abortion is now interstate or foreign commerce. The absurdity is without end.

This is why I say the supreme court is an inherently bad thing. It doesn't have the expertise to make these decisions and unlike legislatures it does not have the capacity to conduct its own independent fact finding. Judicial review should be scrapped.

And maybe, if it were, and people relied less upon courts to 'safeguard' their rights, they'd actually pay more attention to electoral politics, instead of it being the sporting event/puppet show that it currently is.

First, 90% of all abortions would not be covered by the ruling and for those other 10% there are other methods which are more widely used in any event available. This ruling will in no way cause one less abortion in the United States and all the gashing of teeth by NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the other usual suspects is just chumming the waters to the base to drum up more donations.

Second, exactly. The court had no business getting involved in this issue to begin with in 1973. Most--even those that are pro-choice--agree the decision was based on perverse legal reasoning. The court should have ruled the case was moot and let the Statehouses--which are elected--decide the issue. If that had been done the issue of abortion would be over, there would be political legitimacy for the decisions reached in the various states and the battle over the court appointments wouldn't be this "death match" of scorched earth, winner take all that we have now.

Dispite what NARAL members and their ilk say, if Roe was overturned tomorrow, no women in the US that wanted an abortion would be denied one. The states that would outlaw abortion already have few clinics that offer the services--South Dakota and Mississippi for example have a single clinic for the entire state and last I checked, there weren't pass laws that stopped people from crossing statelines. The doctor that performs abortions in South Dakota flies in twice a week from Minnesota--I think aircraft fly both way.

Sorry, but you're mistaken. Life in jeopardy =/= health of the mother. The second, which has been the standard until today, is much broader than the first. According to this ruling, the first is now the standard.

It's still no different than Oregon's current laws. The mother has to be in danger here. That's been the case for years and years now.

*slaps forehead*

oh great. nothing like making the worst day of a womans life just a little bit tougher by making the doctors best judgement on what to do with a dead or dying fetus unavailable.

This is why I say the supreme court is an inherently bad thing. It doesn't have the expertise to make these decisions and unlike legislatures it does not have the capacity to conduct its own independent fact finding. Judicial review should be scrapped.

And maybe, if it were, and people relied less upon courts to 'safeguard' their rights, they'd actually pay more attention to electoral politics, instead of it being the sporting event/puppet show that it currently is.

First, I think you're naive if you think people are suddenly going to perk up if you do away with SCOTUS.

Second, rights subject to majority vote are not rights. They're priveleges. No thank you.

First, 90% of all abortions would not be covered by the ruling and for those other 10% there are other methods which are more widely used in any event available. This ruling will in no way cause one less abortion in the United States and all the gashing of teeth by NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the other usual suspects is just chumming the waters to the base to drum up more donations.

Second, exactly. The court had no business getting involved in this issue to begin with in 1973. Most--even those that are pro-choice--agree the decision was based on perverse legal reasoning. The court should have ruled the case was moot and let the Statehouses--which are elected--decide the issue. If that had been done the issue of abortion would be over, there would be political legitimacy for the decisions reached in the various states and the battle over the court appointments wouldn't be this "death match" of scorched earth, winner take all that we have now.

Dispite what NARAL members and their ilk say, if Roe was overturned tomorrow, no women in the US that wanted an abortion would be denied one. The states that would outlaw abortion already have few clinics that offer the services--South Dakota and Mississippi for example have a single clinic for the entire state and last I checked, there weren't pass laws that stopped people from crossing statelines. The doctor that performs abortions in South Dakota flies in twice a week from Minnesota--I think aircraft fly both way.

It was legal posturing pure and simple. This act does nothing but provide a moral victory. I think that's why NARAL is so opposed to it, and why I'm opposed to it.

I'm not going to take to the streets marching. I'll still be able to get any abortion I need.

It actually takes ammo away from the pro-life camp. They can no longer graphically describe the procedure and talk about how the "little baby's toes wiggle" blah, blah, isn't it sad.

Ok I know emotions are running high and all, but geez people stop and think.

The fact that a partial birth abortion is never medically mecessary comes from the medical community, representatives of which testify before congress or SCOTUS or whoever is involved at whatever stage of the legislation. The fact that the law contains language allowing for someone to argue that it is was placed there as a concession. It's sort of a contingency that will never come to pass but it makes the "what about the life of the mother" crowd happy. This is supposed to be a good thing because it add a little flexibility.

So for those saying things like "They'd rather let the mother die than let her choose"... you're being intellectually dishonest. Life of the mother is EXACTLY the sort of scenario that is allowed for.

No matter where you stand on the issue of abortion in general I find it amazing that people are craying end of the world over this. Don't you find that procedure to be at all monstrous? Considering that this method is ONLY used during late-term pregnancy don't you think that on some level there is a legitimate concern that it's a viable baby, and not a fetus, that's being killed.

Mind you, the very process itself is designed around the silly idea that the baby isn't a person until the head comes out. Read the process. Th ebody EXCEPT THE HEAD is delivered, then the baby killed by sucking out the brain before the head is delivered. This is a very specific act of murder regardless of how you feel about abortions earlier in the pregnancy.

First, 90% of all abortions would not be covered by the ruling and for those other 10% there are other methods which are more widely used in any event available. This ruling will in no way cause one less abortion in the United States and all the gashing of teeth by NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the other usual suspects is just chumming the waters to the base to drum up more donations.

Second, exactly. The court had no business getting involved in this issue to begin with in 1973. Most--even those that are pro-choice--agree the decision was based on perverse legal reasoning. The court should have ruled the case was moot and let the Statehouses--which are elected--decide the issue. If that had been done the issue of abortion would be over, there would be political legitimacy for the decisions reached in the various states and the battle over the court appointments wouldn't be this "death match" of scorched earth, winner take all that we have now.

Dispite what NARAL members and their ilk say, if Roe was overturned tomorrow, no women in the US that wanted an abortion would be denied one. The states that would outlaw abortion already have few clinics that offer the services--South Dakota and Mississippi for example have a single clinic for the entire state and last I checked, there weren't pass laws that stopped people from crossing statelines. The doctor that performs abortions in South Dakota flies in twice a week from Minnesota--I think aircraft fly both way.

Ha. This would be amusing if it wasn't the same false tripe that gets trotted out every time abortion comes up.

Abortion is a right of the woman, according to SCOTUS. SCOTUS is there to protect rights. The fact that the federal government cannot make a law about a particular right doesn't mean that protecting it is out of the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. State's rights does not apply to such rulings. SCOTUS didn't make this broader by making it a federal regulated practice, but made it narrower by making it a personal right under one's rights to make medical decisions.

Meanwhile, your claims that everyone has access to abortions as long as there is ONE clinic and people can cross state lines is plainly and simply ludicrous. It discounts the effort it takes to accomplish such a task. Would you be okay if they passed a law that there is only one place in the entire state where you can go if you get a testicular injurty? Would you consider it the "right" of the state to regulate where you can go for medical treatment and what medical treatment you may receive?

Well, since these types of abortions only account for less than one half of one percent of all abortions, it seems like a complete waste of time to even refer it to the Supreme Court, regardless of the outcome. I smell playing politics for its own sake.

Anti abortion people (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion), rejoice. You got a decision you wanted.
Oh yeah, they're also apparently smarter than doctors when it comes to this particular medical treatment. Ugh.

Well, everybody knows that doctors are evil madmen who would do anything without proper supervision from politicians. If they had their way, they'd be sewing pigs and otters together and giving women third and fourth nipples. I don't want to wake up after surgery and discover I have five asses! :mad:

Ok I know emotions are running high and all, but geez people stop and think.

The fact that a partial birth abortion is never medically mecessary comes from the medical community, representatives of which testify before congress or SCOTUS or whoever is involved at whatever stage of the legislation. The fact that the law contains language allowing for someone to argue that it is was placed there as a concession. It's sort of a contingency that will never come to pass but it makes the "what about the life of the mother" crowd happy. This is supposed to be a good thing because it add a little flexibility.

So for those saying things like "They'd rather let the mother die than let her choose"... you're being intellectually dishonest. Life of the mother is EXACTLY the sort of scenario that is allowed for.

No matter where you stand on the issue of abortion in general I find it amazing that people are craying end of the world over this. Don't you find that procedure to be at all monstrous? Considering that this method is ONLY used during late-term pregnancy don't you think that on some level there is a legitimate concern that it's a viable baby, and not a fetus, that's being killed.

Mind you, the very process itself is designed around the silly idea that the baby isn't a person until the head comes out. Read the process. Th ebody EXCEPT THE HEAD is delivered, then the baby killed by sucking out the brain before the head is delivered. This is a very specific act of murder regardless of how you feel about abortions earlier in the pregnancy.

Wow, what about this isn't completely false.

First, except the head why? Um, you do know that the head is the hardest thing to pass and the largest. They don't just terminate the fetus before removing the head. They cut up or crush the head in order to make the extraction less traumatic. That has nothing to do with your bizarre claim that it's an attempt to make it not a child.

Second, your claim about the medical community saying its never necessary. I'll tell you what. Since the medical community claims this, you will find the AMA denouncing it no? Let's see it. Go ahead. Provide a link.

Meanwhile, they openly admit that it might be necessary to protect the mother. Can't be NEVER if it's sometimes. Logic 101. Let me know if you need additional classes.

Here's an interesting link (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBAall110403.html) detailing the history of this bill.

Edit: This is the NRLC website, so they most definately have an agenda. It is interesting to see where this debate started and how it came to pass.

While I am worried about the precident this will set, because this law only covered a very small minority of abortions, for which there are legal alternatives, and does contain a life, if not health, exception for the mother, while it sets a bad precident, the actual ramifications of THIS decision will be minor.

And, frankly, I would be somewhat surprised to see this law live for more than a few years without a health amendment.

Well, since these types of abortions only account for less than one half of one percent of all abortions, it seems like a complete waste of time to even refer it to the Supreme Court, regardless of the outcome. I smell playing politics for its own sake.

It's more than playing politics. You can hear quotes from Republicans cheering the decision as the first step. People like NB want to sweep this under the rug like it doesn't matter, but SCOTUS just upheld a law that declares a type of abortion NEVER necessary except that the law admits it is and requires that when it is only be considered under certain circumstances.

If it was never necessary they could have allowed this procedure to be performed whenever medically necessary since that would be NEVER and everyone would be happy. Unfortunately, instead, they restricted when it could be even be considered which is a tacit admission that it is medically necessary.

But let's ignore the flawed logic. This law declares a fetus a baby. Makes medical decisions for doctors and women. Allows men to sue women for choosing their medical care. And allows doctors to be punished for acting in the best interest of their patients.

Hmmmm... yeah, that's a bit more than playing politics. This is an out and out assault on women's rights.

Mind you, the very process itself is designed around the silly idea that the baby isn't a person until the head comes out. Read the process. Th ebody EXCEPT THE HEAD is delivered, then the baby killed by sucking out the brain before the head is delivered. This is a very specific act of murder regardless of how you feel about abortions earlier in the pregnancy.

As opposed to the alternate and clearly more humane method of chopping the fetus up in the womb and extracting it piece by piece. This isn't a moral victory, it's an illusion of a moral victory. All this amounts to is politicians and now Supreme Court justices making themselves feel better by telling doctors and their patients that they can't decide what's right for themselves because one of the choices of procedures is a wee bit ickier than the other.

It's a sham.

Let's not forget that the medical community doesn't consider the term "partial-birth abortion" to be a legitimate term anyway. It's a term made up by a piece-of-shit politician in order to get some traction on the abortion issue. This is how Roe will fall--not by being overturned, but by being nickeled-and-dimed so much it won't mean anything.

Ha. This would be amusing if it wasn't the same false tripe that gets trotted out every time abortion comes up.

Abortion is a right of the woman, according to SCOTUS. SCOTUS is there to protect rights. The fact that the federal government cannot make a law about a particular right doesn't mean that protecting it is out of the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. State's rights does not apply to such rulings. SCOTUS didn't make this broader by making it a federal regulated practice, but made it narrower by making it a personal right under one's rights to make medical decisions.

Meanwhile, your claims that everyone has access to abortions as long as there is ONE clinic and people can cross state lines is plainly and simply ludicrous. It discounts the effort it takes to accomplish such a task. Would you be okay if they passed a law that there is only one place in the entire state where you can go if you get a testicular injurty? Would you consider it the "right" of the state to regulate where you can go for medical treatment and what medical treatment you may receive?


Perhaps you have trouble reading English. I never said what you claim in your post. If ROE was overturned tomorrow where it would be outlawed would be where it barely exists as it is. TODAY--well at least as it was reported in Newsweek a few years ago and I doubt it has changed in this regard--there is one clinic in Mississippi and South Dakota that offers abortion--how much harder would it be to travel from say Vicksburg to New Orleans than Vicksburg to Jackson (the location of the only clinic today)?

As for the states, if you don't like what they are doing you can always change their behavior by replacing those that represent you in the statehouse and failing that you always have the option of voting with your feet--which is what is so wonderful about federalism.

Good work, Dubya! Now we get an increase in mothers strangling their own babies! And yes, that IS going to happen.

It's more than playing politics. You can hear quotes from Republicans cheering the decision as the first step. People like NB want to sweep this under the rug like it doesn't matter, but SCOTUS just upheld a law that declares a type of abortion NEVER necessary except that the law admits it is and requires that when it is only be considered under certain circumstances.

If it was never necessary they could have allowed this procedure to be performed whenever medically necessary since that would be NEVER and everyone would be happy. Unfortunately, instead, they restricted when it could be even be considered which is a tacit admission that it is medically necessary.

But let's ignore the flawed logic. This law declares a fetus a baby. Makes medical decisions for doctors and women. Allows men to sue women for choosing their medical care. And allows doctors to be punished for acting in the best interest of their patients.

Hmmmm... yeah, that's a bit more than playing politics. This is an out and out assault on women's rights.

Sure it is.

Perhaps you have trouble reading English. I never said what you claim in your post. If ROE was overturned tomorrow where it would be outlawed would be where it barely exists as it is. TODAY--well at least as it was reported in Newsweek a few years ago and I doubt it has changed in this regard--there is one clinic in Mississippi and South Dakota that offers abortion--how much harder would it be to travel from say Vicksburg to New Orleans than Vicksburg to Jackson (the location of the only clinic today)?

Why do you think this amount of travel is necessary even today? Hint: it's not because people enjoy the drive. It's because of the effect of current attempts to deny rights to women.


As for the states, if you don't like what they are doing you can always change their behavior by replacing those that represent you in the statehouse and failing that you always have the option of voting with your feet--which is what is so wonderful about federalism.

Oh, yay, rights subject to majority vote. So if you're in the minority, well, too bad for you, you don't get rights.

Which of your rights are you willing to allow the majority to vote on?

Despite your normal jackassed attitude I'll still be civil.

Wow, what about this isn't completely false.

First, except the head why? Um, you do know that the head is the hardest thing to pass and the largest. They don't just terminate the fetus before removing the head. They cut up or crush the head in order to make the extraction less traumatic. That has nothing to do with your bizarre claim that it's an attempt to make it not a child.

Then why don't they just crush it first? That way there's no need to be concerned with the orientation of the baby on the way out.

Let me ask you something: Doesn't this procedure strike you as gruesome at all? You ignored the question from my first post but maybe you thought it was rhetorical. It isn't. This is a baby that would survive just fine if delivered normally. The only difference is that they kill him/her first to "make the extraction less traumatic." Just call it what it is. It's killing the infant so that he/she is delivered dead. Your own legal quote says that.


Second, your claim about the medical community saying its never necessary. I'll tell you what. Since the medical community claims this, you will find the AMA denouncing it no? Let's see it. Go ahead. Provide a link.


Sure, although I'm sure you'll have a ball questioning the validity of the source since my being right would be terrible and incomprehensible.

How about the former Surgeon-General of the United States? (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact11.html)

Don't like him because he's too pro-life for you? Alrighty. Let's go ask npr. I bet you'll love those guys:

"We had extensive medical testimony indicating that a partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary, and, in fact, is actually oftentimes harmful to the woman. And that's the reason we did not include a health exception," Chabot said. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6424425)


Meanwhile, they openly admit that it might be necessary to protect the mother. Can't be NEVER if it's sometimes. Logic 101. Let me know if you need additional classes.

No, they made a concession to grant flexibility, which if anything I'd have thought you'd see as a good thing. But be honest, please. They're not openly admitting it might be necessary. They're allowing for a chance for a doctor to go before the medical board in a case where he believes it might actually be. Read your own quotes!

Let's not forget that the medical community doesn't consider the term "partial-birth abortion" to be a legitimate term anyway. It's a term made up by a piece-of-shit politician in order to get some traction on the abortion issue. This is how Roe will fall--not by being overturned, but by being nickeled-and-dimed so much it won't mean anything.

And even if Roe falls it won't make a dime's worth of difference. Not a single abortion that would have taken place before Roe being theoretically overturned would not take place after. The only difference is there won't be any taking place in Jackson, Mississippi. Big deal!

I doubt any in the GOP really want Roe to be overturned---they use it as a device to chumm the waters of their base just as the NARALs, Dems and others use it to chumm theirs.

"Give us money or your rights will be taken away."

"Give us money and we will end the killing of innocent children."

It is all a sham and anyone that believes the NARAL types or the American Family Association types is an idiot and probably would buy beach property 20 miles east of Miami Beach.

As opposed to the alternate and clearly more humane method of chopping the fetus up in the womb and extracting it piece by piece. This isn't a moral victory, it's an illusion of a moral victory. All this amounts to is politicians and now Supreme Court justices making themselves feel better by telling doctors and their patients that they can't decide what's right for themselves because one of the choices of procedures is a wee bit ickier than the other.

It's a sham.

I don't think it's about "ickiness." I'm no supporter of abortions, but when you've got the baby's body in your hands and that baby is moving and kicking and but for a few more inches would even be crying... and then you take a pair of medical scissors and jam them into the back of the baby's skull so that you can insert a tube through which the brains will be sucked out, I defy you to explain to me how, exactly, that isn't an act of murder.

Even if somehow you can rationalize abortion through other means, or you justify it away by calling it a "cell mass" or "zygote" or "fetus" to dehumanize it... Explain to me how a partial-birth abortion isn't murder.

Because frankly, untill you can do that, the question of rights is irrelevant.

Don't like him because he's too pro-life for you? Alrighty. Let's go ask npr. I bet you'll love those guys:

"We had extensive medical testimony indicating that a partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary, and, in fact, is actually oftentimes harmful to the woman. And that's the reason we did not include a health exception," Chabot said. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6424425)

Are you really either too stupid or too much of a jackass to realize that nobody on NPR is actually saying that but is rather QUOTING the REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN who voted for it.

How in the name of all that is not stupid can that be in any way a source ON NPR, rather than merely some republican who was quoted BY NPR?

Why do you think this amount of travel is necessary even today? Hint: it's not because people enjoy the drive. It's because of the effect of current attempts to deny rights to women.




Oh, yay, rights subject to majority vote. So if you're in the minority, well, too bad for you, you don't get rights.

Which of your rights are you willing to allow the majority to vote on?

You do understand, do you not that the "landmark" decision of Brown V. Board had zero political legitmacy and little of it was enforced. It was not unti the Congress passed the Civil Rights Act ten years later than the issues decided in Brown was given the legitimacy it needed to be enforced.

Again, if Roe had been ruled moot as it should have been, this mindless battle over abortion would be over and not a single woman today seeking an abortion would be denied one.

The Court is a sapless branch and has zero political legitimacy and when it over reaches as it did with Roe--problems follow.

Are you really either too stupid or too much of a jackass to realize that nobody on NPR is actually saying that but is rather QUOTING the REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN who voted for it.

How in the name of all that is not stupid can that be in any way a source ON NPR, rather than merely some republican who was quoted BY NPR?

So what I see is someone who's so desperate to refute my point that you utterly ignore it. So what if they're quoting a republican Congressman? If I had linked to foxnews.com to get that quote you know perfectly damn well you or others like you would be yelling about conservative reporting yadda yadda so I went to npr to get it instead.

So how about actually addressing the issue instead of these cheesy deflection tactics?

Ugh.

I expected this to happen, but it's still depressing as hell when it does. :(

Anti abortion people (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion), rejoice. You got a decision you wanted.
Oh yeah, they're also apparently smarter than doctors when it comes to this particular medical treatment. Ugh.

Don't look at me - I am not against abortion in any way.

However, I might point out that the apparent function of government is to say, "we know what's good for you, you ignorant fucks".

I don't think it's about "ickiness." I'm no supporter of abortions, but when you've got the baby's body in your hands and that baby is moving and kicking and but for a few more inches would even be crying... and then you take a pair of medical scissors and jam them into the back of the baby's skull so that you can insert a tube through which the brains will be sucked out, I defy you to explain to me how, exactly, that isn't an act of murder.

Even if somehow you can rationalize abortion through other means, or you justify it away by calling it a "cell mass" or "zygote" or "fetus" to dehumanize it... Explain to me how a partial-birth abortion isn't murder.

Because frankly, untill you can do that, the question of rights is irrelevant.


It isn't murder because if it were completely removed from the womb, it still would NOT survive. The so-called 'murder' began when the procedure began, not when the skull was crushed. One can argue about whether abortion is murder, but how one can argue that some murders are murderier than others blows my mind.

Good work, Dubya! Now we get an increase in mothers strangling their own babies! And yes, that IS going to happen.

Sure we are.

Again this law will not prevent a single abortion from being performed. Even if Roe was overturned it wouldn't. You can dispatch with the hysterics now.

It isn't murder because if it were completely removed from the womb, it still would NOT survive. The so-called 'murder' began when the procedure began, not when the skull was crushed. One can argue about whether abortion is murder, but how one can argue that some murders are murderier than others blows my mind.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you refering specifically to the act of puncturing the skull, or to the procedure in general? If I read your post right, you're talking about the specific act of puncturing the skull.

I don't really want to get involved in going on about whether the murder begins at the induction of labor or at the moment of penetrating the skull. Since up to that point, the baby could be delivered just fine or that inducing labor is done all the time for live births, if I had to choose a moment where it's murder I'd choose the moment the scissors are jammed into the back of the baby's head.

Just by way of clarity, I'm not addressing other methods of abortion in the context of these remarks. I'm specifically wondering how people can see this procedure as not murder regardless of their feeling on other procedures.

My sympathies go out to all women living in the US right now.

Don't look at me - I am not against abortion in any way.

However, I might point out that the apparent function of government is to say, "we know what's good for you, you ignorant fucks".

pffft the Government does that all the time. It's why I get ticketed if I'm not wearing my seatbelt or why I can't choose whether or not to equip my car with airbags.

Having said that, I don't think this issue is that simple because the proposition is one of killing a human being by means of this process.

Sure we are.

Again this law will not prevent a single abortion from being performed. Even if Roe was overturned it wouldn't. You can dispatch with the hysterics now.

Here's where you're wrong. Four states (http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=121780) have trigger laws in place to ban abortion should Roe be overturned. Three of them you might expect: Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Dakota. The fourth? Illinois. Think any women in Chicago get abortions these days? they would most certainly be affected by Roe being overturned. It's not as simple as you'd like to make it out to be.

My sympathies go out to all women living in the US right now.

Why is that? Will this decision impact a single woman in this country? The answer is no. You can also dispatch the hysterics as well.

Despite your normal jackassed attitude I'll still be civil.

Hmmm... this is what you call civil. Amusing. I find it interesting that your definition of civil is to make personal attacks while being uncivil is to attack your argument. I'll keep that in mind.



Then why don't they just crush it first? That way there's no need to be concerned with the orientation of the baby on the way out.

They aren't. There are several versions of this procedure. If the child is not in the normal orientation they usually use the alternate procedure that does crush the head first. It's a medical decision made based on what is safest and best for the mother. Your argument doesn't address that all and relies on the hope that people reading your post will be as ignorant of the procedure as your post is.


Let me ask you something: Doesn't this procedure strike you as gruesome at all? You ignored the question from my first post but maybe you thought it was rhetorical. It isn't. This is a baby that would survive just fine if delivered normally. The only difference is that they kill him/her first to "make the extraction less traumatic." Just call it what it is. It's killing the infant so that he/she is delivered dead. Your own legal quote says that.

I find heart surgery gruesome. How it appears to me has nothing to do with whether or not the procedure should be used when medically necessary. I ignored it because it's a red herring. I also consider dropping a bomb on a military compound gruesome, but I'd do it if necessary. Gruesome isn't the first consideration in important and necessary decisions no matter how much you'd like it to be.

And, no, generally it would not survive just fine if they delivered it. They isn't a decision made lightly by medical providers or women. It's almost never done unless the fetus is unlikely to survive AND the woman's health is in danger.

My own legal quote? You mean the idiotic law that contradicts itself thoughout? The law I cited to point out how ludicrous it is? You probably shouldn't reference that as if I support it. It makes you seem as if honesty isn't as important as appearing correct.


Sure, although I'm sure you'll have a ball questioning the validity of the source since my being right would be terrible and incomprehensible.

How about the former Surgeon-General of the United States? (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact11.html)

Don't like him because he's too pro-life for you? Alrighty. Let's go ask npr. I bet you'll love those guys:

I don't like him as a source because he's a politically-appointed individual. I'm looking for a suggestion of a concensus among the medical community. Something you claimed existed and supported your end of the argument.


"We had extensive medical testimony indicating that a partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary, and, in fact, is actually oftentimes harmful to the woman. And that's the reason we did not include a health exception," Chabot said. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6424425)

Amusing. You're quoting a politician, not NPR. But pretend like it was NPR and not a Republican as supporting your claim honestly doesn't appear to be important. Again, I'll ask, please quote the AMA. If the lack of medical necessity is so widespread like you claim, how about you quote the American Medical Association's stance on the matter. I'll wait.


No, they made a concession to grant flexibility, which if anything I'd have thought you'd see as a good thing. But be honest, please. They're not openly admitting it might be necessary. They're allowing for a chance for a doctor to go before the medical board in a case where he believes it might actually be. Read your own quotes!

If it's NEVER necessary then there would be no need. I know what they're trying to do.

Here's what is funny about their logic and yours. I know that you make a billion dollars this summer is so ludicrously unlikely that I would be willing to say "you will NEVER make a billion dollars this summer". As such, I'd be willing to allow you to do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to me if you make a billion dollars this summer. You peel my skin and wear me as a coat.

However, in this law they fought tooth and nail to not allow anything demonstrating medical necessity outside of a threat to the life of the mother. If it's NEVER necessary then why bother limiting even when it is. It's like saying you're unwilling to massage my feet if you massage me when you'll never massage me in the first place. The logical basis for this law and it's additions are completely flawed.

No one really believes what you claim or you might as well make a law that says "If medically necessary you can not only perform this procedure but require the father to masturbate while you do it." They clearly don't really think it's NEVER medically necessary.

Why is that? Will this decision impact a single woman in this country? The answer is no. You can also dispatch the hysterics as well.
You might want to read the post directly above the one this one quotes. And then change your tune.

You know what I find amusing about the hysterics? Whenever a new gun control law gets passed 2nd Ammendment advocates get agitated because they see a slippery slope and don't trust the gun laws to stop there. That's usually when gun control advocates start accusing them of being hysterical and paranoid.

It's funny to see the EXACT same thing happening here. This SCOTUS action will have very little meaningful impact but to watch these people react you'd think all abortion was banned this morning.

So what I see is someone who's so desperate to refute my point that you utterly ignore it. So what if they're quoting a republican Congressman? If I had linked to foxnews.com to get that quote you know perfectly damn well you or others like you would be yelling about conservative reporting yadda yadda so I went to npr to get it instead.

So how about actually addressing the issue instead of these cheesy deflection tactics?

Amusing. So he calls you out for claiming you were asking NPR and that I would like their opinion on the matter and you pretend like you weren't dishonestly presenting your source. The source of what you quoted is the Republican. It has nothing to do with your claim that the medical community believes this procedure is medically unnecessary.

So start actually supporting your claim. I'll wait.

Here's where you're wrong. Four states (http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=121780) have trigger laws in place to ban abortion should Roe be overturned. Three of them you might expect: Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Dakota. The fourth? Illinois. Think any women in Chicago get abortions these days? they would most certainly be affected by Roe being overturned. It's not as simple as you'd like to make it out to be.

I didn't know Gary, Indiana had passport controls for Illinois residents. DId they build the Great Wall of Indiana yet. If so I must have missed that.

Here's where you're wrong. Four states (http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=121780) have trigger laws in place to ban abortion should Roe be overturned. Three of them you might expect: Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Dakota. The fourth? Illinois. Think any women in Chicago get abortions these days? they would most certainly be affected by Roe being overturned. It's not as simple as you'd like to make it out to be.
The most that would do is move Illinois's health industry to St. Louis. These women would take their abortions there, and their dollars with them. Even if these people can't understand a women's right to choose, unwanted children and coathangers, it still doesn't make sense to close a profitable business and send it elsewhere on a whim.

You know what I find amusing about the hysterics? Whenever a new gun control law gets passed 2nd Ammendment advocates get agitated because they see a slippery slope and don't trust the gun laws to stop there. That's usually when gun control advocates start accusing them of being hysterical and paranoid.

It's funny to see the EXACT same thing happening here. This SCOTUS action will have very little meaningful impact but to watch these people react you'd think all abortion was banned this morning.

Not exactly the same. When they passed Clinton's "Assualt" weapon ban--I would be prevented from getting a weapon that had for example a pistol grip or a flash suppressor--how these would make the weapon more dangerous is beyond me. But today a woman can still get the exact same thing today as she would have been able to get yesterday.

I don't really want to get involved in going on about whether the murder begins at the induction of labor or at the moment of penetrating the skull. Since up to that point, the baby could be delivered just fine or that inducing labor is done all the time for live births, if I had to choose a moment where it's murder I'd choose the moment the scissors are jammed into the back of the baby's head.



ANd I choose the moment when a procedure to remove a fetus that cannot survive on it's own is begun. Make no mistake: If they delivered that fetus whole, It. Would. Die. The purpose of evacuating the skull is to extract it from the womb easier. Reaching in and cutting it up and removing it piece by piece accomplishes the same thing and achieves the same end. Is it really so different to you that 3/4ths of the fetus is out whole? it's still just as dead as of that point.

I didn't know Gary, Indiana had passport controls for Illinois residents. DId they build the Great Wall of Indiana yet. If so I must have missed that.

And if you're a poor woman who can barely afford the abortion in the first place, but can't afford to go to another state to get it done, I guess you're just fucked then. I think it's pretty clear that your ludicrous assumption that overturning Roe wouldn't impact a single woman looking to get an abortion is pretty much bitch-slapped here.

You might want to read the post directly above the one this one quotes. And then change your tune.

What should I change it to? Dixie? The Plums March?

You know what I find amusing about the hysterics? Whenever a new gun control law gets passed 2nd Ammendment advocates get agitated because they see a slippery slope and don't trust the gun laws to stop there. That's usually when gun control advocates start accusing them of being hysterical and paranoid.

It's funny to see the EXACT same thing happening here. This SCOTUS action will have very little meaningful impact but to watch these people react you'd think all abortion was banned this morning.

Hmmm... let's see. We're referring to the wording of the law and the likely effects.

Here are some of the things this law declares -

1. Men have the right to sue women for an abortion they didn't agree to unless it is okayed by a medical board. This takes the decision away from the woman, under threat of lawsuit, and gives it to a medical board and men. That's not something might happen. It's something that already did.

2. This law says that what politicians think about women's medical decisions is more important than what her doctor thinks. Again, that's not something that might happen. It's something that already did.

3. This law states that doctors can be incarcerated for acting in the best interest of their patient. Again, not something that might happen, but did happen.

Meanwhile, we have you conjuring up claims that we should think it's gruesome and try to declare it murder, while making provably false claims to support your argument.

Hmmm... looks like we know where the hysterics are coming from. What's the matter? Afraid people might actually see through this little ruse and recognize it for what it is, the first step in an attack on the rights of women.

ANd I choose the moment when a procedure to remove a fetus that cannot survive on it's own is begun. Make no mistake: If they delivered that fetus whole, It. Would. Die. The purpose of evacuating the skull is to extract it from the womb easier. Reaching in and cutting it up and removing it piece by piece accomplishes the same thing and achieves the same end. Is it really so different to you that 3/4ths of the fetus is out whole? it's still just as dead as of that point.

No kidding. What kind of misguided idiot does a person have to be to think a woman would undergo this except in the most extreme situations? "Oh, I'm eight months pregnant, but I think I'll fake a fever so I can get this huge thing yanked out of my gut via major surgery because I just want to have a late-term abortion for the fuck of it!"

Amusing. So he calls you out for claiming you were asking NPR and that I would like their opinion on the matter and you pretend like you weren't dishonestly presenting your source. The source of what you quoted is the Republican. It has nothing to do with your claim that the medical community believes this procedure is medically unnecessary.

So start actually supporting your claim. I'll wait.

You're so predictable I could almost set a watch by you. :p

You did exactly what I knew you would, try to bat away my references rather than face them. How, exactly, was I dishonestly presenting my source? I opently indicated that I was quoting from an npr article, I even included the quote and the name of the speaker in the link, which linked directly to the article itself. What part of that progression did you find dishonest?

Maybe I need to be even more pedantic. Ok so you demanded a quote to support my assertion that the medical community has indicated that partial birth abortions aren't medically necessary.

So I went and got you two. One from C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General of the United States. Now, suspecting that you might try to refute it by either calling him a pro-lifer or by trying to attack the source page, I went lokoing for another, preferably quoted from a source you'd be more likely to trust. I find an article on the npr site where they quoted the statement you see in my post. The quote indicates a volume of testimony given by the medical community supporting my assertion.

...or were you guys actually confused my my rhetorical "let's ask npr..." I thought y'all were smarter than that!:)

Question: And I don't mean this as a flame I'm just trying to clear away the BS and get down to brass tacks: Are you such a coward that you can't face my argument directly and instead try and resort to this drivel?

I've debated with you before and often I've seen you beaten in a stand-up logic battle where you try running around setting up strawmen and misdirections just as fast as you can to try and regain moral superiority.

I'll indulge you no further. Either deal with my argument directly or ignore me from here on. I'll waste no more of my time on you.

First, I think you're naive if you think people are suddenly going to perk up if you do away with SCOTUS.

Second, rights subject to majority vote are not rights. They're priveleges. No thank you.

Well don't complain about voter apathy then.

And of course they wont perk up straight away. But imagine the difference eventually.

What should I change it to? Dixie? The Plums March?

How about "The 'I obviously don't know what the fuck I'm talking about' Blues"?

I didn't know Gary, Indiana had passport controls for Illinois residents. DId they build the Great Wall of Indiana yet. If so I must have missed that.

Oh, look who is just dancing and dancing. Let's see so before it had no effect, because women already have to travel. So TN brings up events where women WOULD have to travel and how that would be an immediate effect of overturning Roe and you suddenly act like as long as they are legally prevented from it, it doesn't matter.

It does matter. It's an added expense for a woman who may be able to barely afford the procedure.

It's true that if R v W gets overturned that rich women will never have to worry about it. It will only become a problem for the poor. Let's all hope for that, because that's a wonderful way to treat our country's women.

Why is that? Will this decision impact a single woman in this country? The answer is no. You can also dispatch the hysterics as well.

Do you really not see the implications of this bill?

Firstly, there are circumstances when a dilation and extraction procedure is medically necessary. I'm reminded of a Polish woman who was told by doctors that if she carried her pregnancy to term she'd go completely blind; due to Poland's theocratic abortion laws she was unable to get an abortion and so is now completely blind.

Secondly, this isn't going to be the end, this is only the beginning for the anti-choicers. They've now established that the SCOTUS are sympathetic to anti-choice legislation and this will only encourage them in their bid to control women's bodies. You say that even if Roe vs. Wade was overturned it wouldn't stop a woman from getting an abortion if she wanted one, I call bullshit. If she had to travel to another state then she'd have to take considerable time off work, pay travelling expenses each way, and pay for accommodation, all in addition to the cost of an abortion. If the state in question enforces a waiting period between arriving at the clinic and having an abortion then this will mean more money spent on accommodation and more time off work. How many working class women are going to be able to easily afford this? Besides, if the anti-choicers succeeded in overturning Roe vs. Wade their next target would be a federal ban on abortion.

And if you're a poor woman who can barely afford the abortion in the first place, but can't afford to go to another state to get it done, I guess you're just fucked then. I think it's pretty clear that your ludicrous assumption that overturning Roe wouldn't impact a single woman looking to get an abortion is pretty much bitch-slapped here.

I didn't know Gary being a suburb of Chicago and so close to the state line you can throw rocks across it would be such a burden on them.

And let's not forget how the poor seem to be able to afford cell phones, TVs, cars and the like. I guess that 30 mile trip on Greyhound must really break the bank huh? $14.50 round trip. Oh a real bank killer there.

Not exactly the same. When they passed Clinton's "Assualt" weapon ban--I would be prevented from getting a weapon that had for example a pistol grip or a flash suppressor--how these would make the weapon more dangerous is beyond me. But today a woman can still get the exact same thing today as she would have been able to get yesterday.

Good point.

Well don't complain about voter apathy then.

And of course they wont perk up straight away. But imagine the difference eventually.

SCOTUS causes voter apathy? Prove it. Support it. Stop making ludicrous claims about how I can't complain about one problem completely unconnected to another. You've not demonstrated any connection.

And if you're a poor woman who can barely afford the abortion in the first place, but can't afford to go to another state to get it done, I guess you're just fucked then. I think it's pretty clear that your ludicrous assumption that overturning Roe wouldn't impact a single woman looking to get an abortion is pretty much bitch-slapped here.

IIRC, most women who get an abortion for reasons that correspond to "convenience" do so far earlier in the term - thus obviating the need for a late term or partial birth abortion.

Women who get a partial birth abortion are getting one because it's a matter of life and death for the mother.

I'm not sure what the medical options are aside from this procedure, but they wouldn't be doing them if there was a viable, safer alternative.

Not exactly the same. When they passed Clinton's "Assualt" weapon ban--I would be prevented from getting a weapon that had for example a pistol grip or a flash suppressor--how these would make the weapon more dangerous is beyond me. But today a woman can still get the exact same thing today as she would have been able to get yesterday.

Actually, you still could get a weapon with any of the above, you just had to pay for a $250 (approx) license for each weapon.

And crossing state lines isn't always an option. Take minors, for example, in many states it's illegal to take them across state lines with the intent to circumvent abortion laws. What if someone doesn't have a car? What if someone can't afford the gas? With gas over $3/gal in most places, it's a valid question. Sure, some states make it exceedingly difficult to have an abortion. These laws would make it even tougher.

ANd I choose the moment when a procedure to remove a fetus that cannot survive on it's own is begun. Make no mistake: If they delivered that fetus whole, It. Would. Die. The purpose of evacuating the skull is to extract it from the womb easier. Reaching in and cutting it up and removing it piece by piece accomplishes the same thing and achieves the same end. Is it really so different to you that 3/4ths of the fetus is out whole? it's still just as dead as of that point.

Maybe we're talking about different sets of circumstances. I'm refering to a scenario in which the abortion is elective and the baby viable. If you're talking about an early term abortion then we're not discussing the same thing.

Besides which generally they don't use this procedure in early term abortions.

Women who get a partial birth abortion are getting one because it's a matter of life and death for the mother.



Negative. This procedure is never medically necessary.

IIRC, most women who get an abortion for reasons that correspond to "convenience" do so far earlier in the term - thus obviating the need for a late term or partial birth abortion.

Women who get a partial birth abortion are getting one because it's a matter of life and death for the mother.

I'm not sure what the medical options are aside from this procedure, but they wouldn't be doing them if there was a viable, safer alternative.

Qin Wang, to whom I was responding, had expanded his/her claim to include all abortions allowed under Roe, which is why I made the statement I did.

Negative. This procedure is never medically necessary.

Is there any data from a medical journal saying either way? I haven't read any data that hasn't been put out by someone pushing an agenda.

SCOTUS causes voter apathy? Prove it. Support it. Stop making ludicrous claims about how I can't complain about one problem completely unconnected to another. You've not demonstrated any connection.

Of course it causes voter apathy. When major social issues are defined by the courts (who are not in the best position to act as an arbiter anyway, given their lack of power to call independent commissions and inquiries), it takes away an incentive to vote, or vote responsibly.

It also makes single issue voting easier. Plenty of pro-choicers can vote for a candidate like Bush or Reagan simply on a tax issue, because they know the chance of any of the pro-life rhetoric bearing fruit is remote.

It's basically an avenue to allow asshats into office.

Oh, look who is just dancing and dancing. Let's see so before it had no effect, because women already have to travel. So TN brings up events where women WOULD have to travel and how that would be an immediate effect of overturning Roe and you suddenly act like as long as they are legally prevented from it, it doesn't matter.

It does matter. It's an added expense for a woman who may be able to barely afford the procedure.

It's true that if R v W gets overturned that rich women will never have to worry about it. It will only become a problem for the poor. Let's all hope for that, because that's a wonderful way to treat our country's women.

Yes. So hard to pull together the $14.50..when there are cigarettes and lotto tickets to buy and all. I bet there is even a local transit service from Chicago to Gary--what maybe $5 round trip then. Owww...I might not be able to buy my pack of smokes if I had to pay that.

And Nazz:

You are the one that has no idea what you are talking about. You are the one that claimed a busride to Gary, IN would be an unfair burden to the poor, pitiful, poor.

Maybe we're talking about different sets of circumstances. I'm refering to a scenario in which the abortion is elective and the baby viable. If you're talking about an early term abortion then we're not discussing the same thing.

Besides which generally they don't use this procedure in early term abortions.

It's not possible in the United States. Abortions aren't allowed at late enough stages when the baby would be viable. Unless the condition truly IS life threatening, and even then, a c-section is usually called for.

In fact, very recently, a very premature baby survived due to improvements in medical science and a heaping helping of luck and as it was within the window of legal abortions(by about two weeks), it has people reconsidering the cut-off date for abortions. Personally, I'm torn on that.

But regardless, your argument is rendered moot by the fact that viable fetuses cannot legally be aborted.

Is there any data from a medical journal saying either way? I haven't read any data that hasn't been put out by someone pushing an agenda.

And I haven't seen the opposing view presented by anyone who wasn't pushing an agenda, either.

I think when you have a former Surgeon General and enough expertes testifying before Congress to convince them to word the law the way they did, that ought to be proof enough.

It's not possible in the United States. Abortions aren't allowed at late enough stages when the baby would be viable. Unless the condition truly IS life threatening, and even then, a c-section is usually called for.

In fact, very recently, a very premature baby survived due to improvements in medical science and a heaping helping of luck and as it was within the window of legal abortions(by about two weeks), it has people reconsidering the cut-off date for abortions. Personally, I'm torn on that.

But regardless, your argument is rendered moot by the fact that viable fetuses cannot legally be aborted.

The earliest preemie that survived was delivered at less than 22 weeks. And that is earlier than the cut off 26 weeks.

Actually, you still could get a weapon with any of the above, you just had to pay for a $250 (approx) license for each weapon.

And crossing state lines isn't always an option. Take minors, for example, in many states it's illegal to take them across state lines with the intent to circumvent abortion laws. What if someone doesn't have a car? What if someone can't afford the gas? With gas over $3/gal in most places, it's a valid question. Sure, some states make it exceedingly difficult to have an abortion. These laws would make it even tougher.

And since minors require parental permission to be given any medical treatment except it seems for abortion which is a major operation that is a valid position for states to have.

Yes. So hard to pull together the $14.50..when there are cigarettes and lotto tickets to buy and all. I bet there is even a local transit service from Chicago to Gary--what maybe $5 round trip then. Owww...I might not be able to buy my pack of smokes if I had to pay that.

And Nazz:

You are the one that has no idea what you are talking about. You are the one that claimed a busride to Gary, IN would be an unfair burden to the poor, pitiful, poor.

I mentioned Chicago because it's the largest city in Illinois. But the law is a state law, so a poor woman in the middle of the state is just as fucked. Or are you too dense to acknowledge that?

The earliest preemie that survived was delivered at less than 22 weeks. And that is earlier than the cut off 26 weeks.

Exactly. 4 weeks instead of two, but the point is still valid. The odds of survival are very very low. But the argument as to how low is too low and how high the chances have to be to disallow abortions are a topic for another thread. Most doctors understand the specifics of individual cases well enough to know when the risks of abortion become too high that the patient would be better served to give birth.

Politicians have no business making that decision.

And I haven't seen the opposing view presented by anyone who wasn't pushing an agenda, either.

I think when you have a former Surgeon General and enough expertes testifying before Congress to convince them to word the law the way they did, that ought to be proof enough.

I agree entirely. Both sides have yet to cite an AMA, JAMA, British Medical journal, WHO article (at least as far as I've seen). I just don't trust the experts on either side. I haven't submitted their research for peer review, which makes me doubt the validity of their claims.

Doctors are human and have opinions, some might be pushing an agenda, some might be worried about their practise.

Someone needs to compile data and put it up for peer review.

And since minors require parental permission to be given any medical treatment except it seems for abortion which is a major operation that is a valid position for states to have.

That is completely dependant on the state. Here in Oregon minors above the age of 14 do not require parental consent for any medical treatment.

There's no provision in anyone's state laws (as far as I know) that prevent a minor from coming to Oregon to recieve treatment of any kind (other than abortion). It's hypocritical.

Anti abortion people (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion), rejoice. You got a decision you wanted.
Oh yeah, they're also apparently smarter than doctors when it comes to this particular medical treatment. Ugh.

About fucking time they do away with Partial Birth Abortion!

Sorry, but you're mistaken. Life in jeopardy =/= health of the mother.

HAHAHAHA! WOW!!! Yes it does Nazz. Life in Jeopardy (mother) == Health of mother. I thought you were smarter than that.

About fucking time they do away with Partial Birth Abortion!

Why?

I didn't know Gary being a suburb of Chicago and so close to the state line you can throw rocks across it would be such a burden on them.

And let's not forget how the poor seem to be able to afford cell phones, TVs, cars and the like. I guess that 30 mile trip on Greyhound must really break the bank huh? $14.50 round trip. Oh a real bank killer there.

Ha. So now all poor people own these things? Hmmmm... I challenge you to prove it.

Next, I challenge you to show that such a trip, including the trauma of the procedure and then riding a bus for a couple of hours afterward, the cost of the trip, the cost of missing the day of work, is uneffected. You did say this would have no effect. Support your claim.

HAHAHAHA! WOW!!! Yes it does Nazz. Life in Jeopardy (mother) == Health of mother. I thought you were smarter than that.

Really? So going blind doesn't effect the health of the mother? It certainly doesn't put her life in jeopardy. Seriously, think for like twelve seconds BEFORE you post.

It's not possible in the United States. Abortions aren't allowed at late enough stages when the baby would be viable. Unless the condition truly IS life threatening, and even then, a c-section is usually called for.

In fact, very recently, a very premature baby survived due to improvements in medical science and a heaping helping of luck and as it was within the window of legal abortions(by about two weeks), it has people reconsidering the cut-off date for abortions. Personally, I'm torn on that.

But regardless, your argument is rendered moot by the fact that viable fetuses cannot legally be aborted.

That's only partially true. It varies by state but there's no blanket law that says it is illegal. The Federal Government allows for greater restrictions on late term abortions, but doesn't outlaw them. In the case we're discussing, only this particular procedure is illegal.

First, 90% of all abortions would not be covered by the ruling and for those other 10% there are other methods which are more widely used in any event available. This ruling will in no way cause one less abortion in the United States and all the gashing of teeth by NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the other usual suspects is just chumming the waters to the base to drum up more donations.

HERE HERE!

Second, exactly. The court had no business getting involved in this issue to begin with in 1973. Most--even those that are pro-choice--agree the decision was based on perverse legal reasoning. The court should have ruled the case was moot and let the Statehouses--which are elected--decide the issue. If that had been done the issue of abortion would be over, there would be political legitimacy for the decisions reached in the various states and the battle over the court appointments wouldn't be this "death match" of scorched earth, winner take all that we have now.

Well said. I agree entirely :)

Dispite what NARAL members and their ilk say, if Roe was overturned tomorrow, no women in the US that wanted an abortion would be denied one. The states that would outlaw abortion already have few clinics that offer the services--South Dakota and Mississippi for example have a single clinic for the entire state and last I checked, there weren't pass laws that stopped people from crossing statelines. The doctor that performs abortions in South Dakota flies in twice a week from Minnesota--I think aircraft fly both way.

Another good point.

Negative. This procedure is never medically necessary.

You keep making this claim and it is the claim of the law, so please support this claim with any quote of the AMA. Certainly, if a procedure was being performed under the claim of medical necessity and was NEVER medically necessary, then the AMA would have spoken on this topic, no?

You try to push the other side to provide proof, but the other side didn't try to make thier claim law, now did they?

I agree entirely. Both sides have yet to cite an AMA, JAMA, British Medical journal, WHO article (at least as far as I've seen). I just don't trust the experts on either side. I haven't submitted their research for peer review, which makes me doubt the validity of their claims.

Doctors are human and have opinions, some might be pushing an agenda, some might be worried about their practise.

Someone needs to compile data and put it up for peer review.

I'm not sure something like this CAN be summarized in a medical journal. I mean, what sort of data would there be beyond the fact that thus far it never has been?

I think the issue is that people are insisting that exceptions be made for cases of medical necessity but it's an empty argument because it's never been. I think it was wise of them to incorporate some kind of mechanism into the law where if someday, in some hypothetical instance, it IS necessary, the dorctor can go before a review board and prove it to avoid unfair prosecution.

Ok I know emotions are running high and all, but geez people stop and think.

The fact that a partial birth abortion is never medically mecessary comes from the medical community, representatives of which testify before congress or SCOTUS or whoever is involved at whatever stage of the legislation. The fact that the law contains language allowing for someone to argue that it is was placed there as a concession. It's sort of a contingency that will never come to pass but it makes the "what about the life of the mother" crowd happy. This is supposed to be a good thing because it add a little flexibility.

So for those saying things like "They'd rather let the mother die than let her choose"... you're being intellectually dishonest. Life of the mother is EXACTLY the sort of scenario that is allowed for.

No matter where you stand on the issue of abortion in general I find it amazing that people are craying end of the world over this. Don't you find that procedure to be at all monstrous? Considering that this method is ONLY used during late-term pregnancy don't you think that on some level there is a legitimate concern that it's a viable baby, and not a fetus, that's being killed.

Mind you, the very process itself is designed around the silly idea that the baby isn't a person until the head comes out. Read the process. Th ebody EXCEPT THE HEAD is delivered, then the baby killed by sucking out the brain before the head is delivered. This is a very specific act of murder regardless of how you feel about abortions earlier in the pregnancy.

I agree with your entire post. Well said. To bad it'll be ignored or bashed in the shuffle :(

That's only partially true. It varies by state but there's no blanket law that says it is illegal. The Federal Government allows for greater restrictions on late term abortions, but doesn't outlaw them. In the case we're discussing, only this particular procedure is illegal.

What state(s) allows elective late-term abortions?

I agree with your entire post. Well said. To bad it'll be ignored or bashed in the shuffle :(

You came here to cheerlead? How sad. What a coincidence that you're only cheerleading the posts as dead on and perfect that happen to support what you believe? Certainly someone can agree with you and still make a bad argument, no? Unless of course all that matters to you is that the conclusion you wish for is reached regardless of how we get there. Accepted.

That's only partially true. It varies by state but there's no blanket law that says it is illegal. The Federal Government allows for greater restrictions on late term abortions, but doesn't outlaw them. In the case we're discussing, only this particular procedure is illegal.

Exactly my point: Ony this particular procedure. So what makes this procedure any more or less immoral or disgusting than any other late-term abortion? The fetus ends up just as dead.

This is ban is only to make people who feel like they've been 'losing' for decades feel like they 'won' something. I reiterate: It's a sham.

Let's not forget that the medical community doesn't consider the term "partial-birth abortion" to be a legitimate term anyway. It's a term made up by a piece-of-shit politician in order to get some traction on the abortion issue. This is how Roe will fall--not by being overturned, but by being nickeled-and-dimed so much it won't mean anything.

OMFG! Leave it to you to say that Roe will be overturned. I'll give you odds right now that Roe will NOT BE OVERTURNED because of this ruling.

I'm not sure something like this CAN be summarized in a medical journal. I mean, what sort of data would there be beyond the fact that thus far it never has been?

I think the issue is that people are insisting that exceptions be made for cases of medical necessity but it's an empty argument because it's never been. I think it was wise of them to incorporate some kind of mechanism into the law where if someday, in some hypothetical instance, it IS necessary, the dorctor can go before a review board and prove it to avoid unfair prosecution.

What a cop out. The medical community and their organizations weighed in on circumcision and pointed that there is no medical reason for routine male circumcision. They do that all the time. If abortion was another procedure being practiced under false pretenses they would certainly weigh in on that too. It's completely relevant to their purpose as a medical organization.

Your claim to the contrary is an attempt to avoid supporting your claim.

Exactly my point: Ony this particular procedure. So what makes this procedure any more or less immoral or disgusting than any other late-term abortion? The fetus ends up just as dead.

This is ban is only to make people who feel like they've been 'losing' for decades feel like they 'won' something. I reiterate: It's a sham.

Well I do agree that the procedure is equally immoral as other procedures, but AFAIK it's the only procedure that can be used in a late-term pregnancy. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) That's why I was separating it out. I'm trying to avoid discussing abortion in general and focus on this particular procedure.

OMFG! Leave it to you to say that Roe will be overturned. I'll give you odds right now that Roe will NOT BE OVERTURNED because of this ruling.

I see God's pencil sharpener missed a pencil or two.

It's not that this "ruling" will overturn Roe. It's that this "court" will overturn Roe.

Look at who voted, and how they voted.

Good work, Dubya! Now we get an increase in mothers strangling their own babies! And yes, that IS going to happen.

Then we'll have more murderers in prison. I doubt you'll see much of that.Ya know why? because this occurs very rarely anyway.

OMFG! Leave it to you to say that Roe will be overturned. I'll give you odds right now that Roe will NOT BE OVERTURNED because of this ruling.

Reading is not your strong suit, huh?

This is how Roe will fall--not by being overturned, but by being nickeled-and-dimed so much it won't mean anything.

TN said it won't be overturned. You in turn told him he was wrong and that it won't be overturned. Does that pass for a logical argument where you're from?

OMFG! Leave it to you to say that Roe will be overturned. I'll give you odds right now that Roe will NOT BE OVERTURNED because of this ruling.
You missed the point. Roe won't be overturned. It may just be made increasingly irrelevant by subsequent court rulings putting more restrictions on abortion.

Well I do agree that the procedure is equally immoral as other procedures, but AFAIK it's the only procedure that can be used in a late-term pregnancy. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) That's why I was separating it out. I'm trying to avoid discussing abortion in general and focus on this particular procedure.

I'll correct you. There are other procedures that are done that do approximately the same thing only within the womb. That procedure has been mentioned here repeatedly. It's been mentioned repeatedly in posts directed at you. It's been mentioned repeatedly in posts you've replied to.

So, yes, you're wrong. Good on you to make sure you were aware of the aspects of the topic before jumping and making claims.

Well I do agree that the procedure is equally immoral as other procedures, but AFAIK it's the only procedure that can be used in a late-term pregnancy. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) That's why I was separating it out. I'm trying to avoid discussing abortion in general and focus on this particular procedure.

You're wrong.

And even if Roe falls it won't make a dime's worth of difference. Not a single abortion that would have taken place before Roe being theoretically overturned would not take place after. The only difference is there won't be any taking place in Jackson, Mississippi. Big deal!

I doubt any in the GOP really want Roe to be overturned---they use it as a device to chumm the waters of their base just as the NARALs, Dems and others use it to chumm theirs.

"Give us money or your rights will be taken away."

"Give us money and we will end the killing of innocent children."

It is all a sham and anyone that believes the NARAL types or the American Family Association types is an idiot and probably would buy beach property 20 miles east of Miami Beach.

Sad but true :(

Exactly my point: Ony this particular procedure. So what makes this procedure any more or less immoral or disgusting than any other late-term abortion? The fetus ends up just as dead.

This is ban is only to make people who feel like they've been 'losing' for decades feel like they 'won' something. I reiterate: It's a sham.

And that, at the end of the day, is basically that. So desperate for some kind of "victory" the right is now claiming they have won in the "battle" for the sanctity of life by getting a court victory that....does not even hint at overturning Roe, will not prevent a SINGLE abortion from occuring, does not in any way affect 90% of the abortions that do occur, and banned one proceedure while another procedure, done in the same trimester, reaching the same result, remains perfectly in check.

In other words, this great victory has done...nothing. It hasn't chipped away at the right to an abortion, it has not allowed further restriction. The test has always been, since Casey, no undue burden. This burden was not ruled to be undue and...well...frankly, I sorta agree.

Another equally viable procedure exists. I don't LIKE that it happened, but really I can't be made to get too riled up over it, it changes nothing. It's an overhyped atempt to distract america from the right wing's dismal failures by appealing to their base and shouting "we saved the baby fetuses!" without actually preventing a single abortion from taking place

You know what I find amusing about the hysterics? Whenever a new gun control law gets passed 2nd Ammendment advocates get agitated because they see a slippery slope and don't trust the gun laws to stop there. That's usually when gun control advocates start accusing them of being hysterical and paranoid.

It's funny to see the EXACT same thing happening here. This SCOTUS action will have very little meaningful impact but to watch these people react you'd think all abortion was banned this morning.

Its fun to watch them put their spin on it. Roe v Wade will not be overturned anyway as far as I can see. To bad that those opposed to this ruling do not understand that.

Well I do agree that the procedure is equally immoral as other procedures, but AFAIK it's the only procedure that can be used in a late-term pregnancy. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) That's why I was separating it out. I'm trying to avoid discussing abortion in general and focus on this particular procedure.

No, you're wrong. that's the point. There are two forms of "late term" abortion. The "partial birth" one where the baby is removed, feet first, save for the head, which is then either crushed or deflated, and the fetus removed.

The second one involves basically breaking the fetus into little tiny pieces in the womb and vacuum sucking it out.

The first is now banned. THe second is not.

Both are performed in the same time frame, both with the same results. While the first procedure is easier and somewhat less physically traumatic, there has been great debate as to whether it is EVER necessary.

This is the entire argument. This is the entire POINT. Casey said no undue burden on abortion. That has not changed. The court found, that since there exists a SECOND procedure, not at all covered by this law, and perfectly legal, that restricting ONE form while allowing ANOTHER form was not an undue burden.

They came to this conclusion because they felt there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that there really are any occurences when the first option is viable, but the second is not. Therefore they said no undue burden as the second option remaind, while, while it is a bit more physical traumatic, does not present an undue burden on the woman.

They also said that should it be found out that, in fact, it DOES cause an undue burden, which they were not convinced it would based on the evidence before them, that they would revist it.

The fact that a second procedure exists is the ONLY thing that actually made this constitutional.

My god, you're arguing the validity of a ruling without knowing the fundamental factual basis on which that ruling was reached.

see folks, THIS is what I am talking about when I bitch about armchair lawyers. How can you POSSIBLY even ATTEMPT to argue the validity of this decision when you aren't even aware of the fact that a second option exists, the presence of which was the FUNDAMENTAL point of this entire ruling?

Without understanding that fact, the whole judgement makes absolutly no sense.

The most that would do is move Illinois's health industry to St. Louis. These women would take their abortions there, and their dollars with them. Even if these people can't understand a women's right to choose, unwanted children and coathangers, it still doesn't make sense to close a profitable business and send it elsewhere on a whim.

I'm sure the brothels and factories that use child labour say the same thing when the government shuts THEM down, too.

No, you're wrong. that's the point. There are two forms of "late term" abortion. The "partial birth" one where the baby is removed, feet first, save for the head, which is then either crushed or deflated, and the fetus removed.

The second one involves basically breaking the fetus into little tiny pieces in the womb and vacuum sucking it out.

The first is now banned. THe second is not.

Both are performed in the same time frame, both with the same results. While the first procedure is easier and somewhat less physically traumatic, there has been great debate as to whether it is EVER necessary.

This is the entire argument. This is the entire POINT. Casey said no undue burden on abortion. That has not changed. The court found, that since there exists a SECOND procedure, not at all covered by this law, and perfectly legal, that restricting ONE form while allowing ANOTHER form was not an undue burden.

They came to this conclusion because they felt there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that there really are any occurences when the first option is viable, but the second is not. Therefore they said no undue burden as the second option remaind, while, while it is a bit more physical traumatic, does not present an undue burden on the woman.

They also said that should it be found out that, in fact, it DOES cause an undue burden, which they were not convinced it would based on the evidence before them, that they would revist it.

The fact that a second procedure exists is the ONLY thing that actually made this constitutional.

My god, you're arguing the validity of a ruling without knowing the fundamental factual basis on which that ruling was reached.

see folks, THIS is what I am talking about when I bitch about armchair lawyers. How can you POSSIBLY even ATTEMPT to argue the validity of this decision when you aren't even aware of the fact that a second option exists, the presence of which was the FUNDAMENTAL point of this entire ruling?

Without understanding that fact, the whole judgement makes absolutly no sense.

Then what's everybody crying about?

I'll correct you. There are other procedures that are done that do approximately the same thing only within the womb. That procedure has been mentioned here repeatedly. It's been mentioned repeatedly in posts directed at you. It's been mentioned repeatedly in posts you've replied to.

So, yes, you're wrong. Good on you to make sure you were aware of the aspects of the topic before jumping and making claims.

Then what are you crying about?

You're wrong.

Fine, then why are people so vehemently supporting this particular procedure?

Its fun to watch them put their spin on it. Roe v Wade will not be overturned anyway as far as I can see. To bad that those opposed to this ruling do not understand that.

the fact that YOU of all people are criticizing ANYONES legal analysis is irony in the extreme.

I've yet to see you get a single legal argument right.

OMFG! Leave it to you to say that Roe will be overturned. I'll give you odds right now that Roe will NOT BE OVERTURNED because of this ruling.
Try reading that post again. Think about it for a few seconds. Then read it a third time. Maybe, if you try real hard, you'll come to realize just how stupid you look in this post.

And that, at the end of the day, is basically that. So desperate for some kind of "victory" the right is now claiming they have won in the "battle" for the sanctity of life by getting a court victory that....does not even hint at overturning Roe, will not prevent a SINGLE abortion from occuring, does not in any way affect 90% of the abortions that do occur, and banned one proceedure while another procedure, done in the same trimester, reaching the same result, remains perfectly in check.

In other words, this great victory has done...nothing. It hasn't chipped away at the right to an abortion, it has not allowed further restriction. The test has always been, since Casey, no undue burden. This burden was not ruled to be undue and...well...frankly, I sorta agree.

Another equally viable procedure exists. I don't LIKE that it happened, but really I can't be made to get too riled up over it, it changes nothing. It's an overhyped atempt to distract america from the right wing's dismal failures by appealing to their base and shouting "we saved the baby fetuses!" without actually preventing a single abortion from taking place

Actually, it DID do something; since there are situations where ID&X(partial birth abortion) has reduced risks to the mother than D&X(dilation and extraction), all this does is increase the risk to the mother in a small handful of cases. Interestingly enough, the situations in which a partial birth abortion is medically preferred are very rare. They are more often performed at the patient's behest so there is an intact corpse to grieve over. :p

Fine, then why are people so vehemently supporting this particular procedure?

Because there are rare circumstances where the risks to the mother are lower with this procedure.

Then what's everybody crying about?

Because a lot of us are concerned that the ruling was a smokescreen, hiding a larger agenda at slowly chipping away at Roe.

This ruling will not do that. But now that there is ONE limitation in place, another will follow. And again it will be looking oh quite so reasonable. And then another, then another.

The fear is that this ruling was based on a larger agenda by certain justices to chip away at Roe and Casey, case by case, ruling by ruling.

THIS ruling does nothing really substantial in and of itself. Nobody will REALLY be harmed by it. Nobody will be prevented from having an abortion if she so choses.

But is it a sign of things to come?

Because a lot of us are concerned that the ruling was a smokescreen, hiding a larger agenda at slowly chipping away at Roe.

This ruling will not do that. But now that there is ONE limitation in place, another will follow. And again it will be looking oh quite so reasonable. And then another, then another.

The fear is that this ruling was based on a larger agenda by certain justices to chip away at Roe and Casey, case by case, ruling by ruling.

THIS ruling does nothing really substantial in and of itself. Nobody will REALLY be harmed by it. Nobody will be prevented from having an abortion if she so choses.

But is it a sign of things to come?

I've heard the exact same logic used to criticize everything from gun control laws to the Patriot Act. I wish we could just focus on the issues and leave the fortune-telling to tarot cards and tea leaves

Why?

Because, to me, its murder.

Because there are rare circumstances where the risks to the mother are lower with this procedure.

but to what level are those risks? How much does this procedure lower them? The whole problem with this case is that those questions fall into a very gray area.

Late term abortions are very rare themselves. Situations in which one is prefered over another for reasons that are medical, but not life threatening, are even rarer. At which point the question then becomes what risk, and how much is it lowered?

The whole argument is, in those rare cases, is the increased risk, which may be small, rise to the level of undue burden? A burden, yes.

An undue one...I dont know. And I don't think the court really knew either. They're whole ruling was basically "we don't think so...now. If something comes up, get back to us".

They left the door WIDE open for a reversal if it is actually shown to cause undue burdens.

Really? So going blind doesn't effect the health of the mother? It certainly doesn't put her life in jeopardy. Seriously, think for like twelve seconds BEFORE you post.

Why don't you? Being blind does not effect the health of the mother, or anyone else for that matter.

Seriously, grow the hell up and stop being a dickhead about things that people disagree with you on.

Because there are rare circumstances where the risks to the mother are lower with this procedure.

You know, I really think Arthais hit closer to the mark, no offense. We have testimony indicating that this procedure is never medically necessary which means at best it's a contested conclusion. We have a former Surgeon General who has indicated the same. As far as I'm concerned, that's that.

I've heard the exact same logic used to criticize everything from gun control laws to the Patriot Act. I wish we could just focus on the issues and leave the fortune-telling to tarot cards and tea leaves

You do realize that making argument and predictions based on legal precident is kind of what....you know...we lawyers DO, right?

I don't tell you how to do your job, please don't tell me how to do mine.

This sets a precedent. A dangerous precedent. Pave the way for the upholding of any and all bans on abortion as "not unconstitutional."

but to what level are those risks? How much does this procedure lower them? The whole problem with this case is that those questions fall into a very gray area.

Late term abortions are very rare themselves. Situations in which one is prefered over another for reasons that are medical, but not life threatening, are even rarer. At which point the question then becomes what risk, and how much is it lowered?

The whole argument is, in those rare cases, is the increased risk, which may be small, rise to the level of undue burden? A burden, yes.

An undue one...I dont know. And I don't think the court really knew either. They're whole ruling was basically "we don't think so...now. If something comes up, get back to us".

They left the door WIDE open for a reversal if it is actually shown to cause undue burdens.


Well, I'm not a doctor, I don't know the relative risks, and I don't know those 'rare circumstances' when the risks would be lower. That's a doctor's job; not a politician's. And not a judge's. *nod*

You do realize that making argument and predictions based on legal precident is kind of what....you know...we lawyers DO, right?

I don't tell you how to do your job, please don't tell me how to do mine.

Calm down.

You came here to cheerlead? How sad. What a coincidence that you're only cheerleading the posts as dead on and perfect that happen to support what you believe? Certainly someone can agree with you and still make a bad argument, no? Unless of course all that matters to you is that the conclusion you wish for is reached regardless of how we get there. Accepted.

Guess what? I do not care what you believe. However, this procedure was indeed unnecessary and it finally got banned. This is not going to overturn R v W. That will never get overturned.

Because, to me, its murder.

Then don't have one. :)

I see God's pencil sharpener missed a pencil or two.

It's not that this "ruling" will overturn Roe. It's that this "court" will overturn Roe.

Look at who voted, and how they voted.

I see you are failing logic here. That's ok. Not veryone can be smart.

RvW probablly will not be overturned.

Now, I'll say here that I don't agree with abortion. That's my stance. But with that said, this post isn't to argue for or against abortion; it's merely trying to understand pro-abortionist logic. With that said:

There are a lot of people who will be angry over this ruling because "now women can't have a partial-birth, late-trimester abortion, etc, etc". Fair.

But in my mind, it begs the question: if they were going to have an abortion anyways, why wait until late-trimester? Why wouldn't they get it early, when the risks of an abortion are so much lower? If early-trimester abortions are so much easier and less risky, why don't people just choose to get those done as opposed to being upset over a ruling that governs a riskier procedure? That doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't say these things to invite flaming; I ask because I honestly don't understand why people would choose to go that late with a pregnancy before aborting it, as opposed to just getting an early abortion with decidedly less risk involved.

For the pro-lifers who read this, I ask for no flaming from you as well; this particular post is not about my moral/ethical stance on the subject, it's focussed solely on the (lack of, IMHO) pragmatic uses of late-term abortion when there are less risky alternatives available.

Well, I'm not a doctor, I don't know the relative risks, and I don't know those 'rare circumstances' when the risks would be lower. That's a doctor's job; not a politician's. And not a judge's. *nod*

Meh. That's too much like saying "Let the doctors make the law in the first place."

The fact is politicians aren't medical experts but they ARE tasked with making laws on medical matters. That's why we have doctors testify before them.

This sets a precedent. A dangerous precedent. Pave the way for the upholding of any and all bans on abortion as "not unconstitutional."

except...it doesn't, not REALLY. Casey gave us a ruling, but not a very clear road map. It said only "no undue burden" and left it for future courts ot figure out what the hell an undue burden WAS.

Numerous cases have defined, clarified, fleshed out, and worked on what exactly an undue burden constitutes. A lot of it is clearly defined. This...is just another one. Banning one procedure when another viable procedure remains, not an undue burden. Banning both? Undue burden.

This case is...troubling, to me...but frankly, I just...I can't get that worked up over it.

Then what are you crying about?

Amusing, but basically this argument demonstrates your lack of faith in making an honest attempt at an argument.

There are relative differences in the procedures and doctors should decide which procedure is best in any given circumstances, not politicians.

Meanwhile, this law does more than that.

It gives a man a right to sue a woman for making the "wrong" medical decision for herself.

It allows politicians to make medical decisions instead of doctors.

It allows doctors to be incarcerated for doing what is best for their patients.

Your post doesn't address any of the things I'm "crying" about. But, hey, why bother addressing arguments when you can just make absurd statements instead.

Well, I'm not a doctor, I don't know the relative risks, and I don't know those 'rare circumstances' when the risks would be lower. That's a doctor's job; not a politician's. And not a judge's. *nod*

except, that's the problem. It is.

It is the judge's job to decide what an undue burden is. That's the role of the courts in abortion matters. Casey said no undue burden, so it must be determined what an undue burden is. That is EXACTLY the role of the courts, to find out what is, and is not, permissable under the constitution. NOt only is it their job, but it can be nobody elses job. If no undue burdens are allowed by the constitution, it MUST be the court that determines, as a matter of law, what an undue burden is.

Of course they listen to experts...and it seems like there are experts on both sides of the fence here. Frankly, conflicting expert testimony at trial is also not at all rare, even in the slightest.

If we step back for a moment and look at this for what it is, we see two sides putting forth experts to argue their position, and the court making a ruling on which side they believed.

This happens ALL THE TIME. To say that it's not the job of the courts to decide this leaves one glaring question.

Who the hell is it that should?

Why don't you? Being blind does not effect the health of the mother, or anyone else for that matter.

Seriously, grow the hell up and stop being a dickhead about things that people disagree with you on.

Amusing. Blind isn't a health effect? Pardon? How about becoming infertile? Brain damage? These are all health effects and none of them threaten the life of the mother. Simply because you don't acknowledge doesn't make them cease to exist.

Why don't you? Being blind does not effect the health of the mother, or anyone else for that matter.

Um...wtf?

He didn't say "being blind" he said GOING blind. I'm sure you would admit that if a medical procedure rendered a woman blind...this would be affecting her health...

Meh. That's too much like saying "Let the doctors make the law in the first place."

The fact is politicians aren't medical experts but they ARE tasked with making laws on medical matters. That's why we have doctors testify before them.

Because without laws, I could wake up from surgery with five asses. :)

except...it doesn't, not REALLY. Casey gave us a ruling, but not a very clear road map. It said only "no undue burden" and left it for future courts ot figure out what the hell an undue burden WAS.
This isn't Casey. What caused an "undue burden" in Casey is dismissed as "a-ok uninhibitance" in this case. "Medical complications" is a far, far narrower scope of provisions than "undue burden."

Now, I'll say here that I don't agree with abortion. That's my stance. But with that said, this post isn't to argue for or against abortion; it's merely trying to understand pro-abortionist logic. With that said:

There are a lot of people who will be angry over this ruling because "now women can't have a partial-birth, late-trimester abortion, etc, etc". Fair.

Nobody...ever....said....women....can't....have...late...term...abortions...

Seriously folks, I don't like this ruling, I don't like that it happened...I'm not quite sure whether legally I agree with it....but for the love of GOD, why are people arguing a ruling WHEN THEY DONT KNOW WHAT IT SAYS?

The opinion is out there, READ IT!

Amusing, but basically this argument demonstrates your lack of faith in making an honest attempt at an argument.

There are relative differences in the procedures and doctors should decide which procedure is best in any given circumstances, not politicians.

Meanwhile, this law does more than that.

It gives a man a right to sue a woman for making the "wrong" medical decision for herself.

It allows politicians to make medical decisions instead of doctors.

It allows doctors to be incarcerated for doing what is best for their patients.

Your post doesn't address any of the things I'm "crying" about. But, hey, why bother addressing arguments when you can just make absurd statements instead.

OMG you're so funny sometimes. You're one of my favorite posters on this forum because it's so rare to see such an open, obvious and pure example of hypocrisy. I remember once on a thread where you went on page after page about how you felt I was refusing to answer a question you posed (which I'd answered long before and refused to repeat myself) but then you turn around and utterly ignore replies you can't answer, then try to distract the conversation away from that refusal by bringing up fresh rhetoric then demanding people answer it in turn.

I've always found it hilarious to watch a dog or cat chase its tail.

Now with that said, I'm going back to ignoring your jabs, at least until you're ready to start practicing what you preach.

This isn't Casey. What caused an "undue burden" in Casey is dismissed as "a-ok uninhibitance" in this case.

The burdens placed in Casey were not at ALL similar to this one, not in the slightest.

"Medical complications" is a far, far narrower scope of provisions than "undue burden."

Casey had NOTHING to do with medical complications, not even the slightest bit.

THe question that arrises here, the question that is up for debate, is does the other procedure pose any real risk to the woman that partial birth abortion does not? Is there any real decrease in risk from one procedure versus the other?

And as much as people are screaming one way or the other....we don't know. That question really is up in the air.

The 5 justices didn't think so. Maybe they're right. We don't know right now. They however left the door open for this ruling to be overturned should that turn out to be the case.

Because without laws, I could wake up from surgery with five asses. :)

Hehe I thought that took a mad-scientist-Marlon-Brando-Lookalike to accomplish, not a doctor :D

Amusing. Blind isn't a health effect? Pardon? How about becoming infertile? Brain damage? These are all health effects and none of them threaten the life of the mother. Simply because you don't acknowledge doesn't make them cease to exist.

those are all risks, I can't argue with you there.

The question is, does the now banned procedure lower the chance of those events in any real way, compared to the other, still viable procedure?

If so, how much?

And...I don't know. I can't say. Not my field. If it doesn't..then there's nothing really wrong with this ruling, it doesn't pose a greater risk, and no real burden is placed on the woman.

I don't know. Experts disagree. Who is actually right? Not a clue.

The burdens placed in Casey were not at ALL similar to this one, not in the slightest.
Maybe you shouldn't have brought it up as any sort of defense then?

Casey had NOTHING to do with medical complications, not even the slightest bit.
RTFA - read the fucking article.

Nobody...ever....said....women....can't....have...late...term...abortions...

Seriously folks, I don't like this ruling, I don't like that it happened...I'm not quite sure whether legally I agree with it....but for the love of GOD, why are people arguing a ruling WHEN THEY DONT KNOW WHAT IT SAYS?

The opinion is out there, READ IT!

I wasn't arguing the ruling; at no point did I ever argue the ruling in my previous post. Perhaps I extrapolated the perceived response a little too much; but the gist - which, by the way, can easily be seen in this thread - was that a lot of people would be very upset over the ruling handed down saying that this particular procedure cannot be performed anymore unless under certain rare circumstances.

With that said, my original question still stand: why would a woman want to keep her pregnancy long enough that the only option left is late-term abortion, when early-trimester abortion involves so much less risk?

Like I said, I don't agree with the practice in general. But aside from my views, if a woman is going to abort her child, why wait? Why not just get it over with, in the earlier trimester? That's what doesn't make much logical sense to me - if anyone wants to provide an explanation without the use of antagonistic language, please do.

Maybe you shouldn't have brought it up as any sort of defense then?

What the HELL are you talking about? Do you understand the constitutional law governing abortion AT ALL?

Casey said there shall be no undue burdens on a woman's right to an abortion.

It did NOT specifically define what was or was not an undue burden. Casey had to do with notification and reporting requirements. Some of them were held to be an undue burden.

THIS case has to do with an ENTIRELY seperate set of burdens. Which doesn't change the fact that the general test of "no undue burdens" still applies.

The test to see whether a restriction on abortion is constitutional or not is to see whether that restriction places an undue burden on the woman. This was described in Casey. The fact that you're even having a discussion on abortion law without actually...you know...knowing the law governing abortion is just silly.

Seriously...any of this getting through?

RTFA - read the fucking article.

I have. I've also read the ruling, in its entirety. I suggest you do the same.

Incidentally Corny, congratulations on your engagement. I tried to respond to the thread you started but Jolt was screwed up and wouldn't let me log on. :)

I wasn't arguing the ruling; at no point did I ever argue the ruling in my previous post. Perhaps I extrapolated the perceived response a little too much; but the gist - which, by the way, can easily be seen in this thread - was that a lot of people would be very upset over the ruling handed down saying that this particular procedure cannot be performed anymore unless under certain rare circumstances.

With that said, my original question still stand: why would a woman want to keep her pregnancy long enough that the only option left is late-term abortion, when early-trimester abortion involves so much less risk?

Like I said, I don't agree with the practice in general. But aside from my views, if a woman is going to abort her child, why wait? Why not just get it over with, in the earlier trimester? That's what doesn't make much logical sense to me - if anyone wants to provide an explanation without the use of antagonistic language, please do.

Because women getting late-term abortions pretty much exclusively do so for health reasons.

Because women getting late-term abortions pretty much exclusively do so for health reasons.

Which is fair; but I've read in this thread that there still exists another method of late-term abortion that can be performed for such reasons. If that's still the case, why are people so upset? I could understand the backlash if they jsut gave a blanket "no more late-term abortions, ever, for any reason"; but this ruling only bans one particular method of late-term abortion, AND also has an exception clause. So why are people up in arms?

BTW: very appreciative of the non-antagonistic reply. :)

those are all risks, I can't argue with you there.

The question is, does the now banned procedure lower the chance of those events in any real way, compared to the other, still viable procedure?

If so, how much?

And...I don't know. I can't say. Not my field. If it doesn't..then there's nothing really wrong with this ruling, it doesn't pose a greater risk, and no real burden is placed on the woman.

I don't know. Experts disagree. Who is actually right? Not a clue.

And here's the problem. We're talking about medical decisions, which should be left to the person unless we're given some public interest in restricting them. You've argued this procedure is identical to another (or they did) and as such there is no reason to restrict it. We should err on the side of human rights, not against them.

Meanwhile, and more importantly, (yes and I recognize these weren't in the challenge) this law declares the fetus to be a child, declares this procedure to NEVER be medically necessary and, worst of all, provides for a woman to be sued by a man for her choice in medical procedures.

All of these things erode the medical rights of woman. Not tomorrow. Today. All of them allow a decision that is often made very quickly to be decided by arm-chair quarterbacks after the fact. And unlike other cases where that happens, the result of this could be jailtime for a doctor for doing what is in the best interest of the patient unless the doctor can prove that her life, and not only her health, was in danger.

What the HELL are you talking about? Do you understand the constitutional law governing abortion AT ALL?

Casey said there shall be no undue burdens on a woman's right to an abortion.

It did NOT specifically define what was or was not an undue burden. Casey had to do with notification and reporting requirements. Some of them were held to be an undue burden.

THIS case has to do with an ENTIRELY seperate set of burdens. Which doesn't change the fact that the general test of "no undue burdens" still applies.

The test to see whether a restriction on abortion is constitutional or not is to see whether that restriction places an undue burden on the woman. This was described in Casey. The fact that you're even having a discussion on abortion law without actually...you know...knowing the law governing abortion is just silly.

Seriously...any of this getting through?



I have. I've also read the ruling, in its entirety. I suggest you do the same.
Maybe you should work on your fucking reading comprehension then instead of going off on elitist, "I'm a lawyer!" rants.

You cited Casey in reply to me saying this case a precedent, and then get uppity when I try and tell you this isn't the same damn case and ironically accuse me of saying it is.

Are you denying this case sets a precedent just because you say so? This case can easily be cited to aid in determination of what and what is not an undue burden. And if you could fucking reading, you would know that the article said While the court upheld the law against a broad attack on its constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain a challenge in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on a patient suffering certain medical complications. Not to mention the fact that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban lacked a health exception which is what caused the ruling in Casey.

Get off your high horse, the lack of oxygen is obviously affecting your judgment and inflating your sense of grandeur.

With that said, my original question still stand: why would a woman want to keep her pregnancy long enough that the only option left is late-term abortion, when early-trimester abortion involves so much less risk?

1) Because her pregnancy developed badly and now poses a health risk to her
2) because she lost her job and with it her insurance
3) because her spouse lost his/her job and she now needs to work harder to support them and can't afford the child
4) becauser her spouse got hurt and she now needs to dedicate time to taking care of him/her and not a child
5) because later genetic testings revealed that her child would have a severe disability and she doesn't want to have to raise it
6) because she had planned on giving the child up for adoption but the prospective adoptive parents backed out, and she doesnt want to give it to an orphanage
7) because she got a promotion at work and will no longer have time to care for the child like she hoped she would
8) because her marriage fell apart and is ending in a divorce and she doesn't want to be a single mother
9) because her spouse died and she doesn't want to be a single mother
10) because she changed her mind

There, 10 reasons, off the top of my head. You want any more?

You know, I really think Arthais hit closer to the mark, no offense. We have testimony indicating that this procedure is never medically necessary which means at best it's a contested conclusion. We have a former Surgeon General who has indicated the same. As far as I'm concerned, that's that.

the procedure isnt medically necesary because there is another procedure, equally gruesome, that gets the job done and there is no clear cut evidence that its never not equally medically appropriate.

this law should come with a "no baby was saved in the passing of this law" tag. so you ban one procedure but those fetuses that need to be aborted to save the life and health of the mother will still be aborted. you just make it a harder time for the poor woman involved who has to abort a pregnancy that she nutured for more than 8 months. what a victory.

all it does is make YOU feel better about how a late term abortion is done. its not better for the people actually involved, just for those who got creeped out when reading the propaganda against it.

Performing a late abortion to stop the pregnancy when the possibility of a c section is open, is like killing the bouncer instead of showing your ID to get into a club.

Oh brother. If you actually believe half the shit in that article then you are dumber than a door knob.Seriously, grow the hell up and stop being a dickhead about things that people disagree with you on.
I see you are failing logic here. That's ok. Not veryone can be smart.

Corneliu, take a step back from the computer and pause before you post from now on. If you don't get these personal attacks out of your posts, we'll put a stop to it for you.

Yes, you're a conservative in a board full of liberals. Yes, some of them are baiting you. When you respond to the bait, YOU get in trouble. Clear?

I'm not sure something like this CAN be summarized in a medical journal. I mean, what sort of data would there be beyond the fact that thus far it never has been?

I think the issue is that people are insisting that exceptions be made for cases of medical necessity but it's an empty argument because it's never been. I think it was wise of them to incorporate some kind of mechanism into the law where if someday, in some hypothetical instance, it IS necessary, the dorctor can go before a review board and prove it to avoid unfair prosecution.

The AMA or WHO could release recomendations for one. Either a yes or no as to whether it is ever medically necessary. Any doctor could write a paper on the validity of the procedure. They do that all the time.

the procedure isnt medically necesary because there is another procedure, equally gruesome, that gets the job done and there is no clear cut evidence that its never not equally medically appropriate.

this law should come with a "no baby was saved in the passing of this law" tag. so you ban one procedure but those fetuses that need to be aborted to save the life and health of the mother will still be aborted. you just make it a harder time for the poor woman involved who has to abort a pregnancy that she nutured for more than 8 months. what a victory.

all it does is make YOU feel better about how a late term abortion is done. its not better for the people actually involved, just for those who got creeped out when reading the propaganda against it.

The procedure is not medically necessary. Ever.

Why then, should it be kept around? Why are we painting women as victims when this isn't a necessary procedure in the first place? It's unnecessary medically and it's unnecessary in preserving anybody's rights.

Are you denying this case sets a precedent just because you say so?

When the HELL did I ever say that? EVERY case sets a precident.

This case can easily be cited to aid in determination of what and what is not an undue burden. And if you could fucking reading, you would know that the article said

Um, no shit?

Not to mention the fact that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban lacked a health exception which is what caused the ruling in Casey.

Um. No. No it did not. Casey had nothing what so ever to do with partial birth abortions, at all.

You're thinking of Stenberg v. Carheart.

Call me egotistical all you want, at least I get my citations right.

Performing a late abortion to stop the pregnancy when the possibility of a c section is open, is like killing the bouncer instead of showing your ID to get into a club.

Because using the existing hole is so much more radical than making a new one. :p

Now, I'll say here that I don't agree with abortion. That's my stance. But with that said, this post isn't to argue for or against abortion; it's merely trying to understand pro-abortionist logic. With that said:

There are a lot of people who will be angry over this ruling because "now women can't have a partial-birth, late-trimester abortion, etc, etc". Fair.

But in my mind, it begs the question: if they were going to have an abortion anyways, why wait until late-trimester? Why wouldn't they get it early, when the risks of an abortion are so much lower? If early-trimester abortions are so much easier and less risky, why don't people just choose to get those done as opposed to being upset over a ruling that governs a riskier procedure? That doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't say these things to invite flaming; I ask because I honestly don't understand why people would choose to go that late with a pregnancy before aborting it, as opposed to just getting an early abortion with decidedly less risk involved.

For the pro-lifers who read this, I ask for no flaming from you as well; this particular post is not about my moral/ethical stance on the subject, it's focussed solely on the (lack of, IMHO) pragmatic uses of late-term abortion when there are less risky alternatives available.


sigh

late term abortions are done on pregnancies that were WANTED. the parents have spent months looking forward to the birth of their child. then tragedy strikes and they get the bad news that the fetus is dying, that it must be aborted NOW to preserve the mother's life, her health and her ability to have children in the future.

its the worst day of those parent's lives. the day they have to choose to kill the baby they have already begun to love. they didnt get an abortion in the first trimester because they wanted to have a baby. no woman wakes up one morning, 9 months pregnant, and decides to kill her perfectly healthy fetus instead of waiting a week or 2 and delivering it alive.

When the HELL did I ever say that? EVERY case sets a precident.
Shouldn't some clever lawyer person know how to spell "precedent" by now?
And if you could make clear points we wouldn't have these problems.

Um, no shit?
See the above.


Um. No. No it did not. Casey had nothing what so ever to do with partial birth abortions, at all.

You're thinking of Stenberg v. Carheart.

Granted. Wrong case.

Call me egotistical all you want, at least I get my citations right.
Too bad that is the only thing.

the procedure isnt medically necesary because there is another procedure, equally gruesome, that gets the job done and there is no clear cut evidence that its never not equally medically appropriate.

this law should come with a "no baby was saved in the passing of this law" tag. so you ban one procedure but those fetuses that need to be aborted to save the life and health of the mother will still be aborted.

And this is why I just can't be made to care.

Which is fair; but I've read in this thread that there still exists another method of late-term abortion that can be performed for such reasons. If that's still the case, why are people so upset? I could understand the backlash if they jsut gave a blanket "no more late-term abortions, ever, for any reason"; but this ruling only bans one particular method of late-term abortion, AND also has an exception clause. So why are people up in arms?

BTW: very appreciative of the non-antagonistic reply. :)

Well, personally, I'm upset because I really, really dislike the precedent it sets. As far as I'm concerned, the decision as to what medical procedures I may or may not undergo should be made by exactly two people: my doctor and me. I greatly dislike legislators having anything to do with such a decision, and I worry that they won't stop at this fairly unimportant restriction.

There's also the much-discussed problem that the exception clause is only for risks to the life of the mother, rather than the health of the mother. As I understand it, if my doctor really believed that this procedure would be more likely to keep me from having fairly severe but non-life-threatening health problems than the alternative, he would still be legally forced to choose the other procedure. Now, I honestly don't know if that would ever be the case - I'm not a doctor, after all - but I'd far rather leave that decision up to individual doctors than the whims of a Congress eager to appease right-wing constituents.

The procedure is not medically necessary. Ever.

Why then, should it be kept around? Why are we painting women as victims when this isn't a necessary procedure in the first place? It's unnecessary medically and it's unnecessary in preserving anybody's rights.

yes ive seen you write that qute a few times in this thread.

it IS sometimes necessary to have a late term abortion. how that abortion is done should be up to the doctor and the woman involved. that YOU would rather have one kind of abortion instead of another should be irrelevant. no matter what, the fetus dies. no matter what, its awful. if the mother would rather have an intact body to hold for a few minutes instead of a bucket of gore should be her decision, not yours.

Corneliu, take a step back from the computer and pause before you post from now on. If you don't get these personal attacks out of your posts, we'll put a stop to it for you.

Yes, you're a conservative in a board full of liberals. Yes, some of them are baiting you. When you respond to the bait, YOU get in trouble. Clear?

Forgive me if this isn't the place to post a question like this. It's my first time but, why does only Corneliu get a warning when others (including myself) could be said to have been flaming on this thread, and as you said yourself, others are baiting which, if I understand the rules correctly, is also a violation.

So what I see is someone who's so desperate to refute my point that you utterly ignore it. So what if they're quoting a republican Congressman? If I had linked to foxnews.com to get that quote you know perfectly damn well you or others like you would be yelling about conservative reporting yadda yadda so I went to npr to get it instead.

So how about actually addressing the issue instead of these cheesy deflection tactics?

Okay, normally I'm fairly reserved, but I have now HAD IT with completely empty-headed arguments like this. You posted a link and claimed that "NPR SAID THE PROCEDURE IS NEVER NECESSARY." That's a lie.

A REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN, clearly NOT a MEDICAL or OBJECTIVE source in ANY WAY was QUOTED BY AN NPR REPORTER as saying that. Can you understand the difference? What you did was like saying that CNN said that smoking was harmless when someone WORKING for CNN QUOTED a tobacco lobbyist as saying smoking was harmless. Do you see how it's the PERSON TALKING, and not THE NETWORK THEY'RE TALKING ON that matters?

Please tell me you can see that and realize that your "never necessary" quote was not NPR, but a partisan quote said by someone ON NPR. 'Cause if you can't do that, you can't properly present sources. If you can't do that, then sonny, you're shit out of luck and not worth reading.

Sure we are.

Again this law will not prevent a single abortion from being performed. Even if Roe was overturned it wouldn't. You can dispatch with the hysterics now.

You do realize that abortion was not legal prior to Roe v. Wade, don't you? Just making sure, because I need to avoid whatever you're ingesting that takes you to your special fantasy world.

Okay, normally I'm fairly reserved, but I have now HAD IT with completely empty-headed arguments like this. You posted a link and claimed that "NPR SAID THE PROCEDURE IS NEVER NECESSARY." That's a lie.

A REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN, clearly NOT a MEDICAL or OBJECTIVE source in ANY WAY was QUOTED BY AN NPR REPORTER as saying that. Can you understand the difference? What you did was like saying that CNN said that smoking was harmless when someone WORKING for CNN QUOTED a tobacco lobbyist as saying smoking was harmless. Do you see how it's the PERSON TALKING, and not THE NETWORK THEY'RE TALKING ON that matters?

Please tell me you can see that and realize that your "never necessary" quote was not NPR, but a partisan quote said by someone ON NPR. 'Cause if you can't do that, you can't properly present sources. If you can't do that, then sonny, you're shit out of luck and not worth reading.

If you want to call me out then go back and read and get your facts straight. I'm not going to waste any more time spelling it out for you or anybody else. I didn't attribute the quote to npr I indicated that I was sciting an npr article. There's a difference that I, in my naievete' presumed would be obvious.

OK, we all need a history lesson here since apparently some folks can't keep their cases straight.

So here we go, shall we?

Roe v. Wade first case that said there was a constitutional right to an abortion. The justification was...odd, and widely criticized.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed Roe but changed the standard, setting forth an undue burden test. No restriction on abortion can place an undue burden on the woman. This case had nothing, nothing what so ever to do with partial birth abortions. The restrictions in Casey had to do with waiting periods, notification, and reporting requirements. Again, not even the slightest little bit about partial birth or late term abortions.

Stenberg v. Carhart overturned a nebraska law that banned late term abortions, because it lacked a provision for the health of the mother. The nebraska law did not just ban one TYPE of procedure, rather, all late term abortions, stating "[n]o abortion shall be performed after the time at which, in the sound medical judgment of the attending physician, the unborn child clearly appears to have reached viability" Likewise, as the court in Stenberg said, "Nebraska’s ban covers not just the dilation and extraction (D&X) procedure, but also the dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure". The thing with Stenberg was that it banned BOTH types AND had no health exception.

THIS case banned ONLY one, D&X. D&E is still legal. The court in this case found the lack of a health exception ok, because there was an equally viable procedure.

The reason Stenberg failed but this case succeeded is Stenberg was about a ban on BOTH forms of late term abortions, and gave NO health exception to EITHER.

This case bans only one, and the court believed that D&E was equally viable, so there was no need for a health exception, since an equally viable method existed.

We got it now? We clear?

With that said, my original question still stand: why would a woman want to keep her pregnancy long enough that the only option left is late-term abortion, when early-trimester abortion involves so much less risk?

The answer is simple. Late term abortion are never elective. They're always done out of medical necessity, and in most cases, that necessity doesn't arise until late in the term. It's only then that the health risks to either the mother or the fetus become apparent.

yes ive seen you write that qute a few times in this thread.

it IS sometimes necessary to have a late term abortion. how that abortion is done should be up to the doctor and the woman involved. that YOU would rather have one kind of abortion instead of another should be irrelevant. no matter what, the fetus dies. no matter what, its awful. if the mother would rather have an intact body to hold for a few minutes instead of a bucket of gore should be her decision, not yours.

While you were noticing that I've written it a few times on this thread, I'd have hoped you'd notice I have been specifying this particular procedure, and in elective cases.

Shouldn't some clever lawyer person know how to spell "precedent" by now?

Oh I'm a horrible speller. This is why I have an assistant.

And if you could make clear points we wouldn't have these problems.

Just because YOU don't understand them, doesn't mean they're not clear.


Granted. Wrong case.

Too bad that is the only thing.

When your entire argument was predicated on how I was wrong and you were right, because YOU were talking about the wrong case, that's a pretty big "only thing"

Like a number of people of good will, I find myself terribly torn.

I firmly support a woman's right to choose.

On the other hand.

I find partial birth abortions morally and ethically repugnant.

I realize that sometimes this horrid procedure is unavoidable and is medically appropriate to use when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, and if indeed this ruling protects that standard, then I favor the ruling.

I am naturally fearful that this ruling will be used as a springboard to strike Roe v Wade. So much emotion and attention are attached to this issue, that I doubt there will ever be a resolution of it in my lifetime.

I don't agree with those who contend that abortion is murder. I rail furiously against those that declare stem cell research an assault upon life.

But there better be some very compelling medical reasons to abort a fetus in the Third Trimester and indeed if the mother's life is jeopardy and the baby cannot be saved, then that meets the bar for me (among other possibilities).

It's not perfect, but that is how I come down on this.

Meanwhile, and more importantly, (yes and I recognize these weren't in the challenge) this law declares the fetus to be a child, declares this procedure to NEVER be medically necessary and, worst of all, provides for a woman to be sued by a man for her choice in medical procedures.

: my comments are in no way meant to be antagonistic, so please no one take them that way.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but wasn't the whole husband-suing-wife thing based on the condition that the wife is under 18? If that's the case, then the ruling makes some sense, at least; the husband is, the eyes of a court, the wife's legal guardian, due to her being a minor. While I don't agree in taking it so far as allowing a husband to sue his wife, a guardian's legal responsibility isn't necessarily to "protect rights at all costs"; a lot of it is "keeping your guardee (<--made up word, I know) from doing anything harmful to themselves, as best as you can". Now the argument could be made that the guardian might not know what's best for the minor, but it's a moot point; the point is, the law says it's up to the guardian to decide for minor what is best for them.

Another observation to made is this: unless a fetal pre-nup is signed (which, to my knowledge, do not exist) than in a marriage, everything is jointly held. Which would technically include a fetus...after all, it IS created by combining his sperm with the wife's egg. A baby is not just the mother's; it's the father's as well. In the case of a father who gets someone pregnant and then walks out, well, he's renouncing his claim on the child. In that case, while I don't agree with abortion, I would certainly say that the mother would have sole discretion as to whether to have one or not, as she's the only one left with a claim on the fetus. But if the father is sticking around, in a marriage, and the wife decides to go ahead and get an abortion without consulting the husband for approval, well then, why wouldn't that be seen as the wife illegally confiscating something that was jointly held?

Again, I say and ask these things out of observation and curiosity, not animosity, so responses in kind are appreciated.


And just as an aside, with really nothing to do with the topic of the ruling:

Is a guy who's willing to sue his own wife REALLY the kind of guy anyone would want to marry? Is a girl who won't at least consult her own husband on something as big as getting abortion REALLY the kind of girl anyone would want to marry? What kind of shoddy marriage is that?

You do realize that abortion was not legal prior to Roe v. Wade, don't you? Just making sure, because I need to avoid whatever you're ingesting that takes you to your special fantasy world.

in some places it was, yes. Others not.

While you were noticing that I've written it a few times on this thread, I'd have hoped you'd notice I have been specifying this particular procedure, and in elective cases.

Read this carefully, so you'll get a grasp.

This procedure is never elective. A woman does not have this done for the hell of it. It is not a nose job. It is not a boob job. It's not even a goddamn tubal ligation. It is a procedure which is only ever done if the fetus is not viable or if the mother's life or health is in danger.

In short, it's about as far removed from an early term abortion as Fred Phelps is from the teachings of Jesus. Got it?

When your entire argument was predicated on how I was wrong and you were right, because YOU were talking about the wrong case, that's a pretty big "only thing"
Except for the fact that the actual case was irrelevant because I was citing a decision, not a specific case.

: my comments are in no way meant to be antagonistic, so please no one take them that way.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but wasn't the whole husband-suing-wife thing based on the condition that the wife is under 18? If that's the case, then the ruling makes some sense, at least; the husband is, the eyes of a court, the wife's legal guardian, due to her being a minor.

No, the language was kind of convoluted but that's not what it said.

It meant the woman's husband can sue, if the woman is over 18, OR the woman's parents, if she is under 18. I read that too the first time and went "huh?" but the "under 18" means that the child's maternal grandparents can sue, if the mother is under 18.

Which would mean suing their own daughter...

Read this carefully, so you'll get a grasp.

This procedure is never elective. A woman does not have this done for the hell of it. It is not a nose job. It is not a boob job. It's not even a goddamn tubal ligation. It is a procedure which is only ever done if the fetus is not viable or if the mother's life or health is in danger.

In short, it's about as far removed from an early term abortion as Fred Phelps is from the teachings of Jesus. Got it?

Oh well don't say never. These types of procedures make up 10% of abortions, and probably...75-80% of them are for health reasons.

I'd say maybe 20% are those who decide late, don't know they're pregnant, or just have really changed circumstances that require that kind of procedure.

So maybe...2-3% of abortions are late term abortions out of choice. Infrequent, but not never.

Except for the fact that the actual case was irrelevant because I was citing a decision, not a specific case.

except when you say things like "Casey had to do with partial birth abortions" or "the ruling in this case found acceptable something that was described as an undue burden in Casey"

Which are just entirely wrong. How am I supposed to know that you didn't mean Casey and meant some entirely other case.

I'm not able to deduce that somehow you meant Stenberg when you are obviously having some factual issues...

and even if I did know you meant Stenberg you're STILL wrong as Stenberg is very distinguishable, and made clear in the opinion of this very case.

So maybe...2-3% of abortions are late term abortions out of choice. Infrequent, but not never.
I've never heard of a case where it was purely elective, largely because most states have some sort of restrictions on third trimester abortions as it is. They've just always had health exceptions. Now, one might argue that the doctor performing the procedure has stretched the definition of "danger to the health of the mother," but I'm in no position to question that doctor's diagnosis.

You're so predictable I could almost set a watch by you. :p

You did exactly what I knew you would, try to bat away my references rather than face them. How, exactly, was I dishonestly presenting my source? I opently indicated that I was quoting from an npr article, I even included the quote and the name of the speaker in the link, which linked directly to the article itself. What part of that progression did you find dishonest?

Maybe I need to be even more pedantic. Ok so you demanded a quote to support my assertion that the medical community has indicated that partial birth abortions aren't medically necessary.

So I went and got you two. One from C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General of the United States. Now, suspecting that you might try to refute it by either calling him a pro-lifer or by trying to attack the source page, I went lokoing for another, preferably quoted from a source you'd be more likely to trust. I find an article on the npr site where they quoted the statement you see in my post. The quote indicates a volume of testimony given by the medical community supporting my assertion.

...or were you guys actually confused my my rhetorical "let's ask npr..." I thought y'all were smarter than that!:)

Question: And I don't mean this as a flame I'm just trying to clear away the BS and get down to brass tacks: Are you such a coward that you can't face my argument directly and instead try and resort to this drivel?

I've debated with you before and often I've seen you beaten in a stand-up logic battle where you try running around setting up strawmen and misdirections just as fast as you can to try and regain moral superiority.

I'll indulge you no further. Either deal with my argument directly or ignore me from here on. I'll waste no more of my time on you.

Holy shit. You really think that NPR quoting a Republican congressman is the same as NPR AGREEING with the congressman. You didn't quote NPR. You quoted Congressman Chabot, whose words were themselves quoted on NPR. THat does NOT mean that NPR agrees with the congressman.

Jocabia wants you to quote the AMA. The American Medical Association. Not C. Everett Koop. Why not him? Because he was a political appointee. He lost his objectivity the moment he accepted that post. Where's the peer-reviewed research that backs up your assertion that the procedure is NEVER medically necessary? That's all Jocabia is asking, and when you feinted with a quoted congressman and claimed it was NPR's words, you deceived -- or lamely tried to, anyway.

Look, son, you lose, okay? If you don't understand why, that's not our problem. Give us a medical journal supporting your assertion or admit that it's horseshit.

Holy shit. You really think that NPR quoting a Republican congressman is the same as NPR AGREEING with the congressman. You didn't quote NPR. You quoted Congressman Chabot, whose words were themselves quoted on NPR. THat does NOT mean that NPR agrees with the congressman.

Jocabia wants you to quote the AMA. The American Medical Association. Not C. Everett Koop. Why not him? Because he was a political appointee. He lost his objectivity the moment he accepted that post. Where's the peer-reviewed research that backs up your assertion that the procedure is NEVER medically necessary? That's all Jocabia is asking, and when you feinted with a quoted congressman and claimed it was NPR's words, you deceived -- or lamely tried to, anyway.

Look, son, you lose, okay? If you don't understand why, that's not our problem. Give us a medical journal supporting your assertion or admit that it's horseshit.

I wouldn't even mind if he gave us a Koop article from a medical journal--at least it would have been peer-reviewed.

Read this carefully, so you'll get a grasp.

This procedure is never elective. A woman does not have this done for the hell of it. It is not a nose job. It is not a boob job. It's not even a goddamn tubal ligation. It is a procedure which is only ever done if the fetus is not viable or if the mother's life or health is in danger.

In short, it's about as far removed from an early term abortion as Fred Phelps is from the teachings of Jesus. Got it?

I read it carefully, now it's your turn.

"This Procedure" is not. If you want to argue that late term abortions are sometimes medically necessary, I won't disagree. Admittedly when I first came to this thread today I didn't know there was an alternative late term procedure. Since I learned that, I've been careful to clearly indicate that I am refering exclusively to the partial birth abortion procedure.

The fact is, according to expert testimony as well as statements made by C Everett Koop, partial birth abortions are never medically necessary.

I'll take their word for it over anybody's here.

except when you say things like "Casey had to do with partial birth abortions" or "the ruling in this case found acceptable something that was described as an undue burden in Casey"

Which are just entirely wrong. How am I supposed to know that you didn't mean Casey and meant some entirely other case.

I'm not able to deduce that somehow you meant Stenberg when you are obviously having some factual issues...

and even if I did know you meant Stenberg you're STILL wrong as Stenberg is very distinguishable, and made clear in the opinion of this very case.
If you read the article, you would have known what I was referring to, if not specifically. And, Stenberg may be distinguishable, but the similarity is there. But since you like to ride around on your high horse, go ahead, I'm done with you.

I've never heard of a case where it was purely elective, largely because most states have some sort of restrictions on third trimester abortions as it is. They've just always had health exceptions. Now, one might argue that the doctor performing the procedure has stretched the definition of "danger to the health of the mother," but I'm in no position to question that doctor's diagnosis.

I'm sure it happens, every now and again. Would only make sense if every now and then it occurs.

First off, while I don't think it's moral I do think that abortion should be legal. BUT! Do you really need to yank it out half-way before you kill it? I mean, isn't there a way to finish the job before you yank it out?

40th, yes 40th trimester abortions should also be legal for no other reason than I really hate 8 year old kids.

Negative. This procedure is never medically necessary.

Yet the LAW ITSELF provides for the possibility of it being medically necessary by allowing medical board reviews of procedures. You can't have "never" and "possible" in the same logical statement, let alone a piece of legislation.

Try again.

I've been careful to clearly indicate that I am refering exclusively to the partial birth abortion procedure.

Be even more careful, since some folks, including the court in Stenberg used the term "partial birth abortion" to mean "late term abortion".

If you wish to be technically correct, use the term D&X abortion, dilation and extraction, rather than D&E, dilation and evacuation, which is still legal.

Yet the LAW ITSELF provides for the possibility of it being medically necessary by allowing medical board reviews of procedures. You can't have "never" and "possible" in the same logical statement, let alone a piece of legislation.

Try again.

I don't know. I don't see this as really a problem. Or at least, not as big of one as others do.

Frankly, while I disagree with the sentiment of the bill, at least they were smart enough to create a fall back. Sort of a "This bill is passed in accordance with our view that it is never medically necessary...but JUST IN CASE we're wrong..."

No, the language was kind of convoluted but that's not what it said.

It meant the woman's husband can sue, if the woman is over 18, OR the woman's parents, if she is under 18. I read that too the first time and went "huh?" but the "under 18" means that the child's maternal grandparents can sue, if the mother is under 18.

Which would mean suing their own daughter...


Ok, that makes more sense, and takes care of my "legal guardian" whatnot.

But on the other hand, the whole "the father who sticks around has a joint claim on the fetus" issue still stands.

If the fetus is considered a human, then not only is it entitled to all human rights making the abortion issue moot, but is also subject to the fact that both parents have joint custody and joint guardianship over the child.

But even if the fetus isn't considered a human, then as a tangible, physical thing, that makes the fetus joint property. A little scary taken to it's extrapolated conclusion, but unavoidable nonetheless. By legal definition, a tangible thing falls in two categories: people, and property. There is no limbo "middle ground" between the two.

So if a fetus is considered property, then it falls under the laws of jointly held possessions, again assuming the father has not rescinded his rights to the property by walking out on the mother. So if the mom goes ahead and gets an abortion without consulting her husband and getting his approval on the subject, for all intents and purposes it would be the same as if the wife forged her husband's signature and cleaned out the bank account while he was at work. The money belongs to them both; but both signatures are needed. If one party takes it without the consent of the other, it's considered stealing, and the party wronged can sue for damages....which seems to be the motive being the husband-suing-wife clause in the ruling.

Again, I don't speak out of antagonism, so responses in kind are appreciated. It's kind of sad that I have to put this after every post, but I truly feel that if I didn't, I'd somehow be in the middle of a massive crossfire.

First off, while I don't think it's moral I do think that abortion should be legal. BUT! Do you really need to yank it out half-way before you kill it? I mean, isn't there a way to finish the job before you yank it out?

Yes...dilation and evacuation procedures, which are still quite legal.

The question is ever any medical reason where the risk of complications is reduced by doing the now banned dilation and extraction, rather than the still legal dilation and evacuation?

SCOTUS didn't think so.

Holy shit. You really think that NPR quoting a Republican congressman is the same as NPR AGREEING with the congressman. You didn't quote NPR. You quoted Congressman Chabot, whose words were themselves quoted on NPR. THat does NOT mean that NPR agrees with the congressman.

Jocabia wants you to quote the AMA. The American Medical Association. Not C. Everett Koop. Why not him? Because he was a political appointee. He lost his objectivity the moment he accepted that post. Where's the peer-reviewed research that backs up your assertion that the procedure is NEVER medically necessary? That's all Jocabia is asking, and when you feinted with a quoted congressman and claimed it was NPR's words, you deceived -- or lamely tried to, anyway.

Look, son, you lose, okay? If you don't understand why, that's not our problem. Give us a medical journal supporting your assertion or admit that it's horseshit.

You're neither my mother nor my father, so do not call me "son."

If you misunderstood why I used an article from npr don't blame me, you're just falling in behind Jocabia's hysteria. I NEVER claimed those were npr's words. When I said "let's ask npr" I was being rhetorical. You're either smart enough to ubderstand that or you aren't. The only way you could think I was attributing that quote directly to npr is if you didn't bother with the link (probably the case) but that's not my fault I posted it right there for everybody to see. (Including the name of the speaker right there in the link.) I don't need to be dishonest. Apparently some of you do.

Admit it, why don't you? Jocabia demanded links so I gave him links. You can't refute them so you're trying this sideways BS coward argument to avoid facing it. he wanted proof that the medical community has stated the procedure isn't necessary and I got it. His lame tactic to try and bluff me down backfired and you can't stand it. I linked to an npr site that had the relevant information. That's all I did. That's all I claimed to do. Your accusation is baseless and weak and if that's the best you've got in the way of a response for those links, then you've lost the debate and now you want someone to coddle you and wipe your nose.

Not gonna be me. Now grow up and deal with it.

If you read the article, you would have known what I was referring to, if not specifically.

I've read the article. In fact I've read each and every opinion on the subject. I have read them all.

And, Stenberg may be distinguishable, but the similarity is there.

You do know the legal relevance of being distinguishable right? That word has a very important meaning in law.

Yet the LAW ITSELF provides for the possibility of it being medically necessary by allowing medical board reviews of procedures. You can't have "never" and "possible" in the same logical statement, let alone a piece of legislation.

Try again.

They are providing a mechanism by which things could change in the future if necessary. I find that very wise of them. Tell me, in your perfect world are all laws 100% rigid and inflexible?

Bah now I'm repeating myself. RTFF I have better things to do than do your thinking for you.

No, you're wrong. that's the point. There are two forms of "late term" abortion. The "partial birth" one where the baby is removed, feet first, save for the head, which is then either crushed or deflated, and the fetus removed.

The second one involves basically breaking the fetus into little tiny pieces in the womb and vacuum sucking it out.

The first is now banned. THe second is not.

Both are performed in the same time frame, both with the same results. While the first procedure is easier and somewhat less physically traumatic, there has been great debate as to whether it is EVER necessary.

This is the entire argument. This is the entire POINT. Casey said no undue burden on abortion. That has not changed. The court found, that since there exists a SECOND procedure, not at all covered by this law, and perfectly legal, that restricting ONE form while allowing ANOTHER form was not an undue burden.

They came to this conclusion because they felt there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that there really are any occurences when the first option is viable, but the second is not. Therefore they said no undue burden as the second option remaind, while, while it is a bit more physical traumatic, does not present an undue burden on the woman.

They also said that should it be found out that, in fact, it DOES cause an undue burden, which they were not convinced it would based on the evidence before them, that they would revist it.

The fact that a second procedure exists is the ONLY thing that actually made this constitutional.

My god, you're arguing the validity of a ruling without knowing the fundamental factual basis on which that ruling was reached.

see folks, THIS is what I am talking about when I bitch about armchair lawyers. How can you POSSIBLY even ATTEMPT to argue the validity of this decision when you aren't even aware of the fact that a second option exists, the presence of which was the FUNDAMENTAL point of this entire ruling?

Without understanding that fact, the whole judgement makes absolutly no sense.

THREAD WINNER.

But even if the fetus isn't considered a human, then as a tangible, physical thing, that makes the fetus joint property. A little scary taken to it's extrapolated conclusion, but unavoidable nonetheless. By legal definition, a tangible thing falls in two categories: people, and property. There is no limbo "middle ground" between the two.

It's...hrm...not that simple. There are gray areas. For instance, and used purely as example...animals. Animals are property in a legal sense, but I can't do with them as I please. I can buy a picture and hang it on my wall. I can't so much do that to my cat.

The civil action, which i don't agree with by the way, allows for claims of emotional distress as a result of the "lost child" so to speak. I don't like it, but their argument is that if ones wife goes off and has an abortion, that might cause distress on the husband.

Now, however, she has the right to the abortion, so he can just live with his distress, nothing to do about it, because you can't penalize someone for exercizing their constitutional rights. However, if it's held she has no right to THIS procedure, and does it anyway, and causes him distress, he can recover, because she didn't have the right to undergo that particular procedure.

Not sure if this makes sense...let me try it this way. For some odd reason the constitution is amended to say that it is constitutional to kill your cat by cutting its head off with a sword.

You and I own a cat together. You love this cat. You look forward to this cat. You want a long life with this cat. I then go and cut its head off with a sword, causing you great grief.

Nothing you can do about that, since I have the constitutional right to cut its head off with a sword.

But we get another cat, and with this cat I fire it out of a cannon, causing you, once again, great grief, and swearing never to co-own a pet with me. I never had the right to fire that cat out of a cannon, and as such, you can sue me for that grief I caused you.

Very simplistic version, but hope that makes sense.

It's...hrm...not that simple. There are gray areas. For instance, and used purely as example...animals. Animals are property in a legal sense, but I can't do with them as I please. I can buy a picture and hang it on my wall. I can't so much do that to my cat.

The civil action, which i don't agree with by the way, allows for claims of emotional distress as a result of the "lost child" so to speak. I don't like it, but their argument is that if ones wife goes off and has an abortion, that might cause distress on the husband.

Now, however, she has the right to the abortion, so he can just live with his distress, nothing to do about it, because you can't penalize someone for exercizing their constitutional rights. However, if it's held she has no right to THIS procedure, and does it anyway, and causes him distress, he can recover, because she didn't have the right to undergo that particular procedure.

Not sure if this makes sense...let me try it this way. For some odd reason the constitution is amended to say that it is constitutional to kill your cat by cutting its head off with a sword.

You and I own a cat together. You love this cat. You look forward to this cat. You want a long life with this cat. I then go and cut its head off with a sword, causing you great grief.

Nothing you can do about that, since I have the constitutional right to cut its head off with a sword.

But we get another cat, and with this cat I fire it out of a cannon, causing you, once again, great grief, and swearing never to co-own a pet with me. I never had the right to fire that cat out of a cannon, and as such, you can sue me for that grief I caused you.

Very simplistic version, but hope that makes sense.

I particularly liked the mental image of a cat being fired from the barrell of a cannon. Arthais, you made my day :D

Actually, I've had a moment and searched the medical journals myself. You have to sign up for a membership with JAMA, but here's the links anyway. It takes a few minutes to register as a guest and it's free.

Characteristics of Women Who Have Late Abortions

Women who have late abortions often are disadvantaged. Teenagers, especially those younger than 15 years, and women of minority status disproportionately have late abortions.3 Many of these patients either do not suspect the pregnancy or attempt to conceal it until the pregnancy becomes evident. Menstrual irregularity is an important risk factor.10 Women with irregular menses often discover late that they are pregnant. Other risk factors include young age, low educational attainment, having had a sexually transmitted disease, and ambivalence about the decision to abort.11 Thus, many of the factors associated with late abortions are not easily changed.

Women seeking late abortions are often disadvantaged in other ways, such as lack of knowledge about options, lack of money to pay for the procedure, lack of transportation to a provider, and alcohol or other drug dependence.

Geography poses yet another barrier: more than 80% of US counties do not have an abortion provider. Providers of late abortion are even more scarce. In 1993, only 13% of US abortion providers offered abortions at 21 weeks, and the cost averaged more than $1000.12

Indications for Late Abortion
Late abortions are fundamentally important to women's reproductive health.1 Antenatal fetal diagnosis, such as maternal -fetoprotein screening and amniocentesis, is predicated on the availability of induced abortion. Although techniques such as chorionic villus sampling and early amniocentesis have allowed earlier diagnosis, by the time results of midtrimester amniocentesis or ultrasound are available, a woman may be beyond 20 weeks' gestation.13

Ironically, the availability of late abortion is pronatalist. About 98% of women who undergo genetic screening receive reassuring news.14 Without the availability of prenatal diagnosis with abortion as an option, many of these women would not have become pregnant or would have aborted all pregnancies that occurred.15 As noted by Cook,16 "Macroethical reasons favouring legal abortion in such circumstances rest on the potential to do greater good than harm in the community, and reveal the positive, life-affirming aspects of legally available abortion services."

Illnesses of women and fetal anomalies lead to requests for late abortions. Late abortion can be lifesaving for women with medical disorders aggravated by pregnancy.17 Conditions such as Eisenmenger syndrome carry a high risk of maternal morbidity and mortality in pregnancy, the latter ranging from 20% to 30%.18 In recent years, I have performed late abortions for a Kampuchean refugee with craniopagus conjoined twins and a 25-year-old woman with a 9 x 15-cm thoracic aortic aneurysm from newly diagnosed Marfan syndrome. Cancer sometimes makes late abortion necessary. For example, either radical hysterectomy or radiation therapy for cervical cancer before fetal viability involves abortion.

Incest and rape are other compelling indications. Pregnancies resulting from incest among young teenagers or among women with mental handicaps may escape detection until the pregnancy is advanced. Approximately 32000 pregnancies result from rape each year in the United States; about half of rape victims receive no medical attention, and about one third do not discover the pregnancy until the second trimester.19
Source (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/8/747)


There's also some interesting info on the definition of late term abortion.

Anyway, that's from a peer review journal. So the info is out there.

Edit:Keep in mind this is an article on all late term abortions, not just the D&X

Edit #2: I forgot the conclusion.
Conclusions


As noted by Macklin,27 "The three leading principles of bioethics—respect for persons, beneficence and justice—together provide an ethical mandate for guaranteeing to women throughout the world a legal right to safe abortion." This mandate is especially important for the immature, disadvantaged, and often seriously ill women requesting late abortions in the United States. Regardless of political views on abortion, the scientific evidence is clear and incontrovertible: legal abortion, including late abortion, has been a resounding public health success.

Early abortion is safer, simpler, and less controversial than late abortion. Improving sex education, promoting access to safe and effective contraception, and removing economic and geographic barriers to early abortion can help to reduce the number of late abortions. This is a goal around which there should be broad consensus. Nevertheless, as experience has revealed,3 the need for late abortion will not disappear. Hence, our continuing responsibility as physicians and as a society is to ensure that these procedures are as safe, comfortable, and compassionate as possible. Women deserve no less from their physicians.

Ha. So now all poor people own these things? Hmmmm... I challenge you to prove it.

Next, I challenge you to show that such a trip, including the trauma of the procedure and then riding a bus for a couple of hours afterward, the cost of the trip, the cost of missing the day of work, is uneffected. You did say this would have no effect. Support your claim.

I said I believe that the upholding the law that would ban this one proceedure would have no effect. I don't recall saying reversing ROE would have no effect. But overturning Roe would not stop anyone from having an abortion...not a single one. So please keep living the fantasy that it will--NARAL and PP need you and people like you to keep their coffers filled.

Here's another (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/8/744) specifically dealing with the D&X.

I'm only posting the conclusion. No extract available.
Conclusions
Medical professionals have an obligation to thoughtfully consider the medical and ethical issues surrounding pregnancy termination, particularly with respect to intact D&X and late-term abortions. Having done so, we conclude the following: (1) Intact D&X (partial-birth abortion) should not be performed because it is needlessly risky, inhumane, and ethically unacceptable. This procedure is closer to infanticide than it is to abortion. (2) Abortions in the periviable period (currently 23 weeks) and beyond should be considered unethical, unless the fetus has a condition incompatible with prolonged survival or if the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy. (3) If a maternal medical condition in the periviable period indicates pregnancy termination, the physician should wait, if the medical condition permits, until fetal survival is probable and then proceed with delivery. Such medical decisions must be individualized.

Physicians must preserve their role as healing, compassionate, caring professionals, while recognizing their ethical obligation to care for both the woman and the unborn child. In July 1997, the ACOG Executive Board supplemented its policy on abortion toward this end, stating, "ACOG is opposed to abortion of the healthy fetus that has attained viability in a healthy woman."36

We hope that with thoughtful discussions regarding specific issues such as those considered in this article, the opposing forces in the ongoing, stagnant abortion debate will find middle ground on which most can agree. The question is often asked, "But who should decide?" Ultimately, at least in the United States, the public will decide. The results of an August 1997 national poll showed public opinion firmly in the camp of "drawing a line" on abortion rights, with 61% believing that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances, and 22% defending the legality of abortion under any circumstances.37 Society will not continence infanticide. According to Boston University ethicist and health law professor George Annas, JD, MPH, Americans see "a distinction between first trimester and second trimester abortions. The law doesn't, but people do. And rightfully so."38 He explained that after approximately 20 weeks, the American public sees a baby. The American public's vision of this may be much clearer than that of some of the physicians involved.

Edit: If anyone doesn't want to register, TG me with your email. I'll send you the full text.

Reading is not your strong suit, huh?

Cordially disagreeing with someone is not your strong suit, huh?

I said I believe that the upholding the law that would ban this one proceedure would have no effect. I don't recall saying reversing ROE would have no effect. But overturning Roe would not stop anyone from having an abortion...not a single one. So please keep living the fantasy that it will--NARAL and PP need you and people like you to keep their coffers filled.

I think we've already shown pretty conclusively that overturning or reversing Roe would make abortions illegal in Illinois, and that the women who have reasonable access to them would no longer have that access. The chances, then, that overturning Roe would stop at least one Illinois woman from having an abortion approach certainty pretty fucking quickly.

You do realize that abortion was not legal prior to Roe v. Wade, don't you? Just making sure, because I need to avoid whatever you're ingesting that takes you to your special fantasy world.

Actually abortion was legal before Roe in some states. It was illegal in Texas where the case orginated from. What Roe did was make null and void all laws on abortion from the most restrictive such as in Mississippi to the most liberal such as California that basically had abortion on demand with no limits at all and replace them with a national standard put in place under Roe.

So perhaps you are the one that needs to come out of fantasy land.

I wasn't arguing the ruling; at no point did I ever argue the ruling in my previous post. Perhaps I extrapolated the perceived response a little too much; but the gist - which, by the way, can easily be seen in this thread - was that a lot of people would be very upset over the ruling handed down saying that this particular procedure cannot be performed anymore unless under certain rare circumstances.

With that said, my original question still stand: why would a woman want to keep her pregnancy long enough that the only option left is late-term abortion, when early-trimester abortion involves so much less risk?

Like I said, I don't agree with the practice in general. But aside from my views, if a woman is going to abort her child, why wait? Why not just get it over with, in the earlier trimester? That's what doesn't make much logical sense to me - if anyone wants to provide an explanation without the use of antagonistic language, please do.

Okay, since nobody else bit, I will.

You seem to be saying that women are choosing to have abortions in the third trimester because they, I don't know, didn't want to earlier or the feng shui was wrong or whatever. Not so. Elective abortions are generally done within the first trimester, as early as possible. Someone bringing a fetus into the third trimester is either one of those oddities that never knew they were pregnant or fully intended to bring the baby to term.

Third trimester abortions, then, aren't whim-decision things. They're only considered when the life (and until just now, the health) of the mother is in danger due to the pregnancy itself or form complications of birth (I'd guess eclampsia might be an example, I'm not deep into obstetrics) or the fetus will not be viable once brought to term (i.e. will die soon after birth, anencephaly is a possible example), and for a few more reasons I'm not up on.

Does that answer your question?

Okay, since nobody else bit, I will.

You seem to be saying that women are choosing to have abortions in the third trimester because they, I don't know, didn't want to earlier or the feng shui was wrong or whatever. Not so. Elective abortions are generally done within the first trimester, as early as possible. Someone bringing a fetus into the third trimester is either one of those oddities that never knew they were pregnant or fully intended to bring the baby to term.

Third trimester abortions, then, aren't whim-decision things. They're only considered when the life (and until just now, the health) of the mother is in danger due to the pregnancy itself or form complications of birth (I'd guess eclampsia might be an example, I'm not deep into obstetrics) or the fetus will not be viable once brought to term (i.e. will die soon after birth, anencephaly is a possible example), and for a few more reasons I'm not up on.

Does that answer your question?
Can't we just agree with the research put forth by the AMA? It's both.

the fact that YOU of all people are criticizing ANYONES legal analysis is irony in the extreme.

I've yet to see you get a single legal argument right.

Legal anylsis is just that. An analysis of what one perceives to be. Just because I have a different analysis than you or anyone else does not mean that my analysis is wrong.

I've been analysizing many different things from politics down to sports to movies. I have different analysis than most. Hell I have several friends of mine who believe I could actually be a national sports analyist because I'm that good at it.

When it comes to law, it is all a matter of interpretation. You and I have different interpretation and that is a healthy thing. If everyone agreed on an interpretionation then I would be really really worried.

My interpretation is different but is no less valid than those that went to law school. To say otherwise is very shortsighted.

So shut the fuck up on analysizing. Its never a perfect art and people WILL DISAGREE with your interpretation. That does not make their interpretation wrong. So grow up and recognize the different interpretations.

-snip-

While your analogy helps me to understand the matter a bit more thoroughly as it relates to what the grounds for suing the wife would be, it brings up the question of hierarchy of rights.

As it's widely know, women are allowed to have abortions, because it's been deemed thier consitutional right. I don't agree with abortion, but regardless of my views, this right is in place. Conceded.

However, a person also has the right to protection of property, in not so many words. No one can steal my money; it's mine. No one can just take off in my car; it's mine. Using your own analogies of animals, if I'm a rancher with a 50% claim on our stable of horses, nothing can be done with those horses unless I approve, because they are my property along with whoever has the other 50% claim on them.

In the case of a fetus, or child, or whatever you want to call it, while the right to have abortion simply whenever the mother chooses would be fine if the child was solely hers, that fact of the matter is, it's not. It is co-owned by the husband. Which *should* make his approval for any decisions regarding the child to be mandatory. However, this isn't really the case.

Which brings me to my question: why does a wife's right to have abortion trump a husband's right to have a say in what happens to property he has a claim on? Again, I don't speak/ask antagonistically - I ask out of curiousity regarding an apparent constitutional hierarchy of rights.

Legal anylsis is just that. An analysis of what one perceives to be. Just because I have a different analysis than you or anyone else does not mean that my analysis is wrong.

I've been analysizing many different things from politics down to sports to movies. I have different analysis than most. Hell I have several friends of mine who believe I could actually be a national sports analyist because I'm that good at it.

When it comes to law, it is all a matter of interpretation. You and I have different interpretation and that is a healthy thing. If everyone agreed on an interpretionation then I would be really really worried.

My interpretation is different but is no less valid than those that went to law school. To say otherwise is very shortsighted.

So shut the fuck up on analysizing. Its never a perfect art and people WILL DISAGREE with your interpretation. That does not make their interpretation wrong. So grow up and recognize the different interpretations.

Those are very nearly unintentionally funny enough to sig.

Actually abortion was legal before Roe in some states. It was illegal in Texas where the case orginated from. What Roe did was make null and void all laws on abortion from the most restrictive such as in Mississippi to the most liberal such as California that basically had abortion on demand with no limits at all and replace them with a national standard put in place under Roe.


Um...buh? I was unaware that the supreme court could create national standard like this. I thought that in matters like this they could only rule if restriction are constitutional or not.

Silly me, guess the court does make law....

1) Because her pregnancy developed badly and now poses a health risk to her
2) because she lost her job and with it her insurance
3) because her spouse lost his/her job and she now needs to work harder to support them and can't afford the child
4) becauser her spouse got hurt and she now needs to dedicate time to taking care of him/her and not a child
5) because later genetic testings revealed that her child would have a severe disability and she doesn't want to have to raise it
6) because she had planned on giving the child up for adoption but the prospective adoptive parents backed out, and she doesnt want to give it to an orphanage
7) because she got a promotion at work and will no longer have time to care for the child like she hoped she would
8) because her marriage fell apart and is ending in a divorce and she doesn't want to be a single mother
9) because her spouse died and she doesn't want to be a single mother
10) because she changed her mind

There, 10 reasons, off the top of my head. You want any more?

1) yes
2) adoption
3) adoption
4) adoption
5) depends on the defect, but yes/adoption
6) weak reason -- adoption is still an option, even if some time in foster care is necessary to find another set of suitable parents
7) exceedingly lame reason -- adoption
8) adoption
9) adoption
10) adoption

Most of these reasons are painfully threadbare. I'm pro-choice, but I can't believe most of these reasons are cited as why a late-term abortion was performed. However, I'm not certain of how I could back that assertion up, so that leads me to belive that, sadly, you're probably right.

That's the thing--this ruling upholds a law which removes the health of the mother exception.
ah no.. Unfortunately this is not a third trimester later term, post viability ban. It's only a specific procedure ban. IDE or Partial-birth abortion. So there really would be no reason for one anyway.

Either way, it's a step in the right and civilized direction.

Then don't have one. :)

I'm male so no worries :D

In the case of a fetus, or child, or whatever you want to call it, while the right to have abortion simply whenever the mother chooses would be fine if the child was solely hers, that fact of the matter is, it's not. It is co-owned by the husband. Which *should* make his approval for any decisions regarding the child to be mandatory. However, this isn't really the case.

Which brings me to my question: why does a woman's right to have abortion trump a man's right to dictate what happens to property he has a claim on? Again, I don't speak/ask antagonistically - I ask out of curiousity regarding an apparent constitutional hierarchy of rights.

Here's the thing--you don't own your kids. You are responsible for them. If you owned them, you would be able to sell them, yes? But slavery is outlawed, so the ownership analogy fails here. What's more, as long as the fetus is inside the mother, it is a part of her body. So to claim ownership of the fetus is to claim ownership of the mother. Do you own her, even in part? Not a chance. That's why this is a choice for the mother and only for the mother.

1) yes
2) adoption
3) adoption
4) adoption
5) depends on the defect, but yes/adoption
6) weak reason -- adoption is still an option, even if some time in foster care is necessary to find another set of suitable parents
7) exceedingly lame reason -- adoption
8) adoption
9) adoption
10) adoption

Most of these reasons are painfully threadbare. I'm pro-choice, but I can't believe most of these reasons are cited as why a late-term abortion was performed. However, I'm not certain of how I could back that assertion up, so that leads me to belive that, sadly, you're probably right.

But you miss my point ENTIRELY. So what if these reasons are threadbare? They don't have to be anything else. I was asked for reasons why a woman would want to abort late term.

I gave 10.

You might not agree with those reasons, or hold them yourself, but they're there.

Incidentally Corny, congratulations on your engagement. I tried to respond to the thread you started but Jolt was screwed up and wouldn't let me log on. :)

Thank you kindly RLI :)

Corneliu, take a step back from the computer and pause before you post from now on. If you don't get these personal attacks out of your posts, we'll put a stop to it for you.

Yes, you're a conservative in a board full of liberals. Yes, some of them are baiting you. When you respond to the bait, YOU get in trouble. Clear?

And yet, flamebaiting is also against the rules.

You're neither my mother nor my father, so do not call me "son."

If you misunderstood why I used an article from npr don't blame me, you're just falling in behind Jocabia's hysteria. I NEVER claimed those were npr's words. When I said "let's ask npr" I was being rhetorical. You're either smart enough to ubderstand that or you aren't. The only way you could think I was attributing that quote directly to npr is if you didn't bother with the link (probably the case) but that's not my fault I posted it right there for everybody to see. (Including the name of the speaker right there in the link.) I don't need to be dishonest. Apparently some of you do.

Admit it, why don't you? Jocabia demanded links so I gave him links. You can't refute them so you're trying this sideways BS coward argument to avoid facing it. he wanted proof that the medical community has stated the procedure isn't necessary and I got it. His lame tactic to try and bluff me down backfired and you can't stand it. I linked to an npr site that had the relevant information. That's all I did. That's all I claimed to do. Your accusation is baseless and weak and if that's the best you've got in the way of a response for those links, then you've lost the debate and now you want someone to coddle you and wipe your nose.

Not gonna be me. Now grow up and deal with it.

Look, son -- and I will call you whatever I please, so long as you continue to act like someone's eight-year old. C. Everett Koop is to the "medical community" what a pulmonologist who lobbies for Altria is to the American Lung Association. You got no such proof if it comes from an ideologically tainted source. You got one person's non-peer-reviewed OPINION. Got that, kiddo? Opinion.

I'm male so no worries :D

Time will tell. :)

My comments in this post, again, are not meant antagonistically; I'm simply trying to get my head around the logistics of the matter. With that said:

Here's the thing--you don't own your kids. You are responsible for them. If you owned them, you would be able to sell them, yes? But slavery is outlawed, so the ownership analogy fails here.

As it's legally defined (although hotly debated by many, including me), a fetus is not considered a human being. If it was, then of course abortion would be murder; but because it's not, questions of slavery/ownership are moot, since a non-human definitively has no claim to human rights. Just as with the other analogy, even with animals which are considered a grey area, I legally own them and can sell them, Even though I'm legally responsible for them at the same time.

What's more, as long as the fetus is inside the mother, it is a part of her body. So to claim ownership of the fetus is to claim ownership of the mother.

The fetus is inside the mother, obviously. The fetus, while in my mind a separate entity, is attached to the mother's body nonetheless. I don't argue those points. But the fact of the matter is, without the husband's sperm, it would not be there. The husband is 50% responsible for the fetus's existence, and should therefore have a say in what is done with it.

Aside from that, while the fetus *is* growing in the mother's body, the husband helps take care of that body; he may work at a job to provide money for the food that sustains the wife and thus the child inside, or he may help around the house while his wife works so that she can rest when she gets home. A husband does any number of things to help take care of his wife, and therefore the fetus inside. Obviously you have fathers who run out on their pregnant wives; but as I've said before, in cases like that the father has, IMO, rescinded his rights to have any say in the matter, and although I'm against it, can see the validity of a wife choosing to get an abortion without his consent.

But for husbands that stick around and help take care of their wives, you cannot say that simply because the fetus is in the wife's body that the husband cannot claim any sort of ownership of it, and thus shouldn't have a say in what happens to it.

*sigh*

What a clusterfuck this discussion has been.

Although I strongly disagree with this decision, Arthais is largely correct in his analysis and should be given a medal for his patience in trying to explain the constitutional landscape.

To help intelligent discussion, here is a link to the actual decision: Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380 (U.S. April 18, 2007) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380)

I'll make just a few points:

1. The sky isn't falling. Nothing in this opinion overturns Roe. In fact, the number of votes to overturn Roe in the concurrences is 2 -- less than the three votes in Stenberg and four votes in Casey. Apparently Alito and Roberts aren't following in the footsteps of Rehnquist and Scalia.

2. The decision does stink. The Court defers to Congress's "finding of facts" regarding the necessity and relative safety of "intact D&E" even though the lower courts decided (and the dissent explains) those findings were wrong. The Court essentially says that because there is disagreement in the medical community, Congress can insert its opinion -- even though the weight of medical opinion is to the contrary.

3. The decision does use the "undue burden" test -- but in a way that I think cheapens it and will make it easier to place burdens on abortion rights.

4. Although it pays lip service to the health of the mother exception, the Court essentially jetisons it by saying that Congress can decide an "intact D&E" is never necessary -- despite the weight of experty opinion to the contrary.

5. In many ways, this decision isn't shocking. 3 things changed between this holding and Stenberg: 1) the law in question was much more narrowly written (in fact, it has holes you could dribe a truck through), 2) Congress made finding of facts that the Nebraska legislature hadn't done, and, most importantly, 3) O'Connor left the Court and was replaced by the more conservative Alito.

You're neither my mother nor my father, so do not call me "son."

If you misunderstood why I used an article from npr don't blame me, you're just falling in behind Jocabia's hysteria. I NEVER claimed those were npr's words. When I said "let's ask npr" I was being rhetorical. You're either smart enough to ubderstand that or you aren't. The only way you could think I was attributing that quote directly to npr is if you didn't bother with the link (probably the case) but that's not my fault I posted it right there for everybody to see. (Including the name of the speaker right there in the link.) I don't need to be dishonest. Apparently some of you do.

Admit it, why don't you? Jocabia demanded links so I gave him links. You can't refute them so you're trying this sideways BS coward argument to avoid facing it. he wanted proof that the medical community has stated the procedure isn't necessary and I got it. His lame tactic to try and bluff me down backfired and you can't stand it. I linked to an npr site that had the relevant information. That's all I did. That's all I claimed to do. Your accusation is baseless and weak and if that's the best you've got in the way of a response for those links, then you've lost the debate and now you want someone to coddle you and wipe your nose.

Not gonna be me. Now grow up and deal with it.

In addition to not actually giving any proof at all that the medical community supports the claims of the old congress, now You're just plain lying. What Jocabia demanded was this -

Second, your claim about the medical community saying its never necessary. I'll tell you what. Since the medical community claims this, you will find the AMA denouncing it no? Let's see it. Go ahead. Provide a link.

Hmmmm... I asked for evidence that the medical community, not politicians and specifically requested you show the medical community's representative, the AMA, agreeing with you. You presented two politicians.

I made this request in response to your claim that your belief is supported by the medical community. Something you've done everything BUT support.

How about the former Surgeon-General of the United States? (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact11.html)

Don't like him because he's too pro-life for you? Alrighty. Let's go ask npr. I bet you'll love those guys:

"We had extensive medical testimony indicating that a partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary, and, in fact, is actually oftentimes harmful to the woman. And that's the reason we did not include a health exception," Chabot said. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6424425)

Amusingly, you even state openly that I wouldn't consider a single pro-life source to be an accurate sources so instead you offer up NPR. Now, you just simply lie and pretend you didn't suggest that your second source wasn't pro-life and was the NPR that I would agree with. The source of that quote wasn't NPR. It was a politician no matter how many times you try and lie and say you were honest about that, you clearly and obviously obscured and you've squirmed around that fact for an entire thread.

These tactics are just sad. Is it really so difficult for you to just have a straight up debate without all of the nonsense of falsely presenting sources or making bizarre claims.

You claim this isn't medically necessary. Then you say you didn't know about alternatives. Then later you admit that late term abortions are sometimes necessary. So what can we conclude from that? You either knew there were alternatives or you knew it was medically necessary. Again. Make an honest argument. You're entitled to your opinion but how do you think it helps the debate to make provably false claims about what your source says or what the medical community thinks or what you think or what you know when you're just contradicting yourself over and over again.

1) yes
2) adoption
3) adoption
4) adoption
5) depends on the defect, but yes/adoption
6) weak reason -- adoption is still an option, even if some time in foster care is necessary to find another set of suitable parents
7) exceedingly lame reason -- adoption
8) adoption
9) adoption
10) adoption

Most of these reasons are painfully threadbare. I'm pro-choice, but I can't believe most of these reasons are cited as why a late-term abortion was performed. However, I'm not certain of how I could back that assertion up, so that leads me to belive that, sadly, you're probably right.

From an old post of mine: Some data suggests the following are the most common reasons for the very, very few cases of late-term abortions:
The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger or greviously damage her health.
The fetus is so malformed that it will never gain consciouness and will die shortly after birth - this is most common due to a severe form of hydrocephalus
The pregnant woman is very young (much more rare)
The pregnancy resulted from rape or incest (much more rare).

Other real-life examples of women who sought late-term abortions:
The 12 year old incest survivor, trying desperately to deny the pregnancy, until someone finally recognizes what's been going on;
The 45 year old woman who thought that she was menopausal, not pregnant;
The mother of two on welfare who faces new welfare rules denying her support for another pregnancy, and the need to feed, house and clothe her children -- who is forced into a later abortion because, denied Medicaid funding for an abortion, she couldn't find the money for this vital medical care any sooner;
The rural woman -- from one of the 90% rural U.S. counties with no abortion provider -- who has to go through hell to even find an abortion provider and then organize the transportation, finances and support system to make the two state-mandated trips to the clinic before she can have an abortion;
The recovering alcoholic, newly sober, who recognizes that she needs to work on her own health before she can become a parent, particularly of a child that may have fetal alcohol syndrome;
The battered woman, who after months of abuse and struggle is finally free of her abuser, and who recognizes that her chance of freedom is short-lived if she continues her pregnancy;
The woman who discovered that the genetic testing she hoped would give her good news about her very-wanted pregnancy instead gave her news that if this same pregnancy continues, her baby is not only doomed, but likely to destroy her future chances for a successful pregnancy; and
The woman whose life is literally on the line from a pregnancy gone horribly wrong.

*sigh*

What a clusterfuck this discussion has been.

Although I strongly disagree with this decision, Arthais is largely correct in his analysis and should be given a medal for his patience in trying to explain the constitutional landscape.

To help intelligent discussion, here is a link to the actual decision: Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380 (U.S. April 18, 2007) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380)

I'll make just a few points:

1. The sky isn't falling. Nothing in this opinion overturns Roe. In fact, the number of votes to overturn Roe in the concurrences is 2 -- less than the three votes in Stenberg and four votes in Casey. Apparently Alito and Roberts aren't following in the footsteps of Rehnquist and Scalia.

2. The decision does stink. The Court defers to Congress's "finding of facts" regarding the necessity and relative safety of "intact D&E" even though the lower courts decided (and the dissent explains) those findings were wrong. The Court essentially says that because there is disagreement in the medical community, Congress can insert its opinion -- even though the weight of medical opinion is to the contrary.

3. The decision does use the "undue burden" test -- but in a way that I think cheapens it and will make it easier to place burdens on abortion rights.

4. Although it pays lip service to the health of the mother exception, the Court essentially jetisons it by saying that Congress can decide an "intact D&E" is never necessary -- despite the weight of experty opinion to the contrary.

5. In many ways, this decision isn't shocking. 3 things changed between this holding and Stenberg: 1) the law in question was much more narrowly written (in fact, it has holes you could dribe a truck through), 2) Congress made finding of facts that the Nebraska legislature hadn't done, and, most importantly, 3) O'Connor left the Court and was replaced by the more conservative Alito.


I still think it's a sham decision to create the illusion of a moral victory. :p

1. The sky isn't falling. Nothing in this opinion overturns Roe. In fact, the number of votes to overturn Roe in the concurrences is 2 -- less than the three votes in Stenberg and four votes in Casey. Apparently Alito and Roberts aren't following in the footsteps of Rehnquist and Scalia.

There is some comfort in that isn't there? It would appear that rehnquist's death and o'connor's departure actually HELPED cement abortion rights in general.

Isn't that rather odd?

2. The decision does stink. The Court defers to Congress's "finding of facts" regarding the necessity and relative safety of "intact D&E" even though the lower courts decided (and the dissent explains) those findings were wrong. The Court essentially says that because there is disagreement in the medical community, Congress can insert its opinion -- even though the weight of medical opinion is to the contrary.

3. The decision does use the "undue burden" test -- but in a way that I think cheapens it and will make it easier to place burdens on abortion rights.

4. Although it pays lip service to the health of the mother exception, the Court essentially jetisons it by saying that Congress can decide an "intact D&E" is never necessary -- despite the weight of experty opinion to the contrary.

We're going to slightly disagree, or rather, agree on procedure, disagree on outcome.

I do think they cheapened the process and weakened the test, and did all sorts of screwy things.

I still think the RESULT, after a lot of deliberation, is the correct one. I just don't see it as an undue burden. Not yet.

5. In many ways, this decision isn't shocking. 3 things changed between this holding and Stenberg: 1) the law in question was much more narrowly written (in fact, it has holes you could dribe a truck through), 2) Congress made finding of facts that the Nebraska legislature hadn't done, and, most importantly, 3) O'Connor left the Court and was replaced by the more conservative Alito.


Oh, I think you're missing big ole honking #4.

The law in Stenberg tried to get rid of D&E procedures as well, not just D&X. To quote O'Connor:

Nebraska’s ban covers not just the dilation and extraction (D&X) procedure, but also the dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure

Now, ok, O'Connor seperated them into two areas, but I really think Stenberg wouldn't have come out the way it did, if it only banned D&X, despite O'Connor's insistance that it was on two seperate grounds.

The fetus is inside the mother, obviously. The fetus, while in my mind a separate entity, is attached to the mother's body nonetheless. I don't argue those points. But the fact of the matter is, without the husband's sperm, it would not be there. The husband is 50% responsible for the fetus's existence, and should therefore have a say in what is done with it.
I'm not trying to be snarky in my reply here, so please don't take it as an attack. For starters, you're making an assumption that the husband is necessarily the father, but that's not always the case, and frankly, that's the reason behind a large number of abortions. And should a woman have to explain that to her husband before she gets an abortion? I'm not comfortable with my government, with any government, getting that intimately involved with my personal relationships. Are you? And what about cases where the paternity is in question? Who gets to make a claim on her body then? The thing is, only the pregnant woman is involved in the actual carrying of the fetus, and therefore, she's the only one responsible for it.



Aside from that, while the fetus *is* growing in the mother's body, the husband helps take care of that body; he may work at a job to provide money for the food that sustains the wife and thus the child inside, or he may help around the house while his wife works so that she can rest when she gets home. A husband does any number of things to help take care of his wife, and therefore the fetus inside. Obviously you have fathers who run out on their pregnant wives; but as I've said before, in cases like that the father has, IMO, rescinded his rights to have any say in the matter, and although I'm against it, can see the validity of a wife choosing to get an abortion without his consent.

But for husbands that stick around and help take care of their wives, you cannot say that simply because the fetus is in the wife's body that the husband cannot claim any sort of ownership of it, and thus shouldn't have a say in what happens to it.
I can say that, and I do, because to back away from that position is to allow one human to exert control over another human's body. Let's reverse the power situation. What if a woman demanded her husband get a vasectomy, because she'd decided she'd had enough kids? Would you support that? Would you turn over control of your reproductive organs to another person to do with as they pleased? I hope not. I certainly wouldn't. So why expect that out of over half the population.

I said I believe that the upholding the law that would ban this one proceedure would have no effect. I don't recall saying reversing ROE would have no effect. But overturning Roe would not stop anyone from having an abortion...not a single one. So please keep living the fantasy that it will--NARAL and PP need you and people like you to keep their coffers filled.

Amusing. You just keep shifting those goalposts. I'm sorry were you hoping we'd pretend not to notice.

As far as you simple claims about my support of NARAL or PP, ad hominems are pretty much worthless in debate. How about you stick to your flawed arguments. At least, they're not fallacious just on the basis of their focus.

If you want to argue that late term abortions are sometimes medically necessary, I won't disagree.

Okay, so you don't disagree that late term abortions are sometimes medically necessary.

Admittedly when I first came to this thread today I didn't know there was an alternative late term procedure.

Hmmm... you didn't know there was an alternative procedure, so just looking at these two statements you believed prior to learning there were alternatives that the procedure from the case was sometimes medically necessary.

The fact that a partial birth abortion is never medically mecessary comes from the medical community

So wait... partial birth abortions are never medically necessary is a fact.

According to you at that moment in time you thought they were the only late-term abortions available.

So here's my question? Were you lying when you said they were never medically necessary or are you lying when you say you weren't aware of alternatives? Because one or the other must be false according to your own claims.

While your analogy helps me to understand the matter a bit more thoroughly as it relates to what the grounds for suing the wife would be, it brings up the question of hierarchy of rights.

As it's widely know, women are allowed to have abortions, because it's been deemed thier consitutional right. I don't agree with abortion, but regardless of my views, this right is in place. Conceded.

However, a person also has the right to protection of property, in not so many words. No one can steal my money; it's mine. No one can just take off in my car; it's mine. Using your own analogies of animals, if I'm a rancher with a 50% claim on our stable of horses, nothing can be done with those horses unless I approve, because they are my property along with whoever has the other 50% claim on them.

In the case of a fetus, or child, or whatever you want to call it, while the right to have abortion simply whenever the mother chooses would be fine if the child was solely hers, that fact of the matter is, it's not. It is co-owned by the husband. Which *should* make his approval for any decisions regarding the child to be mandatory. However, this isn't really the case.

Which brings me to my question: why does a wife's right to have abortion trump a husband's right to have a say in what happens to property he has a claim on? Again, I don't speak/ask antagonistically - I ask out of curiousity regarding an apparent constitutional hierarchy of rights.

Because, quite simply, whatever the fetus may or may not be, the woman's body is quite definitely not her partner's property, and he cannot force her to use it to carry a fetus to term. About all one could even make an argument for him to be able to demand is that the fetus be given to him after it is removed from her body.

Because, quite simply, whatever the fetus may or may not be, the woman's body is quite definitely not her partner's property, and he cannot force her to use it to carry a fetus to term. About all one could even make an argument for him to be able to demand is that the fetus be given to him after it is removed from her body.

Well, technically, if there were a valid argument there, one could argue that the fetus must not be damaged intentionally as a matter of removal. Certainly the cutting of it into peices is damage.

The problem is, I challenge anyone to show where absent the commission of a crime where we allow the right to property to trump the a person's right to make medical decisions.

Who wants to pool money to open an abortion clinic in Canada along the border?

I smell a lot of growth potential in that market...

Anti abortion people (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion), rejoice. You got a decision you wanted.
Oh yeah, they're also apparently smarter than doctors when it comes to this particular medical treatment. Ugh.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Birth_Abortion


Learn what it is than shut it!



Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a non-medical term used to refer to some late-term abortion procedures.[2] In the United States, "Partial-birth abortion" has been legally defined defined by federal statute as any abortion in which the fetus is extracted "past the navel [of the fetus] . . . outside the body of the mother," or "in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," before the fetus is terminated. In 2003, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was signed into law, and in April of 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the law as constitutional in Gonzales v. Carhart.

Forgive me if this isn't the place to post a question like this. It's my first time but, why does only Corneliu get a warning when others (including myself) could be said to have been flaming on this thread, and as you said yourself, others are baiting which, if I understand the rules correctly, is also a violation.

There is a distinction between 'baiting' and 'flamebaiting'. The former is common, and is part of virtually every thread on a serious topic in this forum. It's a common technique used by people of every type and persuasion to post their side in a positive way and put the other side in a bad light, as a way to draw the argument in the direction they want to go.

The latter is a bit harder to define, but it's a combination of the prior technique and directed flaming. Having read only the referenced posts and a few surrounding it, I thought that Corneliu flaming response was out of proportion to the bait that invoked it. Given that I'd seen that tendency in other response of his in other threads, I gave him an in-thread smack on the wrist, which is the mildest of mod warnings.

If you feel you have been unjustly unaccused, by all means report yourself in the mod forum. We'll be glad to warn you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Birth_Abortion


Learn what it is than shut it!

I take it you haven't read the thread and don't really care about actually making an argument.

I take it you haven't read the thread and don't really care about actually making an argument.



The OP is pissed that they upheld the ban on partial birth abortion, I am just opening his eyes so he knows what it is. Maybe if he knew what he was bitching about he might stop bitching about it...Doubt it.


As for my argument, I don't waste my time on people with either no clue or no respect for life. I have done this type of discussion a billion times, people for it never listen so I gave up trying to knock some sense into you people years ago. You live in your little world and I will stay as far away from it as I can.

The OP is pissed that they upheld the ban on partial birth abortion, I am just opening his eyes so he knows what it is. Maybe if he knew what he was bitching about he might stop bitching about it...Doubt it.


As for my argument, I don't waste my time on people with either no clue or no respect for life. I have done this type of discussion a billion times, people for it never listen so I gave up trying to knock some sense into you people years ago. You live in your little world and I will stay as far away from it as I can.

You doubted what you did post would be effectual; you don't waste your time on people like us, in fact you'd given up years ago; and you wish to stay as far as possible from 'our world'.

And yet, you came in and posted here. Why? Some sort of masochistic tendency?

You doubted what you did post would be effectual; you don't waste your time on people like us, in fact you'd given up years ago; and you wish to stay as far as possible from 'our world'.

And yet, you came in and posted here. Why? Some sort of masochistic tendency?

He's probably just frustrated. It's hard to post in these threads and not feel frustration from time to time.

He's probably just frustrated. It's hard to post in these threads and not feel frustration from time to time.

But he just got here. I mean, geez, it usually takes at least a page or two before they go "Screw you guys, I'm done with you" and storm off.

But he just got here. I mean, geez, it usually takes at least a page or two before they go "Screw you guys, I'm done with you" and storm off.

This is true.

I don't know. I'm pro-choice, but I think that the right to an abortion starts getting a bit more iffy once the fetus could actually be born (Even if prematurely.)

Obviously, if the mother's life is in danger, she trumps the baby, and what is done with the fetus is still the mother's choice, but you know...you could have thought of this a month ago, and we wouldn't have this problem. Once again, as I said, if the mother's life is in danger, she trumps the fetus. And, of course, sometimes (although rarely) woman don't even know they're pregnant until the late 2nd semester or early eighth semester. And since they didn't know, they should be able to abort.

But if you've known for the past seven months and don't have any health risks, it's still your choice, but it's much more questionable then.

pregnant until the late 2nd semester or early eighth semester.

eight semester? :confused:

*sigh*

What a clusterfuck this discussion has been.

Although I strongly disagree with this decision, Arthais is largely correct in his analysis and should be given a medal for his patience in trying to explain the constitutional landscape.

To help intelligent discussion, here is a link to the actual decision: Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380 (U.S. April 18, 2007) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380)

I'll make just a few points:

1. The sky isn't falling. Nothing in this opinion overturns Roe. In fact, the number of votes to overturn Roe in the concurrences is 2 -- less than the three votes in Stenberg and four votes in Casey. Apparently Alito and Roberts aren't following in the footsteps of Rehnquist and Scalia.

2. The decision does stink. The Court defers to Congress's "finding of facts" regarding the necessity and relative safety of "intact D&E" even though the lower courts decided (and the dissent explains) those findings were wrong. The Court essentially says that because there is disagreement in the medical community, Congress can insert its opinion -- even though the weight of medical opinion is to the contrary.

3. The decision does use the "undue burden" test -- but in a way that I think cheapens it and will make it easier to place burdens on abortion rights.

4. Although it pays lip service to the health of the mother exception, the Court essentially jetisons it by saying that Congress can decide an "intact D&E" is never necessary -- despite the weight of experty opinion to the contrary.

5. In many ways, this decision isn't shocking. 3 things changed between this holding and Stenberg: 1) the law in question was much more narrowly written (in fact, it has holes you could dribe a truck through), 2) Congress made finding of facts that the Nebraska legislature hadn't done, and, most importantly, 3) O'Connor left the Court and was replaced by the more conservative Alito.

If The Cat-Tribe's interpretation of this decision is correct, then I find certain aspects of this decision incredibly disturbing. (I don't have the text of the decision on hand, nor a reliable source of analysis.)

Specifically, from what I can tell, this decision seems to set a dangerous precedent that, if there appears to be disagreement in a scientific community, then Congress's interpretation takes precedence over the consensus of the majority of said community. This could be a very telling indicator of how the Court will act in future cases involving the evolution/creationism "debate", since many of the creationists' tactics in said "debates" involve creating the appearance of disagreement about evolution within the scientific community.

If a future, conservative-dominated Congress manages to pass (or sneak through) a law mandating that "intelligent design" be taught in public schools, and the Court buys into the creationists' tactics... well, let's hope it doesn't come to that. :(

If The Cat-Tribe's interpretation of this decision is correct, then I find certain aspects of this decision incredibly disturbing. (I don't have the text of the decision on hand, nor a reliable source of analysis.)

Specifically, from what I can tell, this decision seems to set a dangerous precedent that, if there appears to be disagreement in a scientific community, then Congress's interpretation takes precedence over the consensus of the majority of said community. This could be a very telling indicator of how the Court will act in future cases involving the evolution/creationism "debate", since many of the creationists' tactics in said "debates" involve creating the appearance of disagreement about evolution within the scientific community.

If a future, conservative-dominated Congress manages to pass (or sneak through) a law mandating that "intelligent design" be taught in public schools, and the Court buys into the creationists' tactics... well, let's hope it doesn't come to that. :(

Should I get the revolutionary HQ set up?

You know, just in case?

...late 2nd semester or early eighth semester.

1. Semester?
2. Eigth?

That's the thing--this ruling upholds a law which removes the health of the mother exception.

I propose forcefully implanting fetus's inside the judges. And deliberately setting it up so their lives are at serious risk if left alone.

See how fast they overturn their decisions.

1. Semester?
2. Eigth?

Wow...did I make a lot of errors in there. I was thinking of a case where a woman didn't find out until the eighth MONTH of pregnancy...

And it's easy to get semester and trimester mixed up, in my opinion.

Should I get the revolutionary HQ set up?

You know, just in case?

Sadly, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious. Or both. :(

I propose forcefully implanting fetus's inside the judges. And deliberately setting it up so their lives are at serious risk if left alone.

See how fast they overturn their decisions.

I'll fetch the Facehuggers.

Well, everybody knows that doctors are evil madmen who would do anything without proper supervision from politicians. If they had their way, they'd be sewing pigs and otters together and giving women third and fourth nipples. I don't want to wake up after surgery and discover I have five asses! :mad:
Sorry to tell you thias LG, but you already have five asses:
The 5 SCOTUS judges who supported this decision.

I really hope that the people who voted on this thing end up with hydrocephalic fetuses crippling them on their way out.

you are not, I hope, under the impression that this case banned late term abortions.

I really hope that the people who voted on this thing end up with hydrocephalic fetuses crippling them on their way out.

Sadly, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious. Or both. :(

It'd be that psychotic mix of sarcasm on the surface with some seriousness hidden deep down.

you are not, I hope, under the impression that this case banned late term abortions.
It banned them with the exception of endangering the life of a woman. This does not cover her health. Being crippled doesn't endanger a person's life, just their health.