[AP] Supreme court upholds ban on partial birth abortion

I'm still confused why this is more repugnant than other abortions?? Because you can see the baby? It is no less humane to the baby.

It isn't really about compromise. If you really believe that there is a life inside the woman then you need to fight to save/protect that life ---- if you really don't believe there is life inside that woman then you need to fight to save/protect the woman's rights.

 

i'm sorry, but this just isn't true. this is a democratic republic. all sorts of opinions on forced on me in the form of law. all sorts of opinion on all sorts of things.

i just have a hard time with the argument that someone's opinion about a fetus means it can't live. the fetus doesn't get much say in that.

 

I believe that once the fetus is viable, it should be protected. Before that, it is up to the woman to decide whther she wants to use her womb to bring the fetus to term.

 

Yes, all sorts of opinions get forced on me too and in many if not most of those cases, I do not believe that anyone has the RIGHT to force that opinion on me.

AFAIC, the fetus shouldn't get a "say" until it is viable.

 

then you need to move to a location where there is no government...unless you expect to agree with 100% of the legislation there.

as to your 2nd point...i think that is horribly sad. it ALREADY gets a say in the 2nd trimester...before it's viable...so the viable argument went out the window with Roe.

 

No, I can work to reverse the cases where opinions are forced on me for no good reason. I can also work to make sure that other people don't force their opinions on others in future cases.

And I think it's horribly pragmatic.

 

Actually you could the impact of a disease isn't always exactly known. If someone was trying to deliberately infect you with the flu a valid self-defense argument could be made if you killed them since the flu has been known to be lethal. If there are complications in a pregnancy there's no guarentee they might not be lethal which brings us back to my original point that I would rather leave doctors to be able to make judgement calls at the time than lay out a blanket policy.

Accept then you wouldn't be treating the unborn as a person.

 

1. there is usually a winner and loser with legislation. there is no way to get everyone to agree. it doesn't work that way. at some point, opinions are forced on you. opinions about safe speeds to operate your vehicle...opinions about who should shoulder more of the tax burden...opinions about the extent of welfare...opinions regarding gun regulations. All of these are opinions crafted into law. We can work to change them, for sure. But at any one time, there are tons of various opinions being forced upon you, andy.

2. you responded before i fully edited my post. we go through this everytime we discuss this....your argument about viability is flawed because not even Roe goes that far. are you suggesting that Roe is too restrictive in saying that abortions in the 2nd trimester are illegal unless there's a medical necessity? fetuses aren't viable throughout the 2nd trimester..but that's the state of the law with Roe. would you push it back further than that even??? that's where your viability argument leads you.

 

Since we both agree that there is a risk in pregnancy why then outlaw a procedure that may be needed even if the need is remote? Why not leave the judgement to use such procedure to the medical experts at the time of when such decision might be needed.

As I said I will retract my criticism if there is an exception in regard to health of the mother. I haven't had a chance to read the whole legislation but judging from Justice Ginsburg's dissent there isn't that exception.
I'm not advocating more abortions, partial birth or not, and can understand that such a thing shouldn't be allowed out of convenience. Still I'm not a doctor and I don't want doctors worried that they may go to jail when they are presented with a case where the life of the mother is at risk.

 

unless there are enough doctors who come out and say "this practice has no medical purpose and is barbaric." kinda like a little group called the AMA.

giving an individual doctor free reign to do whatever they want merely because they're a doctor is crazy.

 

so pull the child out and kill it when it's halfway out!!!!

beautiful!!!!

why not at that point pull the child out and give it a chance...even if it's a slim to none chance...of survival?

 

You know it says something about this whole thing when people are comparing a fetus to a disease.

 

i had a constitutional law professor compare it to a tumor. not surprisingly, she had never had a child.

 

When a pregnancy becomes dangerous to the life of the mother then a different medical evaluation is needed. If the mother could die from the pregnancy then she has to make that decision. Where a mother is in danger of dying unless the child is aborted, I trust the mother to make the right decision and I would favor any law or court ruling that could leave that decision with the mother and possibly the couple. If my wife had to give up her life for our baby to be born and the doctor convinced us of this I would prefer for my wife to abort than die. To me this is the only place the issue gets sticky because when there is a legitimate medical danger to the mother by the baby then a very difficult decision must be made and it should be a personal decision, not a court or government decision. It should not even be a medical decision.

Abortion on demand is the real problem. That is why there needs to be better answers, court decisions and legislation. Babies should not be killed for convenience or for less than life threatening reasons.

Of course in my opinion.

 

Some of your examples include more than opinion.

Speed limit studies have found that driving over 70 is dangerous in and of itself. Because of these studies, the speed limits were changed a while back from 55 (where it was set for fuel economy reasons, another legitimate reason) to 60-70 depending on location.

The tax burden, gun laws, welfare, etc. all affect people on different sides of the law. I would hope that they displease everyone equally, or at least endeavor to.

I am talking more about making laws which prohibit actions taken between consenting adults. Drug and alcohol prohibition, gambling prohibition, even the prohibition of prostitution all cause more problems than they solve IMO. Prohibition of abortion would do the same thing: cause more problems than it solves.

No, it is my personal opinion that the "line" is viability. I understand that I have no right to force that opinion on others.

If I had the power, I would craft a compromise that allows for abortion in the first trimester (and bans it afterwards with the exception of ACTUAL medical necessity) so long as the pro-lifers agree not to try to take it further. As with the situations you mentioned above that would displease everyone equally and would not be a blanket prohibition.

 

It says something about this whole thing that some people can't see parallels and comparisons as valid when a human "life" is involved.

 

I don't really buy the slippery slope argument about this ruling, although, it does seem a little unnecessary because it is saying there is a ban unless medical danger to the mother - isn't that how we have been treating it?

In any event, I don't think all abortion will ever be outright banned and it certainly will never end so this certainly just seems like a symbolic move and not "the beginning of the end".

I also don't see how anyone can claim that partial birth/late term abortions are just a women's rights issue. As has been said, we don't have the ultimate freedom such that we can kill or maim people and with these abortions we are talking about people (I know not everyone believes that but I do think, like Max, science can change this), pain, etc..

I just really hate anything dealing with the abortion issue because, in our current world, there is no winning solution. It is a lose-lose situation (and one I don't see changing) and that bothers me to no end.

 

and you can see from the reaction to freaking partial birth abortion for pro-choicers where that would go. if this is a slippery slope to hell, your proposition would be labelled that and then some...as the medical necessity part is so watered down as to mean virtually nothing at this point.

 

Because they're not. A tumor or disease will never grow into a human being.

It's disgusting and repugnant to compare a fetus to a disease or a tumor.

 

Except there is also a group of gynecologists and obstetricians who have also come out and say there are situations where this technique is needed.

Again I never said that. There is still judicial review based on malpractice.