[AP] Supreme court upholds ban on partial birth abortion

The judges did not make a medical decision. The legislature did. The Supreme Court decided that the acts of the legislature were not unconstitutional.

 

I didn't see in the original article that they had a clause regarding health of the mother. My understanding regarding this issue was that the lack of that clause was what was problematic with the ban.

If they have changed that to allow a health of the mother provision I will retract my criticism.

I never said / wrote, "the judiciary can't comment on this." In fact I stated that as long there is malpractice judges can review medical decisions.

 

I don't feel anymore comfortable with legislators making medical decisions either.

 

Since when did killing a baby because a woman regrets getting pregnant become a medical issue?

I can understand a complication with a pregnancy being a medical issue. But why is abortion for convenience 'medical'- just because doctors do the killing?

I think I could terminate a pregnancy by reading one of those "Abortion for Dummies" books.

Edit- I probably need a time out. Abortion is a very emotional issue for me.

 

The problem with a blanket ban though is how do you know ahead of time what is convenient and what is necessity? Pregancy isn't an easy thing and there are many complications that could kill the women. If I recall correctly it wasn't that long ago that pregnancy complications was the leading cause of death among women. To determine the medical necessity I would rather leave it up doctors to make that determination.

 

I understand how partial birth abortions are performed -- basically delivering breech all but the head then killing the baby. I still don't see why this is more gruesome than any other method (except the doctor sees what he is doing)

 

i understand what you're saying. believe me, i do.

but i think this is largely because it can be seen...it's a direct view at the fact the child feels pain (there's a butt-load of Congressional testimony on that). AND it's inherently done past the first trimester, when it's supposed to be illegal, anyway. if there is a risk to the mother because of childbirth, it is nonsensical to have her give birth to the child to kill it.

all of these discussions will get a lot more interesting when science finds a way to sustain life earlier and earlier in term.

 

A constitutional amendment defining a baby as a "person" at conception would go a long way toward ending all of these issues.

 

That is carrying to term as opposed to ending the pregnancy earlier. Anyway I would rather leave that to a doctor to make the decision than deciding it is non-sensical ahead of time.

 

Yes and no. There still is the situation where the pregnancy is harming the mother. At that point how do you decide which life is more valuable?

Also declaring someone is a person at conception opens up another can of worms. Personhood would also mean constitutional rights including citizenship. Considering the uproar over granting citizenship to people born in the US what would the uproar be like if it is people conceived in the US?

 

I think it'll stay mostly the same. Abortion is a human issue. If the mother doesn't want it, then she'll find a way to not have it. I doubt the state will seize a clump of cells and have federal incubators to raise its fetuses to term.

Which brings me back to thinking, with all the options a woman has available before the 2nd trimester, how one can suddenly be more determined than ever only after it becomes a serious matter. To clarify, 1st trimester abortion is still serious to me, but at least there's uncertainty because of undeveloped neural tissues.

 

If the mother's life is at stake, you leave it up to the mother. We don't generally demand that one person sacrifice their own life to save one other person. If the mother's life is not at stake (any more than could reasonably be expected during childbirth), then the babies life takes precedence over the health or convienence of the mother. you aren't allowed to kill someone because they might make you sick.

You could grant citizenship at birth still. I can't think of a single benefit or responsibility of citizenship that would affect an unborn baby.

Murder is a human issue as well and if someone really wants to murder a person they will (or at least will try), that doesn't mean we don't pass laws against it.

 

I was replying wrt Max's comment about new scientific discoveries blurring the lines of when individual life begins. Even if science unlocked everything, there are still ethical issues, such as who controls or has authority over the fetus, and how the state can claim the fetus.

 

I think 3rd trimester abortions, where the mother's health isn't in danger, are more a comment on the inherent lack of humanity and common sense present in the human race, than anything else. We have large numbers of murders everyday. We have mad individuals who shoot people for no other reason than the fact that they are mad. We have people who blow themselves up, killing and maiming others in the process, for reasons known only in their demented minds. We have elected officials who chose to invade and occupy other countries, leading to the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands.

Humanity sucks. And humans can also be beautiful beings, and create beauty beyond measure. We can and do invent the most marvelous gadgets, like this computer I'm using. But things seem to be getting worse, not better, when one examines the human condition. A pretty screwy world. Now we are having the highest court in the land telling just over half the humans in America that they do not have control of their own bodies. Yes, I understand the emotions involved, and how vastly different the opinions are as to what is life, when is life, and how to address this seemingly eternal question. Yet we do know that a woman is now being told that she doesn't control her own body.

All of the men here who feel so ardently about preserving "life" should consider what that means. There is no difference, in my opinion, between a woman being told that she doesn't control her own body and a man being told that he can't control his. If men were told that they had to have a vasectomy, regardless of their own feelings about it, I wonder how all of you men would react? It strikes me as significant that the most numerous group that protest, and are the most adamant about this issue, are men. The members of the Supreme Court who voted for this ruling were all men, with the majority being possible only because of the recent appointments of George W. Bush, a man.

Where does it end? It makes me angry that women are treated as chattel in so many countries on this planet. That they are made to be second class citizens under the domination of men. It is an outrage. Yet, in this country, they not only don't possess equality in the workforce, they don't even have absolute control of their own bodies.

I find this procedure, when it isn't done for the health of the woman, repugnant. Guess what. We are surrounded by repugnance. I may think that it is insane for a person like the young man who just killed those poor people at Virginia Tech to be allowed to buy a gun, based on what a host of people who knew him have said, and the complaints and fears about him that were expressed to authorities on campus and in the locality. Yet no one has seen me write a post calling for stricter gun control. It is difficult, in this emotional period, not to, but I haven't, and I won't, because I think it is a fundamental right that we have. Well, I think it is a fundamental right for a human being walking this earth to have control of their own bodies.

You have to put up with a lot of bull**** to maintain your rights. Women just had some of their rights chipped away. And the **** has only started to hit the fan. I said a long time ago, and someone can do a search, if they like, that the worst thing that would happen if Mr. Bush was selected the first time, and elected the second, would be this idiot making lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. And not only to the Supreme Court, although obviously that is the most important. My worst fears are being realized. Long after the fool in the White House has retired to play at pretending to be a Texan and make money on the conservative lecture tour, these appointments will be affecting our nation. And if those of you who care only about this one issue think it is worth it, just wait. My bet is that you will come to regret the other things that will come down the pike.

I shouldn't even post in this thread, but since I typed so much, I guess I'll post this. I'm sure I'll regret it.




D&D. Life Sucks, Far Too Often.

 

I don't know Deckard, this issue alone can make people think how ****ty life can be, but how great or horrible life is is up to interpretation.

Most people would consider a baby one of life's most beautiful things. I've mentioned my male position because those 9 total months and the 4 last months an aborter doesn't want is something I'll never face. My opinion is to question how much those last 4-5 months mean when it's compared to allowing another form of life come to be.

A woman can feel oppressed by being forced to carry to term, but current society has options that removes her of any further obligation with her infant should she choose it. Doesn't everyone carry temporary obligations not to do what they feel like doing at particular moments? It could be that as a society, we have failed to imprint how a lifetime can be held in those nine months. I'm still wondering why it takes some people at least a month of contemplation to do such a procedure when health isn't an issue. These procedures constantly test the grey area of when conscious life begins, and that bugs the hell out of me.

 

The freedom to swing you fist ends where it would contact my face. The same should apply here. A woman is free to do whatever she wants with her body, until it affects someone else (ie the baby inside of her). The fundamental issue is if the baby is a person, or simply a part of the woman's body. As I feel the baby is a person, I think it's life is more important than a woman's right to not be inconvenienced. If the baby is not a person, the woman should be allowed to do whatever she wants, be it partial birth abortion, drinking, smoking, shooting up, going skydiving, or whatever.

 

Deckard --

you're 10000000000000% right...if it's not a life living inside her.

i have the right to do a lot of things...until that starts jacking with the rights of others. particularly when it's a fundamental right of others...like the right to live.

 

From a medical perspective the easiest thing is to know the difference between convenience and necessity. It is not hard to diagnose that a mother's own life is in danger due to the pregnancy.

less than 0.4% (4 tenths of a percent) of mothers die in pregnancy and the overwelming majority are in third world countries and are attributed to poor medical care. Of this total of women who die in pregnancy 13% die due to complications from abortion.

So globally out of approx. 529000 deaths globally about 69000 are due to abortion procedures. The number one cause of death is hemorraging and is prevalent in third world countries.

A blanket ban of partial birth abortion should actually reduce the health risks to women.

 

And would never pass because not even a majority of Americans believe that, much less the 3/4 it takes to ratify an Amendment.

 

Using your fist analogy, you are more than entitled to your feelings and the things that you think about babies right up until those thoughts and feelings conflict with the thoughts and feelings of another person.

You have no right to force your opinion on someone else.

Keep in mind that I, like Deckard, find partial birth abortions repugnant. However, I have a problem with this because of the path it lies on. I believe that this procedure should be banned, but I know that this is only the first step for the pro-lifers. I do not agree with all that they advocate for and, while I would welcome a compromise, I don't think that the compromise should be made without compromise by the pro-lifers.