NationStates Jolt Archive

It banned them with the exception of endangering the life of a woman.

That's not what this law did. D&E late term abortions are still perfectly legal at a federal level. You are being, I fear, a tad too reactionary without knowing what the actual ruling was.

This is one fucked up thread. I'm not even sure where to begin.

On second thought, perhaps I won't. I thought a basic understanding of the issue was...basic. I can't believe the... diversity of opinions on what the law actually is...

That's not what this law did. D&E late term abortions are still perfectly legal at a federal level. You are being, I fear, a tad too reactionary without knowing what the actual ruling was.
Uh... were we reading the same article?

You know, the one that explicitly stated that this law does not include an exemption for the health of a woman?

Uh... were we reading the same article?

You know, the one that explicitly stated that this law does not include an exemption for the health of a woman?

I misunderstood it myself. It bans one particular form of partial birth abortion, but not another. Apparently, the 5 Justices are smart enough to decide this sort of thing (and yes, that part is positively dripping with saarcasm).

Uh... were we reading the same article?

You know, the one that explicitly stated that this law does not include an exemption for the health of a woman?

*sigh* OK, this has been explained like...20 times in this thread. But we'll give it

one

more

try

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.

Please, everybody, don't make me repeat this again.

snip
The thread is huge--you'll have to repeat yourself.

Edit: I can help though. I'll c&p it into the opening post.

I misunderstood it myself. It bans one particular form of partial birth abortion, but not another.

Well, no. A partial birth abortion is a late term dilation and extraction abortion.

late term abortions come in two forms, D&E and D&X. A partial birth abortion is a D&X abortion.

It does ban a "partial birth abortion". It is more proper to say that a partial birth abortion is only one form of late term abortions.


Apparently, the 5 Justices are smart enough to decide this sort of thing (and yes, that part is positively dripping with saarcasm).

The problem is...who else should? The legislators passed the law, its SCOTUS' job to deal with it.

I misunderstood it myself. It bans one particular form of partial birth abortion, but not another. Apparently, the 5 Justices are smart enough to decide this sort of thing (and yes, that part is positively dripping with saarcasm).
Why the hell would they bother banning one then? If the effect is the same, what does the method matter?

The problem is...who else should? The legislators passed the law, its SCOTUS' job to deal with it.
Doctors should be making medical decisions, not SCOTUS. That was my point. I should have been clearer.

Doctors should be making medical decisions, not SCOTUS. That was my point. I should have been clearer.

On the fly?

Without regulation in the form of legislation?

I doubt you seriously support that.

Why the hell would they bother banning one then? If the effect is the same, what does the method matter?

morally some of them, supposedly, found the idea of actually removing a living fetus partially from the womb and THEN killing it far more distasteful.

OR they wanted to do something to show they're doing something about abortion without, you know, doing something about abortion.

Either way this is nothing to really get too worked up over. I don't like the law, but I agree with the constitutional rationale.

Why the hell would they bother banning one then? If the effect is the same, what does the method matter?

My guess? It's a way of killing Roe slowly without actually overturning it.

Why the hell would they bother banning one then? If the effect is the same, what does the method matter?

Politics. It's like...making street racing a crime, when it's already illegal in various forms anyway...just not under the heading 'street racing'.

Doctors should be making medical decisions, not SCOTUS. That was my point. I should have been clearer.

SCOTUS is not the one making the restriction. They are merely deciding if the restriction is constitutional.

That's the big thing. That's what SCOTUS does. THe legislature passed the law, SCOTUS can't change it, they can't alter it, they can't put their opinions in it.

They can only say "constitutional" or "unconstitutional".

That is their JOB. What would you have them do? Say "well, it's constitutional, but we don't like it"?

It's the legislators that put the restriction in there, all SCOTUS did is decide...quite possibly correctly, that the restriction is constitutional.

That's all they could do.

On the fly?

Without regulation in the form of legislation?

I doubt you seriously support that.

This isn't exactly on the fly. This has been a procedure for quite some time. When it comes to letting SCOTUS decide what's an ethical medical procedure or a doctors decide, I'll go with the doctors, thank you very much.

SCOTUS is not the one making the restriction. They are merely deciding if the restriction is constitutional.

That's the big thing. That's what SCOTUS does. THe legislature passed the law, SCOTUS can't change it, they can't alter it, they can't put their opinions in it.

They can only say "constitutional" or "unconstitutional".

That is their JOB. What would you have them do? Say "well, it's constitutional, but we don't like it"?

It's the legislators that put the restriction in there, all SCOTUS did is decide...quite possibly correctly, that the restriction is constitutional.

That's all they could do.
I disagree. I think the right to privacy makes this unconstitutional, as did 4 other Justices, so I'm not exactly alone here.

This isn't exactly on the fly. This has been a procedure for quite some time. When it comes to letting SCOTUS decide what's an ethical medical procedure or a doctors decide, I'll go with the doctors, thank you very much.

So...how will they arrive at this decision? The doctors I mean?

No doubt there is a variation in opinion among medical professionals.

"One out of four doctors recommends..."

The thing is...it's not as though doctors are giving input to legislatures. A lot more research goes into (certain) legislation than is often realised, and that generally includes extensive consultation with the experts.

SCOTUS just checks for certain things...constitutional or not. The decision isn't really being made FOR doctors or INSTEAD of doctors.

Why the hell would they bother banning one then? If the effect is the same, what does the method matter?

i picked up from the thread the notion that the law also includes a provision allowing a man to sue a woman for unjustified abortion. (i didnt read the law, i dont know if thats true)

they are just backdooring as much as they can.

they are just backdooring as much as they can.

That sounds so dirty...

i picked up from the thread the notion that the law also includes a provision allowing a man to sue a woman for unjustified abortion. (i didnt read the law, i dont know if thats true)

they are just backdooring as much as they can.

not "unjustified". And not "a man".

The law literally allows her husband to bring suit if she has an illegal abortion. IE a late term D&X abortion without her life being in danger.

If she goes and gets a late term D&E abortion, there's nothing he can do.

I disagree. I think the right to privacy makes this unconstitutional, as did 4 other Justices, so I'm not exactly alone here.

But in that instance they were thinking it was unconstitutional.

That's the thing, those are the only choices they can make. They can't decide to kick the law because they don't like it, or ethically don't agree with it, or think it shouldn't be.

They only get to say "constitutional" or "unconstitutional"

That's all they can do.

But in that instance they were thinking it was unconstitutional.

That's the thing, those are the only choices they can make. They can't decide to kick the law because they don't like it, or ethically don't agree with it, or think it shouldn't be.

They only get to say "constitutional" or "unconstitutional"

That's all they can do.

Oh, I get that. I also get that the five who declared this law constitutional couldn't give less of a shit about the privacy rights of women. I think history will look poorly on them for multiple reasons, and this will be one of them, because these decisions on abortion form a set of intellectually dishonest decisions on a level with Plessy.

not "unjustified". And not "a man".

The law literally allows her husband to bring suit if she has an illegal abortion. IE a late term D&X abortion without her life being in danger.

If she goes and gets a late term D&E abortion, there's nothing he can do.

so if they arent married, he cant sue?

the point being that it opens the door to men having some small decision in abortion. start small, a husband can sue his wife for getting an illegal abortion, work up to more later.

*shrug* I can sue you for doing a whole sort of illegal things.

It's a HUGE legal jump to start suing for legal ones.

not "unjustified". And not "a man".

The law literally allows her husband to bring suit if she has an illegal abortion. IE a late term D&X abortion without her life being in danger.

If she goes and gets a late term D&E abortion, there's nothing he can do.

the point being that it opens the door to men having some small decision in abortion. start small, a husband can sue his wife for getting an illegal abortion, work up to more later.

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.

Why would you perform a C-section for a rotting corpse?

Oh, I get that. I also get that the five who declared this law constitutional couldn't give less of a shit about the privacy rights of women. I think history will look poorly on them for multiple reasons, and this will be one of them, because these decisions on abortion form a set of intellectually dishonest decisions on a level with Plessy.

I'm not so sure on all of them. Stevens at least has been always fairly straight forward. Probably why they got him to write the opinion.

You can almost tell as he writes the opinion, it's sort of a "give us SOMETHING, anything, PLEASE. Give us one situation, one instance, just give me ONE TIME where this abortion is better for a woman than another one. Just one...please?"

The big problem is they just couldn't. At best they could come up with is a sometimes maybe in some situations its possible that it might be somewhat better to get this abortion and not the other one...but we don't know what those situations might actually be, since it hasn't actually happened yet.

I'm not so sure on all of them. Stevens at least has been always fairly straight forward. Probably why they got him to write the opinion.

You can almost tell as he writes the opinion, it's sort of a "give us SOMETHING, anything, PLEASE. Give us one situation, one instance, just give me ONE TIME where this abortion is better for a woman than another one. Just one...please?"

The big problem is they just couldn't. At best they could come up with is a sometimes maybe in some situations its possible that it might be somewhat better to get this abortion and not the other one...but we don't know what those situations might actually be, since it hasn't actually happened yet.

Stevens? He was on the dissent, wasn't he? It was Kennedy who wrote the opinion, I believe.

Stevens? He was on the dissent, wasn't he? It was Kennedy who wrote the opinion, I believe.
buh yes, this is what I get when I write tired.

Yeah, no way stevens would sign on to that.

The problem is...who else should? The legislators passed the law, its SCOTUS' job to deal with it.

Legislators should not have the power to decide what is and is not medically necessary. What's next? Will Congress decide that [insert procedure here] is never medically necessary?

Seems to me that the medical community - you know, those with medical degrees - should be the ones determining what is and is not medically necessary. Is that really so crazy?

Seems to me that the medical community - you know, those with medical degrees - should be the ones determining what is and is not medically necessary. Is that really so crazy?

You'd think so, with government agencies like the FDA or NIH whose entire purpose is to coordinate publicly funded medical research and testing in the US. But then again, the input of people who actually know what they are talking about isn't particularly appreciated in politics. We'd prefer to use rhetoric and pandering to emotion rather than the input of facts and the advice of trained medical personnel.

The thing is...it's not as though doctors are giving input to legislatures. A lot more research goes into (certain) legislation than is often realised, and that generally includes extensive consultation with the experts.

Oh, if this were only actually true. Thing is, it's full of shit. Legislators pull in "experts" who will say exactly what they've already decided is true. Quite often, those "experts" have no expertise whatsoever in the area under question. The important thing is that they're willing to say what they're told. So we get "experts" talking about a stem cell bill who have never even seen a stem cell and can't define it. We get "experts" talking about fetal development when their actual area is gerontology. And so on...

And when real experts try to speak to the legislators, they get demonized and ignored.

Damn, if only legislators really did listen to the actual experts. There'd be much less idiotic legislation out there. As it is, the only "research" they do is finding people with credentials of some sort willing to say exactly what they've already decided.


The law literally allows her husband to bring suit if she has an illegal abortion. IE a late term D&X abortion without her life being in danger.

It wouldn't matter if her life was in danger. The law declares over and over and over again that D&X is never a medically necessary procedure. She and her doctor could determine that her life was in danger, and that D&X was the best option, and it would likely still be seen as illegal, since Congress took it upon themselves to declare that it is never necessary.

And this likely won't be revisited until a woman either dies or is rendered infertile by a bad choice of treatment.

Legislators should not have the power to decide what is and is not medically necessary. What's next? Will Congress decide that [insert procedure here] is never medically necessary?

Seems to me that the medical community - you know, those with medical degrees - should be the ones determining what is and is not medically necessary. Is that really so crazy?

That's the whole problem, and you should read the opinion. At the end of the day, the medical community wasn't actually able to show when it was necessary.

They just...couldn't. They never actually managed to give a solid example of when a D&X abortion was necessary over a D&E abortion. The medical community tried to argue it, and in fact DID argue it at trial.

Remember, this went through the courts, multiple times. It didn't just appear in front of SCOTUS, it's been moving through for over 3 years.

The medical experts DID argue this, on both sides. Numerous times. They just couldn't come up with a single concrete example of when it's necessary.

And if you read the opinion, they even say, at some point, if you can, come back and argue this again.

It wouldn't matter if her life was in danger. The law declares over and over and over again that D&X is never a medically necessary procedure. She and her doctor could determine that her life was in danger, and that D&X was the best option, and it would likely still be seen as illegal, since Congress took it upon themselves to declare that it is never necessary.

Oh for the love of god, not YOU TOO.

here. Read.

This 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.

I really wish people would read a law before talking about it. Just once. You know how many posts in this thread would have never ever happened if people just...did a LITTLE reading, just a tiny bit.

I don't like this law. I think it's stupid. But for the love of god people, at least know the fundamental framework of what you're talking about. Really folks, it's three bloody pages (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/partial_birth_abortion_Ban_act_final_language.htm)

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.

Again, this is laughable. First of all, the OP specifically explained what kind of abortions this refers to. Second of all, you must be self-hating. This abortion is only done out of respect for life. It's not elective. It's a procedure done to preserve the life and health of the mother.

Meanwhile, this decision didn't prevent late-term abortions. It only prevented the one that allows the body to remain intact. A process usually requested by mother's who wish to grieve. So I take it you're happy that now more women will have to get the alternative procedure that cuts up the fetus inside of the womb.

That's the whole problem, and you should read the opinion. At the end of the day, the medical community wasn't actually able to show when it was necessary.

They just...couldn't. They never actually managed to give a solid example of when a D&X abortion was necessary over a D&E abortion. The medical community tried to argue it, and in fact DID argue it at trial.

Remember, this went through the courts, multiple times. It didn't just appear in front of SCOTUS, it's been moving through for over 3 years.

The medical experts DID argue this, on both sides. Numerous times. They just couldn't come up with a single concrete example of when it's necessary.

And if you read the opinion, they even say, at some point, if you can, come back and argue this again.

I think I locked up Jolt with a too-long reply of your earlier post on this.

What you are saying simply isn't true. All of the lower courts had found D&X abortions to be medically necessary.

Kennedy didn't even try to argue that the medical consensus was that D&X abortions weren't necessary. Instead, he merely claimed that the medical community was divided, so Congress could fill the breach.

Ginsburg's dissent lays this out in spades. I'll break up my quotes this time.

First (emphasis added):

In 2003, a few years after our ruling in Stenberg, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act--without an exception for women's health. See 18 U. S. C. §1531(a) (2000 ed., Supp. IV).4 The congressional findings on which the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act rests do not withstand inspection, as the lower courts have determined and this Court is obliged to concede. Ante, at 35-36. See National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft, 330 F. Supp. 2d 436, 482 (SDNY 2004) ("Congress did not ... carefully consider the evidence before arriving at its findings."), aff'd sub nom. National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales, 437 F. 3d 278 (CA2 2006). See also Planned Parenthood Federation of Am. v. Ashcroft, 320 F. Supp. 2d 957, 1019 (ND Cal. 2004) ("[N]one of the six physicians who testified before Congress had ever performed an intact D&E. Several did not provide abortion services at all; and one was not even an obgyn... . [T]he oral testimony before Congress was not only unbalanced, but intentionally polemic."), aff'd, 435 F. 3d 1163 (CA9 2006); Carhart v. Ashcroft, 331 F. Supp. 2d 805, 1011 (Neb. 2004) ("Congress arbitrarily relied upon the opinions of doctors who claimed to have no (or very little) recent and relevant experience with surgical abortions, and disregarded the views of doctors who had significant and relevant experience with those procedures."), aff'd, 413 F. 3d 791 (CA8 2005).

Many of the Act's recitations are incorrect. See ante, at 35-36. For example, Congress determined that no medical schools provide instruction on intact D&E. §2(14)(B), 117 Stat. 1204, notes following 18 U. S. C. §1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 769, (14)(B) (Congressional Findings). But in fact, numerous leading medical schools teach the procedure. See Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 1029; National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 479. See also Brief for [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)] as Amicus Curiae 18 ("Among the schools that now teach the intact variant are Columbia, Cornell, Yale, New York University, Northwestern, University of Pittsburgh, University of Pennsylvania, University of Rochester, and University of Chicago.").

More important, Congress claimed there was a medical consensus that the banned procedure is never necessary. Congressional Findings (1), in notes following 18 U. S. C. §1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 767. But the evidence "very clearly demonstrate[d] the opposite." Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 1025. See also Carhart, 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 1008-1009 ("[T]here was no evident consensus in the record that Congress compiled. There was, however, a substantial body of medical opinion presented to Congress in opposition. If anything ... the congressional record establishes that there was a 'consensus' in favor of the banned procedure."); National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 488 ("The congressional record itself undermines [Congress'] finding" that there is a medical consensus that intact D&E "is never medically necessary and should be prohibited." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Similarly, Congress found that "[t]here is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures." Congressional Findings (14)(B), in notes following 18 U. S. C. §1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 769. But the congressional record includes letters from numerous individual physicians stating that pregnant women's health would be jeopardized under the Act, as well as statements from nine professional associations, including [the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)], the American Public Health Association, and the California Medical Association, attesting that intact D&E carries meaningful safety advantages over other methods. See National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 490. See also Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 1021 ("Congress in its findings . . . chose to disregard the statements by ACOG and other medical organizations."). No comparable medical groups supported the ban. In fact, "all of the government's own witnesses disagreed with many of the specific congressional findings." Id., at 1024.


(Here's a link to the opinion (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380)again, for those that need it.)

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.

Not *exactly* the same. In D&E, the fetus is broken up inside the womb and then pulled out piece by piece. The intact procedure does not involve that step. As such, tissue is more likely to be left behind (and become a possible hotbed for infection) in the D&E procedure.

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.

Please, everybody, don't make me repeat this again.

Are you a doctor? If not, how are you qualified to say it is "equally viable"? How is SCOTUS? How is Congress?

It's very difficult to do a direct comparison of the two procedures, as neither is especially common. One thing is clear from the research that is out there, however - and that is that doctors often choose D&X over D&E if the procedure is later in pregnancy (ie. a later late-term abortion). Given the difference in the procedures, this makes good sense. More tissue to remove increases the chances that tissue will be left behind. The intact procedure reduces the risk of that problem.

Yes, it would appear that the two have equal levels of risk, but there is no way to make a direct comparison, because D&X is carried out at later time points.

Edit: I would add that I don't trust politicians (and some judges are definitely politicians) to truly listen to expert testimony. As an example in this case, I remember hearing part of the recording of the SCOTUS proceedings. One of the justices - I believe it was Roberts - asked "Why not do the more common procedure, dilation and extraction?" Before the respondant could form an answer, the justice then began talking over him, obviously not interested in hearing any answer. In my experience, this is exactly what politicians who have already made up their minds and don't care what the experts have to say will often do. And you can't exactly try to talk over a Supreme Court justice during the proceedings, can you?

That's the whole problem, and you should read the opinion. At the end of the day, the medical community wasn't actually able to show when it was necessary.

Of course, it may just be that they couldn't sufficiently explain it to people with no expertise in the area. I've seen that problem numerous times.

They just...couldn't. They never actually managed to give a solid example of when a D&X abortion was necessary over a D&E abortion. The medical community tried to argue it, and in fact DID argue it at trial.

It isn't necessarily a matter of "This case is always better than that case." Medicine isn't that cut and dry. If the consensus in the medical community is that the procedure is sometimes medically necessary, it probably is. A layman might not understand it, but that's why the layman isn't a doctor.

I liked SCOTUS better in Roe v. Wade, when they actually basically came right out and said, "We aren't qualified to make medical decisions."

Remember, this went through the courts, multiple times. It didn't just appear in front of SCOTUS, it's been moving through for over 3 years.

Yes, and from what I understand, most of those courts would have overturned the law.

And if you read the opinion, they even say, at some point, if you can, come back and argue this again.

I'm planning on it as soon as I get to a print-out of it. One of the quotes that reallly disturbs me, however, is that they say it isn't unconstitutional in a significant number of cases. In other words, it may be unconstitutional for some people, but that number is so tiny we just don't care about them.

about the factual record regarding the necessity and relative safety of D&X (also known as intact D&E -- at least according to the Court) procedures:

In contrast to Congress, the District Courts made findings after full trials at which all parties had the opportunity to present their best evidence. The courts had the benefit of "much more extensive medical and scientific evidence . . . concerning the safety and necessity of intact D&Es." Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 1014; cf. National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 482 (District Court "heard more evidence during its trial than Congress heard over the span of eight years.").

During the District Court trials, "numerous" "extraordinarily accomplished" and "very experienced" medical experts explained that, in certain circumstances and for certain women, intact D&E is safer than alternative procedures and necessary to protect women's health. Carhart, 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 1024-1027; see Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 1001 ("[A]ll of the doctors who actually perform intact D&Es concluded that in their opinion and clinical judgment, intact D&Es remain the safest option for certain individual women under certain individual health circumstances, and are significantly safer for these women than other abortion techniques, and are thus medically necessary."); cf. ante, at 31 ("Respondents presented evidence that intact D&E may be the safest method of abortion, for reasons similar to those adduced in Stenberg.").

According to the expert testimony plaintiffs introduced, the safety advantages of intact D&E are marked for women with certain medical conditions, for example, uterine scarring, bleeding disorders, heart disease, or compromised immune systems. See Carhart, 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 924-929, 1026-1027; National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 472-473; Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 992-994, 1001. Further, plaintiffs' experts testified that intact D&E is significantly safer for women with certain pregnancy-related conditions, such as placenta previa and accreta, and for women carrying fetuses with certain abnormalities, such as severe hydrocephalus. See Carhart, 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 924, 1026-1027; National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 473-474; Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 992-994, 1001. See also Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 929; Brief for ACOG as Amicus Curiae 2, 13-16.

Intact D&E, plaintiffs' experts explained, provides safety benefits over D&E by dismemberment for several reasons: First, intact D&E minimizes the number of times a physician must insert instruments through the cervix and into the uterus, and thereby reduces the risk of trauma to, and perforation of, the cervix and uterus--the most serious complication associated with nonintact D&E. See Carhart, 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 923-928, 1025; National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 471; Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 982, 1001. Second, removing the fetus intact, instead of dismembering it in utero, decreases the likelihood that fetal tissue will be retained in the uterus, a condition that can cause infection, hemorrhage, and infertility. See Carhart, 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 923-928, 1025-1026; National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 472; Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 1001. Third, intact D&E diminishes the chances of exposing the patient's tissues to sharp bony fragments sometimes resulting from dismemberment of the fetus. See Carhart, 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 923-928, 1026; National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 471; Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 1001. Fourth, intact D&E takes less operating time than D&E by dismemberment, and thus may reduce bleeding, the risk of infection, and complications relating to anesthesia. See Carhart, 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 923-928, 1026; National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 472; Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 1001. See also Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 928-929, 932; Brief for ACOG as Amicus Curiae 2, 11-13.

Based on thoroughgoing review of the trial evidence and the congressional record, each of the District Courts to consider the issue rejected Congress' findings as unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. See Carhart, 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 1008-1027; National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 482, 488-491; Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 1032. The trial courts concluded, in contrast to Congress' findings, that "significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, [intact D&E] is the safest procedure." Id., at 1033 (quoting Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 932); accord Carhart, 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 1008-1009, 1017-1018; National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 480-482;5 cf. Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 932 ("[T]he record shows that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, [intact D&E] would be the safest procedure.").

The District Courts' findings merit this Court's respect. See, e.g., Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a); Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U. S. 225, 233 (1991). Today's opinion supplies no reason to reject those findings. Nevertheless, despite the District Courts' appraisal of the weight of the evidence, and in undisguised conflict with Stenberg, the Court asserts that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act can survive "when ... medical uncertainty persists." Ante, at 33. This assertion is bewildering. Not only does it defy the Court's longstanding precedent affirming the necessity of a health exception, with no carve-out for circumstances of medical uncertainty, see supra, at 4-5; it gives short shrift to the records before us, carefully canvassed by the District Courts. Those records indicate that "the majority of highly-qualified experts on the subject believe intact D&E to be the safest, most appropriate procedure under certain circumstances." Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 1034. See supra, at 9-10.

The Court acknowledges some of this evidence, ante, at 31, but insists that, because some witnesses disagreed with the ACOG and other experts' assessment of risk, the Act can stand. Ante, at 32-33, 37. In this insistence, the Court brushes under the rug the District Courts' well-supported findings that the physicians who testified that intact D&E is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman had slim authority for their opinions. They had no training for, or personal experience with, the intact D&E procedure, and many performed abortions only on rare occasions. See Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 980; Carhart, 331 F. Supp. 2d, at 1025; cf. National Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 462-464. Even indulging the assumption that the Government witnesses were equally qualified to evaluate the relative risks of abortion procedures, their testimony could not erase the "significant medical authority support[ing] the proposition that in some circumstances, [intact D&E] would be the safest procedure." Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 932.6


Ginsburg discusses many other flaws with the opinion but I'll stop there. (Please forgive the long quote, but I think that the record on this disputed fact needs to be set clear.)

The bottom line is that the Court held that it does not matter what a woman thinks, it does not matter what her doctors think, it does not even matter what is the consensus of the medical community -- Congress can override it all and ban a procedure than may be necessary to the health of the woman.

the point being that it opens the door to men having some small decision in abortion.

First, like stated before, the ruling doesn't say "men", but "husbands".

Secondly (and I honestlydon't say this to antagonize; I ask it out of curiosity), why is husbands having a say so bad? If a man is 50% responsible for the formation of the fetus, what's so bad about giving him a say in the matter? I'm not talking about legislating it; I'm simply talking about husband-wife communications here.

From what I've read in good deal of posts in this thread, I get the vibe that a wife shouldn't have to talk with her husband before getting an abortion, because it's her constitutional right. Ok, that's great. On the flipside, it's a constitutional right for a husband to do whatever he wants with his own money, but does that mean that he should go out and buy a $250,000 sports car without discussing it with his wife first? Both the decision to get an abortion and also to buy the car are freedoms ruled constitutional. But both also affect both parties in the marriage. If the car is bought, the couple is out $250,000, not just the husband. If the abortion is had, the couple is out a future child, not just the mother. So what's the big deal about wives telling their husbands?

I mean (and this is just commentary here), if a girl can't even talk to a guy about such a big decision like getting an abortion, why would she marry him? Any marital counsellor with tell you the foundation of a strong marriage is mutual trust.

Cat. Thanks for the help. You have clarified MY thinking on the matter.

It's just a shame that certain Justices still live in the dark ages.

Oh for the love of god, not YOU TOO.

here. Read.

I've read it. I also read the rest of the law, which went to great pains to point out that, according to Congress, there is no situation in which D&X is ever medically necessary. If the law declares that it is never medically necessary (and it does), then that clause means absolutely nothing. It bascially says, "D&X is never, ever, ever necesarry. Oh, but if it is necessary, you can do it. But it's never, ever, ever necessary."

I really wish people would read a law before talking about it. Just once. You know how many posts in this thread would have never ever happened if people just...did a LITTLE reading, just a tiny bit.]

I did read it, my dear. I noticed the fact that Congress repeatedly declares the procedure to be "never medically necessary." Thus, even if a qualifed doctor finds it to be so, the law still says it isn't.

First, like stated before, the ruling doesn't say "men", but "husbands".

Secondly (and I honestlydon't say this to antagonize; I ask it out of curiosity), why is husbands having a say so bad? If a man is 50% responsible for the formation of the fetus, what's so bad about giving him a say in the matter? I'm not talking about legislating it; I'm simply talking about husband-wife communications here.

From what I've read in good deal of posts in this thread, I get the vibe that a wife shouldn't have to talk with her husband before getting an abortion, because it's her constitutional right. Ok, that's great. On the flipside, it's a constitutional right for a husband to do whatever he wants with his own money, but does that mean that he should go out and buy a $250,000 sports car without discussing it with his wife first? Both the decision to get an abortion and also to buy the car are freedoms ruled constitutional. But both also affect both parties in the marriage. If the car is bought, the couple is out $250,000, not just the husband. If the abortion is had, the couple is out a future child, not just the mother. So what's the big deal about wives telling their husbands?

I mean (and this is just commentary here), if a girl can't even talk to a guy about such a big decision like getting an abortion, why would they get married?

There's nothing wrong with a woman discussing abortion with the father. Nothing at all. In fact, in most cases, I'd say that she should. But there are cases in which doing so might endanger her. And, well, I don't think people should be legally forced to do so. No matter what he has to say, it is her decision to make in the end. Even if I think (in many cases) it would be wrong of her to do so, she can make that decision without him.

First, like stated before, the ruling doesn't say "men", but "husbands".

Secondly (and I honestlydon't say this to antagonize; I ask it out of curiosity), why is husbands having a say so bad? If a man is 50% responsible for the formation of the fetus, what's so bad about giving him a say in the matter? I'm not talking about legislating it; I'm simply talking about husband-wife communications here.

From what I've read in good deal of posts in this thread, I get the vibe that a wife shouldn't have to talk with her husband before getting an abortion, because it's her constitutional right. Ok, that's great. On the flipside, it's a constitutional right for a husband to do whatever he wants with his own money, but does that mean that he should go out and buy a $250,000 sports car without discussing it with his wife first? Both the decision to get an abortion and also to buy the car are freedoms ruled constitutional. But both also affect both parties in the marriage. If the car is bought, the couple is out $250,000, not just the husband. If the abortion is had, the couple is out a future child, not just the mother. So what's the big deal about wives telling their husbands?

I mean (and this is just commentary here), if a girl can't even talk to a guy about such a big decision like getting an abortion, why would they get married?
Here's the problem with this example--you're conflating "should" with "can." The husband is within his rights to purchase the car, and may do so even if it means it might end his marriage. The wife can get an abortion without the husband's knowledge, and may do so even if it means it might end the marriage. The key point here is that it's not our business and it shouldn't be the government's business what personal medical decisions women make. In a perfect world, of course two people in a relationship would discuss this and come to consensus.

But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where women might have reasons for getting an abortion that they don't want to discuss with anyone, not even a husband, and given particular circumstances, especially not a husband. And unless you're ready to come out and say that a wife is the property of a husband, and that she is his chattel, that's where it has to stay.

There's nothing wrong with a woman discussing abortion with the father. Nothing at all. In fact, in most cases, I'd say that she should. But there are cases in which doing so might endanger her. And, well, I don't think people should be legally forced to do so. No matter what he has to say, it is her decision to make in the end. Even if I think (in many cases) it would be wrong of her to do so, she can make that decision without him.

True, but again that brings up the question of property rights. If the pro-choice camp believes that a fetus is not a human, then it falls under the category of property. And if the father is 50% responsible for the formation of the fetus, then it's not hard to see that he would be entitled to 50% of the property rights to the fetus as well. But if the wife goes over the father's head and gets an abortion (which is her constitutional right) without his consent or, at the very least, his knowledge, isn't that walking all over his just-as-constitutional property rights?

And if you read the opinion, they even say, at some point, if you can, come back and argue this again.

Although this leaves some hope, it is a cruel hope at best.

Again from the dissent:

If there is anything at all redemptive to be said of today's opinion, it is that the Court is not willing to foreclose entirely a constitutional challenge to the Act. "The Act is open," the Court states, "to a proper as-applied challenge in a discrete case." Ante, at 38; see ante, at 37 ("The Government has acknowledged that preenforcement, as-applied challenges to the Act can be maintained."). But the Court offers no clue on what a "proper" lawsuit might look like. See ante, at 37-38. Nor does the Court explain why the injunctions ordered by the District Courts should not remain in place, trimmed only to exclude instances in which another procedure would safeguard a woman's health at least equally well. Surely the Court cannot mean that no suit may be brought until a woman's health is immediately jeopardized by the ban on intact D&E. A woman "suffer from medical complications," ante, at 38, needs access to the medical procedure at once and cannot wait for the judicial process to unfold. See Ayotte, 546 U. S., at 328.

The Court appears, then, to contemplate another lawsuit by the initiators of the instant actions. In such a second round, the Court suggests, the challengers could succeed upon demonstrating that "in discrete and well-defined instances a particular condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used." Ante, at 37. One may anticipate that such a preenforcement challenge will be mounted swiftly, to ward off serious, sometimes irremediable harm, to women whose health would be endangered by the intact D&E prohibition.

The Court envisions that in an as-applied challenge, "the nature of the medical risk can be better quantified and balanced." Ibid. But it should not escape notice that the record already includes hundreds and hundreds of pages of testimony identifying "discrete and well-defined instances" in which recourse to an intact D&E would better protect the health of women with particular conditions. See supra, at 10-11. Record evidence also documents that medical exigencies, unpredictable in advance, may indicate to a well-trained doctor that intact D&E is the safest procedure. See ibid. In light of this evidence, our unanimous decision just one year ago in Ayotte counsels against reversal. See 546 U. S., at 331 (remanding for reconsideration of the remedy for the absence of a health exception, suggesting that an injunction prohibiting unconstitutional applications might suffice).

The Court's allowance only of an "as-applied challenge in a discrete case," [I]ante, at 38--jeopardizes women's health and places doctors in an untenable position. Even if courts were able to carve-out exceptions through piecemeal litigation for "discrete and well-defined instances," ante, at 37, women whose circumstances have not been anticipated by prior litigation could well be left unprotected. In treating those women, physicians would risk criminal prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment if they exercise their best judgment as to the safest medical procedure for their patients. The Court is thus gravely mistaken to conclude that narrow as-applied challenges are "the proper manner to protect the health of the woman." Cf. ibid.

True, but again that brings up the question of property rights. If the pro-life camp believes that a fetus is not a child, then it falls under the category of property. And if the father is 50% responsible for the formation of the fetus, then it's not hard to see that he has 50% of the property rights to the fetus as well. But if the wife goes over the father's head and gets an abortion (which is her constitutional right) without his consent or, at the very least, his knowledge, isn't that walking all over his just-as-constitutional property rights?

No, it doesn't, unless you're saying that the woman is property. It is a part of her body. He has no control over it. Period, Full stop.

<snip, and man, am I glad to see Cat-Tribe again. ;)>

The bottom line is that the Court held that it does not matter what a woman thinks, it does not matter what her doctors think, it does not even matter what is the consensus of the medical community -- Congress can override it all and ban a procedure than may be necessary to the health of the woman.
I am extremely unhappy, and I am getting sick and tired of my government and agencies thereof doing things that make me extremely unhappy. I believe it is time they stopped, and I am wondering just what it is going to take to make them stop.

First, like stated before, the ruling doesn't say "men", but "husbands".
<snip>
Who gives a flying rat's ass what title a man adopts? "Husband" =/= "boss of me."

True, but again that brings up the question of property rights. If the pro-life camp believes that a fetus is not a child, then it falls under the category of property. And if the father is 50% responsible for the formation of the fetus, then it's not hard to see that he has 50% of the property rights to the fetus as well. But if the wife goes over the father's head and gets an abortion (which is her constitutional right) without his consent or, at the very least, his knowledge, isn't that walking all over his just-as-constitutional property rights?

Actually, even if one were to make such a legal argument, the man actually has no ownership whatsoever over the "property". The fact that he helped make it is irrelevant, as it is entirely contained within her body - within her "property." Because she can decide what to do with her own property, the decision to abort is entirely hers.

As an example, if you came over to my house and helped me plant a tree in my yard - doing 50% - or even 100% of the work, you still would have no ownership whatsoever over that tree. Because it is on my property, I can cut it down or let it grow as I please. If you were to attempt to do anything to it, I could sue you for trespass and property damage.

Second of all, the man doesn't do 50% of the work, as it were. He provides only a tiny portion of what can eventually become a child - a single half-set of DNA and a small amount of cytoplasm. All of the rest of the building blocks are provided by the woman.

Actually, even if one were to make such a legal argument, the man actually has no ownership whatsoever over the "property". The fact that he helped make it is irrelevant, as it is entirely contained within her body - within her "property." Because she can decide what to do with her own property, the decision to abort is entirely hers.

As an example, if you came over to my house and helped me plant a tree in my yard - doing 50% - or even 100% of the work, you still would have no ownership whatsoever over that tree. Because it is on my property, I can cut it down or let it grow as I please. If you were to attempt to do anything to it, I could sue you for trespass and property damage.

Second of all, the man doesn't do 50% of the work, as it were. He provides only a tiny portion of what can eventually become a child - a single half-set of DNA and a small amount of cytoplasm. All of the rest of the building blocks are provided by the woman.
Expand the metaphor. Even if he bought the tree, the minute it's planted on your property, it becomes yours, unless there's some contract to the contrary. He has ceded ownership of it.

If the pro-life camp believes that a fetus is not a human

Apologies; this was a typo. Obviously that's not the pro-life camp's stance, otherwise I doubt they'd have anything against abortion. I have since edited "pro-life" to say "pro-choice".

Apologies; this was a typo. Obviously that's not the pro-life camp's stance, otherwise I doubt they'd have anything against abortion. I have since edited "pro-life" to say "pro-choice".

It's still irrelevant. Separate or not, it is a part of the mother's body until it is birthed, and as such, it should be under the sole control of the mother, even if that mother is doing something I personally find morally reprehensible. And no one should have the right to interfere in that woman's self-determination over her own body.

Cat. Thanks for the help. You have clarified MY thinking on the matter.

It's just a shame that certain Justices still live in the dark ages.


<snip, and man, am I glad to see Cat-Tribe again. >

Both of you are most welcome. Thanks for the positive feedback.

If the pro-choice camp believes that a fetus is not a human, then it falls under the category of property.
No, it falls under the category of the pregnant woman’s physical integrity.

There is not one single legal jurisdiction on Earth that today recognises the possibility of property rights of ownership extending to the physical person of a human being (in your example, the woman).

Who gives a flying rat's ass what title a man adopts? "Husband" =/= "boss of me."

Did anybody else get a mental picture of a Muravyets and a riding crop?

Both of you are most welcome. Thanks for the positive feedback.

If we're cheerleading, it sure is good to have you back. I think you encourage all of us to rise to higher level of support. Plus, I've often learned from entering into a thread you're in. /butt-kissing

I also happen to agree with you here. It's really clear that tons of evidence was presented.

Moreover, even absent such evidence, I have a general problem with the premise that if there is dissent in the scientific community that the benefit of the doubt goes to Congress rather than the individual decision. That very idea simply seems absurd.

Actually, even if one were to make such a legal argument, the man actually has no ownership whatsoever over the "property". The fact that he helped make it is irrelevant, as it is entirely contained within her body - within her "property." Because she can decide what to do with her own property, the decision to abort is entirely hers.

The fact that property A is completely within property B does not give the owner of property B the ability to simply do whatever they'd like with property A, especially if property A is co-owned. Say me and Joe Shmo both chip in and buy a snowmobile. It's owned by both of us. But because I don't have any extra space at my house, we keep it in Joe's garage. Just because we're keeping it there does not in any way make it solely Joe's snowmobile. If Joe decides he doesn't want to keep it at his place, fine; but in moving it out, due to it being co-owned by me (and me caring about the condition of the snowmobile), he cannot damage it in any way, or else I (obviously and legally) can sue him for damages, even though he's a co-owner as well.

In this case, the snowmobile is the fetus, and the garage is obviously the mother's womb. If she doesn't want it in there anymore, fine; but she would still need to make sure that in ridding her body of the fetus, she couldn't damage it in any way. And as someone stated earlier, killing it would obviously be seen as damaging it.

Second of all, the man doesn't do 50% of the work, as it were. He provides only a tiny portion of what can eventually become a child - a single half-set of DNA and a small amount of cytoplasm. All of the rest of the building blocks are provided by the woman.

Two observations to make here. Firstly, obviously no one can say that such and such parts of the fetus formation/growth constitute an arbitrary percentage of responsibility/rights to the fetus. In that sense, while I used 50-50 in my example, obviously those numbers are subjective. If you're talking about time put into the pregnancy, then of course the pregnancy itself would be deemed as the major contribution factor, at nine months, and the woman would hold most of the responsibility. But if you're talking about conception, well then, the father's involvement is invaluable; without the sperm, there's no fetus at all.

So yes, while the husband only provides a small part of the process, without that small part, the process doesn't happen at all. In that sense, one could argue that the husband only has 1% of the responsibility; in another sense, someone else could argue he has 99% of the responsibility. And depending on how one looked at it, both would be right. My point wasn't to say that the husband has exactly 50% of the rights to the fetus; my point is, that any way you slice it, the husband has SOME right to the fetus, and as such, should not legally be excluded from decisions regarding its fate, nor should the option to exclude the father from such decision be legally allowed.


NOTE: this second point is made for observation's sake and observation's sake alone; it has no intended bearing on the previous statements.

Secondly (and I just say this out of observation - PLEASE know that I don't say this to be callous, or antagonistic, or anything else negative; I say this purely as an observation, and even with this here, I'm sure some people will get offended), but honestly, a woman doesn't really do a whole lot to contribute to the growth of the fetus other than simply doing what she'd be doing anyway: eating, sleeping. Think about it. Does the mother physically do anything apart from what woul be a normal part of her life to contribute to the growth of the fetus inside her? Like I said - I don't ask that antagonistically; what do the facts say? The fetus needs her to sleep; she would sleep anyway. It needs her to eat; she would do that anyway too.

To take the analogy of the tree that was mentioned, sure, the woman could say "I own the soil the tree is planted in." But for her to say "I'm also responsible for the sunshine and the rain that made this tree grow" would be considered lunacy. It would be sunny or rainy regardless of whether or not the tree was there at all. Same with eating and sleeping, and the growth of the fetus. This is the same principle that explains why people don't get paid for breathing while they're working at their job, even though breathing isn't stated in their job description.

Both of you are most welcome. Thanks for the positive feedback.

I will chime in with a "what they said" comment.

A question though. I was listening to how this issue came before and O'Conner wrote an opinion that basically gave the States a set of guidelines for the States to make their own rulings.

What happened to that? They just toss it for the Nebraska law?

By the way, and this is just an aside, but this whole issue would be moot if they worked on the logistics of interwomb fetal transplants. If the reason a mother gets an abortion would be for her own body's sake, then they could just take out the fetus, and transplant it into the womb of someone who wanted it. The mother's "physical integrity" is kept intact; the fetus is kept intact, and as a bonus, someone who wants to gets to have a child they otherwise might not have been able to. Problem solved.

snip
I'm going to set aside the pure offensiveness of your post for a minute and say it again.

The fetus is not property. It is not co-owned. It is a part of the woman's body until the moment it pops its head out and takes its first breath.

I can cut and paste that all night if necessary to get it through your skull. It's up to you. But it doesn't matter what cutesy metaphors you try to use, they all fail in the end because of this simple fact--the fetus is not property.

The father does not have co-ownership of the fetus. You know why? Because the fetus is not property.

Doesn't even matter if the fetus is considered a human or not. You know why? Because the fetus is not property.

There is no ownership at play in the discussion. Now, if you'd like to put another theory forward, that would be fine.

By the way, and this is just an aside, but this whole issue would be moot if they worked on the logistics of interwomb fetal transplants. If the reason a mother gets an abortion would be for her own body's sake, then they could just take out the fetus, and transplant it into the womb of someone who wanted it. The mother's "physical integrity" is kept intact; the fetus is kept intact, and as a bonus, someone who wants to gets to have a child they otherwise might not have been able to. Problem solved.
Are you proposing that this potentially be done against the mother's will?

The mother's "physical integrity"
Your use of quotation marks to downplay the central importance of perhaps the most fundamental of all human rights is a telling indictment on your argument...

The fact that property A is completely within property B does not give the owner of property B the ability to simply do whatever they'd like with property A, especially if property A is co-owned.

(a) The specific type of property is an issue here. If property A is dependent upon property B, then the owner of property B absolutely can do what they like with property A, no matter how much someone else likes it or contributed to it. My example of a tree growing on the property is much more analogous to the fetus example than the snowmobile is. A snowmobile can be removed from my property without damage. A tree, on the other hand, cannot. And, as others have pointed out, it wouldn't matter if you had personally bought the tree. If it is planted on my land, I can do whatever I want with it.

(b) There is no reason to assert "co-ownership." The embryo/fetus is completely formed within the woman's body.

(c) Because pregnancy itself presents signficant health risks to the mother and continued pregnancy will result in irreversible changes to her body - including putting her at higher risk for a number of diseases later in life - the effect on her body must be taken into account - something that isn't covered by either analogy.

Two observations to make here. Firstly, obviously no one can say that such and such parts of the fetus formation/growth constitute an arbitrary percentage of responsibility/rights to the fetus.

Indeed. And, because only the woman's body is involved - while the man's is not, such numbers would also be irrelevant.

Secondly (and I just say this out of observation - PLEASE know that I don't say this to be callous, or antagonistic, or anything else negative; I say this purely as an observation, and even with this here, I'm sure some people will get offended), but honestly, a woman doesn't really do a whole lot to contribute to the growth of the fetus other than simply doing what she'd be doing anyway: eating, sleeping. Think about it. Does the mother physically do anything apart from what woul be a normal part of her life to contribute to the growth of the fetus inside her? Like I said - I don't ask that antagonistically; what do the facts say? The fetus needs her to sleep; she would sleep anyway. It needs her to eat; she would do that anyway too.

You obviously have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER the kind of toll a pregnancy takes on a woman and her body.

Your use of quotation marks to downplay the central importance of perhaps the most fundamental of all human rights is telling...

I used them merely to quote you. Other terms that could have been used are "health" or "well-being"; they all mean the same thing. If my post came off as sarcastic, I apologize.

I'm going to set aside the pure offensiveness of your post for a minute and say it again.

The fetus is not property. It is not co-owned. It is a part of the woman's body until the moment it pops its head out and takes its first breath.

I can cut and paste that all night if necessary to get it through your skull. It's up to you. But it doesn't matter what cutesy metaphors you try to use, they all fail in the end because of this simple fact--the fetus is not property.

The father does not have co-ownership of the fetus. You know why? Because the fetus is not property.

Doesn't even matter if the fetus is considered a human or not. You know why? Because the fetus is not property.

There is no ownership at play in the discussion. Now, if you'd like to put another theory forward, that would be fine.

Indeed. I'm quoting this just to reiterate it. This is why I started my first post in response to the argument with, "Even if one were to make such a legal argument...."

I'm going to set aside the pure offensiveness of your post for a minute and say it again.

The fetus is not property. It is not co-owned. It is a part of the woman's body until the moment it pops its head out and takes its first breath.
...
The father does not have co-ownership of the fetus. You know why? Because the fetus is not property.

Doesn't even matter if the fetus is considered a human or not. You know why? Because the fetus is not property.


In terms of simple legal standings, like I've stated before, something is either human, or property. If it's not classified as one, it's the other. In this sense, if you don't consider it human, it's property. Even if it's consider the mother's body, then the body is considered hers; and if she owns the body, then it's still property in any case. HER property, but property nonetheless.

But all questions of humanness/property-ness aside, I disagree with argument that a fetus is simply another part of the female body, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, not every female body has a fetus. Girls are not born with a fetus inside them; it is the result of a mechanical process involving both a man and the woman. In this sense, a fetus is not naturally part of a woman's body.

Secondly (and this applies specifically to this thread, as it is focussed on the ruling of a certain late-term abortional procedure), a fetus at late-term stage has a discernible heartbest, and also discernible brainwave patterns. Thus it cannot be just another part of a woman's body for the obvious reason that a woman doesn't have two hearts, nor does she have two brains. While the fetus may be connected to her, it is certainly a foreign presence within the body.

Both of you are most welcome. Thanks for the positive feedback.
Every time I see your name appear in a thread, I know I will get to read well reasoned, well supported arguments that are on point and make sense. And really, I don't know how you manage to have all those citations ready to hand, but I am glad you do. It is a delight to behold. :D

Did anybody else get a mental picture of a Muravyets and a riding crop?
No, just you, but that's not for discussion in front of the kids. ;)

Are you proposing that this potentially be done against the mother's will?

Not at all; simply stating this is a better alternative to outright abortion. If the mother doesn't want the fetus, then fine; but if she doesn't want it, why wouldn't she decide to give it to someone who does?

I guess in that sense, it'd be like organ/blood donation. Donating your organs or blood certainly isn't compulsory, but I mean, if you can, then why not, you know?

In terms of simple legal standings, like I've stated before, something is either human, or property. If it's not classified as one, it's the other. In this sense, if you don't consider it human, it's property. Even if it's consider the mother's body, then the body is considered hers; and if she owns the body, then it's still property in any case. HER property, but property nonetheless.
No. No. No. Only in little minds are things an either/or proposition. The fetus, while it resides in the womb, is for all intents and purposes, the mother. The fetus is not property, not of the mother or of the father. It is one with the mother. It is a parasite, leeching off her vital systems, and that is the case whether the fetus is 6 weeks old or 6 minutes from birth. It does not become a separate being until it is separate from the mother.

Two things:

1) I'll just add a "me too!" to all the butt-kissing going on for TCT. =)

2) Just read through the decision and dissent. To use an internet term (since I'm tired and all that), Ginsberg's dissent totally pwned the decision.

Not at all; simply stating this is a better alternative to outright abortion. If the mother doesn't want the fetus, then fine; but if she doesn't want it, why wouldn't she decide to give it to someone who does?
Who knows why anyone makes choices? Why wouldn't she? Maybe she'd be creeped out by the possibility of her genetic material being out there and out of her control. Maybe she's got emotional difficulties and is afraid she'd pass them along to any child she had. Maybe she's just a heartless bitch. Who knows? It doesn't matter.

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

Me too. But the mother should have the right to have it taken out of her body regardless.

I used them merely to quote you. Other terms that could have been used are "health" or "well-being"; they all mean the same thing. If my post came off as sarcastic, I apologize.
No, they do not all mean the same thing.

"Health" describes the general condition of the body.

"Well-being" describes mental and emotional states as well as physical ones.

"Physical integrity" describes, in some senses, the wholeness of the body irregardless of health or well-being, and in other senses, control of decision-making over the body in the context of things/decisions/actions that affect its wholeness.

So, in the sense the other poster used the term, "physical integrity" refers to the maintenance of control over the condition of the body and who has control over it. The physical integrity of the woman's body belongs to the woman, and she has the right to do whatever she likes with and to it, even if her decisions in support of her physical integrity actually end up damaging her health or well-being.

That is why she, just like a man, has the right to refuse medical treatment and even food, and the right to engage in dangerous activities, etc. She also has the right to refuse to share her body with another or to allow another to use her body for any purpose -- this covers everything from resisting slavery, to refusing sex, to refusing to assist others, and to refusing to remain pregnant. By the way, her control over her physical integrity is also what gives her the right to refuse an abortion even if the pregnancy is putting her life at extreme risk.

Her body = her decision.

No, they do not all mean the same thing.

"Health" describes the general condition of the body.

"Well-being" describes mental and emotional states as well as physical ones.

"Physical integrity" describes, in some senses, the wholeness of the body irregardless of health or well-being, and in other senses, control of decision-making over the body in the context of things/decisions/actions that affect its wholeness.

So, in the sense the other poster used the term, "physical integrity" refers to the maintenance of control over the condition of the body and who has control over it. The physical integrity of the woman's body belongs to the woman, and she has the right to do whatever she likes with and to it, even if her decisions in support of her physical integrity actually end up damaging her health or well-being.

That is why she, just like a man, has the right to refuse medical treatment and even food, and the right to engage in dangerous activities, etc. She also has the right to refuse to share her body with another or to allow another to use her body for any purpose -- this covers everything from resisting slavery, refusing sex, refusing to assist others, and refusing to remain pregnant. By the way, her control over her physical integrity is also what gives her the right to refuse an abortion even if the pregnancy is putting her life at extreme risk.

Her body = her decision.

Didn't you know? The only thing you have to do during pregnancy is sleep and eat. Nothing at all changes. :rolleyes:

No. No. No. Only in little minds are things an either/or proposition. The fetus, while it resides in the womb, is for all intents and purposes, the mother...it does not become a separate being until it is separate from the mother.

I've already responded to that:

But all questions of humanness/property-ness aside, I disagree with argument that a fetus is simply another part of the female body, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, not every female body has a fetus. Girls are not born with a fetus inside them; it is the result of a mechanical process involving both a man and the woman. In this sense, a fetus is not naturally part of a woman's body.

Secondly (and this applies specifically to this thread, as it is focussed on the ruling of a certain late-term abortional procedure), a fetus at late-term stage has a discernible heartbeat, and also discernible brainwave patterns. Thus it cannot be just another part of a woman's body for one obvious reason: a woman doesn't have two hearts, nor does she have two brains. While the fetus may be connected to her, it is certainly a foreign presence within the body.

And to use your own analogy of a parasite (even though I find the idea of comparing a fetus with a parasite detestable), if someone's got a tapeworm in their body, if left alone, it will grow by feeding of the host body's nutrients, much like a fetus. But surely my logic would be called into question if I insisted that the person and the tapeworm were one entity; of course the parasite is a foreign presence in the body, and if you're comparing a fetus to parasite, then logically the fetus would have to be considered a separate entity from the mother, regardless of whether or not it is still in the body.

Didn't you know? The only thing you have to do during pregnancy is sleep and eat. Nothing at all changes. :rolleyes:

Yeah, after that crack, I figured this guy for a troll. Gloves are off now.

I've already responded to that:



And to use your own analogy of a parasite (even though I find the idea of comparing a fetus with a parasite detestable), if someone's got a tapeworm in their body, if left alone, it will grow by feeding of the host body's nutrients, much like a fetus. But surely my logic would be called into question if I insisted that the person and the tapeworm were one entity; of course the parasite is a foreign presence in the body, and if you're comparing a fetus to parasite, then logically the fetus would have to be considered a separate entity from the mother, regardless of whether or not it is still in the body.

Is a tapeworm of the same genetic material as the host? No. Your comparison fails, as do you.

In terms of simple legal standings, like I've stated before, something is either human, or property. If it's not classified as one, it's the other. In this sense, if you don't consider it human, it's property. Even if it's consider the mother's body, then the body is considered hers; and if she owns the body, then it's still property in any case. HER property, but property nonetheless.<snip>
You clearly have no idea of what constitutes "property," legally.

Property can be bought, sold, exchanged, and given. Property has monetary value attached to it. Lots of things aside from humans cannot be treated in such a manner and have no monetary value. For instance, who owns the air you breathe, and how much do you pay them for the right to use it? Oh, that's right, nobody and nothing. Yet that doesn't mean you are breathing little people in and out your lungs.

The property analogies that have been used here are just that -- analogies. They are not direct examples, only illustrative ones. Human beings are allowed to control their bodies not because their bodies are property in the legal sense of that word, but for other reasons.

Your statements about what is or is not property are wrong and, therefore, your entire argument based on those statements is flawed.

Didn't you know? The only thing you have to do during pregnancy is sleep and eat. Nothing at all changes. :rolleyes:

Did I oversimplify? Yes. Why? Because there are books written about everything involved with a pregnancy. I however, did not want to write a book. I wanted to write a post.

For what it's worth, if you found my oversimplification offensive, I'm sorry. Like I said in that post, I didn't mean for it to sound antagonistic or callous.

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

Agreed.

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

Well that's fucking stupid.

I've already responded to that:

No, you really haven't. In fact, the whole, "All women don't have one..." is idiotic. It's like saying, "All people don't have moles. Therefore, moles are not a part of the body."

I'd agree that an embryo/fetus is not a part of the body, but your reasoning is far from rational.

And to use your own analogy of a parasite (even though I find the idea of comparing a fetus with a parasite detestable), if someone's got a tapeworm in their body, if left alone, it will grow by feeding of the host body's nutrients, much like a fetus. But surely my logic would be called into question if I insisted that the person and the tapeworm were one entity; of course the parasite is a foreign presence in the body, and if you're comparing a fetus to parasite, then logically the fetus would have to be considered a separate entity from the mother, regardless of whether or not it is still in the body.

It isn't an analogy or a comparison. It is a classification. You can find it detestable all you want. Many people find the fact that human beings are classified as animals - specifically primates - to be detestable, but it doesn't change the facts. Once a fetus has developed to the point that it can be termed an organism it is, by definition, a parasite. It remains so until it is separated from the woman's body. The fact that many women want this parasite to be there doesn't change the classification.


Of course, the question of whether or not an embryo/fetus is a part of the woman's body is moot. The woman controls her own body. Therefore, she can determine what it will and will not be used for. If she does not wish to be pregnant, but is forced to be, then she is being used as an involuntary incubator. Irreversible changes are being made to her body. She is being forced to be more conscious of her own decisions regarding her health, even if she would otherwise not care about such things. She is being put at risk, against her will, of complications that could impair her health in both the short and long term.

Didn't you know? The only thing you have to do during pregnancy is sleep and eat. Nothing at all changes. :rolleyes:
Oh, I missed that memo. *rifles through desk* Oh, here it is. *rips it up, throws it away, reaches for riding crop*

You clearly have no idea of what constitutes "property," legally.

Property can be bought, sold, exchanged, and given. Property has monetary value attached to it. Lots of things aside from humans cannot be treated in such a manner and have no monetary value. For instance, who owns the air you breathe, and how much do you pay them for the right to use it? Oh, that's right, nobody and nothing. Yet that doesn't mean you are breathing little people in and out your lungs.

The air is still property. While it's not property in your defined sense, if it wasn't property, how could the government legally enforce emissions testing for cars? Or enforce laws aimed at reducing air pollution? If the air isn't theirs, why are they regulating it? How can they? Simply because something is used by everyone doesn't mean it's not property.

Did I oversimplify? Yes. Why? Because there are books written about everything involved with a pregnancy. I however, did not want to write a book. I wanted to write a post.

Don't be coy. It's extremely obvious that you "oversimplified" because you wanted to pretend that pregnancy is a walk in the park. Either that, or you really are ignorant of what pregnancy entails. Yes, there are books abotu everything involved with a pregnancy. Perhaps you should look at one sometime.

This "oversimplification" was like saying, "The only thing involved in my job is showing up."

For what it's worth, if you found my oversimplification offensive, I'm sorry. Like I said in that post, I didn't mean for it to sound antagonistic or callous.

How could it sound anything but? It definitely smacks of comments like, "I don't want to be racist, but all those [insert ethnicity here] are [insert ethnic insult here]."


Oh, I missed that memo. *rifles through desk* Oh, here it is. *rips it up, throws it away, reaches for riding crop*

Hawt!

(Past) Bedtime for me folks. G'nite.

No, you really haven't. In fact, the whole, "All women don't have one..." is idiotic. It's like saying, "All people don't have moles. Therefore, moles are not a part of the body."

I'd agree that an embryo/fetus is not a part of the body, but your reasoning is far from rational.

That still doesn't answer the "two hearts/two brains" logic. People are born with moles, and they can, over the course of time, get bigger; however, the human body doesn't just grow another heart and brain out of nowhere.

Did I oversimplify? Yes. Why? Because there are books written about everything involved with a pregnancy. I however, did not want to write a book. I wanted to write a post.

For what it's worth, if you found my oversimplification offensive, I'm sorry. Like I said in that post, I didn't mean for it to sound antagonistic or callous.
Well, perhaps you should try writing posts that (a) make sense and (b) don't leave you open to counter-arguments.

For instance, if you assert that the fetus is an entity distinct from me, and if I have the right to protect myself from being used against my will -- protect myself from attack, from infection, from infestation -- then surely I have the right to make this entity stop using my body if I don't want it there.

Thank you for making the argument IN FAVOR of abortion rights on the grounds of the woman's right to control her own physical integrity.

Did I oversimplify? Yes. Why? Because there are books written about everything involved with a pregnancy. I however, did not want to write a book. I wanted to write a post.

For what it's worth, if you found my oversimplification offensive, I'm sorry. Like I said in that post, I didn't mean for it to sound antagonistic or callous.

Let me clue you in on something. Whether you "mean it" to sound offensive or antagonistic or callous is irrelevant when you reach those levels of offensiveness. You can't just wipe away the stupidity of that kind of comment with a "I didn't mean to offend anyone." Doesn't work like that. Your post showed a rare level of disdain for women. I'm offended by it, and I'm male for crying out loud. Say something like that to a woman's face--especially a pregnant woman--and you'll be looking for your testicles in the sewage treatment plant two counties over.

This "oversimplification" was like saying, "The only thing involved in my job is showing up."

Considering my job, that's not an oversimplification. ;)

(Past) Bedtime for me folks. G'nite.Me too. Got to be up in five hours. See y'all tomorrow.

The air is still property. While it's not property in your defined sense, if it wasn't property, how could the government legally enforce emissions testing for cars? Or enforce laws aimed at reducing air pollution? If the air isn't theirs, why are they regulating it? How can they? Simply because something is used by everyone doesn't mean it's not property.
That is the most ridiculous thing you've said so far. The government does not regulate the air, you loon. It regulates engines.

Here, I'll make it easy for you. If the air is property, you go take ownership of it and then sell it on the comodities exchange.

Let us know how it goes for you.

That is the most ridiculous thing you've said so far. The government does not regulate the air, you loon. It regulates engines.

Here, I'll make it easy for you. If the air is property, you go take ownership of it and then sell it on the comodities exchange.

Let us know how it goes for you.

People have already done the same thing with water.

Me too. Got to be up in five hours. See y'all tomorrow.
Same here. And then a whole day in the office. I hope this thread is still alive tomorrow night because I will be in a mood to beat someone up. (Work always does that to me.)

'Night, all. :)

[double post]

Simply because something is used by everyone doesn't mean it's not property.
Even if you would like to assume that a foetus can be privately owned chattel, the suggestion that property rights could abrogate a pregnant woman’s fundamental physical integrity is absurd. So it’s irrelevant.

Let me clue you in on something. Whether you "mean it" to sound offensive or antagonistic or callous is irrelevant when you reach those levels of offensiveness. You can't just wipe away the stupidity of that kind of comment with a "I didn't mean to offend anyone." Doesn't work like that. Your post showed a rare level of disdain for women. I'm offended by it, and I'm male for crying out loud. Say something like that to a woman's face--especially a pregnant woman--and you'll be looking for your testicles in the sewage treatment plant two counties over.

Let me make myself clear: I hold no disdain for women. None. If I did, then I'd make some kind of idiotic blanket statement about how women are sub-human, and are thusly entitled to no rights at all. That would be disdain for women. But I hold no such position.

The point I was trying to make (but which, admittedly, failed miserably) was that a woman cannot claim responsibility for every facet of the growth of the fetus.

Example: A fetus develops ten fingers on its own. Does the mother specify that the fetus develop ten fingers? No. Does the mother physically go in and form ten fingers on the ends of the fetus' arms? No. The mother cannot claim that she is responsible for the fact that her fetus developed ten fingers. At least, she can't claim that she is personally responsible for that and be taken seriously.

The fact is, fetal growth will happen regardless, unless the mother specifically does something to curb the growth or end its life. Does it take its toll? Yes. I'm not discounting that. But as someone who has a sister who up until her eighth month of pregnancy continued to go to work and do all the things she did pre-pregnancy, I cannot agree with what comes across as the position that a pregnancy completely puts a woman's life on hold.

In any case, it's past my bedtime too. Good discussion, people...I'll see you all around tomorrow.

Hope everyone has a great night! :)

I will chime in with a "what they said" comment.

A question though. I was listening to how this issue came before and O'Conner wrote an opinion that basically gave the States a set of guidelines for the States to make their own rulings.

What happened to that? They just toss it for the Nebraska law?

In Stenberg v. Carhart (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-830#section3), 530 U. S. 914 (2000), the Court invalidated a Nebraska statute criminalizing the performance of a medical procedure that, in the political arena, has been dubbed "partial-birth abortion." With fidelity to the Roe-Casey line of precedent, the Court held the Nebraska statute unconstitutional in part because it lacked the requisite protection for the preservation of a woman's health (among other problems with the statute).

Justice O'Connor concurred (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-830#section3) seperately. Here are highlights and excerpts to which I think you were referrring:

"First, the Nebraska statute is inconsistent with Casey because it lacks an exception for those instances when the banned procedure is necessary to preserve the health of the mother.[/B] See id., at 879 (joint opinion of O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ.). ... This lack of a health exception necessarily renders the statute unconstitutional." ...[W]here, as here, "a significant body of medical opinion believes a procedure may bring with it greater safety for some patients and explains the medical reasons supporting that view," ante, at 19, then Nebraska cannot say that the procedure will not, in some circumstances, be "necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother." Accordingly, our precedent requires that the statute include a health exception.

Second, Nebraska's statute is unconstitutional on the alternative and independent ground that it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before viability. Nebraska's ban covers not just the dilation and extraction (D&X) procedure, but also the dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure, "the most commonly used method for performing previability second trimester abortions." ... As the Court explains, the medical evidence establishes that the D&E procedure is included in this definition. Thus, it is not possible to interpret the statute's language as applying only to the D&X procedure. ... Given this construction, the statute is impermissible. Indeed, Nebraska conceded at oral argument that "the State could not prohibit the D&E procedure." Tr. of Oral Arg. 10. By proscribing the most commonly used method for previability second trimester abortions, see
ante, at 5, the statute creates a "substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion," Casey, supra, at 884, and therefore imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy prior to viability.

It is important to note that, unlike Nebraska, some other States have enacted statutes more narrowly tailored to proscribing the D&X procedure alone. Some of those statutes have done so by specifically excluding from their coverage the most common methods of abortion, such as the D&E and vacuum aspiration procedures. For example, the Kansas statute states that its ban does not apply to the "(A) [s]uction curettage abortion procedure; (B) suction aspiration abortion procedure; or (C) dilation and evacuation abortion procedure involving dismemberment of the fetus prior to removal from the body of the pregnant woman." Kan Stat. Ann. §65-6721(b)(2) (Supp. 1998). The Utah statute similarly provides that its prohibition "does not include the dilation and evacuation procedure involving dismemberment prior to removal, the suction curettage procedure, or the suction aspiration procedure for abortion." Utah Code Ann. §76-7-310.5(1)(a) (1999). Likewise, the Montana statute defines the banned procedure as one in which "(A) the living fetus is removed intact from the uterus until only the head remains in the uterus; (B) all or a part of the intracranial contents of the fetus are evacuated; (C) the head of the fetus is compressed; and (D) following fetal demise, the fetus is removed from the birth canal." Mont. Code Ann. §50-20-401(3)(c)(ii) (Supp. 1999). By restricting their prohibitions to the D&X procedure exclusively, the Kansas, Utah, and Montana statutes avoid a principal defect of the Nebraska law.

If Nebraska's statute limited its application to the D&X procedure and included an exception for the life and health of the mother, the question presented would be quite different than the one we face today. As we held in Casey, an abortion regulation constitutes an undue burden if it "has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." 505 U. S., at 877. If there were adequate alternative methods for a woman safely to obtain an abortion before viability, it is unlikely that prohibiting the D&X procedure alone would "amount in practical terms to a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion." Id., at 884. Thus, a ban on partial-birth abortion that only proscribed the D&X method of abortion and that included an exception to preserve the life and health of the mother would be constitutional in my view.

Nebraska's statute, however, does not meet these criteria. It contains no exception for when the procedure, in appropriate medical judgment, is necessary to preserve the health of the mother; and it proscribes not only the D&X procedure but also the D&E procedure, the most commonly used method for previability second trimester abortions, thus making it an undue burden on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. For these reasons, I agree with the Court that Nebraska's law is unconstitutional.

Ill add some comments in a moment.

Let me make myself clear: I hold no disdain for women. None. If I did, then I'd make some kind of idiotic blanket statement about how women are sub-human, and are thusly entitled to no rights at all. That would be disdain for women. But I hold no such position.

The point I was trying to make (but which, admittedly, failed miserably) was that a woman cannot claim responsibility for every facet of the growth of the fetus.

Example: A fetus develops ten fingers on its own. Does the mother specify that the fetus develop ten fingers? No. Does the mother physically go in and form ten fingers on the ends of the fetus' arms? No. The mother cannot claim that she is responsible for the fact that her fetus developed ten fingers. At least, she can't claim that she is personally responsible for that and be taken seriously.

...actually, she kind of can. No, she does not make a conscious decision to cause the embryo growing inside her to have a certain number of fingers. But her body essentially does just that - and in order to keep her body making these "decisions," she makes plenty of conscious decisions of her own. For example, she frequently decides to make a point of gaining the right amount of weight, not drinking, not lifting heavy objects, not spending too much time on her feet, going off medications which might be harmful, paying for regular doctor's visits, taking folic acid supplements, and, in many cases, even spending months in bed, just to name a few. A woman's consciousness may not be responsible for every aspect of embryonic development, but her body quite definitely is, and her choices affect that.

Of course, this is all entirely beside the point under discussion in the first place. Whatever the woman's responsibility in carrying a fetus to term, no one has the right to use someone else's body against that person's will - not even a fetus.

Making abortion illegal won't stop the practice. It'll just drive it back underground where it all started. Which in this day and age means you've just created Prohibition With Coathangers.

Whenever the subject of abortion-- and whether or not it should be legal-- comes up, I can't help but think that if it was men who carried the babies and then had to deliver them, abortion would be 100% legal and easily accessible. Maybe we wouldn't all be *having* them, but they'd be legal and readily available because men, with our priviledge and our power in society, would *never* tolerate being told that we didn't have a choice and that if we got knocked up we were going to be forced to carry a fetus to term and then endure delivery. It just goes to show how inextricably womens' right to sovereignty over their own bodies is bound up with sexism and historic male dominance.

That said, I wish there were fewer abortions, because I think they're sad, and an unflattering statement about the culture in which they take place. But I don't think men have any legitimate right to control any woman's reproductive functions. Women can't compel men to submit a semen sample against their will for the purpose of having a child; men, in turn, shouldn't be able to compel women to go through 9 months of gestation and then delivery just because they get pregnant.

Show me a male who's facing morning sickness, hormone havoc, back pains, cravings, weight gain and then the prospect of pushing something the size of a grapefruit out through a channel the width of his urethera, and I'll concede that he's qualified to have an opinion-- and a say-- in 'permitting' abortion.

Making abortion illegal won't stop the practice. It'll just drive it back underground where it all started. Which in this day and age means you've just created Prohibition With Coathangers.

You'd be right if this banned abortion. All it did was ban a procedure of it. Abortion is still legal.

You'd be right if this banned abortion. All it did was ban a procedure of it. Abortion is still legal.
For now. I know history isn't your strong point, but you might want to look at the history of this struggle so you realize that this is just the latest battle over abortion rights. It's far from the first victory for the anti-choice side, too. They've been winning small battles since the 80s, all headed toward the same goal--getting rid of choice.

For now. I know history isn't your strong point, but you might want to look at the history of this struggle so you realize that this is just the latest battle over abortion rights. It's far from the first victory for the anti-choice side, too. They've been winning small battles since the 80s, all headed toward the same goal--getting rid of choice.

Why do you bother? He's already made it clear that this is what he wants. What HE wants. Didn't you see the cheerleading earlier. Anyone saying anything against choice is his hero. Shall I quote his first seven or so contributions to the thread. It's not about reason or about rights. It's about the subjugation of women to HIS wishes.

So what if this law allows men to sue women for their medical decisions. So what if this decision makes a doctor afraid to follow the best medical course for a woman. So what if Congress ignored all available evidence and the bulk of medical opinion and declared this NEVER medically necessary.

Legislation full of lies, contridiction and complete disdain for human life is a victory so long as it appears to be "Christian".

For now. I know history isn't your strong point,

I stopped reading right here. I have 3.0 in history thanks.

Legislation full of lies, contridiction and complete disdain for human life is a victory so long as it appears to be "Christian".

A true christian respects all forms of life. So why don't shut it.

A true christian respects all forms of life. So why don't shut it.

Yes, including women. That's why a "true" Christian would never endorse legislation that treats them like they don't matter.

And I take it you don't believe that "true" Christians should hunt and support the complete and utter outlawing of guns, yes?

I stopped reading right here. I have 3.0 in history thanks.

Really? *gasp* Then you must REALLY know your stuff.

You do realize there is a huge difference between being able to regurgitate dates and understanding history, no? TN does. Your grades don't test your understanding. They really can't.

Whenever the subject of abortion-- and whether or not it should be legal-- comes up, I can't help but think that if it was men who carried the babies and then had to deliver them, abortion would be 100% legal and easily accessible. Maybe we wouldn't all be *having* them, but they'd be legal and readily available because men, with our priviledge and our power in society, would *never* tolerate being told that we didn't have a choice and that if we got knocked up we were going to be forced to carry a fetus to term and then endure delivery. It just goes to show how inextricably womens' right to sovereignty over their own bodies is bound up with sexism and historic male dominance.

That said, I wish there were fewer abortions, because I think they're sad, and an unflattering statement about the culture in which they take place. But I don't think men have any legitimate right to control any woman's reproductive functions.



Do I agree with abortion myself? No. But the argument for or against abortion itself isn't the main point I've been trying to make. What I'm saying is that since the fetus was created jointly by the mother and the father, the father should at least have a right to be included/consulted in decisions regarding its destruction...I'm still having a hard time understanding why that seems so reprehensible to so many (not speaking of you in particular; it just seems that many on this thread are so strongly opposed to this idea).

Women can't compel men to submit a semen sample against their will for the purpose of having a child; men, in turn, shouldn't be able to compel women to go through 9 months of gestation and then delivery just because they get pregnant.

That's true - the decision to have sex must be a mutually consensual one, or else one party can sue the other for rape (the rape of males being a real offense, for the record; rape doesn't only happen to women). With that said, if the decision for a man to inseminate a woman must be consensual, and accomplished with both parties' knowledge of it, it would logically follow that decision regarding direct consequences resulting from that insemination (read: fetus) should be mutually consensual and mutually known as well.

Yes, including women. That's why a "true" Christian would never endorse legislation that treats them like they don't matter.

And why we support legislation to protect all life, including the unborn.

And I take it you don't believe that "true" Christians should hunt and support the complete and utter outlawing of guns, yes?

I do not see that written anywhere in the bible. Care to point to the passage that I missed? Oh wait, this is totally off topic. Never mind.

A true christian respects all forms of life. So why don't you fuck off.

Have a vacation. You should have taken a voluntary one earlier as Frisbeeteria advised.

Also, instead of editing after posting, work on editing before posting.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

And why we support legislation to protect all life, including the unborn.

But not women. You see this legislation makes no provision for when the "unborn" are already dead or dying and where this is the safest procedure for the woman. It doesn't recognize that a woman's health can be in danger even if her life isn't, i.e. she could go blind, become sterile, paralyzed, brain-damaged, etc. This procedure is often chosen by women who wish to mourn their dead fetus. It's not an elective procedure. It's almost always a last resort.

This legislation makes it so rather than making the safest procedure medically, they will have to choose the safest procedure legally. This will not protect the fetus, as you claim. It ONLY endangers women and their rights. Nothing else. So if you support this legislation it can ONLY be out of spite for women.

There is nothing Christian about this legislation. Nothing. It shows a complete disdain for the half of humanity you just happen to not be a part of.


I do not see that written anywhere in the bible. Care to point to the passage that I missed? Oh wait, this is totally off topic. Never mind.

You said a "true" Christian respects all life. Did you want to amend that statement?

That abortion is wrong is not written anywhere in the Bible, either. I didn't realize that strict adherence to the Bible was required to be a "true" Christian. Then I guess legislation that "bears false witness" must not be supported by the "true" Christian, no? Since that little bit happens to be in the commandments, the Law and that was most certainly supported by Christ.

That's true - the decision to have sex must be a mutually consensual one, or else one party can sue the other for rape (the rape of males being a real offense, for the record; rape doesn't only happen to women).

Little correction. Rape is a criminal charge. YOu can't "sue" for rape. The government charges you with rape.

Now a rapist will likely ALSO commit a series of tortious acts in the process, and those are actionable. But to my knowledge there is no "rape tort". Rape is, by definition, a criminal act, not civil cause of action.

Do I agree with abortion myself? No. But the argument for or against abortion itself isn't the main point I've been trying to make. What I'm saying is that since the fetus was created jointly by the mother and the father, the father should at least have a right to be included/consulted in decisions regarding its destruction...I'm still having a hard time understanding why that seems so reprehensible to so many (not speaking of you in particular; it just seems that many on this thread are so strongly opposed to this idea).

Because it is trumping her several month, life-endangering, life-altering efforts and her medical decisions with his hour-long effort (at best). You're talking about him making medical decisions for her.

He gave her that sperm. He put it into her property. He had an opportunity to prevent putting it into her property, but more often than not chose not to prevent such a thing (by wearing a condom). As such, he gave her that property. Unless she removes it from her body, he really has no say as to the effect this has. He gave her this property with the understand that she would do with it as she wishes for the next nine months.


That's true - the decision to have sex must be a mutually consensual one, or else one party can sue the other for rape (the rape of males being a real offense, for the record; rape doesn't only happen to women). With that said, if the decision for a man to inseminate a woman must be consensual, and accomplished with both parties' knowledge of it, it would logically follow that decision regarding direct consequences resulting from that insemination (read: fetus) should be mutually consensual and mutually known as well.

Inseminate means to give his sperm to her.

So I take it that if you accept my kidney, that I get to make all of your future medical decisions regarding it, no?

Corneliu,

Let's make this simple.

Look at the vote on this case, and who voted which way, and why they said they voted that way.

5-4.

Hmm. As you well know, there are continual challenges to Roe in the litigation pipeline.

It's only a matter of time before one of them reaches this court.

How do you think they'll vote?

5-4, in favor of either nullifying Roe (through some ruling that makes Roe irrelevant) or overturning it altogether.

Little correction. Rape is a criminal charge. YOu can't "sue" for rape. The government charges you with rape.

Now a rapist will likely ALSO commit a series of tortious acts in the process, and those are actionable. But to my knowledge there is no "rape tort". Rape is, by definition, a criminal act, not civil cause of action.

Obviously a misstep by me. Yes, it's true that you can't sue for rape. But you can sue for emotional and punitive damages, and that suing would be the result of the rape happening. Either way, you understand my point.

But not women. You see this legislation makes no provision for when the "unborn" are already dead

Actually the law is very specific in saying "which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body" so if it's already dead, the law simply does not apply to it.

The rest of your post is accurate.

Corneliu,

Let's make this simple.

Look at the vote on this case, and who voted which way, and why they said they voted that way.

5-4.

Hmm. As you well know, there are continual challenges to Roe in the litigation pipeline.

It's only a matter of time before one of them reaches this court.

How do you think they'll vote?

5-4, in favor of either nullifying Roe (through some ruling that makes Roe irrelevant) or overturning it altogether.

Actually, in the majority decision, they said clearly that Roe stands and should. I think it's likely that some woman will choose the now banned procedure out of medical necessity and challenge this law all the way to the SCOTUS and we'll see this law fall. There are some among the 5 who would likely not actually be willing to imprison a woman who made a decision to protect her health, health not life, over the life of a dead or dying fetus.

Corneliu,

Let's make this simple.

Look at the vote on this case, and who voted which way, and why they said they voted that way.

5-4.

Hmm. As you well know, there are continual challenges to Roe in the litigation pipeline.

It's only a matter of time before one of them reaches this court.

How do you think they'll vote?

5-4, in favor of either nullifying Roe (through some ruling that makes Roe irrelevant) or overturning it altogether.

Doubtful. At the end of the day, I have real doubts that Kennedy would vote to overturn roe. I have my doubts about roberts. That leaves it, at best, 5-4 in favor.

Actually the law is very specific in saying "which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body" so if it's already dead, the law simply does not apply to it.

The rest of your post is accurate.

Fine, change it to dying instead of dead. Technically, because the law is so vague, a fetus could be missing all or most of its brain and be devoid of brain activity and still qualify as 'living'. However, medically, absent brain activity among persons means dead. Legally, we, conveniently, violate this principle whenever the religious right gets their collective panties in a bunch.

Actually, in the majority decision, they said clearly that Roe stands and should.

Right, Scalia and Thomas wrote in their concurrence that the law should stand because there simply is no right to an abortion. This is not really shocking, since that's Scalia's raison d'etra, and god knows THomas can't think for himself.

Kennedy (not at all surprising), Roberts (not really surprising) and Alitto (actually kind of surprising) did not sign out to that concurrence.

The fact is, if SCOTUS actually wanted to overturn Roe, they could have done it right now. They could have done away with it entirely. The question was whether this law was constitutional, given the interpreted right to an abortion. SCOTUS would have been in its purview to simply vote Roe out of existance.

They could have done this here, it would have been permissable. They didn't. In fact, the number of justices voting to overturn roe now sits at 2. The lowests it has been since...well....roe.

I think it's likely that some woman will choose the now banned procedure out of medical necessity and challenge this law all the way to the SCOTUS and we'll see this law fall. There are some among the 5 who would likely not actually be willing to imprison a woman who made a decision to protect her health, health not life, over the life of a dead or dying fetus.

I think kennedy made it pretty clear that he'd switch his vote if he sees an actual real example as to when there was a health (not life) justification for this.

Doubtful. At the end of the day, I have real doubts that Kennedy would vote to overturn roe. I have my doubts about roberts. That leaves it, at best, 5-4 in favor.

While they may not overturn it, it does show they are willing to consider anything that can nullify Roe by going around it.

While they may not overturn it, it does show they are willing to consider anything that can nullify Roe by going around it.

but the problem is, how does this in any way nullify it? The simple question has to be, as a result of this ruling, will any women not be able to get an abortion that she could previously, or get one with any real degree of greater difficulty than she would have?

I don't think so. This ruling....does nothing to limit access to abortions, or even late term abortions. And I think that was the reason it went this way. I get the feeling kennedy was waivering for a bit, and wasn't sure where he'd end up. I think what sold him was the argument that this will not actually limit abortion.

I just have to wonder, at the end of the day, if this will change ANYTHING.

NOw don't get me wrong. I don't like this law, I think it's stupid. I think the civil penalties are egregious. But...well...if the court majority really felt like doing an end run around roe, they could have done it here, and they just didn't. They upheld the ban, yes, but only in the most narrow way.

Because it is trumping her several month, life-endangering, life-altering efforts and her medical decisions with his hour-long effort (at best). You're talking about him making medical decisions for her.

Firstly, pregnancy is certainly not life-endangering in and of itself. In certain cases, perhaps; but stating something as blanket as that holds as much validity as if I said eating is life endangering. While perhaps I could choke and die on the food, the fact is that this doesn't happen every time I eat. In fact, it may not happen to me at all, ever. In the same way, while there are cases of pregnancy being life-endangering, "life-endangerment" is in no way a natural symptom of pregnancy.

Secondly, there's a big jump from "mutual knowledge" to "the father is making medical decisions for her". Perhaps I have too much faith in people working through things together in marriage, and as such I can understand how the idea of legislating the abortion decision to be a mutually consensual one between mother and father could be seen as somewhat too idealistic. However, I do believe that regardless of whether the father necessarily agrees with the mother getting the abortion, as the father he should legally be informed of said decision before the procedure is performed.

He gave her that sperm. He put it into her property. He had an opportunity to prevent putting it into her property, but more often than not chose not to prevent such a thing (by wearing a condom). As such, he gave her that property. Unless she removes it from her body, he really has no say as to the effect this has. He gave her this property with the understanding that she would do with it as she wishes for the next nine months.

I'm not sure if I understand you meant it like this and I'm not going to assume, but this whole paragraph seems to come across as if you believe that a woman has no responsibility for the act of having sex with a guy, or at the very least, it comes across that if whatever method of birth control used fails, you believe it is entirely the man's fault. Maybe this is what you meant, maybe not; but if not, please make your point clearer to understand. This is not an attack; this is simply asking for clarification as to what your position/point here is.


Inseminate means to give his sperm to her.

So I take it that if you accept my kidney, that I get to make all of your future medical decisions regarding it, no?

By the same token and somewhat hazy word definition, sexual intercourse means two people giving their bodies to each other willingly. And if the girl's giving her body to the guy, well then, she gave it to him, and therefore he's entitled to a say in, or at least a knowledge of, what happens to it. What are you getting at?

By the same token and somewhat hazy word definition, sexual intercourse means two people giving their bodies to each other willingly. And if the girl's giving her body to the guy, well then, she gave it to him, and therefore he's entitled to a say in, or at least a knowledge of, what happens to it. What are you getting at?

This isn't the 10th century.

It's not as though a woman is chattel property.

As a person of faith, I applaud this decision by the Supreme Court and wished that they overturned all late term abortions. However, one must take the victories when they happen. This is the step in the right direction.

May God Bless this honorable Court.

This isn't the 10th century.

It's not as though a woman is chattel property.

No, this isn't the 10th century. But you cannot say that using the phrase "giving yourself to someone" isn't a currently used expression for sexual intercourse, either.

Secondly, in my post I stated that it was two people giving their bodies to each other, not just one person doing the giving and one doing the taking.

And thirdly, my post explicitly stated that it was using hazy word definitions, definitions of the same ilk as those given of the word "insemination".

Context is everything.

As a person of faith, I applaud this decision by the Supreme Court and wished that they overturned all late term abortions. However, one must take the victories when they happen. This is the step in the right direction.

May God Bless this honorable Court.

As a person of faith, I must turn to the bible and surprise! surprise! the bible states that it is not a human being until it has been delivered. So late-terms abortions are a-ok, as far as the bible is concerned.

Why do you deny women something that even the bible allows?

Firstly, pregnancy is certainly not life-endangering in and of itself.

Um, yes it is. It endangers the life and health of the mother. It will NEVER provide the same danger or require the same effort of the father.

In 2000, the WHO reports that more than half a million women suffered maternal death.


In certain cases, perhaps; but stating something as blanket as that holds as much validity as if I said eating is life endangering. While perhaps I could choke and die on the food, the fact is that this doesn't happen every time I eat. In fact, it may not happen to me at all, ever. In the same way, while there are cases of pregnancy being life-endangering, "life-endangerment" is in no way a natural symptom of pregnancy.
A woman who gets pregnant is always, always at risk of complications much like an medical condition of that level of severity. Last I checked you don't need routine medical attention for eating, so your comparison fails. Without routine medical attention pregnancy increases in danger about 100 fold.

Meanwhile, even if you survive pregnancy it leaves the body irreparably damaged. Permanently. That's not an odds thing. It happens every time.

Perhaps you don't know what danger means, but I would say that if you need medical attention to protect your life, your life is in danger.


Secondly, there's a big jump from "mutual knowledge" to "the father is making medical decisions for her". Perhaps I have too much faith in people working through things together in marriage, and as such I can understand how the idea of legislating the abortion decision to be a mutually consensual one between mother and father could be seen as somewhat too idealistic. However, I do believe that regardless of whether the father necessarily agrees with the mother getting the abortion, as the father he should legally be informed of said decision before the procedure is performed.

Either she makes the decisions or he does. Joint decisions where she agrees is just her making a decision with advice from others. If he decides then she doesn't.

No, you're problem is that you think it's any business of the law to be involved in forcing people to work together. Worse you have the idiotic idea that men should have ANY say in the medical decisions of a woman. And yes, I said idiotic, because I strongly suspect if they made a law that said you could be sued for not involving your wife in your medical decisions you'd be appalled.


I'm not sure if I understand you meant it like this and I'm not going to assume, but this whole paragraph seems to come across as if you believe that a woman has no responsibility for the act of having sex with a guy, or at the very least, that if whatever method of brith control used fails, it is entirely the man's fault. Maybe this is what you meant, maybe not; but if not, please make your point clearer to understand.

Then you're not reading very well. I think the woman has much more responsibility. I'm saying that if a guy doesn't want to give her his sperm he doesn't have to. It's a fairly basic concept.

If whatever method of birth control they use fails, then the man and woman took that risk. However, the man knew that this risk included giving her his sperm and the woman knew this risk involved a possible pregnancy and making the medical decisions surrounding that pregnancy.

Are you saying that you don't recognize that women and men play different roles in the act of creating a child? Okay... first you have these birds and bees...




By the same token and somewhat hazy word definition, sexual intercourse means two people giving their bodies to each other willingly. And if the girl's giving her body to the guy, well then, she gave it to him, and therefore he's entitled to a say in, or at least a knowledge of, what happens to it. What are you getting at?

No, it doesn't. At all. It's a temporary thing. He gives the sperm to her forever. There is NO understanding that she'll return it to him. However, with the bodies thing, he certainly can't come back in an hour and play on that playground without first asking for a ticket to ride.

She loaned parts of her body to him during the act of intercourse. Like loaning a car. However, with the sperm, she is expected to deal with it once it's inside her, unless he was wearing a condom. And even then it's done with the understanding that if the condom fails that SHE will have to deal with pregnancy.

He will never at any time have the same level of responsiblity required when a pregnancy occurs. As such, he also doesn't have the same level of control.

I'll tell you what. I'm all for equality. From now on, the government will allow the man the right to be included in the abortion decision. He will have equal ability in relation to the pregnancy. And since we're creating thie magical "equality", I'll great a squad of goons and we'll walk around and grab random fathers and kill them. We'll tie all of them down and damage their reproductive organs to varying degrees. All of them will have their bladders and some of their colons damaged along with various other organs. All of them will have additional weight strapped to them and made to be uncomfortable and inconvenienced for 9 months.

Then we'll have this magical "equality" that nature didn't provide. And while we're at it, we'll give women the ability to write their names in the snow.

You know I ignored your arguments for most of this thread because it's pretty clear you haven't really thought them out. You keep getting too excited and responding to something that people didn't say as you did here. You've been making all kinds of wrong assumptions and flawed arguments because you really, really want your argument to have some logical basis. The problem is, it doesn't. It really doesn't. It's been discussed without end by debaters who are much more careful than yourself, and fact has it that it's a nearly indefensible position.

No, this isn't the 10th century. But you cannot say that using the phrase "giving yourself to someone" isn't a currently used expression for sexual intercourse, either.

Secondly, in my post I stated that it was two people giving their bodies to each other, not just one person doing the giving and one doing the taking.

And thirdly, my post explicitly stated that it was using hazy word definitions, definitions of the same ilk as those given of the word "insemination".

Context is everything.

Yes, because poetic phrases should define law.

When a man inseminates, he is quite literally giving his sperm to her. He doesn't go in and get it. He doesn't expect her to give it back. And he understands that she must deal with it if it has the effect nature intended. He won't have to be pregnant. She will. He won't have to get surgery to end that pregnancy. She will. He puts that on her shoulders. And as such, it's her decision. When men can get pregnant then they will be the ones making such a decision.

As a person of faith, I applaud this decision by the Supreme Court and wished that they overturned all late term abortions. However, one must take the victories when they happen. This is the step in the right direction.

May God Bless this honorable Court.

Hilarious. As a person of faith you consider it a victory that the only effect of this legislation is that it ignores the rights of the women, doesn't protect even one fetus and puts the woman's life in danger.

I'm so glad I don't share your faith. I'm a Christian. I respect all life, including that of women.

No, this isn't the 10th century. But you cannot say that using the phrase "giving yourself to someone" isn't a currently used expression for sexual intercourse, either.

Secondly, in my post I stated that it was two people giving their bodies to each other, not just one person doing the giving and one doing the taking.

And thirdly, my post explicitly stated that it was using hazy word definitions, definitions of the same ilk as those given of the word "insemination".

Context is everything.

Sorry, "giving" in this case does not imply any sort of legal ownership.

Sorry, "giving" in this case does not imply any sort of legal ownership.

In fact, 'giving' in this case doesn't have any related meaning in any way. It's just a poetic phrase. However, it is accepted that if a man inseminates a woman, that he can't come back later and retrieve it. It's hers until she removes it from her body.

The problem here is that our little friend is completely ignoring the obvious. If I hand you my wallet so I don't drop it while I climb over a fence, you don't get to keep it and say I gave it to you. However, if I give you a present, I can't come back later and retrieve it. Whether something I've put in your posession belongs to you is completely based on the mutual understanding. In the case of sex, the man doesn't not have the understanding that he has any level of control over the woman's body that she doesn't first okay and that any such control ends when her okay does. In the case of insemination, the woman most certainly does have the expectation that that he does not retain ownership of his sperm while it is in her body. There is no way he could.

It's much the same way that both the mother and father don't have the expectation that they retain ownership of their DNA and physical contributions to the child they produce. The child is cared for by them, but it is not property once it leaves the body of the mother. At that point, the mother and father have both given freely whatever parts of that child used to belong to them.

As a person of faith, I applaud this decision by the Supreme Court and wished that they overturned all late term abortions. However, one must take the victories when they happen. This is the step in the right direction.

May God Bless this honorable Court.
Another 'person of faith' (inverted commas, since there are plenty who don't) wanting to impose their values onto others. It's the same logic with gay marriage - I don't like it, 'it's immoral', blah, blah, blah; so it's got to be denied to others. How does effect you if abortion is legal? Nobody would force you or your spouse to have an abortion if you didn't want to. A ban on abortion serves no one, except those furthering a theopolitical agenda - women, whether they be of faith or not, have nothing to gain from it.

From the viewpoint of this legislation, although it could set a dangerous precedent, all it does is put a minority of women in danger by ensuring they cannot get the kind of abortion that doctors feel they need and endangers them the least.

In fact, 'giving' in this case doesn't have any related meaning in any way. It's just a poetic phrase. However, it is accepted that if a man inseminates a woman, that he can't come back later and retrieve it. It's hers until she removes it from her body.

The problem here is that our little friend is completely ignoring the obvious. If I hand you my wallet so I don't drop it while I climb over a fence, you don't get to keep it and say I gave it to you. However, if I give you a present, I can't come back later and retrieve it. Whether something I've put in your posession belongs to you is completely based on the mutual understanding. In the case of sex, the man doesn't not have the understanding that he has any level of control over the woman's body that she doesn't first okay and that any such control ends when her okay does. In the case of insemination, the woman most certainly does have the expectation that that he does not retain ownership of his sperm while it is in her body. There is no way he could.

It's much the same way that both the mother and father don't have the expectation that they retain ownership of their DNA and physical contributions to the child they produce. The child is cared for by them, but it is not property once it leaves the body of the mother. At that point, the mother and father have both given freely whatever parts of that child used to belong to them.

I think that some men think that the understanding is that the man is in charge, and somehow the woman is chattel property.

As a person of faith myself, I find other "persons of faith" who get this idea from a verse about the "wife submitting to the husband". I've also noticed that these people usually forget about reading the rest of the verse, where the husband has to equally respect the wife.

I call this "convenient reading" of Scripture. It gives "people of faith" a bad name.

I agree that once in the woman, the sperm can't be "owned" by the man, nor can they be "recalled" on demand. And what happens after that happens in the woman's body. While the woman may demand that the man take responsibility for any child that results, the man can't demand that the woman carry the baby to term (or demand that she abort). It's just not his body.

He knew that she could have gotten pregnant before he had sex with her. It's not like it was a surprise.

If you're a man, and you don't want women to have abortions, don't have sex. Virtually every method of birth control has a failure rate above zero, so if you're a man, and you hate abortions, get used to masturbation.

As a person of faith, I must turn to the bible and surprise! surprise! the bible states that it is not a human being until it has been delivered. So late-terms abortions are a-ok, as far as the bible is concerned.

Why do you deny women something that even the bible allows?

I will respond properly to you when I see the appropriate verses that you are refering to.

Hilarious. As a person of faith you consider it a victory that the only effect of this legislation is that it ignores the rights of the women, doesn't protect even one fetus and puts the woman's life in danger.

I'm so glad I don't share your faith. I'm a Christian. I respect all life, including that of women.

So why are you hammering me for my beliefs? I have not attacked yours and I will not attack your for we are all children of God.

As a person of faith, I also hold life in high esteem. That is why I condemn abortion and am glad for this ruling. You call yourself a person of faith but yet, you have condemned this ruling. Sorry but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of respecting life is.

Um, yes it is. It endangers the life and health of the mother...In 2000, the WHO reports that more than half a million women suffered maternal death.

While that may be the case, my statement that pregnancy is not in and of itself life-endangering still stands. This is what allows to have people more than one child. Is a pregnant woman given up for dead simply because she's pregnant? No. Whil I agree with you that it does pose some health risks, a regular, natural childbirth does not automatically mean the woman's life is on the brink of being snuffed out.

Think of it this way. If someone smokes, the smoking itself isn't what's dangerous. It certainly involves RISK, but until a person develops lung cancer or emphysema, there's no DANGER that needs to be addressed. It's the *cancer* that kills someone, not the cigarettes themselves; also, just because a person smokes does *not* guarantee they will automatically get cancer.

In the same way, while pregnancy certainly ups the *risk* to a woman's body, it in no means automatically puts the woman in any *danger*. Perhaps much of the confusion between us is because I believe "rsk" and "danger" are two separate things, whereas, if I'm understanding you correctly, your position is that they are synonymous.

A woman who gets pregnant is always, always at risk of complications much like an medical condition of that level of severity. Last I checked you don't need routine medical attention for eating, so your comparison fails. Without routine medical attention pregnancy increases in danger about 100 fold.

It increases *risk*; it does not increase danger.

Meanwhile, even if you survive pregnancy it leaves the body irreparably damaged. Permanently. That's not an odds thing. It happens every time.

By the same logic it could be argued that when a boy goes through puberty and loses his high voice, his body gets irreparably damaged (which, by the way, is why people in the Middle Ages castrated boys in order not to 'damage" their high voice). But of course the body's not getting damaged; the body is doing what it's naturally designed to do. A female womb is naturally designed to stretch out. The female body is naturally designed to be able to carry a baby, and to birth a child. That's what a pregnancy is naturally designed to do.


Either she makes the decisions or he does. Joint decisions where she agrees is just her making a decision with advice from others. If he decides then she doesn't.

No, you're problem is that you think it's any business of the law to be involved in forcing people to work together. Worse you have the idiotic idea that men should have ANY say in the medical decisions of a woman. And yes, I said idiotic, because I strongly suspect if they made a law that said you could be sued for not involving your wife in your medical decisions you'd be appalled.

Actually I wouldn't for the following reason: I know that, due to be being married, any decision I make will have some impact on my wife. If a wife is the sole breadwinner for the family, and decides without consulting her spouse that she's just going to quit her job and give all her money to charity, then of course that's going to have an adverse effect on the husband, and the family as a whole. The point is, when two people get married, while they may be two separate people, they live as a unit. And any decision part of that unit makes will affect every other part of that unit.

In terms of a business partnership, like in a law firm, while two lawyers may be acting seperately in that they practice different areas of law, any decision regarding the law firm as a whole has to put through and agreed upon by both partners, because it affects both of them, not just one or the other. In regards to my "the husband should have a say in/knowledge of abortion" argument, I view the fetus as not affecting just the mother but the marriage as a whole; and as such, both parties in the marriage should be consulted.

For the purposes of my argument throughout this thread, I have been arguing for them in the context of a marriage where the father is also the husband, and shows active interest in the marriage. Nowhere have I said that deadbeat dads should be informed of the decision to abort; the strong marriage has been my context the entire time.

Then you're not reading very well. I think the woman has much more responsibility. I'm saying that if a guy doesn't want to give her his sperm he doesn't have to. It's a fairly basic concept.

By the same token, if the woman doesn't want to take his sperm, she doesn't have to either. What are you getting at here?

If whatever method of birth control they use fails, then the man and woman took that risk. However, the man knew that this risk included giving her his sperm and the woman knew this risk involved a possible pregnancy and making the medical decisions surrounding that pregnancy.

If the both the man and the woman are aware of the risks involved with having sex/potentially faulty birth control, why is it so bad to involve both of them in the dealing with the consequences for taking on that risk?

If the both the man and the woman are aware of the risks involved with having sex/potentially faulty birth control, why is it so bad to involve both of them in the dealing with the consequences for taking on that risk?

How? How do you involve both of them? You can't make a compromise on this. There's no "half abortion". There's no middle ground. Either the pregnancy is aborted, or it is not.

How do you involve both parties? If one wants the pregnancy aborted and the other does not, how can there be mutual involvement? Either it's aborted, or it is not. Either the woman gets to decide, or the man does.

How do you involve two people who have differing opinion when there are only two possible outcomes? One person must be able to make the final decision.

Any claim that that power to make the final decision should lie with ANYONE other than the person whose body is directly involved is beyond reprehensible

Sorry but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of respecting life is.

I, with no respect what so ever, disagree with your interpretation that denying people bodily autonomy is in any way respecting life.

I, with no respect what so ever, disagree with your interpretation that denying people bodily autonomy is in any way respecting life.

Disagree all you like sir. I just happen to agree with this decision. There is nothing in that just like there is nothing wrong in disagreeing with the decision.

For the record, I *do* realize I'm one of the more conservative voices in this thread, and as such know that my points will most likely be debated more than others; debate however, doesn't involve personal attacks.

Up to this point, I've been careful to word my posts in such a way that they make no personal attacks on anyone. In addition, if I've made a broad sweeping statement that has ended up offending people, I've always been careful to apologize. Why? Because like I said, this place is for open debate, not bashing people who don't agree with you.

With that said, I cannot understand why the last couple of posts directed at me have taken on a vitriolic tone. One could argue "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen", but there's a difference between the kitchen being heated and the kitchen being on fire. The first is acceptable, and also expected; the latter is unacceptable, and should be stopped when it starts to happen.


Worse you have the idiotic idea that men should have ANY say in the medical decisions of a woman.

Then you're not reading very well.

Are you saying that you don't recognize that women and men play different roles in the act of creating a child? Okay... first you have these birds and bees...

You know I ignored your arguments for most of this thread because it's pretty clear you haven't really thought them out.


Given the nature of the above quoted statements, I was a more than a little surprized to find
You keep getting too excited and responding to something that people didn't say as you did here.
directed at me.

I will respond properly to you when I see the appropriate verses that you are refering to.

And I will go through the trouble of finding an online bible when you show me where your faith says when life start (with appropriate verse et al.).

So why are you hammering me for my beliefs? I have not attacked yours and I will not attack your for we are all children of God.
'cause you'Re the one who made it all about your belief by stating that you agreed with this decision because it goes with your belief. We are hammering you on your belief because we disagree with it.
Personnaly, I even disagree with your interpretation of scripture so you can see where you unwittingly attacked my belief by saying your faith agrees with this.
Besides, if we attacked your belief it would be far more ugly than this.

As a person of faith, I also hold life in high esteem. That is why I condemn abortion and am glad for this ruling. You call yourself a person of faith but yet, you have condemned this ruling. Sorry but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of respecting life is.
You hold that the life of an unborn clump of cells is more important than the life of a living and breathing human being. Pardon me if I find your statement that you "consider life in high esteem" laughable.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one because I hold than an existing life is more important that a potential life.

For the record, I *do* realize I'm one of the more conservative voices in this thread, and as such know that my points will most likely be debated more than others; debate however, doesn't involve personal attacks.

Up to this point, I've been careful to word my posts in such a way that they make no personal attacks on anyone. In addition, if I've made a broad sweeping statement that has ended up offending people, I've always been careful to apologize. Why? Because like I said, this place is for open debate, not bashing people who don't agree with you.

With that said, I cannot understand why the last couple of posts directed at me have taken on a vitriolic tone. One could argue "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen", but there's a difference between the kitchen being heated and the kitchen being on fire. The first is acceptable, and also expected; the latter is unacceptable, and should be stopped when it starts to happen.











Given the nature of the above quoted statements, I was a more than a little surprized to find

directed at me.

Don't worry about it, it's not personally directed at you, people use these statements in real life as well, at least on the Internet your points are read and understood.

Having said that, giving the husband any say in abortion is not a great position to take - a position on birth? Well that I don't know.

Why are you attacking my personally beliefs? I have not attacked you nor anyone else here. There is no reason to make this a personal debate between faiths. Yes I have stated that I agree with this decision. I even stated I am a person of faith. You even stated that you are a person of faith however, your constant attack on mine diminishes you in God's eye. We are all to respect eachother's opinions wether we agree with them or not. I respect your opinion that you disagree with this decision so why can you not respect my opinion on this matter?

Welcome to NS General. By posting here, you consent to having your ideas attacked by others.

And I will go through the trouble of finding an online bible when you show me where your faith says when life start (with appropriate verse et al.).


'cause you'Re the one who made it all about your belief by stating that you agreed with this decision because it goes with your belief. We are hammering you on your belief because we disagree with it.
Personnaly, I even disagree with your interpretation of scripture so you can see where you unwittingly attacked my belief by saying your faith agrees with this.
Besides, if we attacked your belief it would be far more ugly than this.


You hold that the life of an unborn clump of cells is more important than the life of a living and breathing human being. Pardon me if I find your statement that you "consider life in high esteem" laughable.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one because I hold than an existing life is more important that a potential life.

Why are you attacking my personally beliefs? I have not attacked you nor anyone else here. There is no reason to make this a personal debate between faiths. Yes I have stated that I agree with this decision. I even stated I am a person of faith. You even stated that you are a person of faith however, your constant attack on mine diminishes you in God's eye. We are all to respect eachother's opinions wether we agree with them or not. I respect your opinion that you disagree with this decision so why can you not respect my opinion on this matter?

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?I have never heard of this procedure conducted outside of the US.

Wikipedia article mentions this about UK policy:
Questioned about UK government policy on the issue in Parliament, Baroness Andrews stated that "We are not aware of the procedure referred to as 'partial-birth abortion' being used in Great Britain. It is the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' (RCOG) belief that this method of abortion is never used as a primary or pro-active technique and is only ever likely to be performed in unforeseen circumstances in order to reduce maternal mortality or severe morbidity."

For the record, I *do* realize I'm one of the more conservative voices in this thread, and as such know that my points will most likely be debated more than others; debate however, doesn't involve personal attacks.

I just call them like I see them. Calling a statement idiotic isn't a personal attack. Saying your ideas don't appear to be well-thought out is not a personal attack.

The one about reading was in direct response to "the way I read what you said is..." What is and isn't personal is not very complicated.

Your statements are obtuse and my comments treat them as such. If you take that personally, well, that's your deal, not mine.


Up to this point, I've been careful to word my posts in such a way that they make no personal attacks on anyone. In addition, if I've made a broad sweeping statement that has ended up offending people, I've always been careful to apologize. Why? Because like I said, this place is for open debate, not bashing people who don't agree with you.


Here's the rub. It's not your opinion that's so bothersome. People have opinions I don't agree with all the time. I call many of them friends. The problem is that your replies don't appear to make any modifications that demonstrate an understanding of things you're debating. No matter what anyone says, your arguments have been pretty much the same constantly. It's almost as if you're preaching rather than debating. And when you do reply to an argument it's not the one presented but some strawman of your own making.


With that said, I cannot understand why the last couple of posts directed at me have taken on a vitriolic tone. One could argue "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen", but there's a difference between the kitchen being heated and the kitchen being on fire. The first is acceptable, and also expected; the latter is unacceptable, and should be stopped when it starts to happen.

Amusing. Again, as I've said previously, it seems as if you either won't or cannot take things in context. I'll show you.

I'm not sure if I understand you meant it like this and I'm not going to assume, but this whole paragraph seems to come across as if you believe that a woman has no responsibility for the act of having sex with a guy, or at the very least, that if whatever method of brith control used fails, it is entirely the man's fault. Maybe this is what you meant, maybe not; but if not, please make your point clearer to understand.

Then you're not reading very well.

You blamed me for your misunderstanding. I blamed you. That's not a personal attack unless you considered yours to be as well.

Now, out of context it might appear to be, but I assume that's precisely why you didn't offer the context and why you later changed your original post.




Given the nature of the above quoted statements, I was a more than a little surprized to find

directed at me.

Amusing. You might have a point if I was the only poster you were having difficulty with. However, it's everyone in the thread. You'll find also many of the posters in this thread disagree with each other on various topics, but none of us have as much trouble understanding each other as you've seemed to have understanding us.

This isn't an us and them kind of thing. This is a YOU consistantly having trouble with everyone in this thread because you don't appear to be responding to their substantive points, but rather things you seem to either make up or misunderstand.

So why are you hammering me for my beliefs? I have not attacked yours and I will not attack your for we are all children of God.

As a person of faith, I also hold life in high esteem. That is why I condemn abortion and am glad for this ruling. You call yourself a person of faith but yet, you have condemned this ruling. Sorry but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of respecting life is.

Because you wish to push your beliefs on others.

You might be surprised by this but I don't agree with people because they're Christian. I agree with people when they're right. You applaud a law that endangers the lives and health of women and throws doctors in jail for protecting them. That's not Christian and shows that you in fact DO NOT hold all human life in high esteem.

Respecting life means respecting women.

Because you wish to push your beliefs on others.

I do? All I said was that I supported this decision. Even if I disagree with this decision, the decisions of the Supreme Court are final and thus there is no use in crying about the decision. I respect the government even if it does something I disagree with.

The only thing I can do is use the power of my vote to influence the government.

You might be surprised by this but I don't agree with people because they're Christian. I agree with people when they're right. You applaud a law that endangers the lives and health of women and throws doctors in jail for protecting them. That's not Christian and shows that you in fact DO NOT hold all human life in high esteem.

I am going to let someone of higher authority decide what is and is not Christian. You do not have that authority to decide what is or is not Christian just like I do not have that authority to decide what is or is not Christian.

On top of that, I never stated my views on abortion either so you do not have enough information to tell me that I do not hold the life of a woman in the same light as those of the unborn children that they carry.

Respecting life means respecting women.

This is the only thing that you and I agree on.

While that may be the case, my statement that pregnancy is not in and of itself life-endangering still stands. This is what allows to have people more than one child. Is a pregnant woman given up for dead simply because she's pregnant? No. Whil I agree with you that it does pose some health risks, a regular, natural childbirth does not automatically mean the woman's life is on the brink of being snuffed out.

Again, this is a ludicrous argument. Life-threatening and life-endangering doesn't mean they always die. Let me know when you are stopping with the strawman arguments. They are called fallacies for a reason.


Think of it this way. If someone smokes, the smoking itself isn't what's dangerous. It certainly involves RISK, but until a person develops lung cancer or emphysema, there's no DANGER that needs to be addressed. It's the *cancer* that kills someone, not the cigarettes themselves; also, just because a person smokes does *not* guarantee they will automatically get cancer.

Again, ludicrous. Does a smoker need routine medical treatment to protect them? Does the act of smoking require a doctor? How about an entire field dedicated to the act of smoking?

Come up with a comparison that isn't nonsensical.


In the same way, while pregnancy certainly ups the *risk* to a woman's body, it in no means automatically puts the woman in any *danger*. Perhaps much of the confusion between us is because I believe "rsk" and "danger" are two separate things, whereas, if I'm understanding you correctly, your position is that they are synonymous.

Hmmm... Hey if you keep your eyes closed you keep claiming it's dark in here. That would change the truth, though.

We have an entire profession dedicated to taking care of a woman during pregnancy. Without routine medical treatement the odds of death from pregnancy goes up 100 fold. If a 100 fold increase in the likelihood of death without medical intervention, that's means it endangers one's life. I'm sorry that you don't recognize this. It, however, has no bearing on the validity of the use of the term.


It increases *risk*; it does not increase danger.

Hilarious. Danger - 3 : exposure or liability to injury, pain, harm, or loss



By the same logic it could be argued that when a boy goes through puberty and loses his high voice, his body gets irreparably damaged (which, by the way, is why people in the Middle Ages castrated boys in order not to 'damage" their high voice). But of course the body's not getting damaged; the body is doing what it's naturally designed to do. A female womb is naturally designed to stretch out. The female body is naturally designed to be able to carry a baby, and to birth a child. That's what a pregnancy is naturally designed to do.

Again, having your eyes closed doesn't mean it's dark. A woman's body wasn't naturally designed to suffer incontinence. It wasn't naturally designed to have hemorrhoids. It wasn't naturally designed to have damaged organs. Prior to medical intervention, the danger to a woman and the likelihood she would die if she had very many children was actually quite high.



Actually I wouldn't for the following reason: I know that, due to be being married, any decision I make will have some impact on my wife. If a wife is the sole breadwinner for the family, and decides without consulting her spouse that she's just going to quit her job and give all her money to charity, then of course that's going to have an adverse effect on the husband, and the family as a whole. The point is, when two people get married, while they may be two separate people, they live as a unit. And any decision part of that unit makes will affect every other part of that unit.

In terms of a business partnership, like in a law firm, while two lawyers may be acting seperately in that they practice different areas of law, any decision regarding the law firm as a whole has to put through and agreed upon by both partners, because it affects both of them, not just one or the other. In regards to my "the husband should have a say in/knowledge of abortion" argument, I view the fetus as not affecting just the mother but the marriage as a whole; and as such, both parties in the marriage should be consulted.

For the purposes of my argument throughout this thread, I have been arguing for them in the context of a marriage where the father is also the husband, and shows active interest in the marriage. Nowhere have I said that deadbeat dads should be informed of the decision to abort; the strong marriage has been my context the entire time.



By the same token, if the woman doesn't want to take his sperm, she doesn't have to either. What are you getting at here?

Again, it's like you're trying not to read. She does want to take his sperm. And once she does, it's hers. He has the option of not giving it. I'm not blaming him for having sex or giving the sperm to her. I'm saying that once he's done so, he has no claim for taking it back as long as it is inside her body.

If the both the man and the woman are aware of the risks involved with having sex/potentially faulty birth control, why is it so bad to involve both of them in the dealing with the consequences for taking on that risk?

Because it denies reality. They can't both deal with the consequences. Many consequences by nature are only being dealt with by her. You can't make it equal. Your attempt to try is only a defense of the man without increasing his responsibility or risk, you wish to increase his priveleges. I say, fine, but do all of it. I'll break out the hammer.

I have never heard of this procedure conducted outside of the US.

Wikipedia article mentions this about UK policy:
Questioned about UK government policy on the issue in Parliament, Baroness Andrews stated that "We are not aware of the procedure referred to as 'partial-birth abortion' being used in Great Britain. It is the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' (RCOG) belief that this method of abortion is never used as a primary or pro-active technique [and is only ever likely to be performed in unforeseen circumstances in order to reduce maternal mortality or severe morbidity."

I'm not sure what you didn't read about this, but it says it's never used as a means of birth control and only in cases where pregnancy is likely to endanger the woman or the child is likely to die. That's exactly what we're saying.

I'll change your bolding so you have the necessary context.

I do? All I said was that I supported this decision.

Actually, you said you agree with this decision becuase it aligns with your faith. Having laws that put the beliefs of your faith on others is precisely what pushing your beliefs means.


Even if I disagree with this decision, the decisions of the Supreme Court are final and thus there is no use in crying about the decision. I respect the government even if it does something I disagree with.

The only thing I can do is use the power of my vote to influence the government.

However, you entered a debate forum and agreed because you said it was what your faith calls for. Unfortunately, Christ was pretty against bearing false witness and constantly said the Law should be followed. This bill bears false witness. It makes knowingly false claims and it does so in attempt to dupe people like yourself who think it does so out of respect for life.

It will not protect one single fetus. Not one. It will only increase the danger to women and deny them the right to make medical decisions. This doesn't address elective abortions. It addresses abortions that are the result of a painful and necessary medical decision.

And you've already made it clear that you'd like for your vote to support making your beliefs law. That's called pushing your beliefs.

My faith is strong and it doesn't need the support of the government. In fact, it prospers the more the government stays out of it.




I am going to let someone of higher authority decide what is and is not Christian. You do not have that authority to decide what is or is not Christian just like I do not have that authority to decide what is or is not Christian.

Nor do you. Yet, you attempted to. So much so that when you think a law is Christian you support it. I prefer my laws to be more open to allowing people to decide for themselves and appeal to higher authority, and that higher authority is not the government. So which of us is preaching appealing to God. Hint: it's not you.


On top of that, I never stated my views on abortion either so you do not have enough information to tell me that I do not hold the life of a woman in the same light as those of the unborn children that they carry.

No, you stated your views quite clearly. Trying to pretend you didn't make them obvious when you said this bill protects life is ludicrous. We're not idiots even if you're hoping we are. Meanwhile, this bill ONLY endangers life. It will not protect ONE fetus. That's a fact.


This is the only thing that you and I agree on.

Words that go against what you defend are worthless. You defend a bill that endangers the lives of women and protects NO ONE. Pretending like you care about women while supporting those that endanger them is like pretending to be Christian while worshipping the devil.

If the both the man and the woman are aware of the risks involved with having sex/potentially faulty birth control, why is it so bad to involve both of them in the dealing with the consequences for taking on that risk?

It's not bad; in fact, I highly recommend couples discuss their reproductive options and reach a mutually satisfactory agreement. But there is no earthly way to legally mandate that they do so, as people have explained to you several times.

Actually, you said you agree with this decision becuase it aligns with your faith. Having laws that put the beliefs of your faith on others is precisely what pushing your beliefs means.

This decision does agree with what I believe. That does not mean that I disagree with abortion. I just disagree with this procedure. Does that clarify things for you?

However, you entered a debate forum and agreed because you said it was what your faith calls for. Unfortunately, Christ was pretty against bearing false witness and constantly said the Law should be followed.

Agreed. The LAW should be followed but are we now moving to religious law or are we talking about National laws? When one looks at things, Jesus violated religious laws by claiming to be the Son of God even though He WAS the Son of God. He did not, however, break any Roman Law but yet was still executed. So which laws are we now talking about?

This bill bears false witness.

According to whom? You? God does not say anything in regards to abortion in His Word.

It makes knowingly false claims and it does so in attempt to dupe people like yourself who think it does so out of respect for life.

The only one claiming that right now is those opposed to this decision. I have not seen anything written or said by theologians that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban is bearing false witness. I am not going to get into that discussion for by doing so, would draw this debate entirely off topic.

It will not protect one single fetus. Not one.

And your proof of this is?

It will only increase the danger to women and deny them the right to make medical decisions.

Last time I checked, there are more ways to detect early on problems that will develope during Pregnancy. Medical technology today is far more advanced than it was when R v W was decided.

That is why it is recommended that expecting mothers go to their doctor regularly. To check on the health, not just of the mother, but of the child she is carrying to.

This doesn't address elective abortions. It addresses abortions that are the result of a painful and necessary medical decision.

I know perfectly well what this decision ruled on thank you very much.

And you've already made it clear that you'd like for your vote to support making your beliefs law. That's called pushing your beliefs.

Wrong. You want the full truth? I actually support abortion. I oppose this procedure and am glad that it is finally banned.

My faith is strong and it doesn't need the support of the government. In fact, it prospers the more the government stays out of it.

My faith is also strong. I do not need the support of the government to uphold it. This is another post that we agree on.

Nor do you. Yet, you attempted to. So much so that when you think a law is Christian you support it. I prefer my laws to be more open to allowing people to decide for themselves and appeal to higher authority, and that higher authority is not the government. So which of us is preaching appealing to God. Hint: it's not you.

I guess you missed the part that I do not have the authority to judge what is and is not christian. I know full well I do not have authority to judge what is or is not Christian. No one on this planet has that authority. Not my pastor, not the Pope, not the Government. No one. He who thinks otherwise is diluting themselves.

No, you stated your views quite clearly. Trying to pretend you didn't make them obvious when you said this bill protects life is ludicrous. We're not idiots even if you're hoping we are. Meanwhile, this bill ONLY endangers life. It will not protect ONE fetus. That's a fact.

No I have not stated my views clearly. I stated my views on Partial Birth Abortion. I have not stated my views on abortion as a whole.

Words that go against what you defend are worthless. You defend a bill that endangers the lives of women and protects NO ONE. Pretending like you care about women while supporting those that endanger them is like pretending to be Christian while worshipping the devil.

I will let someone of higher authority tell me if I am wrong or not. I am not going to judge you at all for your posts to me. That is not for me to do. I do not have the authority to judge you but yet, it seems that you have the agastity to judge me for my posts here. I am not going to judge you for it for I will leave that to the One who can.

Legislation full of lies, contridiction and complete disdain for human life is a victory so long as it appears to be "Christian".

This is unfortunately a pattern in legislation lately. Maybe it always has been, but it's definitely happening quite often now. The facts of the matter are irrelevant to politicians. All the care about is finding someone they can hold up as an "expert", even if that "expert" has no expertise in the particular area under question, who will say precisely what they have already decided is true. It's ridiculous in any case - and it isn't exclusively an issue in legislation regarding abortion.

It's not bad; in fact, I highly recommend couples discuss their reproductive options and reach a mutually satisfactory agreement. But there is no earthly way to legally mandate that they do so, as people have explained to you several times.

This is indeed true. Discussion of this very issue keeps the relationship alive and healthy.

Do I agree with abortion myself? No. But the argument for or against abortion itself isn't the main point I've been trying to make. What I'm saying is that since the fetus was created jointly by the mother and the father, the father should at least have a right to be included/consulted in decisions regarding its destruction...I'm still having a hard time understanding why that seems so reprehensible to so many (not speaking of you in particular; it just seems that many on this thread are so strongly opposed to this idea).

It is a reprehensible idea because you are basically stating that, if a woman chooses to have sex with a man, she has to be willing to let him start making decisions for her. A woman is her own human being. She can make her own medical decisions. No one, not even a man who happened to have sex with her, should be able to overrule that right.

Most people agree that a woman, barring certain situations, should discuss the decision with the father. In fact, I would argue that this should be discussed before sex ever occurs and that failing to do so is irresponsible sexual behavior. But I would never support legislation requiring either.


Actually, in the majority decision, they said clearly that Roe stands and should. I think it's likely that some woman will choose the now banned procedure out of medical necessity and challenge this law all the way to the SCOTUS and we'll see this law fall. There are some among the 5 who would likely not actually be willing to imprison a woman who made a decision to protect her health, health not life, over the life of a dead or dying fetus.

Well, the woman wouldn't be imprisoned. The law is clear on that. The doctor, however, would be, and then could appeal the decision.

I'm just wondering precisely how that would happen. If the law explicitly states that a procedure is never medically necessary, how can a doctor legally prove that it was?


I think kennedy made it pretty clear that he'd switch his vote if he sees an actual real example as to when there was a health (not life) justification for this.

If the evidence presented to him won't convince him, nothing will. I was beginning to wonder if the experts had just left an incredible amount of information out. And then I read Ginsberg's dissent. It is overwhelmingly obvious that the information was there, and that the government's so-called "experts" had no expertise in the area. Kennedy and the other justices wanted to be convinced that this was an unnecessary procedure, mostly because they found it "icky".

I don't think so. This ruling....does nothing to limit access to abortions, or even late term abortions. And I think that was the reason it went this way. I get the feeling kennedy was waivering for a bit, and wasn't sure where he'd end up. I think what sold him was the argument that this will not actually limit abortion.

No, it will just force doctors to perform abortions that they think are less safe, endangering the health (and lives) of their patients.

Everybody was a baby once. Oh, sure, maybe not today, or even yesterday. But once. Babies, chum: tiny, dimpled, fleshy mirrors of our us-ness, that we parents hurl into the future, like leathery footballs of hope. And you've got to get a good spiral on that baby, or evil will make an interception.

Firstly, pregnancy is certainly not life-endangering in and of itself.

Death is a possible risk of pregnancy. It doesn't occur in most cases, but it is a risk - one that only a woman can decide whether or not she will take on.

Secondly, there's a big jump from "mutual knowledge" to "the father is making medical decisions for her". Perhaps I have too much faith in people working through things together in marriage, and as such I can understand how the idea of legislating the abortion decision to be a mutually consensual one between mother and father could be seen as somewhat too idealistic. However, I do believe that regardless of whether the father necessarily agrees with the mother getting the abortion, as the father he should legally be informed of said decision before the procedure is performed.

And if he would beat the hell out of her if he found out? Should she be required to tell him? And that's just the most extreme example.

We can certainly state that the ideal situation is that they discuss it and work it out together. But there are many circumstances in which that won't happen. And those within the relationship are the most qualified to determine whether or not they are in such a situation.

By the same token and somewhat hazy word definition, sexual intercourse means two people giving their bodies to each other willingly. And if the girl's giving her body to the guy, well then, she gave it to him, and therefore he's entitled to a say in, or at least a knowledge of, what happens to it. What are you getting at?

Sex does not place you in a state of slavery. During the sexual contact, both people certainly have a say in what is going on with their bodies - until such time as one or both decide it is over. But even then, one only has any say over the body of the other in that it is freely given. There is no lasting contract simply from sexual contact.

No, this isn't the 10th century. But you cannot say that using the phrase "giving yourself to someone" isn't a currently used expression for sexual intercourse, either.

Secondly, in my post I stated that it was two people giving their bodies to each other, not just one person doing the giving and one doing the taking.

Really? What medical decisions does a woman get to make for a man simply by virtue of having had sex with him? For what purpose should a woman get to use the man's body for 9 months? What diseases and complications can she put him at higher risk for?

If the both the man and the woman are aware of the risks involved with having sex/potentially faulty birth control, why is it so bad to involve both of them in the dealing with the consequences for taking on that risk?

When you come up with a way for the man to actually take on the risks of pregnancy, then you can make this argument. Otherwise, it just makes you sound ignorant. The man cannot have a part in the decision making (legally), because the man is not taking on the risks. The man does not go through pregnancy. His body does not go through irreversible changes that cause both short-term and long-term health risks - including the possibility of death.

It'd be nice if men carried the same risk in pregnancy as women. But they don't.


As a person of faith, I applaud this decision by the Supreme Court and wished that they overturned all late term abortions. However, one must take the victories when they happen. This is the step in the right direction.

Looking forward to women dying, are we?

So why are you hammering me for my beliefs? I have not attacked yours and I will not attack your for we are all children of God.

As a person of faith, I also hold life in high esteem. That is why I condemn abortion and am glad for this ruling. You call yourself a person of faith but yet, you have condemned this ruling. Sorry but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of respecting life is.

If you hold life in high esteem, you wouldn't be looking for a ban on all late-term abortions, which are almost always carried out for medical reasons. A ban on late-term abortions wouldn't save many fetuses, and it would kill an awful lot of women.

Looking forward to women dying, are we?

As a respectable adult, I am going to refrain from stating what I want to say.

If you hold life in high esteem, you wouldn't be looking for a ban on all late-term abortions, which are almost always carried out for medical reasons. A ban on late-term abortions wouldn't save many fetuses, and it would kill an awful lot of women.

Probably less than what people think but then, I am not a doctor. Neither are most of us here I would imagine.

This decision does agree with what I believe. That does not mean that I disagree with abortion. I just disagree with this procedure. Does that clarify things for you?

You explicitly stated that you think ALL late-term abortions should be banned. Now it's just one procedure?

Meanwhile, we're talking about abortions carried out most often for health reasons. Banning them would do nothing but increase maternal death and health problems.

The only one claiming that right now is those opposed to this decision. I have not seen anything written or said by theologians that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban is bearing false witness. I am not going to get into that discussion for by doing so, would draw this debate entirely off topic.

Theologians aren't exactly medical experts, are they? Even the SCOTUS decision acknowledges the fact that some of the so-called "findings of fact" in this law are untrue.

Last time I checked, there are more ways to detect early on problems that will develope during Pregnancy. Medical technology today is far more advanced than it was when R v W was decided.

And yet there are still complications and fetal defects that cannot be detected until late 2nd or early 3rd trimester.

Wrong. You want the full truth? I actually support abortion. I oppose this procedure and am glad that it is finally banned.

Why? Because it sounds icky?

No I have not stated my views clearly. I stated my views on Partial Birth Abortion. I have not stated my views on abortion as a whole.

You did explicitly state that you think ALL late-term abortions should be banned.

As a respectable adult, I am going to refrain from stating what I want to say.

Interesting.

Probably less than what people think but then, I am not a doctor. Neither are most of us here I would imagine.

Not really. I've looked into the indications for late-term abortions. While you do get the occasional "other" heading, most such procedures are carried out for medical reasons - either to protect the mother, to safely end a pregnancy that has already begun to spontaneously abort, or to remove a fetus that is dead, dying, or carries a defect that will make it unable to live long after delivery. There are some allowed defects that I disagree with, but they do not make up the majority of cases.

I'm not an MD, but I am working towards a PhD in biotechnology and I have access to the relevant journal articles on this subject.

You explicitly stated that you think ALL late-term abortions should be banned. Now it's just one procedure?

Excuse me! I have had an emotional week. You are indeed right.

Meanwhile, we're talking about abortions carried out most often for health reasons. Banning them would do nothing but increase maternal death and health problems.

So banning this procedure will increase health problems? My mother suffered from severe Toximia. As far as I know, there was no talk about terminating my life even though my mother could have very well died while giving birth to me. Even if it is a healthy pregnancy, a mother can still die while giving birth to a child. That is the risk of bringing life into this world. I have never denied that.

Theologians aren't exactly medical experts, are they? Even the SCOTUS decision acknowledges the fact that some of the so-called "findings of fact" in this law are untrue.

I agree that some of the findings are untrue. I never said that the law was 100% factual. I just disagree with the procedure and I am glad that it can no longer be offered. As people stated it themselves, there was more than one procedure. It is only this one that has been banned.

And yet there are still complications and fetal defects that cannot be detected until late 2nd or early 3rd trimester.

And some are fixable and some are not.

Why? Because it sounds icky?

No because I read what this procedure does. I have studied this procedure and it sickens me that they actually begin to give birth then they snuff it out. That is why I oppose this.

You did explicitly state that you think ALL partial birth abortions should be banned.

That was a slip of the tongue.

Interesting.

If I may ask, how so?

Not really. I've looked into the indications for late-term abortions. While you do get the occasional "other" heading, most such procedures are carried out for medical reasons - either to protect the mother, to safely end a pregnancy that has already begun to spontaneously abort, or to remove a fetus that is dead, dying, or carries a defect that will make it unable to live long after delivery. There are some allowed defects that I disagree with, but they do not make up the majority of cases.

I'm not an MD, but I am working towards a PhD in biotechnology and I have access to the relevant journal articles on this subject.

At least you do have more knowledge on this and I will acceed to you on it. Thank you for responding without anger. I do appreciate it.

Everybody was a baby once. Oh, sure, maybe not today, or even yesterday. But once. Babies, chum: tiny, dimpled, fleshy mirrors of our us-ness, that we parents hurl into the future, like leathery footballs of hope. And you've got to get a good spiral on that baby, or evil will make an interception.

It's fourth down! Kick a Field Goal!!! :D

No because I read what this procedure does. I have studied this procedure and it sickens me that they actually begin to give birth then they snuff it out. That is why I oppose this.

That's generally what we mean by 'icky'. >_>

So banning this procedure will increase health problems? My mother suffered from severe Toximia. As far as I know, there was no talk about terminating my life even though my mother could have very well died while giving birth to me. Even if it is a healthy pregnancy, a mother can still die while giving birth to a child. That is the risk of bringing life into this world. I have never denied that.

Of course it is. And, with some complications, the mother and the fetus will likely die. In some, the fetus is unlikely to live beyond a few minutes, even if delivered. In some, normal delivery would kill the mother and the fetus will not live. And so on....

If a woman chooses to continue a pregnancy, knowing that it will likely kill her or cause her further health problems, that is her choice. But we should not take that choice away from her or force her to undergo procedures that are less safe.

I agree that some of the findings are untrue. I never said that the law was 100% factual. I just disagree with the procedure and I am glad that it can no longer be offered. As people stated it themselves, there was more than one procedure. It is only this one that has been banned.

If the findings are untrue, then the bill is lying.

Yes, there is more than one procedure. In some cases, this is the safest one for the woman. Banning it is like saying, "Well, we'll allow chemotherapy, but not surgery to remove a cancer," or, "Well, we'll allow you to take antibiotics, but only one type," etc. It basically makes it so that a doctor, to avoid jail time or fines, can be forced to ignore what is best for his patient.

No because I read what this procedure does. I have studied this procedure and it sickens me that they actually begin to give birth then they snuff it out. That is why I oppose this.

In other words, 'It's icky." Do you know how D&E (the other available procedure) works? It actually sounds much worse than intact D&E when you think about it. In fact, if I were to write out the exact procedure used in a liver transplant, it would sound incredibly brutal and awful. But it is often the best course of action for the patient.

Intact D&E can be a better procedure for a number of reasons. First of all, the fetus is removed either completely or mostly intact. This means that there is a much smaller risk of uterine perforation and other complications related to the surgical tools. It also decreases the risk of leaving tissue behind - tissue that could lead to infections that can kill the woman or render her infertile.

On top of that, if we want to discuss how "brutal" the procedure sounds as to its treatment of the fetus, intact D&E is actually less brutal. If the fetus has developed to the point that it can feel pain, this procedure will most likely cause less pain than the regular D&E. A single, fairly quick action causes death of the fetus in this case. In a regular D&E, it is common for limbs to be torn off in the process, as the fetus is ripped apart with forceps.

The moral of the story, really, is that it isn't a pretty process. Most medical procedures - particularly surgeries - aren't. But a doctor must do what needs to be done to protect the health and life of his patient.

That was a slip of the tongue.

Or of the fingers. =)

If I may ask, how so?

Being an adult generally doesn't make me reconsider what I want to say - just how I say it.

At least you do have more knowledge on this and I will acceed to you on it. Thank you for responding without anger. I do appreciate it.

Thank you. I admit I get worked up at times, but I try not to get angry - especially when I think a lot of the misunderstandings simply come from a lack of knowledge on the subject matter.

Well, the woman wouldn't be imprisoned.

Yes, I misspoke. You got the point though.

This decision does agree with what I believe. That does not mean that I disagree with abortion. I just disagree with this procedure. Does that clarify things for you?

And because you do, you would like to force your beliefs on others. As I said in the first place. Meanwhile, this procedure that is only used to protect life you disagree with because you respect life. Oh, the logic there is just painful.


Agreed. The LAW should be followed but are we now moving to religious law or are we talking about National laws? When one looks at things, Jesus violated religious laws by claiming to be the Son of God even though He WAS the Son of God. He did not, however, break any Roman Law but yet was still executed. So which laws are we now talking about?

Ok, you're trolling. You can't be this unaware of the Bible. Jesus repeated refers to the Law, capital L. I didn't agree with other people suggesting you were trolling, but seriously, I don't think I've ever met a Christian who doesn't know what it means when you capitalize Law.



According to whom? You? God does not say anything in regards to abortion in His Word.

Amusing. False witness means it says something that is not true. It's not an opinion. It claims it's never medically necessary. That's not true. They know it's not true. They make provisions for when it's not true. That's false witness. Seriously, I have to question if you're not just



The only one claiming that right now is those opposed to this decision. I have not seen anything written or said by theologians that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban is bearing false witness. I am not going to get into that discussion for by doing so, would draw this debate entirely off topic.

And anyone with any medical knowledge. Oh, and of course the law which has the provision for when it's medically necessary after saying it's not. If it's not, there is no need to declare such a thing since that provision would never be used. If they weren't lying, one or the other section would not exist.

The Partial Birth Abortion isn't bearing false witness. Seriously, do you even know what bearing false witness is? Only a person can bear false witness and it means to lie. This bill contains lies. And that is the topic despite your attempts to claim we're saying a procedure is a liar. A rather ludicrous and nonsensical claim.




And your proof of this is?

That there is an alternate procedure that is equally available. It's the entire premise of the decision we are discussing. Absent the alternate procedure and equal access this law would be unconstitutional. Thanks for following along.



Last time I checked, there are more ways to detect early on problems that will develope during Pregnancy. Medical technology today is far more advanced than it was when R v W was decided.

That is why it is recommended that expecting mothers go to their doctor regularly. To check on the health, not just of the mother, but of the child she is carrying to.

Except this has nothing to do with anything. The fact is that this bill denies them access to a procedure that is occasionally the safest choice for the mother. Instead the mother must use a less safe procedure. That it's safer than during R v W is not really the point. Seriously, please at least make an attempt to address the actual points.


I know perfectly well what this decision ruled on thank you very much.

No, you clearly don't since the ruling is entirely based on the presumption that this will not reduce access to abortions. The ruling is that this is only acceptable if it DOES NOT reduce the number of abortions.


Wrong. You want the full truth? I actually support abortion. I oppose this procedure and am glad that it is finally banned.

Liar. You've already said otherwise.


My faith is also strong. I do not need the support of the government to uphold it. This is another post that we agree on.

Except you just cheered that you have the support. And you said you vote according to it. Not much for making truthful replies, are you?


I guess you missed the part that I do not have the authority to judge what is and is not christian. I know full well I do not have authority to judge what is or is not Christian. No one on this planet has that authority. Not my pastor, not the Pope, not the Government. No one. He who thinks otherwise is diluting themselves.

Yes, I know. I said that to you. Your actions actually deny your claims, unfortunately. Kind of like your claim that you cherish life. What you say is not as important as what you do.

And I don't think you meant "diluting".


No I have not stated my views clearly. I stated my views on Partial Birth Abortion. I have not stated my views on abortion as a whole.

Amusing. Golly, it's really hard to get your views from the multitude of posts where you declare that cherish life and make nonsensical claims about late-term abortions, abortions that are not elective and are done to protect the health of the mother.



I will let someone of higher authority tell me if I am wrong or not. I am not going to judge you at all for your posts to me. That is not for me to do. I do not have the authority to judge you but yet, it seems that you have the agastity to judge me for my posts here. I am not going to judge you for it for I will leave that to the One who can.

Again, you however declare that you liked the decision because it agrees with your faith. You applauded that your faith is being supported by law. You applauded that the law forces faith decisions on others. Again, you say the opposite of what you do. Jesus called people who do that hypocrites.

I'm not sure what you didn't read about this, but it says it's never used as a means of birth control and only in cases where pregnancy is likely to endanger the woman or the child is likely to die. That's exactly what we're saying.

I'll change your bolding so you have the necessary context.You forgot to bold this part:
Questioned about UK government policy on the issue in Parliament, Baroness Andrews stated that "We are not aware of the procedure referred to as 'partial-birth abortion' being used in Great Britain.

It *could* be used in UK in an unforeseen situation where it could be used to rescue the mother if the child's life is already lost for a reason or another and the risks of alternative treatments, say emergency c-section, would outweigh the benefits.

My original point was that as far as the person in question knew about the procedure it has not been used in UK because such unforeseen situations simply do not rise in a population of 60 million - And more specifically, that it's never a form of *voluntary* abortion.

Ok, you're trolling. You can't be this unaware of the Bible. Jesus repeated refers to the Law, capital L. I didn't agree with other people suggesting you were trolling, but seriously, I don't think I've ever met a Christian who doesn't know what it means when you capitalize Law.

Wait? I'm trolling? How am I trolling? I have not done anything to be considered a troll! So please tell me how I am trolling!

Now are we done with the personal attacks?

People have already done the same thing with water.
(A) No, they haven't, not in the way you are claiming. Nobody owns the water that covers most of the Earth. People may own the land that some of that water flows over, and their ownership of the land may give them some right (often limited) to control access to the water that is on their land at any given time. But it does not give them the right, for instance, to dam a stream, cutting off that flow of water to their neighbor's land. Why not? Because they don't own the water.

(B) Public water utilities also do not own the water they process and dispense to municipalities. What they own is the facilities that process and deliver the water. Your water taxes pay for the upkeep of those facilities and related equipment and labor. But nature provides the water -- or fails to. The utility has nothing to do with that and no control over that. And who is considered to "own" the water that nature pours or doesn't pour into a given reservoir? Why, the public, that's who. No individual or government owns it. It belongs to ALL of the people, to the extent it belongs to anyone.

(C) It is considered a violation of human rights, and in extreme circumstances, even a crime to deny water to any person, regardless of any claim one might have to owning the water. So, in light of that, show me how anyone gets to exercise property rights over water.

(D) How adorable, the way when your initial example is proved specious, you try to switch to a different, equally specious one. What other pathetic attempts do you have up your sleeve?

Actually the law is very specific in saying "which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body" so if it's already dead, the law simply does not apply to it.

The rest of your post is accurate.
Then, considering the circumstances under which the procedure in question is usually carried out, this is nothing but an empty political gesture. A soft ball served up to the anti-choice crowd. It applies to nothing in reality but creates language that can be used as precedent to argue against many other kinds of medical procedures connected to abortion, by redefining "medically necessary" and other such terms, and to use Congress as a crowbar to pry rights away from women and medicine away from doctors.

The fact that the restriction you note makes the law almost useless, also makes it worse.

No, this isn't the 10th century. But you cannot say that using the phrase "giving yourself to someone" isn't a currently used expression for sexual intercourse, either.

Secondly, in my post I stated that it was two people giving their bodies to each other, not just one person doing the giving and one doing the taking.

And thirdly, my post explicitly stated that it was using hazy word definitions, definitions of the same ilk as those given of the word "insemination".

Context is everything.
And I suppose if I say "I will give you a slap upside your head" that means you get to own my fist, and not just the bruise?

And because you do, you would like to force your beliefs on others. As I said in the first place. Meanwhile, this procedure that is only used to protect life you disagree with because you respect life. Oh, the logic there is just painful.

You can cease the personal attacks at anytime. The Lord has told us to keep a civil tongue so why are you attacking me directly?

Amusing. False witness means it says something that is not true. It's not an opinion. It claims it's never medically necessary. That's not true. They know it's not true. They make provisions for when it's not true. That's false witness. Seriously, I have to question if you're not just

Just what? Were there errors in this bill? I know there are. There are errors in all bills. There are errors in government and there are errors in people. Does that mean that we should discount everything that our government has passed as false witnessing? No. Why? Because the whole thing is NOT bearing false testimony. Look at what is being said by our politicians. Alot of what they indicate could be construed as false witnessing. That does not mean that they are false witnesses in the political spectrum. You keep harping on false witnessing and yet, when I look at things up close and study things in more detail, I could see where anything could be false witnessing.

And anyone with any medical knowledge. Oh, and of course the law which has the provision for when it's medically necessary after saying it's not. If it's not, there is no need to declare such a thing since that provision would never be used. If they weren't lying, one or the other section would not exist.

I believe I addressed this with another poster.

The Partial Birth Abortion isn't bearing false witness. Seriously, do you even know what bearing false witness is? Only a person can bear false witness and it means to lie. This bill contains lies. And that is the topic despite your attempts to claim we're saying a procedure is a liar. A rather ludicrous and nonsensical claim.

I do not appreciate the tone that you are taking here Jocabia. I do not know you and you do not know me. I know full well what bearing false witness is. The entire bill is not false witnessing. However, as I admitted to another poster, there could be some errors in it. Every bill that has passed Congress has errors in it. Just some of those get challenged. Some are upheld and some are not. This just happens to be the case that it was upheld. I never stated that there were no errors in any of my posts. By telling me that I am bearing false witness because I look at the whole bill and not parts of a bill, is really unfathomable.

That there is an alternate procedure that is equally available. It's the entire premise of the decision we are discussing. Absent the alternate procedure and equal access this law would be unconstitutional. Thanks for following along.

And I would agree that it would be unconstitutional. However, as there is another procedure, that makes this law constitutional. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Except this has nothing to do with anything. The fact is that this bill denies them access to a procedure that is occasionally the safest choice for the mother. Instead the mother must use a less safe procedure. That it's safer than during R v W is not really the point. Seriously, please at least make an attempt to address the actual points.

And I have but when I do, you immediately pull out the false witnessing card. So tell me why I should continue to state what needs to be stated, in a civilized tongue, when all I am going to get is vitrol from those who disagree with me?


clearly don't since the ruling is entirely based on the presumption that this will not reduce access to abortions. The ruling is that this is only acceptable if it DOES NOT reduce the number of abortions.

So why are you so outraged and attacking me if this is "not going to reduce the number of abortions?"

Liar.

I see that you cannot keep a civil tongue.

Except you just cheered that you have the support. And you said you vote according to it. Not much for making truthful replies, are you?

I vote my conscience. Is that wrong to vote with one's conscience or must one believe the drival that comes out of our politicians?

Yes, I know. I said that to you. Your actions actually deny your claims, unfortunately. Kind of like your claim that you cherish life. What you say is not as important as what you do.

You can stop baiting me. I am not going to rise to it. I am going to be the better person and ignore it. For the sake of others, please due try to be civil as you have not been civil to me. Or as the Golden Rule states: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. With you baiting me and calling me names, I would be within my right to do the same right back to you. However, as the the Lord Savior has taught us that it is wise to turn the other cheek. This I will do.

Amusing. Golly, it's really hard to get your views from the multitude of posts where you declare that cherish life and make nonsensical claims about late-term abortions, abortions that are not elective and are done to protect the health of the mother.

And please tell me where on this board that I have stated that this was an elective abortion procedure?

Again, you however declare that you liked the decision because it agrees with your faith. You applauded that your faith is being supported by law. You applauded that the law forces faith decisions on others. Again, you say the opposite of what you do. Jesus called people who do that hypocrites.

And I have also stated that if there was not another procedure that I would be condemning this ruling as unconstitutional right beside you.

Then, considering the circumstances under which the procedure in question is usually carried out, this is nothing but an empty political gesture. A soft ball served up to the anti-choice crowd. It applies to nothing in reality but creates language that can be used as precedent to argue against many other kinds of medical procedures connected to abortion, by redefining "medically necessary" and other such terms, and to use Congress as a crowbar to pry rights away from women and medicine away from doctors.

The fact that the restriction you note makes the law almost useless, also makes it worse.

I have to say that the most troubling thing to me from this decision is that the 5 Justices who voted to uphold the law did so, it seems, simply because Congress inserted a finding of fact into the law, a finding that 1) they were no qualified to make and 2) that was not factual to begin with. The lower courts didn't buy it. They said, as I understand it, that Congress's finding was contradicted by the evidence provided by the opposition. But SCOTUS said that Congress was more trustworthy on this matter, and so upheld the law.

I have to say that the most troubling thing to me from this decision is that the 5 Justices who voted to uphold the law did so, it seems, simply because Congress inserted a finding of fact into the law, a finding that 1) they were no qualified to make and 2) that was not factual to begin with. The lower courts didn't buy it. They said, as I understand it, that Congress's finding was contradicted by the evidence provided by the opposition. But SCOTUS said that Congress was more trustworthy on this matter, and so upheld the law.
SCOTUS, which we all know, has mutated from the chief body of an independent judiciary into a panel of political appointees. This law is nothing but a political frankenstein designed by those who wrote it to give weight to the anti-choice faction's desire to pressure yet more doctors into refusing to perform abortions. When we consider the practical uselessness of the law when it comes to actual medicine and add in the vagueness of its language, we are left with nothing in it but an intimidation message to doctors: "Don't do anything we don't like, or we'll send you to prison."

SCOTUS, which we all know, has mutated from the chief body of an independent judiciary into a panel of political appointees. This law is nothing but a political frankenstein designed by those who wrote it to give weight to the anti-choice faction's desire to pressure yet more doctors into refusing to perform abortions. When we consider the practical uselessness of the law when it comes to actual medicine and add in the vagueness of its language, we are left with nothing in it but an intimidation message to doctors: "Don't do anything we don't like, or we'll send you to prison."

I think the court has lost its independence long before this ruling and that is the greatest tragedy of all.

And I have but when I do, you immediately pull out the false witnessing card. So tell me why I should continue to state what needs to be stated, in a civilized tongue, when all I am going to get is vitrol from those who disagree with me? I am not going to rise to it. I am going to be the better person and ignore it.

Yet you ignore the sentence and try and defend yourself from an unseen attack. You did not respond to the sentence, just the attack on your debate skills.

You can cease the personal attacks at anytime. The Lord has told us to keep a civil tongue so why are you attacking me directly?

Amusing. Pointing out the errors in logic are an attack on your argument. There are errors in your logic, and you avoid fixing them by whining about personal attacks that didn't happen.




Just what? Were there errors in this bill? I know there are. There are errors in all bills.

Not errors. They lied. They claimed things that are not true and this is evidenced by their actions as well as their admission that it can be medically necessary. That's not an error. It's a falsehood.


There are errors in government and there are errors in people. Does that mean that we should discount everything that our government has passed as false witnessing? No. Why? Because the whole thing is NOT bearing false testimony. Look at what is being said by our politicians. Alot of what they indicate could be construed as false witnessing. That does not mean that they are false witnesses in the political spectrum. You keep harping on false witnessing and yet, when I look at things up close and study things in more detail, I could see where anything could be false witnessing.

Amusing. You again avoid the point. It's clear that avoiding the point isn't accidental. They passing laws as "good" Christians. The problem is, of course, that they wouldn't bear false witness if they were the Christians they claim to be. I'm not dismissing the bill because of it. I'm dismissing it as a Christian bill. It's not Christian. In fact, it's the opposite of Christian.

You should study harder. When they say the witnessed something that is that they know is untrue (and they do in their findings), that's bearing false witness. The "other people do it too" argument doesn't allieviate this fact. It avoids it. I've noticed that seems to be a theme in your arguments.


I believe I addressed this with another poster.

You believe wrong. You avoided it. You've been skirting nearly every issue here.



I do not appreciate the tone that you are taking here Jocabia. I do not know you and you do not know me.

I have only addressed you once in this entire post. Every other time I am addressing your argument. I don't care to know you. You aren't important. Your argument sucks and my posts are showing why. That has nothing to do with you "knowing" you. I really don't care what you think of my tone. Make a good argument, you'll notice a severe improvement in your estimation of my "tone".


I know full well what bearing false witness is. The entire bill is not false witnessing. However, as I admitted to another poster, there could be some errors in it. Every bill that has passed Congress has errors in it. Just some of those get challenged. Some are upheld and some are not. This just happens to be the case that it was upheld. I never stated that there were no errors in any of my posts. By telling me that I am bearing false witness because I look at the whole bill and not parts of a bill, is really unfathomable.

Parts of it are. That's the point. Again, you avoid the point. You admitted some of it is not true. That would be the "false" part. False means "not true". And the part where it calls these false parts, their findings is the witnessing part. Again. you claim one thing, but your actions show otherwise. If you know what false witnessing and you admit some of their findings are false, then you can't argue that it's not false witnessing. It's really very basic. Not sure which part you're struggling with.

Meanwhile, I said the writers of the bill and those that voted for it were bearing false witness, not you. Seriously, this is like arguing with a goldfish. Half the time you respond to something completely out of context and that in no way relates to what was actually said.




And I would agree that it would be unconstitutional. However, as there is another procedure, that makes this law constitutional. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Amusing. Faulty logic. It would be like this you say "If A and B are true, C is true". Then if A is false then C is also false, of course. However, if A is true, C is not necessarily true. You can't flip my statement without committing a logical fallacy. You know what the core of fallacy is? False. Your statement is false and I haven't agreed with you.

The law would unconstitutional if either of two things are true. There is no other available procedure (it fails the undue burden requirement) or that alternative procedure is not similar enough to not create an undue burden. The second is true and thus the law is unconstitutional. The fact that the first isn't true, only means it's not unconstitution for THAT reason. Logic 101 class over.

Amusingly, you still avoided the point. You asked how I know this won't stop any abortions, and I pointed out that the entire premise on which they ruled is that it won't. As soon as it does, it becomes unconstitutional. Thanks for playing.




And I have but when I do, you immediately pull out the false witnessing card. So tell me why I should continue to state what needs to be stated, in a civilized tongue, when all I am going to get is vitrol from those who disagree with me?

I pulled out the false witnessing card about the bill. I recently called you liar when you claimed you only wanted to do away with this one procedure when you said for several posts that you wanted to see late-term abortions done away with altogether. As you said both statements, and one of them HAS to be false, that makes it a lie and the person who told that lie a provaricator.



So why are you so outraged and attacking me if this is "not going to reduce the number of abortions?"

Because it has other effects, and I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your arguments. I know you don't see the difference, but it's not subtle.




I see that you cannot keep a civil tongue.

There is the first time I addressed you at all. Unfortunately, you did lie and I've shown it to be that.


I vote my conscience. Is that wrong to vote with one's conscience or must one believe the drival that comes out of our politicians?

It's wrong to vote for laws that force your faith on others. That's what your conscience should tell you. Since you claimed you wouldn't do that, force your faith on others, and then later admitted that you vote for people who make laws based on your faith, I think should amend your statement to something that isn't a falsehood.


You can stop baiting me. I am not going to rise to it. I am going to be the better person and ignore it. For the sake of others, please due try to be civil as you have not been civil to me. Or as the Golden Rule states: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. With you baiting me and calling me names, I would be within my right to do the same right back to you. However, as the the Lord Savior has taught us that it is wise to turn the other cheek. This I will do.

Amusing. Again, you avoid the supporting your argument because I attacked your argument. The only thing I called you was a liar, once, when you got caught lying repeatedly. Other than that every one of your complaints is about an attack on your argument. Again, you seem to use these complaints as an excuse to avoid actually supporting your claims.

This is debate, friend, and you should expect that in debate, your claims will be attacked. Not you. Your claims. Saying your claims are illogical is not a personal attack any more than saying they are wrong is.

Addressing your arguments is baiting you into supporting them. It's part of debate. If you're not prepared to debate that's fine, but you may not have a very enjoyable time preaching here.




And please tell me where on this board that I have stated that this was an elective abortion procedure?

Again, you strike on one word, and ignore the context of the post. The point is that these procedures are done ONLY to protect the health of the mother and as such banning says you don't respect HER life. That's the point. Seriously, are you trying to not reply to substantive points or do you really just not understand them? Because it's hard to see how you could be this far off from what people say so frequently.



And I have also stated that if there was not another procedure that I would be condemning this ruling as unconstitutional right beside you.

Amusing. You said originally that you wanted to see the alternative banned as well, before you started claiming the opposite. So which time were you lying?

Amusing. Pointing out the errors in logic are an attack on your argument. There are errors in your logic, and you avoid fixing them by whining about personal attacks that didn't happen.

Errors according to you. That does not make it an error in logic. ANd yes, it was a personal attack.

Not errors. They lied. They claimed things that are not true and this is evidenced by their actions as well as their admission that it can be medically necessary. That's not an error. It's a falsehood.

In some yes, that is indeed true. As I have pointed out to you, all bills have this incorporated in them. So I will ask you, shall we ignore them and condemn all bills for they have errors/lies in them? That is why we have a court system. The Courts however believed that this law is constitutional. Wether you agree or not is really irrelevent now as the law is staying on the books. You do not like it then tell your representatives to overturn it. That is the only way this will get fixed.

Amusing. You again avoid the point. It's clear that avoiding the point isn't accidental. They passing laws as "good" Christians. The problem is, of course, that they wouldn't bear false witness if they were the Christians they claim to be. I'm not dismissing the bill because of it. I'm dismissing it as a Christian bill. It's not Christian. In fact, it's the opposite of Christian.

I love how you think I am considering this a Christian bill by my comments that I agree with the decision based on my faith. Well you know what? That is your right and I am not going to deny you that right. That is not my way. The fact is though that I do not consider this a Christian bill. And you can lose the attitude at anytime.

You should study harder. When they say the witnessed something that is that they know is untrue (and they do in their findings), that's bearing false witness. The "other people do it too" argument doesn't allieviate this fact. It avoids it. I've noticed that seems to be a theme in your arguments.

I see that you do not watch C-Span or C-span2. I have watched committee meetings live on television. Both sides of the issue that testify will have their own agendas and "facts". To say otherwise is nuts. That is the whole point of Special Interest Groups. To persuade Congress to get their own legislation and the bills that they support through Congress. I do not support special interest groups for they have way to much power over Congress, on both sides of the aisle.

You believe wrong. You avoided it. You've been skirting nearly every issue here.

Nice of you to tell me what I believe is wrong. I am sorry but I do not believe I am. As to "skirting the issue", I do not skirt the issue. I had a nice brief debate with Dempublicent1 and it was on topic the whole way. I do not skirt issues. I believe you are saying I skirt because I have been stating something that you do not like, in a way that is very cordial. I do not avoid difficult issues.

I have only addressed you once in this entire post.

Which, from looking at the thread, I can honestly say no you have addressed me more than once and that is when you respond to me. By responding to my posts, you are indeed addressing me. So no, you have not addressed me once in this entire post.

Every other time I am addressing your argument. I don't care to know you. You aren't important. Your argument sucks and my posts are showing why.

And why, pray tell, does my argument suck? Because it disagrees with you? You have not shown me why at all that they do suck. I have seen your posts and you do make good points, however, I too have made good points but you do not like them and thus declare that my posts "suck". So I disagree that my post, or any post in here, "sucks".

That has nothing to do with you "knowing" you. I really don't care what you think of my tone. Make a good argument, you'll notice a severe improvement in your estimation of my "tone".

My arguments have been good. You just do not like my arguments and because as such, you ignore what I am saying and chastise me in the same breath. Sorry but I do not consider that proper debating technique.

Parts of it are. That's the point. Again, you avoid the point.

Which I did not. Again, why do you have out for me? I have addressed you point by point but yet, you continuelly state that I am avoiding the point. Sorry but until you get something new, I advise that you stick to the real issue at hand and that is this procedure being banned.

You admitted some of it is not true. That would be the "false" part.

Right. Hey, you know what? We agree on something. Is that not great?

False means "not true". And the part where it calls these false parts, their findings is the witnessing part. Again. you claim one thing, but your actions show otherwise.

Nice of you to know what my actions are when you are not here with me to know what my actions are. I love it how people claim they know the actions of others when they do not know the person.

Oh before the "you are avoiding the point" line again: I agree with your first two sentences. I never stated otherwise. I have stated that every bill has errors in it, be it intentional or not.

If you know what false witnessing is and you admit some of their findings are false, then you can't argue that it's not false witnessing. It's really very basic. Not sure which part you're struggling with.

I am not arguing that the whole bill is false witnessing! You are trying to do that. There are indeed errors in the bill and these errors were upheld by the Supreme Court. Wether we agree that it is false witnessing or not is now totally moot.

Meanwhile, I said the writers of the bill and those that voted for it were bearing false witness, not you.

And yet, we agree that PARTS of it is false witnessing but that the whole bill is not. So is one bearing false witness to it if they voted on it as a whole? No. But then again, you just do not like the fact that I look at things as an entire whole and not breaking things down.

Seriously, this is like arguing with a goldfish. Half the time you respond to something completely out of context and that in no way relates to what was actually said.

Completely out of context according to whom? You? You are the only one so far that has responded in length to me. If my arguments were so out of context, as you have claimed, more and more people would have responded to me outright.

Amusing. Faulty logic.

There's that phrase again. Keep this up and I am going to have to start to charge you for it because it really is getting kind of old.

The law would unconstitutional if either of two things are true. There is no other available procedure (it fails the undue burden requirement) or that alternative procedure is not similar enough to not create an undue burden. The second is true and thus the law is unconstitutional. The fact that the first isn't true, only means it's not unconstitution for THAT reason. Logic 101 class over.

Congratulations! It only took you a day to realize that this is what I have been saying to you.

Completely out of context according to whom? You? You are the only one so far that has responded in length to me. If my arguments were so out of context, as you have claimed, more and more people would have responded to me outright.

Well, since you asked so nicely...

Errors according to you. That does not make it an error in logic. ANd yes, it was a personal attack.

Nah, what makes it an error in logic is when you say "I don't want x, but I want y", when y = x.

In some yes, that is indeed true. As I have pointed out to you, all bills have this incorporated in them. So I will ask you, shall we ignore them and condemn all bills for they have errors/lies in them? That is why we have a court system. The Courts however believed that this law is constitutional. Wether you agree or not is really irrelevent now as the law is staying on the books. You do not like it then tell your representatives to overturn it. That is the only way this will get fixed.

If this is all irrelevant, what compels you to stay here? There must be some reason, surely...

I love how you think I am considering this a Christian bill by my comments that I agree with the decision based on my faith.

So you're Jewish then? Hindu?

Nice of you to tell me what I believe is wrong. I am sorry but I do not believe I am.

Then you would again, believe wrong. Think of it mathematically, if I believe x, and x is(=) wrong, then I believe wrong. Example, I believe you are a fish, that is (presumably) wrong, thus I believe wrong. Reapeating 'I believe I'm right' won't go anywhere towards answering the problems with my belief, like the fact you can type.

My arguments have been good. You just do not like my arguments and because as such, you ignore what I am saying and chastise me in the same breath. Sorry but I do not consider that proper debating technique.

When's the last time you made an argument? Heck, I just cut out most of the pointless or irrelevent parts of your post. You've given very little to actually debate, recently.

Which I did not. Again, why do you have out for me? I have addressed you point by point but yet, you continuelly state that I am avoiding the point.

Simply having words that are somewhat tangentally related under each of his paragraphs is by no means a point-by-point rebuttal.

Nice of you to know what my actions are when you are not here with me to know what my actions are.

Your actions being, obviously, other thing you type or claim to have done. Not what you're doing at your desk, be it slacking off work, writing a novel, picking your nose or whatever.

And yet, we agree that PARTS of it is false witnessing but that the whole bill is not. So is one bearing false witness to it if they voted on it as a whole? No. But then again, you just do not like the fact that I look at things as an entire whole and not breaking things down.

"Oh, well some of the bill wasn't lying, so because they voted for those part too, they weren't lying." Of course, you realize the flaws here?

Completely out of context according to whom? You? You are the only one so far that has responded in length to me. If my arguments were so out of context, as you have claimed, more and more people would have responded to me outright.

N/A, much? :P

Congratulations! It only took you a day to realize that this is what I have been saying to you.

*blinkblink*
as there is another procedure, that makes this law constitutional.

Oh....yeah....Totally what you've been saying.

In some yes, that is indeed true. As I have pointed out to you, all bills have this incorporated in them. So I will ask you, shall we ignore them and condemn all bills for they have errors/lies in them?

If the very basis of a bill is a lie, then yes, we should absolutely condemn it, and fight it in every way possible. If the bill is like this one, and endangers lives, it should be ignored by both doctors and law enforcement personnel until it is actually done away with. Unfortunately, however, most people are too afraid of punishment to engage in civil disobedience.

I see that you do not watch C-Span or C-span2. I have watched committee meetings live on television. Both sides of the issue that testify will have their own agendas and "facts". To say otherwise is nuts. That is the whole point of Special Interest Groups. To persuade Congress to get their own legislation and the bills that they support through Congress. I do not support special interest groups for they have way to much power over Congress, on both sides of the aisle.

Have you ever looked up the people who testify before Congress and its committees (or other legislative bodies)? In controversial issues, especially those in science or medicine, you will find that one side will usually present experts. The other side will present people who they call experts, but who either have no expertise in the area under question or who have no standing in their field.

This bill is a prime example. Every single medical organization that spoke in reference to the bill opposed it. Every OB/GYN who has performed late-term abortions opposed it. The "experts" brought forth by those who wished to pass the bill, in some cases, were not OB/GYNs at all. They had no expertise in the field. The others did not have experience with late-term abortions, meaning that they had no standing on which to speak about the bill.

I've also seen it recently in the GA legislature, where they have been pushing a bill with all kinds of erroneous "findings of fact" about embryonic stem cell research. The "experts" they called in support of the bill, for the most part, have never participated in stem cell research at all, much less embryonic stem cell research. Most of them couldn't even properly define the term "stem cell." However, they were put forth as "experts" in the committee meetings. When real experts - real stem cell biologists - came forth to speak in opposition to the bill, they were demonized and their arguments, despite being entirely factual, were mostly ignored.

In the end, most of these committee meetings are nothing more than a farce. The legislators have already made up their minds on the issue. They just need someone they can pretend is an expert to say it too.

And yet, we agree that PARTS of it is false witnessing but that the whole bill is not.

Actually, the entire bill IS false witnessing. The entire bill is based in the premise that intact D&E is never a necessary medical procedure. Because this is a lie, the bill itself is a lie.

So is one bearing false witness to it if they voted on it as a whole?

Depends on whether or not they bought all the lies. If they truly believed the lies, then no - they aren't lying, they're simply mistaken. If they know that the information is false, and voted for it, they are.

Congratulations! It only took you a day to realize that this is what I have been saying to you.

You've been saying that the bill is unconstitutional? If that were true, why would you have stated that you applaud SCOTUS for upholding it?

As for dishonesty, let's examine what you've claimed here in this thread...

So why are you hammering me for my beliefs? I have not attacked yours and I will not attack your for we are all children of God.

As a person of faith, I also hold life in high esteem. That is why I condemn abortion and am glad for this ruling. You call yourself a person of faith but yet, you have condemned this ruling. Sorry but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of respecting life is.

So you condemn abortion. Let's see if you continue to say this or if you view changes with the wind.

On top of that, I never stated my views on abortion either so you do not have enough information to tell me that I do not hold the life of a woman in the same light as those of the unborn children that they carry.


So you never stated your views on abortion even though you did. Hmmm...

Later...

This decision does agree with what I believe. That does not mean that I disagree with abortion. I just disagree with this procedure. Does that clarify things for you?

...

Wrong. You want the full truth? I actually support abortion. I oppose this procedure and am glad that it is finally banned.

...

No I have not stated my views clearly. I stated my views on Partial Birth Abortion. I have not stated my views on abortion as a whole.

So you are against abortion, support abortion and haven't stated your views. Hmmmm... see it's not hard to remember what you've said when you tell the truth. When you lie, it's really difficult to keep everything straight.

Shall I show other examples or does this settle that you're clearly not honestly offering your views?

Complete and utter reversal on what you "believe" #2 -

As a person of faith, I applaud this decision by the Supreme Court and wished that they overturned all late term abortions. However, one must take the victories when they happen. This is the step in the right direction.

May God Bless this honorable Court.

You did explicitly state that you think ALL partial birth abortions should be banned.
That was a slip of the tongue.

So you say that you wish they overturned all late-term abortions, which admits you know this didn't and that it doesn't go far enough. It's pretty much impossible for that to have been intended any other way, yet, we called on it, you claim that it was just a slip and that you didn't intend to say that.

Hmmmm...

Coupled with this:

That is why I condemn abortion

Put those together and there's not really a question to whether or not you're changing your claims about your beliefs to say things that cannot ever be believed simulataneously. So you must be being dishonest about what you are claiming to believe.

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.

Edit: Arthais has a fuller explanation of the ruling:

Good. To be honest late term abortions disgust me. If it can survive outside the womb, it is a child not a fetus. Anyone who says otherwise is simply lying to themselves.

Good. To be honest late term abortions disgust me.

It must bother the hell out of you that this didn't at all get rid of late term abortions then, huh?

Wow. So many different opinions, so many finite details, so much bullshit rhetoric. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised. Ever since SCOTUS pulled Roe out of its' collective ass, this whole issue has just been one big god-awful mess.

I'm in full support of legislatures dealing with this issue, and would prefer that these procedures be outlawed for the most part. However, I believe that the federal government has no jursidiction when it comes to an issue like abortion, and also believe that the courts have overstepped their bounds as well. Yet, I realize that without court intervention as in Stenberg v. Carhart (the 2000 case), there would be a chance that such laws banning partial-birth abortions would be made without exceptions for the health of mothers. What would be best, in my opinion, would be if:
a.) The federal government butted the hell out of this issue
b.) The Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 be overturned on grounds of violationing the Commerce Clause (Scalia/Thomas held off on this in order to see that the liberal side of the court would not see victory)
c.) All laws being signed on the state level ban both procedures except in cases where the mother's health and/or life is in danger, as banning just one really defeats the purpose of such legislation. Further, women whose health and/or life is at stake could see negative effects of such exclusionary legislation if the more dangerous of the two procedures was the only legal one available.

In the end, this ruling either served to do little to the occurences of partial-birth abortion in this country, only limiting doctors to performing just one procedure, or will heighten the risks for women receiving the procedure if "dilation and evacuation" is more dangerous than "dilation and extraction."

If the very basis of a bill is a lie, then yes, we should absolutely condemn it, and fight it in every way possible. If the bill is like this one, and endangers lives, it should be ignored by both doctors and law enforcement personnel until it is actually done away with. Unfortunately, however, most people are too afraid of punishment to engage in civil disobedience.

I actually agree with you on this one.

Have you ever looked up the people who testify before Congress and its committees (or other legislative bodies)? In controversial issues, especially those in science or medicine, you will find that one side will usually present experts. The other side will present people who they call experts, but who either have no expertise in the area under question or who have no standing in their field.

Truthfully no. I did not look at who testified before Congress sad to say. Normally I do look at who is testifying. *Blushing*

This bill is a prime example. Every single medical organization that spoke in reference to the bill opposed it. Every OB/GYN who has performed late-term abortions opposed it. The "experts" brought forth by those who wished to pass the bill, in some cases, were not OB/GYNs at all. They had no expertise in the field. The others did not have experience with late-term abortions, meaning that they had no standing on which to speak about the bill.

I thank you for telling me all of this. I will move on and conduct more research on this.

I've also seen it recently in the GA legislature, where they have been pushing a bill with all kinds of erroneous "findings of fact" about embryonic stem cell research. The "experts" they called in support of the bill, for the most part, have never participated in stem cell research at all, much less embryonic stem cell research. Most of them couldn't even properly define the term "stem cell." However, they were put forth as "experts" in the committee meetings. When real experts - real stem cell biologists - came forth to speak in opposition to the bill, they were deionized and their arguments, despite being entirely factual, were mostly ignored.

And I support stem cell research and hope that it gets the funding it deserves.

In the end, most of these committee meetings are nothing more than a farce. The legislators have already made up their minds on the issue. They just need someone they can pretend is an expert to say it too.

Sad but very true. :(

Actually, the entire bill IS false witnessing. The entire bill is based in the premise that intact D&E is never a necessary medical procedure. Because this is a lie, the bill itself is a lie.

Because you have been very polite to me and understanding, I will concede the point till I can do more research on this.

Depends on whether or not they bought all the lies. If they truly believed the lies, then no - they aren't lying, they're simply mistaken. If they know that the information is false, and voted for it, they are.

A very good point.

You've been saying that the bill is unconstitutional? If that were true, why would you have stated that you applaud SCOTUS for upholding it?

Because there is another method. Since there is another method, that is the only reason why this bill was upheld if I am reading things correctly.

*snip*

No answer? Am I being impolite by pointing out the contradictions in your posts? Is pointing out contradictions in your posts a personal attack as well? You aren't going to try and recover from stating you are against all abortion and then later claiming you support it, all the while claiming you've stated your views? How about when you said you wanted to ban all late-term abortions and then said you were only against this one procedure, after of course saying you oppose all abortion and as such this was a step in the right direction. Hmmm...? Nothing to say to that?

Meanwhile, once again your position has changed with the wind. Originally, you were stating things about this bill as fact. Now, you admit you don't know and never knew. Bad form, my friend.

Wow. So many different opinions, so many finite details, so much bullshit rhetoric. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised. Ever since SCOTUS pulled Roe out of its' collective ass, this whole issue has just been one big god-awful mess.

I'm in full support of legislatures dealing with this issue, and would prefer that these procedures be outlawed for the most part. However, I believe that the federal government has no jursidiction when it comes to an issue like abortion, and also believe that the courts have overstepped their bounds as well. Yet, I realize that without court intervention as in Stenberg v. Carhart (the 2000 case), there would be a chance that such laws banning partial-birth abortions would be made without exceptions for the health of mothers. What would be best, in my opinion, would be if:
a.) The federal government butted the hell out of this issue
b.) The Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 be overturned on grounds of violationing the Commerce Clause (Scalia/Thomas held off on this in order to see that the liberal side of the court would not see victory)
c.) All laws being signed on the state level ban both procedures except in cases where the mother's health and/or life is in danger, as banning just one really defeats the purpose of such legislation. Further, women whose health and/or life is at stake could see negative effects of such exclusionary legislation if the more dangerous of the two procedures was the only legal one available.

In the end, this ruling either served to do little to the occurences of partial-birth abortion in this country, only limiting doctors to performing just one procedure, or will heighten the risks for women receiving the procedure if "dilation and evacuation" is more dangerous than "dilation and extraction."

Out of curiosity, which of your rights would you like to leave up to the states if you keep?

By the way, I was really disappointed in Real Time's treatment of this topic. They treated it like it was a ban only for elective late-term abortions. Which is absurd and and unfortunate misunderstanding of the topic.

b.) The Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 be overturned on grounds of violationing the Commerce Clause (Scalia/Thomas held off on this in order to see that the liberal side of the court would not see victory)

I'm just going to focus on this part of it. How is it that the issue of abortion, which often involves people crossing state lines in order to get them because of different state level restrictions, and which often involve health care corporations or non-profits like Planned Parenthood which have offices in multiple states wouldn't be covered by the Commerce Clause? How would this act be in "violationing" of said clause?

Hahahaha, "violationing".

No answer? Am I being impolite by pointing out the contradictions in your posts? Is pointing out contradictions in your posts a personal attack as well? You aren't going to try and recover from stating you are against all abortion and then later claiming you support it, all the while claiming you've stated your views? How about when you said you wanted to ban all late-term abortions and then said you were only against this one procedure, after of course saying you oppose all abortion and as such this was a step in the right direction. Hmmm...? Nothing to say to that?

Meanwhile, once again your position has changed with the wind. Originally, you were stating things about this bill as fact. Now, you admit you don't know and never knew. Bad form, my friend.

So it is wrong to admit when one does not have all the facts? I answered truthfully to him/her. So tell me why you have to attack me for when I admitted I was wrong!

So it is wrong to admit when one does not have all the facts? I answered truthfully to him/her. So tell me why you have to attack me for when I admitted I was wrong!

Cuz, really, it should've happened many pages ago? You'd been wrong since the beginning, and it took maybe a page at most to confirm that. And, again, you have not just now been attacked.

No answer? Am I being impolite by pointing out the contradictions in your posts? Is pointing out contradictions in your posts a personal attack as well? You aren't going to try and recover from stating you are against all abortion and then later claiming you support it, all the while claiming you've stated your views? How about when you said you wanted to ban all late-term abortions and then said you were only against this one procedure, after of course saying you oppose all abortion and as such this was a step in the right direction. Hmmm...? Nothing to say to that?

Meanwhile, once again your position has changed with the wind. Originally, you were stating things about this bill as fact. Now, you admit you don't know and never knew. Bad form, my friend.

What about this attacks you personally? "Bad form"?

So it is wrong to admit when one does not have all the facts? I answered truthfully to him/her. So tell me why you have to attack me for when I admitted I was wrong!

I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking your posts. That is completely different. You keep accusing me of attacking you becuase it keeps you from having to address the actual points.

Meanwhile, were you wrong when you said you are against all abortion? Is that what you were wrong about?

Were you wrong when you said you wanted to ban all late-term abortion?

I'm not sure what you admitted you were wrong about since you didn't, in fact, admit you were wrong. Now the part about admitting you were wrong is good form provided you didn't ent the thread and get upset with anyont who told you that you weren't considering all the facts. You could have admitting your lack of knowledge from the outset but instead stated your opinion like you'd considered all the information available and like it had equal weight to other more considered position. Try this one "I'm have read everything yet, but I generally agree with the decision as I understand it." Or something to that effect. I bet you get a better response.

Now, what I'd like for you to do is honestly present your position. I can't tell what you think because you've repeatedly contradicted yourself. Dishonesty didn't work. How about you try the opposite and we'll start there, yeah?

Originally Posted by Read My Mind
Wow. So many different opinions, so many finite details, so much bullshit rhetoric. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised. Ever since SCOTUS pulled Roe out of its' collective ass, this whole issue has just been one big god-awful mess.

I'm in full support of legislatures dealing with this issue, and would prefer that these procedures be outlawed for the most part. However, I believe that the federal government has no jursidiction when it comes to an issue like abortion, and also believe that the courts have overstepped their bounds as well. Yet, I realize that without court intervention as in Stenberg v. Carhart (the 2000 case), there would be a chance that such laws banning partial-birth abortions would be made without exceptions for the health of mothers. What would be best, in my opinion, would be if:
a.) The federal government butted the hell out of this issue
b.) The Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 be overturned on grounds of violationing the Commerce Clause (Scalia/Thomas held off on this in order to see that the liberal side of the court would not see victory)
c.) All laws being signed on the state level ban both procedures except in cases where the mother's health and/or life is in danger, as banning just one really defeats the purpose of such legislation. Further, women whose health and/or life is at stake could see negative effects of such exclusionary legislation if the more dangerous of the two procedures was the only legal one available.

In the end, this ruling either served to do little to the occurences of partial-birth abortion in this country, only limiting doctors to performing just one procedure, or will heighten the risks for women receiving the procedure if "dilation and evacuation" is more dangerous than "dilation and extraction."
Out of curiosity, which of your rights would you like to leave up to the states if you keep?
I'd like to know his answer to this, too.

I fail to see why ANY government agency or department at all, at any level, should be making my medical decisions for me.

I'm just going to focus on this part of it. How is it that the issue of abortion, which often involves people crossing state lines in order to get them because of different state level restrictions, and which often involve health care corporations or non-profits like Planned Parenthood which have offices in multiple states wouldn't be covered by the Commerce Clause? How would this act be in "violationing" of said clause?
OK, first of all: LOLZ!!!! TPYO!!!!21213 HAHAHAHQ!!!! "'VIOLATIFDASKL!!!!IONING!"@!#/IDIOTLA@#$@$#

That being said...

While the issue may involve corporations and non-profits that have offices in multiple states, the individual state still has every right to decide what procedures are legal within its jurisdictions. It's the same with restaurants who have to modify their smoking policies in states where smoking in restaurants is banned; since restaurants are often branches of nation-wide chains, does that mean that laws governing smoking in restaurants should be mandated at the federal level? I think we can all agree that such logic is ridiculous. Both issues clearly belong at the state level.

Out of curiosity, which of your rights would you like to leave up to the states if you keep?
The ones not enumerated in the bill of rights.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-- 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution Bill of Rights

Ever read that silly little document called the Constitution all the way through, or were you too busy finding rights buried in the preamble to examine its actual language?

OK, first of all: LOLZ!!!! TPYO!!!!21213 HAHAHAHQ!!!! "'VIOLATIFDASKL!!!!IONING!"@!#/IDIOTLA@#$@$#

That being said...

While the issue may involve corporations and non-profits that have offices in multiple states, the individual state still has every right to decide what procedures are legal within its jurisdictions. It's the same with restaurants who have to modify their smoking policies in states where smoking in restaurants is banned; since restaurants are often branches of nation-wide chains, does that mean that laws governing smoking in restaurants should be mandated at the federal level? I think we can all agree that such logic is ridiculous. Both issues clearly belong at the state level.


The ones not enumerated in the bill of rights.


-- 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution Bill of Rights

Ever read that silly little document called the Constitution all the way through, or were you too busy finding rights buried in the preamble to examine its actual language?

Yes. I have. Unfortunately, you A) ignored a part of what you quoted.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

SCOTUS ruled this right was reserved for the people. You do know who interprets the Constitution? Yep, you guessed it. SCOTUS. And the means SCOTUS can rule on which powers go to the states and which to the people. This amendment restricted the Congress not SCOTUS.

Meanwhile, you left out a whole amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, because it's not enumerated does not mean it's not a right of the people and not protected by the Constitution. It was included because some of the people voting for the US Constitution were concerned that having a bill of rights would make people say things about how anything not mentioned in the Bill of Rights wasn't a right. Yep, that's right. They anticipated your argument and defeated it before you ever thought of it.

Perhaps you should consider reading the entire thing not just the things someone told you supports your argument.

Meanwhile, so I suppose I can pass a law denying you heart surgery, no? It' not enumerated and since the 9th amendment doesn't exist in your world, right?

Yes. I have. Unfortunately, you A) ignored a part of what you quoted.



SCOTUS ruled this right was reserved for the people. You do know who interprets the Constitution? Yep, you guessed it. SCOTUS. And the means SCOTUS can rule on which powers go to the states and which to the people. This amendment restricted the Congress not SCOTUS.

Meanwhile, you left out a whole amendment.



In other words, because it's not enumerated does not mean it's not a right of the people and not protected by the Constitution. It was included because some of the people voting for the US Constitution were concerned that having a bill of rights would make people say things about how anything not mentioned in the Bill of Rights wasn't a right. Yep, that's right. They anticipated your argument and defeated it before you ever thought of it.

Perhaps you should consider reading the entire thing not just the things someone told you supports your argument.

Meanwhile, so I suppose I can pass a law denying you heart surgery, no? It' not enumerated and since the 9th amendment doesn't exist in your world, right?

Ah, the 9th Amendment. A wellspring of bullshit unalienable rights since 1973.

Many rights have been traditionally held by the people throughout the history of this country and since before its inception. Clearly, the ninth amendment was written in order to protect the rights that were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Gotcha.

Apparently, the seven justices who ruled in favor of the platintiffs in Roe v. Wade felt that a right to privacy, and thus, abortion, was among these rights. OK. However, the idea that somehow a time limit exists in the pregnancy where this right to privacy is unalienable is a ridiculous concept. I'm of course referring to the "first trimester rule", or what has now become the "viability" rule. It's either a or b: the woman has a right to abort her child at any time during the pregnancy because it's her private business for all nine months, or the state government has the right to intervene at any time. Anything beyond that is based purely upon the personal moral opinions of the justices, which is clearly what has occurred again and again.

Of course, if the courts were to follow through on this, it would allow for women to abort fully developed babies, say in the ninth month of pregnancy. "Ew", most would say. The government should do something! Not by your logic. If abortion is truly an untouchable right, then women should be allowed to abort fully developed babies as long as they are still pregnant with them, for any reason at all, at least if you really want to follow through on the "privacy" angle. I hope this demonstrates why the majority of rights were left to legislatures to regulate -- allowing the courts to control issues such as abortion just leads to the judiciary acting as a legislature, or, if they maintain their role as a judicial body, making grisly procedures "constitutional rights." The ninth amendment was left for matters that are truly issues of unalienable rights -- issues that don't require the legislating of the personal opinions of the justices on the bench in order for them to function. There is a reason for the ninth amendment's existence, and, just as importantly, a reason for the tenth's -- the Framers realized that it was best for most issues to be left up to state legislatures.

As for your last question -- yes, you could. I, however, would just go to another state. Get it? If one state makes a shitty law, you can just go to another one! See the beauty of states' rights? When one state fucks up, it doesn't fuck up the entire nation. When one state passes a law that you sharply disagree with, it doesn't affect the state next door to you. This is why we are a United States. WHOAH! FEDERALISM! The way you would have it, all matters of personal rights would be decided by the courts, leaving you no democratic say in any important issue. More importantly, once a decision is made at the court level, chances are, it won't be changed. With states' rights, it's a whole different story. You can petition to change the law, gather your troops, and, if that fails, go to another state. After all, there are 49 other ones in the union besides the one that has done you wrong. Plus, let's also consider that the people elect their representatives, and would not re-elect and/or call for the impeach of the representatives who voted for such a stupid bill. Further, no politician would vote for an act like the one you mentioned. Let's not forget that the peoples' best interests will win out if they know they are being fucked over. That's the beauty of a democratic republic like ours, and the reason we aren't a dictatorship under the holy guard of the Almighty Courts.

OK, first of all: LOLZ!!!! TPYO!!!!21213 HAHAHAHQ!!!! "'VIOLATIFDASKL!!!!IONING!"@!#/IDIOTLA@#$@$#

That being said...

While the issue may involve corporations and non-profits that have offices in multiple states, the individual state still has every right to decide what procedures are legal within its jurisdictions. It's the same with restaurants who have to modify their smoking policies in states where smoking in restaurants is banned; since restaurants are often branches of nation-wide chains, does that mean that laws governing smoking in restaurants should be mandated at the federal level? I think we can all agree that such logic is ridiculous. Both issues clearly belong at the state level.


The ones not enumerated in the bill of rights.


-- 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution Bill of Rights

Ever read that silly little document called the Constitution all the way through, or were you too busy finding rights buried in the preamble to examine its actual language?
Ummm, the answer is pretty simple. As I understand it, the second a business becomes interstate, it's covered by the Commerce Clause. Period, end of discussion. Unless you can show differently, you lose this discussion.

Ah, the 9th Amendment. A wellspring of bullshit unalienable rights since 1973.

Yeah, pretend like you were actually taking that into account. Too bad your statements prove your ignorance. You said explicitly that we need not respect any rights not enumerated in the Constitution and then chastised me for not reading it. The problem being that the Constitution says the opposite. Nice job, there, chief. Well, if you consider proving you don't know what you're talking about a nice job, of course.



Many rights have been traditionally held by the people throughout the history of this country and since before its inception. Clearly, the ninth amendment was written in order to protect the rights that were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Gotcha.

Apparently, the seven justices who ruled in favor of the platintiffs in Roe v. Wade felt that a right to privacy, and thus, abortion, was among these rights. OK. However, the idea that somehow a time limit exists in the pregnancy where this right to privacy is unalienable is a ridiculous concept. I'm of course referring to the "first trimester rule", or what has now become the "viability" rule. It's either a or b: the woman has a right to abort her child at any time during the pregnancy because it's her private business for all nine months, or the state government has the right to intervene at any time. Anything beyond that is based purely upon the personal moral opinions of the justices, which is clearly what has occurred again and again.

This argument is neither new nor interesting. It pretends like all of the arguments made about abortion have never happened and that you've never seen one. Now, while an argument that requires me to believe you're ignorant on this matter might carry based on your already spurious claims, I'm sorry, I'm not letting it slide.

The argument is not that privacy trumps all but that once it becomes a matter of two viable persons it becomes a matter of balancing rights. It's not an either or unless you pretend to not be aware of this little tidbit. But hey, keep trying to prove you don't know. That might make your argument more credible.



Of course, if the courts were to follow through on this, it would allow for women to abort fully developed babies, say in the ninth month of pregnancy. "Ew", most would say. The government should do something! Not by your logic. If abortion is truly an untouchable right, then women should be allowed to abort fully developed babies as long as they are still pregnant with them, for any reason at all, at least if you really want to follow through on the "privacy" angle. I hope this demonstrates why the majority of rights were left to legislatures to regulate -- allowing the courts to control issues such as abortion just leads to the judiciary acting as a legislature, or, if they maintain their role as a judicial body, making grisly procedures "constitutional rights." The ninth amendment was left for matters that are truly issues of unalienable rights -- issues that don't require the legislating of the personal opinions of the justices on the bench in order for them to function. There is a reason for the ninth amendment's existence, and, just as importantly, a reason for the tenth's -- the Framers realized that it was best for most issues to be left up to state legislatures.

Ah, yes, the good old false dichotomy. Pretend like the only choices are to ignore that fetuses become people at some point or to ignore the issue altogether. Rights begin to apply when we become people. That's the nature of rights. Guess who interprets when personhood applies? You got it. SCOTUS again. Personhood is not a majority vote kind of thing.


As for your last question -- yes, you could. I, however, would just go to another state. Get it? If one state makes a shitty law, you can just go to another one! See the beauty of states' rights?

If you don't like heart surgery, you don't have to get one. That's the beauty of individual rights. That's also why the ninth amendment exists.


When one state fucks up, it doesn't fuck up the entire nation. When one state passes a law that you sharply disagree with, it doesn't affect the state next door to you. This is why we are a United States. WHOAH! FEDERALISM! The way you would have it, all matters of personal rights would be decided by the courts, leaving you no democratic say in any important issue.

YAY!!!! I'd be ecstatic. All matters of personal rights would be *gasp* personal, with the courts protecting that idea. I can't think of a better outcome. I don't need democratic say in personal rights. See, I don't need to force my views on others. For instance, I wouldn't get an abortion. Fortunately, I don't have to since that decision is personal and, frankly, it's impossible. Meanwhile, if we have a democratic say, then they aren't personal rights, so here's a cookie for contradicting yourself yet again.


More importantly, once a decision is made at the court level, chances are, it won't be changed. With states' rights, it's a whole different story. You can petition to change the law, gather your troops, and, if that fails, go to another state. After all, there are 49 other ones in the union besides the one that has done you wrong.

Very convenient so long as the person being shat upon is a person of means. Unfortunately, this is rarely true. Fortunately, we have the 9th amendment to protect personal rights from idiots who don't recognize that personal means personal, not up for majority vote.


Plus, let's also consider that the people elect their representatives, and would not re-elect and/or call for the impeach of the representatives who voted for such a stupid bill. Further, no politician would vote for an act like the one you mentioned. Let's not forget that the peoples' best interests will win out if they know they are being fucked over. That's the beauty of a democratic republic like ours, and the reason we aren't a dictatorship under the holy guard of the Almighty Courts.

Yes, and the people's interests have won out again and again as we protect personal rights. See that's the beauty of a government of checks and balances. See the wonderful framers of our country protected states' rights and personal rights by creating a court that would prevent legislation on the federal level from impinging on states' rights and legislation at any level from impinging on personal rights. Man, they sure were smart. Even undermined your argument before your logic train was even on the tracks let alone before it completely derailed.

This is where you step back admit you entered the argument from a losing position, called a person ignorant of the Constitution while ignoring completely the pertinent parts of the bill of rights, and then got caught in a logical fallacy, and as such should just accept defeat and hope for better days.

Honestly, this doesn't seem like as big a blow to the pro-choice movement as it could be, to me anyway. I'm massively pro-choice --- as long as the pregnancy is before the stage where the fetus can survive outside of the womb. Once it can be salvaged, what is that the 22nd, 23rd week?, then it's too late and the woman needs to give it up for adoption if she doesn't want it. There's no excuse at all for late-term abortions.

I've always been agains the 'd&x' version of abortion. Taking a child out of a woman a few weeks before it's gonna be born anyway, and when it can survive and lead a normal and healthy life, and then bash in its head (does doc man use a hammer or squeeze the head till it pops, I wonder...) or 'sever' the spinal cord (??? sever??) seems to me like an enormously gruesome and cruel way to do anything - but to treat a baby? It's reprehensible.

As long as they don't touch the first-term abortions, I'm not gonna panic. Everyone has a different opinion as to where it starts to be 'human' or 'baby' instead of 'fetus' but there's a pretty clear medical/scientific line showing where it stops being dependant on the mother (parasite) and starts being able to survive (with help) and start life without her. Aborting in the 8th month by delivering the child and then crushing its head isn't 'aborting' as I see it, it's macabre.

ps - I didn't read through this thread, it's really quite long. I'm just putting in my reaction to the OP.

Honestly, this doesn't seem like as big a blow to the pro-choice movement as it could be, to me anyway. I'm massively pro-choice --- as long as the pregnancy is before the stage where the fetus can survive outside of the womb. Once it can be salvaged, what is that the 22nd, 23rd week?, then it's too late and the woman needs to give it up for adoption if she doesn't want it. There's no excuse at all for late-term abortions.

I've always been agains the 'd&x' version of abortion. Taking a child out of a woman a few weeks before it's gonna be born anyway, and when it can survive and lead a normal and healthy life, and then bash in its head (does doc man use a hammer or squeeze the head till it pops, I wonder...) or 'sever' the spinal cord (??? sever??) seems to me like an enormously gruesome and cruel way to do anything - but to treat a baby? It's reprehensible.

As long as they don't touch the first-term abortions, I'm not gonna panic. Everyone has a different opinion as to where it starts to be 'human' or 'baby' instead of 'fetus' but there's a pretty clear medical/scientific line showing where it stops being dependant on the mother (parasite) and starts being able to survive (with help) and start life without her. Aborting in the 8th month by delivering the child and then crushing its head isn't 'aborting' as I see it, it's macabre.

ps - I didn't read through this thread, it's really quite long. I'm just putting in my reaction to the OP.

You do realize that we aren't discussing elective abortions here. We are discussing a procedure that is almost exclusively performed out of medical necessity. And, no, it is not performed the way you suggest. It's done in the fashion it is because the birth of the head would be too traumatic. I'd support a limit on elective abortions, which is what you appear to be suggesting this is.

I'll give an example of where this is sometimes used. You're pregnant and you start have severe complications. They discover the fetus has died inside of you and they discuss your options with you. One of them is to intact D&X.

See, it's rarely done with a viable fetus. It's done specifically because the fetus is not going to survive or is already dead. Most doctors would be unwilling to perform an elective abortion in the third trimester.

In fact, I'd be interested in finding any doctor that will say they are willing to perform elective 9th month abortions. The right says they exist. Let them find me one.

Ummm, the answer is pretty simple. As I understand it, the second a business becomes interstate, it's covered by the Commerce Clause. Period, end of discussion. Unless you can show differently, you lose this discussion.

I agree that's their reasoning for creating laws on the matter, but I find said reasoning suspect. Under that reasoning the powers that were meant to be limited by the 10th amendment are basically unlimited.

If I kick a rock, interstate commerce, because some rocks are brough across state lines.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying they are.

I agree that's their reasoning for creating laws on the matter, but I find said reasoning suspect. Under that reasoning the powers that were meant to be limited by the 10th amendment are basically unlimited.

If I kick a rock, interstate commerce, because some rocks are brough across state lines.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying they are.

The problem, as I see it, is that the courts haven't been consistent on the issue. For instance, in a case involving no-gun zones around schools in the 90s, they said Congress had stretched the Commerce Clause beyond any recognition (and I agree--they had), but then last year in a case involving personally grown medical marijuana for local co-ops in California, the Court argued that the Commerce Clause applied even though there was neither commerce nor interstate trafficking involved.

That said, I would argue that there's no question that the medical treatment at the heart of abortion provision qualifies as interstate commerce and is under the purview of regulation by the federal government. It's part of the reason I've always thought that the argument that if Roe is overturned, this issue would go back to the states was a bogus one, and if this case is any indication, SCOTUS agrees.

The problem, as I see it, is that the courts haven't been consistent on the issue. For instance, in a case involving no-gun zones around schools in the 90s, they said Congress had stretched the Commerce Clause beyond any recognition (and I agree--they had), but then last year in a case involving personally grown medical marijuana for local co-ops in California, the Court argued that the Commerce Clause applied even though there was neither commerce nor interstate trafficking involved.

Yes, I was more referring to cases like this. And they're right, drug policies have stretched beyond all recognition.


That said, I would argue that there's no question that the medical treatment at the heart of abortion provision qualifies as interstate commerce and is under the purview of regulation by the federal government. It's part of the reason I've always thought that the argument that if Roe is overturned, this issue would go back to the states was a bogus one, and if this case is any indication, SCOTUS agrees.

Yes, this is much closer to the line in my opinion. But again, if it's a local doctor and a local woman, what part of it qualifies?

And, I also do agree that given cases like this, the states argument isn't likely to be true. It is just the result of a misunderstanding of the 10th amendment and a lack of knowledge of the 9th. Evidence for that lack of understanding is presented above by our friend, RMM.

EDIT: By the way, don't you wonder about these wonderful 9th month "abortionists". I keep hearing about them, but as of yet, I've never seen or heard of a doctor who says he'll kill a perfectly healthy 9th month fetus. I wonder if someone can point me to one of these guys. I'd really like to meet these mythical creatures, wouldn't you? I mean they must be all over the place since the debate keeps going back to late-term abortions being elective, right?

OK, first of all: LOLZ!!!! TPYO!!!!21213 HAHAHAHQ!!!! "'VIOLATIFDASKL!!!!IONING!"@!#/IDIOTLA@#$@$#

That being said...

While the issue may involve corporations and non-profits that have offices in multiple states, the individual state still has every right to decide what procedures are legal within its jurisdictions. It's the same with restaurants who have to modify their smoking policies in states where smoking in restaurants is banned; since restaurants are often branches of nation-wide chains, does that mean that laws governing smoking in restaurants should be mandated at the federal level? I think we can all agree that such logic is ridiculous. Both issues clearly belong at the state level.


The ones not enumerated in the bill of rights.


-- 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution Bill of Rights

Ever read that silly little document called the Constitution all the way through, or were you too busy finding rights buried in the preamble to examine its actual language?
You should read the Constitution yourself someday. It's really fascinating. For instance it makes it quite clear that rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights are reserved to the people, not just to state governments. So the question stands, which of your rights are you willing to give up, if I am supposed to be content to give up my right to control my own body?

<snip>
EDIT: By the way, don't you wonder about these wonderful 9th month "abortionists". I keep hearing about them, but as of yet, I've never seen or heard of a doctor who says he'll kill a perfectly healthy 9th month fetus. I wonder if someone can point me to one of these guys. I'd really like to meet these mythical creatures, wouldn't you? I mean they must be all over the place since the debate keeps going back to late-term abortions being elective, right?
They're the new political jackalope. The FBI got tired of telling people over and over that there is no such thing as an international Satanic child molesting/baby sacrificing conspiracy. Soon, we hope, they can start shouting themselves hoarse about how there is no such thing as elective 9th-month on-demand abortion services.

You do realize that we aren't discussing elective abortions here. We are discussing a procedure that is almost exclusively performed out of medical necessity. And, no, it is not performed the way you suggest. It's done in the fashion it is because the birth of the head would be too traumatic. I'd support a limit on elective abortions, which is what you appear to be suggesting this is.

I'll give an example of where this is sometimes used. You're pregnant and you start have severe complications. They discover the fetus has died inside of you and they discuss your options with you. One of them is to intact D&X.

See, it's rarely done with a viable fetus. It's done specifically because the fetus is not going to survive or is already dead. Most doctors would be unwilling to perform an elective abortion in the third trimester.

In fact, I'd be interested in finding any doctor that will say they are willing to perform elective 9th month abortions. The right says they exist. Let them find me one.

It's always (or at least for the past 15 years) been illegal to perform an elective abortion in the third trimester in America. I know the right wants us to believe otherwise.

It can still be performed if the mother's life is in jeopardy, but not if the child has a severe disability (like it's brain forming outside it's skull). If the baby is dead, they just induce labour if the woman's body doesn't do it on it's own. At least that's what they did to my friend last year.

EDIT: By the way, don't you wonder about these wonderful 9th month "abortionists". I keep hearing about them, but as of yet, I've never seen or heard of a doctor who says he'll kill a perfectly healthy 9th month fetus. I wonder if someone can point me to one of these guys. I'd really like to meet these mythical creatures, wouldn't you? I mean they must be all over the place since the debate keeps going back to late-term abortions being elective, right?
I remember someone asking Howard Dean about it back in 2004, mostly because of his background as a doctor, and he said that he felt it would be an ethical breach to perform the procedure under those very circumstances--healthy near term fetus--and that he didn't know of a doctor who would perform one because of the ethical implications. But his position, and I think it's the best one out there, is that the legislatures and the courts ought not be getting involved in those layers of complexity of medical decisions. That's a private matter between individuals and their doctors.

I remember someone asking Howard Dean about it back in 2004, mostly because of his background as a doctor, and he said that he felt it would be an ethical breach to perform the procedure under those very circumstances--healthy near term fetus--and that he didn't know of a doctor who would perform one because of the ethical implications. But his position, and I think it's the best one out there, is that the legislatures and the courts ought not be getting involved in those layers of complexity of medical decisions. That's a private matter between individuals and their doctors.

There's never been abortion on demand in the third term. The pro-life camp propagates those myths.

Wow. So many different opinions, so many finite details, so much bullshit rhetoric. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised. Ever since SCOTUS pulled Roe out of its' collective ass, this whole issue has just been one big god-awful mess.

Meh. You are being handed your ass already, but I feel the need to emphasize a few points.

One of the great myths of our time is that Roe was somehow an abberrant case.

Roe was a 7-2 decision and has been reaffirmed multiple times over the last 30+ years.

More to the point, Roe is entirely consistent with and comes naturally from the line of cases applying the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These cases stretch back to the Fourteenth's enactment. Just before Roe, they culminated in Griswold v. Connecticut. Would you overturn Griswold? What about the hundred years or so of precedents behind Griswold and Roe?

I'm in full support of legislatures dealing with this issue, and would prefer that these procedures be outlawed for the most part. However, I believe that the federal government has no jursidiction when it comes to an issue like abortion, and also believe that the courts have overstepped their bounds as well.

1. You appear to not comprehend the concept of rights or liberty. These are not matters for popular vote or legislatures. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

2. Your federalism argument is bogus. The Bill of Rights, as incorporated (http://www.answers.com/topic/incorporation-bill-of-rights) through the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment itself, limit the powers of state and local governments, as well as the federal government.

The right to privacy is a fundamental human right and the Supreme Court has correctly recognized that the right to choose is protected by the Constitution. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html ); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html )



In the end, this ruling either served to do little to the occurences of partial-birth abortion in this country, only limiting doctors to performing just one procedure, or will heighten the risks for women receiving the procedure if "dilation and evacuation" is more dangerous than "dilation and extraction."

Here you show some insight. This ruling accomplishes little that could be said to be positive -- even for an opponent of late-term abortion -- and creates a risk to the health of women. Not to mention it belittles a woman's fundamental rights.

OK, first of all: LOLZ!!!! TPYO!!!!21213 HAHAHAHQ!!!! "'VIOLATIFDASKL!!!!IONING!"@!#/IDIOTLA@#$@$#

That being said...

While the issue may involve corporations and non-profits that have offices in multiple states, the individual state still has every right to decide what procedures are legal within its jurisdictions. It's the same with restaurants who have to modify their smoking policies in states where smoking in restaurants is banned; since restaurants are often branches of nation-wide chains, does that mean that laws governing smoking in restaurants should be mandated at the federal level? I think we can all agree that such logic is ridiculous. Both issues clearly belong at the state level.


The ones not enumerated in the bill of rights.


-- 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution Bill of Rights

Ever read that silly little document called the Constitution all the way through, or were you too busy finding rights buried in the preamble to examine its actual language?

1. Again, your feeble federalism argument is trumped by the Fourteenth Amendment. Without incorporation through the 14th, you have no protection under the Constitution against state infringement of free speech, free press, due process, etc. (Go back to my earlier post on this.)

2. No Supreme Court case has found rights "buried in the preamble."

3. It is interesting that you trumpet the Tenth Amendment, but ignore the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Ninth Amendment is just one of the many reasons that the Supreme Court has held that the list of fundamental rights in the first 8 Amendments is not to be taken as exhaustive.

4. More importantly you ignore the role of the Fourteeth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment was an amendment to the Constitution - it amended, added to, and changed the Constitution. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects substantive liberties from unwarranted government interference.

This is explained at lengthy in Casey. I suggest you read it.
In the meantime, here is a quote from the Supreme Court - this one written by Chief Justice Rhenquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

5. So, your insistence on "enumerated" Constitutional rights is inconsistent with: (a) the original Bill of Rights (i.e., the 9th Amendment), (b) the intentions of the Founding Fathers (e.g., the motives behind the 9th Amendment), (c) the 14th Amendment, (d) the intentions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, and (e) well over 100 years of Supreme Court decisions.

6. Finally, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "enumerated" in the Constitution but that have been held to be protected under the Constitution and are taken for granted by US citizens[/B]:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity


Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

Bad Cat tribe, don't you know that whenever a judge says something that isn't clearly and directly supported by the plain words of the constitution then this is nothing more than pure liberal judicial activism.

Unless of course you agree with the ruling, then it's just good judgement, of course.

But if you don't it's judicial activism, and therefore, obviously wrong.

Even if you don't have a law degree what so ever. If you ever disagree with the judge that judge is wrong, and a dirty liberal activist.

The argument is not that privacy trumps all but that once it becomes a matter of two viable persons it becomes a matter of balancing rights. It's not an either or unless you pretend to not be aware of this little tidbit. But hey, keep trying to prove you don't know. That might make your argument more credible.
I mentioned the "viability" concept in my last post. I'm fully aware of that rationale, and I still find it to be bullshit. The idea that viability constitutes personhood is an idea that is purely the personal opinion of a number of people. The idea of “personhood” itself is always a matter of personal opinion. Court justices are supposed to interpret the Constitution as well as established law – neither the Constitution nor a consensus of established law had determined that viability defined personhood when Roe v. Wade was ruled on. The fact is that this legal concept was created by the justices of the SCOTUS who ruled on those cases – it didn’t exist before then, thus clearly demonstrating that these justices created their own legislation (the legal concept that viability determines personhood) rather than basing their ruling on it.

Ah, yes, the good old false dichotomy. Pretend like the only choices are to ignore that fetuses become people at some point or to ignore the issue altogether. Rights begin to apply when we become people. That's the nature of rights. Guess who interprets when personhood applies? You got it. SCOTUS again. Personhood is not a majority vote kind of thing.
You've just shown your ignorance -- yes, the SCOTUS can and clearly has decided when they believe personhood begins. But interpret when it begins? Interpret from what? Please tell me where in the Constitution or in established law the SCOTUS interpreted the idea of “viability = personhood” from?


If you don't like heart surgery, you don't have to get one. That's the beauty of individual rights. That's also why the ninth amendment exists.
In your opinion, at least. The fact is, the ninth amendment is not necessarily a blank check for the courts to decide what rights are “fundamental” and can be enforced by court ruling. Despite the fact that the ninth amendment has been interpreted this way, there is still controversy around its interpretation.
It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#_note-4

Here’s a personal favorite of mine (and I know you’ll love the source):
The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.
-- Quoted in Troxel v. Granville: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troxel_v._Granville

If the state or federal government used the fact of the enumeration of certain rights to deny others to the people, that would be unconstitutional. By your logic, however, the ninth amendment allows a justice to declare that, say, the right to have a Coke on one’s desk promptly at 7:00 a.m. in the morning is fundamental. Seeing as how literally anything can be interpreted from the ninth amendment based on your reading of it, this could certainly occur. See a problem with that?

This is where you step back admit you entered the argument from a losing position, called a person ignorant of the Constitution while ignoring completely the pertinent parts of the bill of rights, and then got caught in a logical fallacy, and as such should just accept defeat and hope for better days.
I didn’t ignore any part of the bill of rights. I just interpret the ninth amendment in such a way that doesn’t allow for a ridiculous circus act of judicial legislation.

Meh. You are being handed your ass already, but I feel the need to emphasize a few points.

One of the great myths of our time is that Roe was somehow an abberrant case.

Roe was a 7-2 decision and has been reaffirmed multiple times over the last 30+ years.
Most famously in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 5-4 decision thanks to the ever-popular Sandra Day O'Connor. Let’s not also forget the field day that occurs every time a federal court seat becomes vacant.

More to the point, Roe is entirely consistent with and comes naturally from the line of cases applying the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These cases stretch back to the Fourteenth's enactment. Just before Roe, they culminated in Griswold v. Connecticut. Would you overturn Griswold? What about the hundred years or so of precedents behind Griswold and Roe?
The idea that Due Process somehow implies "general liberty," which somehow implies a right to abortion is just a tad bit reaching in my opinion…although I could be wrong. Is the word “abortion” written in invisible ink next to the wording in the 14th amendment, and I just don’t have the right eyes to see it?

Of course I would overturn Griswold -- it was a ridiculous case in the same vain as Wade.



1. You appear to not comprehend the concept of rights or liberty. These are not matters for popular vote or legislatures. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
I understand rights and liberty. What I disagree with you on is interpreting separate rights wholesale out of a specifically-enumerated document and then calling them "Constitutionally protected." Please see Coke on the desk, above.

2. Your federalism argument is bogus. The Bill of Rights, as incorporated (http://www.answers.com/topic/incorporation-bill-of-rights) through the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment itself, limit the powers of state and local governments, as well as the federal government.
Of course the Bill of Rights is applicable to the states. I wholeheartedly agree with that…

The right to privacy is a fundamental human right and the Supreme Court has correctly recognized that the right to choose is protected by the Constitution. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html ); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html )
And we all know that those cases are amazing examples of judicial conduct.

Bad Cat tribe, don't you know that whenever a judge says something that isn't clearly and directly supported by the plain words of the constitution then this is nothing more than pure liberal judicial activism.

Unless of course you agree with the ruling, then it's just good judgement, of course.

But if you don't it's judicial activism, and therefore, obviously wrong.

Even if you don't have a law degree what so ever. If you ever disagree with the judge that judge is wrong, and a dirty liberal activist.
Case in point:

Read My Mind
Originally Posted by The Cat-Tribe
The right to privacy is a fundamental human right and the Supreme Court has correctly recognized that the right to choose is protected by the Constitution. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) ; Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
And we all know that those cases are amazing examples of judicial conduct.
He doesn't like those cases. Those cases can be and are cited as proof against his assertions. So he just attempts to dismiss them with a cavalier remark extremely suggestive of personal bias.

Reading Read My Mind's mind is too easy.

Case in point:


He doesn't like those cases. Those cases can be and are cited as proof against his assertions. So he just attempts to dismiss them with a cavalier remark extremely suggestive of personal bias.

Reading Read My Mind's mind is too easy.

Wow...I love how you take one line out of a lengthy post of mine and proceed to only respond to that as if I didn't address anything else. I discussed the flawed logic of those cases in that same post and in prior ones. Those cases are not "proof" of anything. They stand as the personal rulings of the justices involved, and I disagree with their rationale.

Please respond when you actually have something to say, rather than (feebly) trying to "high five" my opponents in a typical elitist manner in place of a response to any of the points I made in the post you quoted. Bravo.

Wow...I love how you take one line out of a lengthy post of mine and proceed to only respond to that as if I didn't address anything else. I discussed the flawed logic of those cases in that same post and in prior ones. Those cases are not "proof" of anything. They stand as the personal rulings of the justices involved, and I disagree with their rationale.

Please respond when you actually have something to say, rather than (feebly) trying to "high five" my opponents in a typical elitist manner in place of a response to any of the points I made in the post you quoted. Bravo.
Why, thank you.

I am aware of your lengthy arguments. I am also aware that your arguments are flawed by the overarching bias of the person making them. I am also aware that people better qualified than me to refute your so-called arguments have done so, at length, several times. I see no reason to copy their work.

But to recap: Your statements have been incorrect about the content of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Your arguments have implied applications of those documents that do not exist while ignoring ones that do. You have implied that the states have powers they do not have. And you have not only said that it is your opinion that rights should be controlled by majority vote, but have claimed that the Constitution and US law support that view, despite being shown several times that they do not. And finally, you have still failed to answer the question that was initially put to you: Which of your rights are you willing to give up? In other words, which of your rights are you willing to let me vote on whether you should have them or not? You are all full of pep and ginger when it comes to denying my right to control my own body. I want to see if you are willing to submit yourself to the same kind of authority.

All I see you doing in this thread is something a lot of people around here do: Stating your opinion but calling it fact. Spinning a fantasy about how you wish the world was, and then trying to prove somehow that it is that way in reality. Your opinions and your wishes do not jibe with reality, however, and no amount of snarky remarks beginning with "And we all know..." is going to change that.

Oh, and by the way, the excerpt from your post that I pulled, did in fact, perfectly illustrate the point Arthais was making.

I am aware of your lengthy arguments. I am also aware that your arguments are flawed by the overarching bias of the person making them. I am also aware that people better qualified than me to refute your so-called arguments have done so, at length, several times. I see no reason to copy their work.
Really? Where? You're the first person to reply to the post I just recently made. If you're referring to the fact that "these points have already been argued elsewhere and rebutted", I think it would be proper to show where this has occurred.

You have implied that the states have powers they do not have.
Such as what? It's a fact that the Constitution delegates all powers not enumerated to the states. How is my pointing out that state governments have more power than the federal government and make most of the laws in this country misconstruing what the Constitution says?
And you have not only said that it is your opinion that rights should be controlled by majority vote, but have claimed that the Constitution and US law support that view, despite being shown several times that they do not.
Yes, they do. While basic rights do fall under the Constitution, most laws, including those involving civil liberties, are left for the state governments to deal with. That's a fact.
And finally, you have still failed to answer the question that was initially put to you: Which of your rights are you willing to give up? In other words, which of your rights are you willing to let me vote on whether you should have them or not? You are all full of pep and ginger when it comes to denying my right to control my own body. I want to see if you are willing to submit yourself to the same kind of authority.
You make a lot of assumptions and misunderstand a lot of things. Just because I don't support the idea of an all-encompassing Constitution (which is based on what amounts to tarot card-reading its amendments and allowing judges to hand down rulings soley based on their personal opinions, might I add) and I oppose the holding of Roe v. Wade does not a.) make me willing to give up any of my rights and b.) mean that I am pro-life. To answer your question, I would leave all rights not enumerated in the Constitution up for the state governments to deal with. Surprised? Yes, states may make unjust laws, but I would do everything I could to democratically see them changed. If all else failed, I would move to another state. I'd rather deal with that than having court nominations become a battle over judges who respect "precedent."

All I see you doing in this thread is something a lot of people around here do: Stating your opinion but calling it fact. Spinning a fantasy about how you wish the world was, and then trying to prove somehow that it is that way in reality. Your opinions and your wishes do not jibe with reality, however, and no amount of snarky remarks beginning with "And we all know..." is going to change that.
I'd love to see some examples where I stated that my opinion is factual.
EDIT: Your one little example of a sarcastic jibe of mine does not count. Was that the entirety of that part of your argument? Sorry.

Wow...I love how you take one line out of a lengthy post of mine and proceed to only respond to that as if I didn't address anything else. I discussed the flawed logic of those cases in that same post and in prior ones. Those cases are not "proof" of anything. They stand as the personal rulings of the justices involved, and I disagree with their rationale.

Actually, high fiving around you is all your posts merit. Just like every other wannabe legal scholar out there, your 'pointing out of flawed logic' is laughable. You read some wiki quotes, you do the bare minimum of research, and suddenly you're a Constitutional expert.

Damn...what the hell am I doing wasting three years of my life in law school, when I too can attain your enlightened understanding without spending a cent?

I mentioned the "viability" concept in my last post. I'm fully aware of that rationale, and I still find it to be bullshit. The idea that viability constitutes personhood is an idea that is purely the personal opinion of a number of people. The idea of “personhood” itself is always a matter of personal opinion. Court justices are supposed to interpret the Constitution as well as established law – neither the Constitution nor a consensus of established law had determined that viability defined personhood when Roe v. Wade was ruled on. The fact is that this legal concept was created by the justices of the SCOTUS who ruled on those cases – it didn’t exist before then, thus clearly demonstrating that these justices created their own legislation (the legal concept that viability determines personhood) rather than basing their ruling on it.

1. Um. Perhaps you should re-read Roe and Casey. See if you can point to where the Supreme Court held that viability constitutes personhood. Although that is a common argument made in defence of Roe, that argument doesn't actually appear in the case. The fact that you don't know that (and would, in fact, claim the existence of that argument is the fundamental flaw in the case) shows you don't know what you are talking about.

2. You seem to be saying that SCOTUS can't decide any cases of first impression. Of course there are going to be new cases decided on new bases.


You've just shown your ignorance -- yes, the SCOTUS can and clearly has decided when they believe personhood begins. But interpret when it begins? Interpret from what? Please tell me where in the Constitution or in established law the SCOTUS interpreted the idea of “viability = personhood” from?

1. As I've already stated your "viability = personhood" is a false bogeyman. Please feel free to point out where exactly SCOTUS "clearly has decided" such.

2. Check out the language of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. They refer to persons. (As do many other parts of the Constitution). It does fall within the purview of the Court to interpret what is meant by that term.

In your opinion, at least. The fact is, the ninth amendment is not necessarily a blank check for the courts to decide what rights are “fundamental” and can be enforced by court ruling. Despite the fact that the ninth amendment has been interpreted this way, there is still controversy around its interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#_note-4

Here’s a personal favorite of mine (and I know you’ll love the source):

-- Quoted in Troxel v. Granville: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troxel_v._Granville

1. Getting your legal analysis straight from Wikipedia. How impressive. Should I quote other parts of Wiki article back to respond?

2. Lawrence Tribe is not a god, merely a professor. Regardless, you misunderstand his quote. His statement clearly supports the view that, while the Ninth Amendment is not a source of rights, it is a rule for reading the Constitution so that it protects unenumerated rights.

3. Scalia is an ass. But have you ever read the full case? Have you even read the full quote? Perhaps you should do that before you rely on it.

4. The Ninth Amendment says that unenumerated rights exist and that they are not unprotected merely because they are unemnumerated. Care to explain how that is wrong?

5. You are missing the real point which is the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

If the state or federal government used the fact of the enumeration of certain rights to deny others to the people, that would be unconstitutional.

But that is exactly what you would do. You say later that the word abortion doesn't appear in the Constitution so it can't be protected.

By your logic, however, the ninth amendment allows a justice to declare that, say, the right to have a Coke on one’s desk promptly at 7:00 a.m. in the morning is fundamental. Seeing as how literally anything can be interpreted from the ninth amendment based on your reading of it, this could certainly occur. See a problem with that?

If you know anything about the caselaw, you would know that SCOTUS has a long, long line of cases dating back to the Fourteenth Amendment itself explaining how it protects fundamental rights and explaining how one deciphers what is a fundamental right.

I didn’t ignore any part of the bill of rights. I just interpret the ninth amendment in such a way that doesn’t allow for a ridiculous circus act of judicial legislation..

And you ignore the role of substantive liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Most famously in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 5-4 decision thanks to the ever-popular Sandra Day O'Connor. Let’s not also forget the field day that occurs every time a federal court seat becomes vacant. .

Um. So?

As I said, Roe has been consistently reaffirmed for over 30 years.

Including in the just decided Gonzales v. Carhart case that started this thread.

The idea that Due Process somehow implies "general liberty," which somehow implies a right to abortion is just a tad bit reaching in my opinion…although I could be wrong. Is the word “abortion” written in invisible ink next to the wording in the 14th amendment, and I just don’t have the right eyes to see it?.

You are wrong. You haven't even responded to my second post which deals with this in more detail.

Even Scalia has accepted that Due Process protects substantive liberty.

Of course I would overturn Griswold -- it was a ridiculous case in the same vain as Wade..

This just shows how ridiculous your view of the Constitution is. The line of cases that Roe and Griswold dates back over 120 years and protects all of the unemerated rights

Your view of liberty must be very cramped and narrow.

I understand rights and liberty. What I disagree with you on is interpreting separate rights wholesale out of a specifically-enumerated document and then calling them "Constitutionally protected." Please see Coke on the desk, above..

Apparently you don't understand the Ninth Amendment -- because it specifically states that the fact that some rights are enumerated shall not be a basis for denying or disparaging other rights retained by the people.

Of course the Bill of Rights is applicable to the states. I wholeheartedly agree with that….

Um. There is more and less to incorporation than that. If there is no "general liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment (which you suggested above), then why do the Bill of Rights apply to the states? You do realize that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states prior to the Fourteenth Amendment.

And we all know that those cases are amazing examples of judicial conduct.

Wow. Well that snarky comment is surely enough to rebut the reasoning of decades of SCOTUS cases.

*snip excellent post*

Well, I don't really see what I can add to your argument, but I must say it's hilarious how clear his arguments stem from reading summarial abortion arguments than from actually attempting to examine the caselaw. Admittedly, it's a mistake I've made in the past. These cases say a lot more or a lot less than many of the arguments say they say. Once I read them I can always tell who hasn't.

For the record, I assure you RMM's mistake about viability is a result of squirming after I nailed him on the false dichotomy. Instead of just accepting failure in making a vialbe argument, he's doing everything he can to amend his argument and pretend it hasn't changed. The good news is that it seems that every time he comes back he's actually tried to gather more information. Maybe by the time we're done he'll have read the ENTIRE constitution.

Maybe by the time we're done he'll have read the ENTIRE constitution.
I wouldn't bet on it. ;)

I mentioned the "viability" concept in my last post. I'm fully aware of that rationale, and I still find it to be bullshit. The idea that viability constitutes personhood is an idea that is purely the personal opinion of a number of people. The idea of “personhood” itself is always a matter of personal opinion. Court justices are supposed to interpret the Constitution as well as established law – neither the Constitution nor a consensus of established law had determined that viability defined personhood when Roe v. Wade was ruled on. The fact is that this legal concept was created by the justices of the SCOTUS who ruled on those cases – it didn’t exist before then, thus clearly demonstrating that these justices created their own legislation (the legal concept that viability determines personhood) rather than basing their ruling on it.

TCT already pointed out the ignorance of this. The fact that you reacted to my argument in this way proves you don't actually understand the basis of these arguments. If you did, you'd be laughing at yourself.


You've just shown your ignorance -- yes, the SCOTUS can and clearly has decided when they believe personhood begins. But interpret when it begins? Interpret from what? Please tell me where in the Constitution or in established law the SCOTUS interpreted the idea of “viability = personhood” from?

Ha. I love how you can make this argument and then accuse me of ignorance. I said none of what you're arguing and none of what you're offering up is remotely true. At all. I pointed out there are more options than your false dichotomy, not that SCOTUS has ever said "viability=personhood". I find it amusing that you claimed they have as it pretty much proves where your argument comes from and establishes that my claims of your ignorance of the subject are justified.


If the state or federal government used the fact of the enumeration of certain rights to deny others to the people, that would be unconstitutional. By your logic, however, the ninth amendment allows a justice to declare that, say, the right to have a Coke on one’s desk promptly at 7:00 a.m. in the morning is fundamental. Seeing as how literally anything can be interpreted from the ninth amendment based on your reading of it, this could certainly occur. See a problem with that?

Amusing, but lame, of course. The point is that you claimed repeatedly that only enumerated rights are protected which ignores the EXPLICIT wording of the 9th amendment. That the 9th protects unenumerated rights as rights of the people is not an interpretation. It's the explicit intention of the 9th. To claim otherwise is like saying that word mouse has no s in it.



I didn’t ignore any part of the bill of rights. I just interpret the ninth amendment in such a way that doesn’t allow for a ridiculous circus act of judicial legislation.

I love the "I don't like it so it doesn't exist". You stated repeatedly that anything not enumerated in the Constitution is not a right. The Constitution says the opposite. I wonder which has more weight. Your ignorant argument or the Constitution. Hmmmm...


The idea that Due Process somehow implies "general liberty," which somehow implies a right to abortion is just a tad bit reaching in my opinion…although I could be wrong. Is the word “abortion” written in invisible ink next to the wording in the 14th amendment, and I just don’t have the right eyes to see it?

Again, you completely ignore the 9th. The 9th was written to undermine this argument. Just because you don't like doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


I understand rights and liberty. What I disagree with you on is interpreting separate rights wholesale out of a specifically-enumerated document and then calling them "Constitutionally protected." Please see Coke on the desk, above.

Again, it's not a specifically-enumerated document. The 9th amendment was written specifically to point that out. Do you have any argument for the "specifically-enumerated" document idea that explains why the 9th would be there if that were true? And, no, "wah, it really hurts my argument" is not very compelling.

Yes, I dropped a couple of arguments, because I agreed with TCT's handling so I just let his arguments lie.

I wouldn't bet on it. ;)

Well, I'm not arguing understand. I mean he has claimed even after being shown the explicit wording of the 9th amendment, that the document is "specifically-enumerated" and that if a word doesn't appear in the document that it's a state right despite the explicit wording of the 10th and 9th saying the EXACT opposite.

I'll be happy if he's just read the whole thing. Then we can move to getting him to understand that "rights not enumerated" means *gasp* "rights not enumerated".

1. Um. Perhaps you should re-read Roe and Casey. See if you can point to where the Supreme Court held that viability constitutes personhood. Although that is a common argument made in defence of Roe, that argument doesn't actually appear in the case. The fact that you don't know that (and would, in fact, claim the existence of that argument is the fundamental flaw in the case) shows you don't know what you are talking about.
You're right -- they never actually say that viability constitutes personhood. Let's look at the wording of the actual case, though:
For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
The Court certainly drew this line around viability for a reason. It was clearly the Court's personal opinion that the presence of viability somehow makes the unborn entity defensible. While they left the door open for states to legislate when abortion is limited, they knew, based on the fact that all fifty states had laws banning abortion (with some exceptions for rape, incest, etc.), that state governments would undoubtedly curtail the legality of the procedure at this line. While they never explicity stated that viability is the equivalent of personhood, it was strongly the implication of this arbitrarily drawn limitation. Speaking of arbitrary...

2. You seem to be saying that SCOTUS can't decide any cases of first impression. Of course there are going to be new cases decided on new bases.
Of course they can...based on established law and the wording of the Constitution. While you vociferously defend the legal basis of the Court's arbitrarily drawn regulations on the procedure, Justice Blackmun, the author of Roe himself, even admitted their lack of support in established law:

The opinion's author, Justice Harry A. Blackmun, said in one internal court memo that he was drawing "arbitrary" lines about the times during pregnancy when a woman could legally receive an abortion.
Blackmun said in his memo to the other justices that he had determined to set the cutoff at the first trimester, or first 13 weeks of pregnancy. "This is arbitrary," he said, starkly acknowledging his problem. "But perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability (of the fetus), is equally arbitrary."
http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/roe/woodward.html

Please take some time to read the article. It's a little more than interesting that the Justice who authored the opinion himself, not to mention another justice who concurred with his opinion, found his reasoning to be shaky, while you and others defend it as if it were the infallible word of God...

2. Check out the language of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. They refer to persons. (As do many other parts of the Constitution). It does fall within the purview of the Court to interpret what is meant by that term.
Responding specifically to the bolded text, you just contradicted yourself; you went on and on about the Court not having decided what constitues personhood, and now defend their right to interpret what constitues a "person." OK...

The fact is that the idea of interpreting when the entity inside the womb becomes defendable by law should never have been a factor at all; the Court decided that a woman had a right to privacy. That should have applied to the entire pregnancy, but the Court decided to inject its own personal opinions into the matter, deciding that this right to privacy somehow disappears at the point where the justices' personal morals told them that the growing entity is defensible.

1. Getting your legal analysis straight from Wikipedia. How impressive. Should I quote other parts of Wiki article back to respond?
The quote I obtained from Wiki was sourced...

2. Lawrence Tribe is not a god, merely a professor. Regardless, you misunderstand his quote. His statement clearly supports the view that, while the Ninth Amendment is not a source of rights, it is a rule for reading the Constitution so that it protects unenumerated rights.
The SCOTUS justices who authored Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut were not gods either (although you do seem to worship them…). If you read the quote again, you’ll notice that Tribe says the ninth amendment “is not a source of rights; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.” That’s exactly what I’m saying. The ninth amendment, at least as I and, apparently, others read it, was written in order to prevent legislatures from denying rights outside of the enumerated ones to its people just because these further rights are not enumerated. The idea that the SCOTUS can decide what those rights might be leaves the door open for them declaring potentially anything a fundamental right. It makes a lot more sense that the amendment was written with the legislative branch in mind; you know, the branch that is actually intended to make laws?

3. Scalia is an ass. But have you ever read the full case? Have you even read the full quote? Perhaps you should do that before you rely on it.
The quote clearly supports my position on the ninth amendment. Let’s look at it again:

the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.
Yeah, you’re right. That has nothing to do with what I’m talking about…



4. The Ninth Amendment says that unenumerated rights exist and that they are not unprotected merely because they are unemnumerated. Care to explain how that is wrong?
It’s not wrong; that’s exactly what the amendment says. That’s not my point, as I explain above.

5. You are missing the real point which is the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Deep.

But that is exactly what you would do. You say later that the word abortion doesn't appear in the Constitution so it can't be protected.
It can be protected if it is legalized, by way of vote by the people or by the state legislature. You know, the way our country was supposed to function? “Protected” does not mean conferred upon the public by the SCOTUS.

If you know anything about the caselaw, you would know that SCOTUS has a long, long line of cases dating back to the Fourteenth Amendment itself explaining how it protects fundamental rights and explaining how one deciphers what is a fundamental right.
Yeah, like the right to privacy, which mysteriously is up for grabs when the fetus reaches a certain point of development, a point clearly rooted in the Constitution and established law pre-dating the Court’s ruling. Unless “deciphering” doubles for “what Harry Blackmun thought was right”, then there was no laborious study of case law that led to this arbitrary disappearance of the right to privacy.

Even Scalia has accepted that Due Process protects substantive liberty.
I’m sure he does. Let’s just ask him:
The entire practice of using the Due Process Clause to add judicially favored rights to the limitations upon democracy set forth in the Bill of Rights (usually under the rubric of so-called "substantive due process") is in my view judicial usurpation.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=97-1121 (mid-page)
Um. There is more and less to incorporation than that. If there is no "general liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment (which you suggested above), then why do the Bill of Rights apply to the states? You do realize that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states prior to the Fourteenth Amendment.
Yes, I do. The fourteenth amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, but the idea that its Due Process Clause somehow connotes a general sense of liberty that applies to “deeply rooted rights” (in other words, rights that the SCOTUS has a personal inkling towards legislating) that entails the right to obtain an abortion up until the point of viability is a little more than…shall we say…judicial interpretation?

The fact is that even Blackmun himself admitted that Roe v. Wade was basically legislation masquerading as judicial ruling. Even with its changed precedent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it still makes little sense from a legal perspective. Bottom line: it needs to be overturned, and the states need to stop being robbed of the democratic process.

Responding specifically to the bolded text, you just contradicted yourself; you went on and on about the Court not having decided what constitues personhood, and now defend their right to interpret what constitues a "person." OK...

That's not a contradiction at all. I have the right to interpret your posts as the Word of God, but that doesn't mean I've decided that your posts are the Word of God. The ability to do something does not mean that they have already done it.

That's not a contradiction at all. I have the right to interpret your posts as the Word of God, but that doesn't mean I've decided that your posts are the Word of God. The ability to do something does not mean that they have already done it.
Then why even comment on it if they haven't already done it? Why defend their right to define personhood if that wasn't a factor in the case?

Then why even comment on it if they haven't already done it? Why defend their right to define personhood if that wasn't a factor in the case?

Because you said they cannot do it. You declared the case to rest on a false dichotomy.

Amusingly in your last post to TCT, you actually attempted to prove that that false dichotomy was false and admitted that there were other factors in the decision. You know it would be a lot easier to argue with the likes of TCT if you made one large consistent argument rather than attempting to poke holes with a different spear every time. Otherwise it just makes it seem like you can't support your own argument and are simply content with attacking the views of others even if you don't agree with the arguments you're using to do it.

Because you said they cannot do it. You declared the case to rest on a false dichotomy.

Amusingly in your last post to TCT, you actually attempted to prove that that false dichotomy was false and admitted that there were other factors in the decision. You know it would be a lot easier to argue with the likes of TCT if you made one large consistent argument rather than attempting to poke holes with a different spear every time. Otherwise it just makes it seem like you can't support your own argument and are simply content with attacking the views of others even if you don't agree with the arguments you're using to do it.

I never attempted to prove that your "false dichotomy" existed and was false, nor did I admit that there were other factors in the decision outside of the personal opinions of the justices. It'd be nice if you showed some examples of where I did this instead of smugly patting yourself on the back without anything to back your statements up.

You're right -- they never actually say that viability constitutes personhood. Let's look at the wording of the actual case, though:

Whew. Your whole argument before was premised on the Court's apparent stupidity in saying viability constitues personhood. Your bad I guess.

The Court certainly drew this line around viability for a reason. It was clearly the Court's opinion that the presence of viability somehow makes the unborn entity defensible. While they left the door open for states to legislate when abortion is limited, they knew, based on the fact that all fifty states had laws banning abortion (with some exceptions for rape, incest, etc.), that state governments would undoubtedly curtail the legality of the procedure at this line. While they never explicity stated that viability is the equivalent of personhood, it was strongly the implication of this arbitrarily drawn limitation. Speaking of arbitrary...

1. Read that quote again carefully. It never says anything about personhood. Nor does it say anything about viability being the point that the fetus has rights.

2. Your fundamental understanding of Roe and Casey is wrong.

Rather this is a rather unremarkable balancing of a fundamental right against state interests. To quote Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846:

"It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each."

Throughout a pregnancy the state has interests in the woman's health and the life of the fetus. As a pregnancy progresses, these state interests grow stronger and begin to restrict the right. But these interests are not strong enough to restrict the right prior to the point of viability. This type of balancing can be found throughout SCOTUS caselaw.

3. Your focus on Roe's trimester system is rather silly in light of Casey and subsequent cases.

4. There is nothing at all arbitrary in the point of viability. It is a point of established medical, legal, and philosophical significance. From Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 869-71:

That brings us, of course, to the point where much criticism has been directed at Roe, a criticism that always inheres when the Court draws a specific rule from what in the Constitution is but a general standard. We conclude, however, that the urgent claims of the woman to retain the ultimate control over her destiny and her body, claims implicit in the meaning of liberty, require us to perform that function. Liberty must not be extinguished for want of a line that is clear. And it falls to us to give some real substance to the woman's liberty to determine whether to carry her pregnancy to full term.

We conclude the line should be drawn at viability, so that, before that time, the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. We adhere to this principle for two reasons. First, as we have said, is the doctrine of stare decisis. Any judicial act of line-drawing may seem somewhat arbitrary, but Roe was a reasoned statement, elaborated with great care. We have twice reaffirmed it in the face of great opposition. See Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S., at 759 ; Akron I, 462 U.S., at 419 -420. Although we must overrule those parts of Thornburgh and Akron I which, in our view, are inconsistent with Roe's statement that the State has a legitimate interest in promoting the life or potential life of the unborn, see infra, at 40-41, the central premise of those cases represents an unbroken commitment by this Court to the essential holding of Roe. It is that premise which we reaffirm today.

The second reason is that the concept of viability, as we noted in Roe, is the time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb, so that the independent existence of the second life can, in reason and all fairness, be the object of state protection that now overrides the rights of the woman. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S., at 163 . Consistent with other constitutional norms, legislatures may draw lines which appear arbitrary without the necessity of offering a justification. But courts may not. We must justify the lines we draw. And there is no line other than viability which is more workable. To be sure, as we have said, there may be some medical developments that affect the precise point of viability, see supra, at 17-18, but this is an imprecision within tolerable limits, given that the medical community and all those who must apply its discoveries will continue to explore the matter. The viability line also has, as a practical matter, an element of fairness. In some broad sense, it might be said that a woman who fails to act before viability has consented to the State's intervention on behalf of the developing child.

The woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is the most central principle of Roe v. Wade. It is a rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce.


Of course they can...based on established law and the wording of the Constitution.

Which is exactly what they did in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479,, Roe, and Casey.

You have yet to show otherwise.


While you vociferously defend the legal basis of the Court's arbitrarily drawn regulations on the procedure, Justice Blackmun, the author of Roe himself, even admitted their lack of support in established law:



http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/roe/woodward.html

Please take some time to read the article. It's a little more than interesting that the Justice who authored the opinion himself, not to mention another justice who concurred with his opinion, found his reasoning to be shaky, while you and others defend it as if it were the infallible word of God...

1. I've read the article before (and just read it again). It's not shocking. That a single internal memo or even a set of internal memos shows that Blackmun had some thinking to do is unsuprising and does not undermine the result. Are you aware of the old cliche suggesting that one shouldn't ever see one's sausage being made?

2. Look carefully at the quoted section. It does not refer to the point of viability being arbitrary. It is talking about the cuttoff at the end of the first trimester. As noted, this was changed by Casey anyway.

3. Again new cases require new law. Not a big deal in and of itself. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a greater stretch of judicial review. Are you against it as well?

4. I defend Roe and Casey because they were rightly decided, not because they were written by gods.


Responding specifically to the bolded text, you just contradicted yourself; you went on and on about the Court not having decided what constitues personhood, and now defend their right to interpret what constitues a "person." OK...

Um. There is no contradiction. The Court has not decided what constitutes personhood, but the Court has the power and right to do so if the question arises.

The fact is that the idea of interpreting what the fifth and fourteenth amendments mean by "persons" should not have even been a factor; the Court decided that a woman had a right to privacy. That should have applied to the entire pregnancy, but the Court decided to inject its own opinion into the matter, deciding that this right to privacy somehow disappears at the point where the justices' personal morals told them that the growing entity is defensible.

Again, you appear not to understand the rationale of Roe and Casey.

I'm tempted to quote more sections of Casey at you, but you should just go read the case. You have yet to touch it.


The quote I obtained from Wiki was sourced...

Simply because the Wiki article you stole from was sourced doesn't make the analysis any less a wholesale copying of Wiki articles.

The SCOTUS justices who authored Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut were not gods either (although you do seem to worship them…).

Already answered. There is a difference, moreover, between citing majority opinions and long lines of consistent caselaw from SCOTUS and quoting one law professor.

If you read the quote again, you’ll notice that Tribe says the ninth amendment “is not a source of rights; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.” That’s exactly what I’m saying. The ninth amendment, at least as I and, apparently, others read it, was written in order to prevent legislatures from denying rights outside of the enumerated ones to its people just because these further rights are not enumerated. The idea that the SCOTUS can decide what those rights might be leaves the door open for them declaring potentially anything a fundamental right. It makes a lot more sense that the amendment was written with the legislative branch in mind; you know, the branch that is actually intended to make laws?

Your problem appears to be with Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), which is not suprising as that appears to be Scalia's sticking point as well.

It is the Supreme Court's job to enforce the Constitution.

Deep.

You have completely failed to respond to any of my arguments from my second post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12570101&postcount=469). I did go deeply into the question of why both the Ninth and the Fourteenth Amendment support Roe and Casey.


It can be protected if it is a legalized, by way of vote or by the people or by the state legislature. You know, the way our country was supposed to function? “Protected” does not mean conferred upon the public by the SCOTUS.

This goes back to my quote from Barnette. Rights are protected by the Constitution, particularly the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They are not left to the vicissitudes of public opinion.


Yeah, like the right to privacy, which mysteriously is up for grabs when the fetus reaches a certain point of development, a point clearly rooted in the Constitution and established law pre-dating the Court’s ruling. Unless “deciphering” doubles for “what Harry Blackmun thought was right”, then there was no laborious study of case law that led to this arbitrary disappearance of the right to privacy.

1. I've already explained the balancing of Roe and Casey and why the point of viability is a rational fulcrum.

2. It's not just what Harry Blackmun thought. It was seven Justices. And decades of Justices since then.

3. I've already pointed out the long line of case law upon which the Court relied.

Yes, I do. The fourteenth amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, but the idea that its Due Process Clause somehow connotes a general sense of liberty that applies to “deeply rooted rights” (in other words, rights that the SCOTUS has a personal inkling towards legislating) that entails the right to obtain an abortion up until the point of viability is a little more than…shall we say…judicial interpretation?

I'm sorry, is one long sentence with a little sarcasm at the end supposed to rebut over a hundred years of Due Process Clause caselaw?

The fact is that even Blackmun himself admitted that Roe v. Wade was basically legislation masquerading as judicial ruling. Even with its changed precedent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it still makes little sense from a legal perspective. Bottom line: it needs to be overturned, and the states need to stop being robbed of the democratic process.

Meh. That you would make Casey a mere footnote is telling to how little you understand about the cases.

The bottom line is that a woman has a right to privacy, to self-ownership, and to choose. The state has legitimate interests which are sometimes countervailing. Thus, the Court has engaged in balancing but kept inviolate the basic human rights.

I never attempted to prove that your "false dichotomy" existed

Amusing. YOu claimed there were only two choices when it's in fact more complicated. It's not my "false dichotomy". It's yours. Meanwhile, this is basic debate stuff. Why do I have to explain to you what false dichotomy means.

and was false

You did, however, show that the decisions are far more complicated than you originally let on, even going so far as attempting to prove this to TCT. Kind of makes your argument look silly, but carry on. Silly hasn't prevented the current arguments, why should it stop future ones?

And you're correct, you didn't attempt to do it. It almost assuredly accidental. It makes it no less fallacious and no less humorous. I know you need to paint this simply because if you put this in the context of how it really works, well, as shown by TCT, you aren't even remotely aware enough to make even a passable argument.

, nor did I admit that there were other factors in the decision outside of the personal opinions of the justices. It'd be nice if you showed some examples of where I did this instead of smugly patting yourself on the back without anything to back your statements up.

Ha. Hilarious. That's your argument? "No, I didn't say that except where you can quote me. Hopefully, you'll be too lazy."

If abortion is truly an untouchable right, then women should be allowed to abort fully developed babies as long as they are still pregnant with them, for any reason at all, at least if you really want to follow through on the "privacy" angle.

Ah, yes, the good old false dichotomy. Pretend like the only choices are to ignore that fetuses become people at some point or to ignore the issue altogether. Rights begin to apply when we become people. That's the nature of rights. Guess who interprets when personhood applies? You got it. SCOTUS again. Personhood is not a majority vote kind of thing.

Keep in mind, that here you weren't talking about what is legitimate but what they could logically do. You presented a false dichotomy that the only possible argument were either for privacy and thus for abortion or that privacy isn't an issue and against abortion. I accused you of oversimplifying and ignoring the spectrum of arguments.

And then later... what do you know you argue that, in fact, that your dichotomy doesn't even touch the arguments YOU claim they made. Hmmm... that makes it either a false dichotomy or a strawman. Both are fallacious. Which do you prefer?

Really? Where? You're the first person to reply to the post I just recently made. If you're referring to the fact that "these points have already been argued elsewhere and rebutted", I think it would be proper to show where this has occurred.
First, I did not respond to your post at all. I commented on it. There's a difference.

Second, people whose arguments get debunked very often later demand to be shown proof that it ever happened. It's a denial tactic. But the fact is the proof is right here in this thread for you and everyone else to see, and I see no reason why we should spam up the thread with posts that just link back to the same thread. Therefore, I refer you to the history of your posts and all responses to them in this thread. Enjoy the read. I'm sure it will hold many surprises for you.

Such as what? It's a fact that the Constitution delegates all powers not enumerated to the states. How is my pointing out that state governments have more power than the federal government and make most of the laws in this country misconstruing what the Constitution says?
Perfect case in point: It has already been pointed out to you, several times, that the states do not have MORE power than the federal government. Number of laws made does not equate to level of power held, as evidenced by the facts that state law cannot be in violation of the federal Constitution, that state constitutions do not hold more legal weight than the federal Constitution, and that in all cases of conflict, federal law trumps state law. That's in the Constitution.

Thank you for supporting my criticism by doing exactly what I said you were doing.

Yes, they do. While basic rights do fall under the Constitution, most laws, including those involving civil liberties, are left for the state governments to deal with. That's a fact.
In accordance with the federal Constitution. No state can pass a law that violates it and expect that law to stand. That's a fact.

You make a lot of assumptions and misunderstand a lot of things. Just because I don't support the idea of an all-encompassing Constitution (which is based on what amounts to tarot card-reading its amendments and allowing judges to hand down rulings soley based on their personal opinions, might I add) and I oppose the holding of Roe v. Wade does not a.) make me willing to give up any of my rights and b.) mean that I am pro-life. To answer your question, I would leave all rights not enumerated in the Constitution up for the state governments to deal with. Surprised? Yes, states may make unjust laws, but I would do everything I could to democratically see them changed. If all else failed, I would move to another state. I'd rather deal with that than having court nominations become a battle over judges who respect "precedent."
And thank you for outlining in detail your wish list of how society should be, exactly as I said. For instance (just one out of the above example):

Fact #1: You think states should be in charge of unenumerated rights.

Fact #2: You cannot show that anything in the US Constitution allows that because the US Constitution specifically states that states have rights and that the people have rights, and those rights are reserved to those parties. Its language is simple and clear. It makes reference to rights reserved to the states OR to the people. It DOES NOT say that the states control the rights OF the people.

Conclusion: Your opinion of what should be does not match the reality of what is.

I'd love to see some examples where I stated that my opinion is factual.
Again, I refer you back to this thread. Your entire argument has been that Roe usurped the power of the states to make this decision for women, but that argument relies on the notion that the states have or ever had the right to do that, and the fact is they do not. So your assertion that a right and/or power that properly belongs to the states was usurped by the federal government is false because its only basis is your opinion about how things should be organized in the US, not how they acutally are.

EDIT: Your one little example of a sarcastic jibe of mine does not count. Was that the entirety of that part of your argument? Sorry.
The entirety of that part? Yes, it was.

Was it my entire argument? Obviously not, since it was only a part.