S.C. To Hear Partial Birth Abortion Case (1 Viewer)

[easyt65]

You could almost see this coming. The Chief Justice made the decision to NOT hear a case regarding abortion until Justice Alito's nomination went through and until he was on the bench. Now, today, the S.C. announced that they would now hear a case on Partial Birth Abortion.

Both sides of the issue are said to be scrambling to prepare for the fight that may determine so much.

While listening to the report on the issue and decision to hear the case, it was told how Congress previously held hearings on partial birth abortions. The procedure is described as being allowed to occur right up to the point of birth - as long as the head stays in, the head of a completely healthy baby that is ready to be born, the abortion can take place. At this point, in my book, this is murder. The question was asked - 'does THIS type of Partial Birth Abortion take place?' The answer was, 'Unfortunately, yes.'

The story went on to tell how doctors from both sides of the issue agreed in testimony in the Congressional hearings that the baby IS aware of being <murdered> and that it DOES feel the pain, that doctors do not 'always' worry about that in this procedure - to do so would mean acknowledging the baby IS a living being, can feel pain, and therefore needs some type of medicine before death to prevent pain, much like a lethal injection to a death row inmate during his execution.

I found this part of the interview especially 'interesting' to hear and then remember so many pro-abortionists justifying the act, telling me how the baby is not viable, does not feel anything because it is NOT a living being yet as it has not come out of its mother's womb. Despite the argument of some I have talked to, it DOES happen, and not to save the mothers life or due to some medical problem...and the baby is viable....and KNOWS it is being killed....CAN feel the pain.

I find it even more 'amusing', thinking about this, when the story right before THIS one on the news was how several doctors in California walked out of an execution because they thought giving a murderer a lethal injection (small prick of a needle followed by warmth in the veins, euphoria, and sleep) was 'too in-humane'. No longer able to hang or electrify brutal murderers who slay their victims in ways most foul - murderers who often kill children, a near painless death by a needle is too horrible for them, but we can slaughter children just inches from their very own 1st breath of fresh air without concern for the pain THEY are going through for no other reason than they are not wanted.

:shock:

 

[talloulou]

Well I think it's wonderful that this will be going before the supreme court.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aiqG_o3mjTk8&refer=us

It will be interesting to follow and see what happens.

 

[Jerry]

The Supreme Court ruling which comes from this will be a key factor in the upcoming Roe-v-Wade battle.
I can't wait to read it and see what the Justis's decide.

 

[easyt65]

I am sorry to say that I missed the news broadcast on the story, but they said the S.C. took the case and will focus on 1 specific 'angle' in the law/issue, but I do not know what that 1 'specific' 'angle' is, not just the legality of abortion in general. Does anyone know what it is?

 

[talloulou]

I am sorry to say that I missed the news broadcast on the story, but they said the S.C. took the case and will focus on 1 specific 'angle' in the law/issue, but I do not know what that 1 'specific' 'angle' is, not just the legality of abortion in general. Does anyone know what it is?

"The court today said it will hear the Bush administration's appeal of a ruling that said the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is unconstitutional because it doesn't make an exception when a mother's health is at risk. "

"The law, which has never taken effect, would be the first nationwide ban of an abortion procedure since the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion nationwide. The law outlaws procedures in which a fetus is partially removed from the mother before being killed, including a procedure known as intact dilation and evacuation. Doctors who violate the law would be subject to criminal and civil penalties."

taken from....
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aiqG_o3mjTk8&refer=us

 

[Synch]

Isn't this late term abortions(late second and early third trimester)? Even liberals won't argue on this one that the child is human, everything is developed etc.

 

[Alex]

This case has already been decided in Roe v. Wade itself. The ban on partial-birth abortion will be sustained. Roe v. Wade gives flexibility in late-term abortions so the ban is fine. The issue of a clause for the health of the mother will be addressed and SCOTUS will declare it unconstitutional.

 

[talloulou]

Isn't this late term abortions(late second and early third trimester)? Even liberals won't argue on this one that the child is human, everything is developed etc.

Oooh you'd be surprised.

 

[Jerry]

Isn't this late term abortions(late second and early third trimester)? Even liberals won't argue on this one that the child is human, everything is developed etc.

There are many who forward the idea that "there is no "child" until birth". Holding to that maxim, the fetus is nothing more than a "lump of cells", even at the point immediately before birth.

Pro choice religious folks argue that the fetus does not become a soul ("soul" = scripture lingo for "individual" or "person") until it takes it's first breath of air.

The legal mechanism by which partial birth abortion is banned, assuming that it will be banned, will be worth waiting for.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I once read about a suggested abortion procedure that should not be painful to even a late-term fetus. Have you ever experienced the thing called "my foot went to sleep"? In certain positions you can cut off the blood (oxygen!) supply to your foot, and it will go numb, after some minutes. You never notice it until after it has happened, and you try to move your foot and it doesn't cooperate very well.

The suggested abortion procedure is to take an optical fiber and an equivalently slinky manipulator, insert them into the uterus through the normal passageway, and seek out the umbilical cord. Send a laser beam through the fiber, and focus it, so that the amniotic sac isn't damaged, but the umblicus get severed/cauterized. I suppose an alternate thing might be to clamp the umbilicus, if the sac has enough stretch to allow it. The entire fetus will now experience a cut-off oxygen supply and will "go to sleep". Exactly like your foot, and not unlike the euphemism used by the SPCA, when they deal with other unwanted animals. After fifteen minutes or so, the dead fetus (the brain is much more sensitive to lack-of-oxygen than muscle tissue) can be removed by any horrible means you care to imagine, and the fetus won't be feeling a thing.

Let me stress that my personal position is that late-term abortions should not be necessary, except when it takes that long to discover that the fetus is killing the mother. Unopposed opportunities for early abortion should prevent all other late-term abortions. So, if the pro-lifers really want to stop partial-birth abortions, they should not interfere in the slightest with women seeking early-term abortions!

 

[Jerry]

The suggested abortion procedure is to take an optical fiber and an equivalently slinky manipulator, insert them into the uterus through the normal passageway, and seek out the umbilical cord. Send a laser beam through the fiber, and focus it, so that the amniotic sac isn't damaged, but the umblicus get severed/cauterized. I suppose an alternate thing might be to clamp the umbilicus, if the sac has enough stretch to allow it. The entire fetus will now experience a cut-off oxygen supply and will "go to sleep". Exactly like your foot, and not unlike the euphemism used by the SPCA, when they deal with other unwanted animals. After fifteen minutes or so, the dead fetus (the brain is much more sensitive to lack-of-oxygen than muscle tissue) can be removed by any horrible means you care to imagine, and the fetus won't be feeling a thing.

How about that instead of Lethal Injection? For Capitol Punishment, I mean.
I would certainly choose that over the Electric Chair any day.

Let me stress that my personal position is that late-term abortions should not be necessary, except when it takes that long to discover that the fetus is killing the mother.

Remove the fetus if it must be removed to save the mother's life, I'll not contest that; but don't kill it first. Let it have a fighting chance in the Intensive Care incubation chamber. It deserves at least that much.

Unopposed opportunities for early abortion should prevent all other late-term abortions. So, if the pro-lifers really want to stop partial-birth abortions, they should not interfere in the slightest with women seeking early-term abortions!

A house divided against itself can not stand. Pro life can not support any form of abortion, because abortion will not stop abortion, and abortion is what pro life wishes to stop.

 

[FutureIncoming]

How about that instead of Lethal Injection? For Capitol Punishment, I mean.

I was under the impression that the drug used for Lethal Injection was something that first knocked the condemned out, before death occurs.

Remove the fetus if it must be removed to save the mother's life, I'll not contest that; but don't kill it first. Let it have a fighting chance in the Intensive Care incubation chamber. It deserves at least that much.

That's a bald claim. Where is the supporting basis for it? I can think of ONE: the mother wanted the baby all along --and for her to have to abort to stay alive is not a nice choice. How do you know something like what you suggest isn't already being done, when possible?

So, if the pro-lifers really want to stop partial-birth abortions, they should not interfere in the slightest with women seeking early-term abortions!

A house divided against itself can not stand. Pro life can not support any form of abortion, because abortion will not stop abortion, and abortion is what pro life wishes to stop.

Heh, I knew that suggestion wouldn't go over very well. Still there remains the fact that a certain number of partial-birth abortions are ENTIRELY the fault of the pro-life crowd, because of what they do to inhibit early abortions. Perhaps they should be sent the bill for the difference, in the cost of the two procedures. Heh, heh, heh...

 

[talloulou]

Heh, I knew that suggestion wouldn't go over very well. Still there remains the fact that a certain number of partial-birth abortions are ENTIRELY the fault of the pro-life crowd, because of what they do to inhibit early abortions. Perhaps they should be sent the bill for the difference, in the cost of the two procedures. Heh, heh, heh...

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Well....no....I guess the MOST ridiculous is STEEN's fetus=parasitic guilty dandelion weeds analogy. But your statement is a close second. :applaud

 

[doughgirl]

Synch said, "Isn't this late term abortions(late second and early third trimester)? Even liberals won't argue on this one that the child is human, everything is developed etc."

NOT TRUE...just ask Steen.

 

[Jerry]

I was under the impression that the drug used for Lethal Injection was something that first knocked the condemned out, before death occurs.

Yes, but you wouldn't need a phisition to diprive the condemned of oxygen.

That's a bald claim. Where is the supporting basis for it?

A respect for life;
Posessing the premis that the unborn has the right to life and that the law is curently in the wrong;
God;

That was a moral judgment, not a scientific claim.

I can think of ONE: the mother wanted the baby all along --and for her to have to abort to stay alive is not a nice choice. How do you know something like what you suggest isn't already being done, when possible?

I don't. I would like to see that become standard practice. Needles distruction of human life does not advance us.

Heh, I knew that suggestion wouldn't go over very well. Still there remains the fact that a certain number of partial-birth abortions are ENTIRELY the fault of the pro-life crowd, because of what they do to inhibit early abortions.

1. Pro life did not establish a woman's legal ability to abort;
2. Pro life did not establish the abortion clinic;
3. Pro life did not participate in impregnating the woman;
4. Pro life did not decide to terminate the pregnancy;
5. Pro life did not sign the necessary wavers to authorize the abortion;
6. Pro life did not perform the abortion;
7. Pro life did not cause the medical emergency which made the late term abortion necessary.
Pro life is innocent of pba. Pba is the product of those who devalue and disrespect life, of which pro life is not one of.

If a late term abortion can be forseen as necessary in the first trimester, as you insinuate, then since an early term abortion can be easily acquired, the fault rests with the mother and the medical professionals involved in diagnosing such a problem; not pro life.

 

[FutureIncoming]

you wouldn't need a phisition to diprive the condemned of oxygen.

True. Well, for almost any human outside the womb, oxygen deprivation isn't quite so simple. Sure, you can compress the carotid and jugular, to stop blood flow to the brain, but this leaves bruises on the body after death; the pinprick of injection isn't so noticeable. A gas chamber might be a better way to do it; you can control the actual amount of oxygen available, just by adding nitrogen (or maybe even carbon monoxide, a "gentle" poison gas). I don't know what they do in ordinary gas-chamber executions; I suppose I should look it up sometime.

It {the fetus} deserves at least that much.

That's a bald claim. Where is the supporting basis for it?

That was a moral judgment, not a scientific claim. {based on} A respect for life; Posessing the premis that the unborn has the right to life and that the law is curently in the wrong; God;

But morals are often provably stupid. For example, "A respect for life" means that you don't wash your hands after using a toilet, because of respect for life of germs, right? No?? Oh, you mean PREJUDICED respect for only human life --which is indeed stupid, since that merely leads to a Malthusian Catastrophe. See history of Easter Island, for proof. Next example: "the premis that the unborn has the right to life" means that Nature is wrong, every time an earthquake kills thousands? No, it means humans are stupid, in thinking they are so superior that Nature should stop grinding tectonic plates just because their houses were built on a fault line. The "right to life" is a purely political invention, and obviously can be claimed by all who can participate in politics. Which no unborn human can do. Next example: To invoke God is to claim that God exists, AND that God proclaimed something that you are invoking. But how do you plan on convincing the skeptical, who might simply think that humans not only made up the notion of God, but put various words in God's mouth for their own benefit? See Deuteronomy 17:12 for evidence of that last thing. So who is more stupid, the gullible, or those who think everyone else is gullible?

Needles distruction of human life does not advance us.

I might actually agree with that, because you leave open the possibility that some destruction of human life can be needful. As is allowing abortions as ONE of the ways to stave off a Malthusean Catastrophe.

there remains the fact that a certain number of partial-birth abortions are ENTIRELY the fault of the pro-life crowd, because of what they do to inhibit early abortions.

Jerry then presented some completely irrelevant items, which because they are irrelevant I am not quoting here. Instead I will expand upon what I meant. When pro-lifers picket abortion clinics and act in many ways to inhibit those who might seek an early abortion, including getting laws passed to require "counseling", then they are merely causing that seeker to (a) waste time building up courage, and/OR (b) fret/worry/angst/etc over the long-term consequences until "just can't take being pregnant any more" happens. The result is a late-term abortion. It should be obvious that if the obstacles and delays are removed, then the rate of late-term abortions will go way down. And it is equally obvious that since the pro-lifers are responsible for those obstacles and delays, then making them pay for that could indeed be appropriate!

 

[Jerry]

True. Well, for almost any human outside the womb, oxygen deprivation isn't quite so simple. Sure, you can compress the carotid and jugular, to stop blood flow to the brain, but this leaves bruises on the body after death; the pinprick of injection isn't so noticeable. A gas chamber might be a better way to do it; you can control the actual amount of oxygen available, just by adding nitrogen (or maybe even carbon monoxide, a "gentle" poison gas). I don't know what they do in ordinary gas-chamber executions; I suppose I should look it up sometime.

I was thinking of the gas chamber idea, myself. There is some sort of episode in Texas(?) where they couldn't find a licensed phisition to administer the lethal injection. This would not be a problem if Texas used an oxygen depravity chamber......or my personal favorite, the fiering squad.

But morals are often provably stupid. For example, "A respect for life" means that you don't wash your hands after using a toilet, because of respect for life of germs, right? No?? Oh, you mean PREJUDICED respect for only human life --which is indeed stupid, since that merely leads to a Malthusian Catastrophe. See history of Easter Island, for proof. Next example: "the premise that the unborn has the right to life" means that Nature is wrong, every time an earthquake kills thousands? No, it means humans are stupid, in thinking they are so superior that Nature should stop grinding tectonic plates just because their houses were built on a fault line. The "right to life" is a purely political invention, and obviously can be claimed by all who can participate in politics. Which no unborn human can do. Next example: To invoke God is to claim that God exists, AND that God proclaimed something that you are invoking. But how do you plan on convincing the skeptical, who might simply think that humans not only made up the notion of God, but put various words in God's mouth for their own benefit? See Deuteronomy 17:12 for evidence of that last thing. So who is more stupid, the gullible, or those who think everyone else is gullible?

I don't care to try and convince the skeptical. I do not possess an insecurity which drives me to convince others of what founds my views. I do not require outside, piere reviewed approval in order to think. The popular opinion is nothing more than a foot note.

As for everything ells in that last paragraph, their simply is no point in hashing it out until our views on divinity sher some common thread. I do not have such a low view of humanity which predisposes me to seeing so many things as "stupid". Your view of "a respect for life" is totally alien to me. I can not realate to it in the least. Your idea of what a right is and how it effects the world doesn't make sense to me.

I might actually agree with that, because you leave open the possibility that some destruction of human life can be needful. As is allowing abortions as ONE of the ways to stave off a Malthusean Catastrophe.

I would profer mandatory sterilization, should the situation on this plannet become so dire.

Jerry then presented some completely irrelevant items, which because they are irrelevant I am not quoting here. Instead I will expand upon what I meant. When pro-lifers picket abortion clinics and act in many ways to inhibit those who might seek an early abortion, including getting laws passed to require "counseling", then they are merely causing that seeker to (a) waste time building up courage, and/OR (b) fret/worry/angst/etc over the long-term consequences until "just can't take being pregnant any more" happens. The result is a late-term abortion. It should be obvious that if the obstacles and delays are removed, then the rate of late-term abortions will go way down. And it is equally obvious that since the pro-lifers are responsible for those obstacles and delays, then making them pay for that could indeed be appropriate!

When you disregard and dismiss counter points, simply to continue on with what you want to say, the conversation is over.
Good by.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I do not possess an insecurity which drives me to convince others of what founds my views.

But what is the difference between that and "deluded"? Usually, the way to tell is if personal views lead to socially unacceptable personal actions. Well, on what basis does enslaving women, to be hosts to unwanted mindless animals, deserve to be considered socially acceptable?

their simply is no point in hashing it out until our views on divinity sher some common thread.

We can start with the FACT that God, being declared nonphysical, did not sit down and write the Bible. Humans wrote it, right? Then, logically, all of it consists of claims. Some of those claims are supported by historical data (but then, they also are historical claims, such as the one that the Philistines existed), and some of those claims are not (archeologists have discovered that the Philistines were more artistic than the Israelites). But then, we all know that histories are written by the winners.

Your view of "a respect for life" is totally alien to me.

Do you have a problem with plain literal English? Bacteria count as "life", do they not? Then respecting life means not killing bacteria, right? Then, if you wash your hands after using a toilet, to kill bacteria, your so-called "respect for life" isn't, really. Perhaps you should be more precise in what you are talking about? (And perhaps prejudice will indeed be exhibited!)

Your idea of what a right is and how it effects the world doesn't make sense to me.

On what grounds can you say, "Just because something exists, it has a right to continue existing?" Well, I admit you probably don't say exactly that thing. You merely and prejudicially substitute the word "something" with "a human", and claim that. Without presenting any rationale for it! Especially when the original statement is not true, for anything else in the known Universe!

I would profer mandatory sterilization, should the situation on this plannet become so dire. {as needed to prevent Malthusean Catastrophe}

Heh, good luck in avoiding claims of "planned attritive genocide".

you disregard and dismiss counter points, simply to continue on with what you want to say

On the contrary, I specifically said that your so-called counter points were irrelevant. I did not say why then, because I thought it was obvious, in my additional explanation, but since you seem unable to see the obvious, here: Review your "counter points" and tell me if any of them are related to why a pregnant women decides when to go through with an abortion? None of them do! So, indeed, none of them are relevant to those very things that I was talking about! Q.E.D.

 

[Donkey1499]

Abortion of any kind is murder. It is LIVING TISSUE.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Abortion of any kind is murder. It is LIVING TISSUE.

Does that mean we can arrest you and convict you and sentence you to death, for swatting flies and mosquitoes?

 

[Donkey1499]

Does that mean we can arrest you and convict you and sentence you to death, for swatting flies and mosquitoes?

Hardy har har!

NO! I meant it was living HUMAN tissue. Don't be a wise ***. That's my job! :mrgreen:

 

[talloulou]

Abortion of any kind is murder. It is LIVING TISSUE.

Please don't fight for the validity of this argument. Trust me I'm on your side and this argument/point is dumb and will be torn apart.

 

[Donkey1499]

Please don't fight for the validity of this argument. Trust me I'm on your side and this argument/point is dumb and will be torn apart.

I know what I'm doing! I've argued this point before and have gotten the point across. Though few agreed with it, I still left the thread feeling slightly victorious!

 

[talloulou]

I know what I'm doing! I've argued this point before and have gotten the point across. Though few agreed with it, I still left the thread feeling slightly victorious!

Okay then.....argue away. As long as you feel victorious I guess that's what's important. I just would like to help fellow prolifers out by agreeing with them rather than watching them get torn to pieces. But maybe you'll surprise me and I'll think you were victorious too

 

[easyt65]

I once read about a suggested abortion procedure that should not be painful to even a late-term fetus. Have you ever experienced the thing called "my foot went to sleep"? In certain positions you can cut off the blood (oxygen!) supply to your foot, and it will go numb, after some minutes. You never notice it until after it has happened, and you try to move your foot and it doesn't cooperate very well.

The suggested abortion procedure is to take an optical fiber and an equivalently slinky manipulator, insert them into the uterus through the normal passageway, and seek out the umbilical cord. Send a laser beam through the fiber, and focus it, so that the amniotic sac isn't damaged, but the umblicus get severed/cauterized. I suppose an alternate thing might be to clamp the umbilicus, if the sac has enough stretch to allow it. The entire fetus will now experience a cut-off oxygen supply and will "go to sleep". Exactly like your foot, and not unlike the euphemism used by the SPCA, when they deal with other unwanted animals. After fifteen minutes or so, the dead fetus (the brain is much more sensitive to lack-of-oxygen than muscle tissue) can be removed by any horrible means you care to imagine, and the fetus won't be feeling a thing.

How come doctors walk out of an execution of some guy on death row who butchered some family, citing it would be against their oath to SAVE LIVES not take them, even after every precautionwas made to ensure the monster didn't feel anything but then the medical community - same such doctors - refuse to walk out on abortion procedures that are being done where a perfectly viable fetus - who can feel and tell what is going on - is being killed?

Why is it that they can convince themselves that they have found a way to kill the child without it feelig a thing and they are OK to stay and complete THAT procedure - a procedure that involves some pretty gruesome act(s) being performed to a child, but they can't bring themselves to stick a needle in a child molesting/butchering, serial murderer's arm, citing their precious oath to save lives rather than take them? Maybe they can explain where that oath went to that little baby who is just inches from taking its 1st breath of air, resting there with only its head inside the mother, its little heart beating outside the mother's womb while waiting for the doctor to kill it. I would love to hear how these doctors exlain this one.

"I'm sorry, but you aren't REALLY a person, and I can kill you because your head isn't out yet...."