Anyone else watching this? [W:500]

[choiceone]

That's one of the reasons I really don't like getting in this debate. It makes me an angry person.

How can you get angry if you're sure you're right? These threads never make me get angry.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

No, you haven't.




Please stop with the libel and lies.

If you can't own your own monstrous positions, I can't help you.

Says 8-9 months, could be 8 which is not 8 months, 3 weeks. But let's say it is ..... do you think someone who cuts herself open with a kitchen knife and no anesthetic then stitches herself up after removing the child is mentally healthy? I strongly suspect some form of mental illness or (mental) trauma.




No gestational age stated.




5 months gestation, not 8 months, 3 weeks.

Like I said, I generally have a policy of not debating with extremists, so I won't. Why does the age of the fetus matter in any of the examples I gave? You don't give a **** about any of that. You've made it very clear that no matter how long the woman waits, she should be able to abort that sucker. Day of delivery? Abort that sucker, who cares right?

Now, good day.

You should hit me up to some time as well

Unless you believe that a woman should be able to legally change her mind in the delivery room during child birth and instead have it sucked out in pieces, you're nowhere near as extreme as scrabaholic and you and I actually stand a chance of having a respectful debate on the issues.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Actually, that is not what our society has determined if by society you mean nation. Roe v Wade established that a state can assert its compelling interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus (meaning the future life it potentially has as a person) from the point of viability by banning abortion from that point. However, it did not require a state to do so. As a result, while many states do ban abortion after viability, some do not.

Actually your interpretation of the ruling is incorrect. The issue was raised specifically because the State of Texas forbid all abortions unless the mother's life was in danger.

The court actually held that the right to personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but the right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

After going through an analysis of the history behind abortions the court determined that at each trimester stage of development there are limits to what a State can proscribe by law. They then held"

1. For the stage prior to the approximate end of the first trimester, the abortion decision must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician, and may not be criminalized by statute.

2. For the stage subsequent to the approximate end of the first trimester, the State may regulate abortion in ways reasonably related to maternal health based upon the State’s interest in promoting the health of the mother.

3. For the stage subsequent to viability, the State may regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary for the preservation of the mother’s life, based upon the State’s interest in the potential of the potential life of the unborn child.

Most of the rest of your argument is a patchwork of personal opinion on what the decision meant, and in the main, completely incorrect.

The Roe v Wade decision did not say that a viable fetus had its own life at that moment and that the state had a compelling interest in protecting that life at that moment - it said "potential life." But everyone knew that the viable fetus was actually alive, so what else could "potential life" refer to but the future life it would have as a person? The decision was not about protecting biological human life: it was about protecting the life of a person, which the fetus would not have until birth.

You are making a claim “everyone knew” which is factually incorrect since one of the key arguments between factions is “when is “life” (.i.e. viability, the “soul,” etc.) actually in play. The Court used the term "viability" in reference only to the period on or just before the beginning of the THIRD trimester.

Furthermore, by the Roe v Wade decision, no state was allowed to ban abortion without making an exception in the case of imminent threat to the woman's life or health. We do not have any laws that say it's okay to kill a born person because of an imminent threat to some other born person's health. That's because we don't need to - the born person who represents such a threat can be quarantined in isolation because his/her body is separate from other born people's bodies.

Again, your statement shown underlined is factually incorrect. That was not the SCOTUS holding, since it held that States could only impose such a restriction on the third trimester of the pregnancy. The rest of your statement is founded on an incorrect premise and is therefore also incorrect.

That separation is a distinguishing feature of all persons except in the special case of conjoined twins, where the distinguishing feature is that each has a head with a separate mouth, nose, face, and brain, so that it can separately take in nutrients and oxygen and separately think.feel and express its thoughts/feelings.

This part…completely irrelevant.

In conclusion I reiterate that the law allows unrestricted access to abortion in the first trimester, then in the second trimester States may regulate, but not proscribe, abortions in the State’s interest in promoting the health of the mother. It is only during the third trimester where a State “may regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary for the preservation of the mother’s life.”

 

[cpwill]

How can you get angry if you're sure you're right?

....think about that for a second....



If I am right, then we are murdering more than a million innocent children every year. Think about how angry we all were on 9/11 and imagine the carnage expanded to one-quarter of a generation. That's what happened to my generation - one quarter of us murdered in the womb by our parents.

If I am right, then people today are still murdering these kids with the protection of law, right now, as we speak. Think about how angry liberals got at George Bush over the casualties incurred by the Iraqi people during the several years of war there - and then compress all those deaths into a single year and that's still not the deaths of innocents thanks to the imposition of abortion-on-demand from the political left.


How in the world would focusing in on that not make me angry?

 

[choiceone]

Actually your interpretation of the ruling is incorrect. The issue was raised specifically because the State of Texas forbid all abortions unless the mother's life was in danger.

The court actually held that the right to personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but the right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

After going through an analysis of the history behind abortions the court determined that at each trimester stage of development there are limits to what a State can proscribe by law. They then held"

1. For the stage prior to the approximate end of the first trimester, the abortion decision must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician, and may not be criminalized by statute.

2. For the stage subsequent to the approximate end of the first trimester, the State may regulate abortion in ways reasonably related to maternal health based upon the State’s interest in promoting the health of the mother.

3. For the stage subsequent to viability, the State may regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary for the preservation of the mother’s life, based upon the State’s interest in the potential of the potential life of the unborn child.

Most of the rest of your argument is a patchwork of personal opinion on what the decision meant, and in the main, completely incorrect.

You are making a claim “everyone knew” which is factually incorrect since one of the key arguments between factions is “when is “life” (.i.e. viability, the “soul,” etc.) actually in play. The Court used the term "viability" in reference only to the period on or just before the beginning of the THIRD trimester.

My interpretation of the ruling is completely correct, while you have shown significant incorrectness here. Here's why I think so.

1. Your (1) above implies that the medical judgment of the attending physician is the only factor in the abortion decision in the first trimester, as if a doctor could perform an abortion even the woman did not agree! Actually, in the Roe v Wade decision summary, the point you cite is subpoint (a) of point (3), which clearly refers to "a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy," thereby establishing beforehand that the physician's medical judgment as a factor comes into play only if she already wishes to assert this right.

2. In your (3) above, you have omitted a very crucial point: the exception must be made where necessary to preserve the health as well as the life of the mother. Why so crucial? Because in the 1990s, abortion opponents went to court to try to get rid of that point.

3. Though you use the expression "the potential life of the unborn child," the fetus is not referred to as "child" anywhere in the decision or the full text of Blackmun's opinion. There are expressions such as the state's interest in "potential life" and protection of "fetal life."

4. The usage of "viability" is in reference to the period just before or during the third trimester, not "the period on or just before the beginning of the third trimester."

You are dead wrong on my interpretation of the use of the term "life." Blackmun implies a distinction between human biological life and the life of a person as a matter of course. As a physician, he had to know, as all the women of my acquaintance knew in 1973, the difference between biologically live and dead fetuses. If a fetus dies inside a woman and does not get expelled in a short time, it has to be removed so as not to impair her health. The whole section on the history of abortion and different views of when "life" begins involves an array of different views of life that do not clearly distinguish the two, but see, for example:

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. [my underline]

and

". . . the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth." [my underline]

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

"Fetal life" obviously is meant to refer to a biological quality that distinguishes a live fetus from a dead one. It is actual biological life, but not, here, "meaningful life" or "life, as we recognize it." The state can protect "fetal life" (actual biological life) in the third trimester because its interest in "potential life" becomes compelling at the point of viability. Blackmun does not say the state has a compelling interest in "fetal life," but that it can protect "fetal life" to serve the interest in "potential life." After all, the Constitution gives protection to the life of a live person, not necessarily the biological life of a live organism that is not a person. But the fetus has the potential for life as person later, after birth.

Again, your statement shown underlined is factually incorrect. That was not the SCOTUS holding, since it held that States could only impose such a restriction on the third trimester of the pregnancy. The rest of your statement is founded on an incorrect premise and is therefore also incorrect.

The statement that you underlined is completely correct. Of course the ruling is that the states could only impose a restriction in the third trimester. My point was that, even if they did so, they had to make exceptions to the restriction if necessary to preserve the life and health of the woman. A health exception was mandatory. Now, nobody in the US with any sanity would argue that one could kill a born person to protect someone else's health, so this mandatory health exception to abortion bans clearly implies that fetal life after viability/in the third trimester is not equal to the life of a person.

This part…completely irrelevant.

In conclusion I reiterate that the law allows unrestricted access to abortion in the first trimester, then in the second trimester States may regulate, but not proscribe, abortions in the State’s interest in promoting the health of the mother. It is only during the third trimester where a State “may regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary for the preservation of the mother’s life.”

I'm not sure why you think the last comment from me that you cited was irrelevant, but in your final citation of the ruling, ". . . . a State 'may regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary for the preservation of the mother's life,'" you forgot two crucial words at the end: 'and health.'

 

[choiceone]

....think about that for a second....



If I am right, then we are murdering more than a million innocent children every year. Think about how angry we all were on 9/11 and imagine the carnage expanded to one-quarter of a generation. That's what happened to my generation - one quarter of us murdered in the womb by our parents.

If I am right, then people today are still murdering these kids with the protection of law, right now, as we speak. Think about how angry liberals got at George Bush over the casualties incurred by the Iraqi people during the several years of war there - and then compress all those deaths into a single year and that's still not the deaths of innocents thanks to the imposition of abortion-on-demand from the political left.


How in the world would focusing in on that not make me angry?

The truth is that if one's side is right, one knows that one's side will win. No images in the apparent objective world can continue indefinitely if they are not in accord with ultimate truth, so if one knows that one's side is that of truth, one has no worries in the long run, because one's side will prevail. I admit, however, that since your side's prayers are not the ones that were answered by Roe v Wade and PP v Casey, your side must be getting very frustrated. I guess it will take even longer for you to learn that you might be wrong.

 

[Captain Adverse]

My interpretation of the ruling is completely correct, while you have shown significant incorrectness here. Here's why I think so.

1. Your (1) above implies that the medical judgment of the attending physician is the only factor in the abortion decision in the first trimester, as if a doctor could perform an abortion even the woman did not agree! Actually, in the Roe v Wade decision summary, the point you cite is subpoint (a) of point (3), which clearly refers to "a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy," thereby establishing beforehand that the physician's medical judgment as a factor comes into play only if she already wishes to assert this right.

Incorrect. My reference merely indicates that the state cannot interfere with a woman's choice to abort under her Fourth Amendment right to privacy during that phase of her pregnancy, and that a medical doctor can determine how best to conduct the procedure. I did not feel a need to quote the entire explanation of that portion of the holding. It is expressed in several sections regarding the Court's examination of the history and background of abortion. READ it thoroughly.

2. In your (3) above, you have omitted a very crucial point: the exception must be made where necessary to preserve the health as well as the life of the mother. Why so crucial? Because in the 1990s, abortion opponents went to court to try to get rid of that point.

Umm, no, because that is already expressed by point #2, and it continues from that point in the preganancy until birth. No need to repeat something already authorized.

3. Though you use the expression "the potential life of the unborn child," the fetus is not referred to as "child" anywhere in the decision or the full text of Blackmun's opinion. There are expressions such as the state's interest in "potential life" and protection of "fetal life.".

Umm, incorrect. While the word "child" was not used, the term "human life" was used: "(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." Since it is not referring to the "mother," what other "human life" with "potential" that has "viability" exists in this period of the pregnancy but an unborn child?

4. The usage of "viability" is in reference to the period just before or during the third trimester, not "the period on or just before the beginning of the third trimester.".

Now you are just nit-picking, or if you prefer, a difference without a distinction. Viabilty occurs between 20 and 22 weeks after inception, i.e. approximately 5 1/2 months.

All the rest of your statement is merely personal opinion with no real basis in the ruling. You are interpreting it in a manner somewhat different than the majority of lawyers who deal with Constitutional law advise. In any case nothing you have stated supports the original position you posted and which I refuted by drawing on the holding in Roe v. Wade. You just keep trying to twist it to support your position, but that's now how legal interpretation works. Now I admit to the possibility that in drafting a quick reply I may have misused a word or two, but not to the point of legal fault.

You do not have the right to abort at just any time during the pregancy merely by exercising your right to privacy choice. That is limited to the first 5 1/2 months. States can still set certain limitations starting after the first trimester, and SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade still allows states to pass laws protecting the "potentiality of human life" from being aborted in the last 3 1/2 months of any pregnancy with the caveat that a mothers life and health as determined by a medical doctor (not the woman) can take precedence.

 

[minnie616]

... Viabilty occurs between 20 and 22 weeks after inception, i.e. approximately 5 1/2 months....
.

Actually the limit of viability is at 24 weeks gestation and that limit has remained unchanged for over 12 years.
While the numbers of preemies surviving has gone up thanks to more and more neo natal units with infant CPAPS made avaible in more rural hospitals and clinics the limit of viability ( the gestational age where more than 50 percent survive ) has not been reduced .
Also those preemies at 24 weeks gestation that do survive still have a high rate of major disabilities.

The courts recently ( May 2013 ) struck down the 20 weeks gestation abortion limit in Arizonia and several other western states as being too restrictive.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Actually the limit of viability is at 24 weeks gestation and that limit has remained unchanged for over 12 years.
While the numbers of preemies surviving has gone up thanks to more and more neo natal units with infant CPAPS made avaible in more rural hospitals and clinics the limit of viability ( the gestational age where more than 50 percent survive ) has not been reduced .

The courts recently ( May 2013 ) struck down the 20 weeks gestation abortion limit in Arizonia and several other western states as being too restrictive.

I was not aware of a new SCOTUS decision. Which court was it, a Federal District court or a regional Federal Apellate court? Do you have a link to the decision so I can read the rationale?

In any case thanks for bringing this to my attention.

P.S. Thanks for the correction, I meant to say 22 - 24 weeks not 20 - 22. Good catch.

 

[minnie616]

...

The courts recently ( May 2013 ) struck down the 20 weeks gestation abortion limit in Arizonia and several other western states as being too restrictive.

According to federal appellate panel a fetus is generally considered viable at 24 weeks.

Published: May 21, 2013

Federal appellate panel struck down Arizona’s abortion law on Tuesday, saying it was unconstitutional “under a long line of invariant Supreme Court precedents” that guarantee a woman’s right to end a pregnancy any time before a fetus is deemed viable outside her womb — generally at 24 weeks.

The law, enacted in April 2012 despite vociferous protest by women’s and civil rights groups, made abortions illegal if performed 20 weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period, or roughly 18 weeks after fertilization, even if the woman learned that the fetus had no chance of surviving after birth. At 18 weeks, many fetal abnormalities can be detected through sonograms.
In its opinion, the panel of three judges assigned to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco wrote that a fetus’s viability “varies from pregnancy to pregnancy,” which should be determined by doctors, not legislators.

< SNIP>
The decision applies to Arizona and the eight other Western states under the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction, including Idaho, where similar legislation had already been deemed unconstitutional.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/u...tions-struck-down-in-federal-court.html?_r=2&

 

[minnie616]

I was not aware of a new SCOTUS decision. Which court was it, a Federal District court or a regional Federal Apellate court? Do you have a link to the decision so I can read the rationale?

In any case thanks for bringing this to my attention.

P.S. Thanks for the correction, I meant to say 22 - 24 weeks not 20 - 22. Good catch.

No problem. I make mistakes too.
I posted the courts ruling in my PP.

 

[Captain Adverse]

No problem. I make mistakes too.
I posted the courts ruling in my PP.

Awesome, thanks.

Being a mere "male," and therefore unworthy to get too involved in this issue )), I have usually just granted women the right to argue it out themselves and then support the most liberal interpretation of this right in their favor. So I haven't been following all the decisions...since none have over-turned Roe's basic tenets.

I'll take some time to read the case though. Thanks again

 

[davidtaylorjr]

DAVID....Using your own source.



Since most abortions occur....BEFORE SEX ORGANS are visibly develop...therefore it would take invasive procedures to collect some form of DNA sample to determine its sex.

Now...Minnie made the claim that an embryo isn't a someone...YET. Minnie is right. Not only a little right, but a whole bunch right. And it's sex isn't the sole determining factor that makes someone...SOMEONE...by a long shot.

David, you're just trying to pull a fast one.

It is a someone at conception according to God.

 

[Removable Mind]

It is a someone at conception according to God.

David...that's not gonna work. Besides, I didn't get office memo.

 

[Scrabaholic]

If you can't own your own monstrous positions, I can't help you.

Are you capable of debating without insulting? Your insults show you are insecure about your position, IMO.

Like I said, I generally have a policy of not debating with extremists, so I won't. Why does the age of the fetus matter in any of the examples I gave?

Because the claim was made that women were aborting at 8 months, 3 weeks gestation and THAT is what I was taking issue with.

You don't give a **** about any of that. You've made it very clear that no matter how long the woman waits, she should be able to abort that sucker. Day of delivery? Abort that sucker, who cares right?

I have never said I don't care. Please stop lying about me.

Once again, women do NOT just wait until the 'day of delivery' to abort.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

David...that's not gonna work. Besides, I didn't get office memo.

Doesn't matter if it "works" it is fact.

 

[Removable Mind]

Doesn't matter if it "works" it is fact.

David...GOD ISNT A FACT...drop it.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

David...GOD ISNT A FACT...drop it.

Oh but He is. He is. He made you, He made me, He made the Earth, the Sun, the Stars, the Planets, the Trees. HE made it all!

 

[Removable Mind]

Oh but He is. He is. He made you, He made me, He made the Earth, the Sun, the Stars, the Planets, the Trees. HE made it all!

David...I suggest you don't go there. It wont turn out well.

 

[cpwill]

The truth is that if one's side is right, one knows that one's side will win.

No. We won't win. You don't "win" a fight like this. You simply lose less.

No images in the apparent objective world can continue indefinitely if they are not in accord with ultimate truth, so if one knows that one's side is that of truth, one has no worries in the long run, because one's side will prevail.

That's touchingly happily naieve. What makes you think that there is some kind of magical connection between "is truth" and "therefore has Power"?

I admit, however, that since your side's prayers are not the ones that were answered by Roe v Wade and PP v Casey, your side must be getting very frustrated. I guess it will take even longer for you to learn that you might be wrong.

:shrug: Roe v Wade has thus far been on the books for less time than Plessy v Ferguson, and we're gaining the upper hand in the battle of public opinion. The future holds greater restrictions on infanticide, not fewer. You are right that it is saddening, depressing, infuriating, however.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

David...I suggest you don't go there. It wont turn out well.

I can't help it if you continually ignore the truth. I hope someday you accept the truth.

 

[Removable Mind]

I can't help it if you continually ignore the truth. I hope someday you accept the truth.

I'm trying to give show of respect for your superstitions, but you just aren't going to let it happen.

I'm going to ask god to take the stand soon to support your beliefs. But something tells me god will be a no show.

David...drop with the religious stuff...go to church.

 

[windowdressing]

Oh but He is. He is. He made you, He made me, He made the Earth, the Sun, the Stars, the Planets, the Trees. HE made it all!

and you know this how?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

I'm trying to give show of respect for your superstitions, but you just aren't going to let it happen.

I'm going to ask god to take the stand soon to support your beliefs. But something tells me god will be a no show.

David...drop with the religious stuff...go to church.

You should come with me. You might be enlightened to the truth. It's not superstition by the way.

 

[Removable Mind]

Deleted Post...responded to wrong poster.