| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 |
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Woodsy
Posted by dpli
Posted by Woodsy
I haven't read the opinion so can't really comment on the specifics. However, as far as the health exception, that was delfined incredibly broadly in the Doe case, a companion case to Roe v. Wade.
In that case, they defined health to include the physical, mental or social (whatever that means) health of the mother.
I am 28 weeks pregnant. My baby is viable. However, under the broad definition of health under prior precedent, I could technically abort if I could claim that continuing my pregnancy would effect my mental or social health. Should society really accept that result?
In general, I would agree with you, but I think there can be cases where mental health should be a consideration. If someone like Andrea Yates had been given the option to abort her last child, I am not sure it wouldn't have been in the best interest of everyone in that family.
I can't imagine having an abortion myself and have a hard time with all of these debates, but I do think there has to be some allowance for exceptions.
I think the problem with that argument is that it creates an incredibly vague standard. Where do we draw the line?? If giving birth is going to bum me out, does that really trump the baby's rights to be protected by law? Because technically, that does fit into the "mental health" exception. We can't forget that this is an incredibly brutal procedure done on VIABLE babies and that the court has to strike a balance between the two. Actually, the recent case discusses in graphic detail how brutal the procedure is...
I think your Andrea Yates example is a poor one. Don't you think we, as a society, should try to prevent that situation through education, mental health treatment, and social services rather than through a brutal procedure that ends the life of a viable baby?
do you consider a fetus that has certain fatal birth defects viable? and I am speaking of those in which the child dies quickly after birth?
what about REv. Run's child? they opted to go full term, but should that right be taken from another mother?
should a woman have to go through the pain of delivering a child to term, that has no hope of living past it's stay in the hospital?
|
Posted 4/18/07 3:37 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
maybebaby
LIF Adult
Member since 11/05 6870 total posts
Name:
Maureen
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by MrsS2005
Posted by maybebaby
Posted by Woodsy
It's about time. It's a barbaric practice that should not be legal in a civilized society.
I completely agree. I think it's a disgusting practice, and do not know how doctors perform that type of abortion. I don't understand abortion in the first place, BUT this type of abortion is so inhumane.
IMO, another abortion procedure commonly used is no more humane than this one (sorry to be graphic, but it involves dismembering the fetus in the uterus). I believe doctors choose the procedure that is now banned over others b/c it's considered a safer procedure and poses fewer health risks for the mother.
Oh believe me, I don't think any abortion procedure is humane. However...a d&C procedure on a first trimester fetus is different than the dismemberment of a 2nd trimester fetus. That's all I meant. I guess the result is the same in the end...but this practice of partial birth abortion is sickening to me, JMO. I could be on my death bed but would never make the decision to have a fetus's brains sucked out through its crushed skull, as quoted earlier in this thread. I don't get it, not for one minute.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 3:49 PM |
| |
|
imagin916
LIF Adult
Member since 6/05 1826 total posts
Name:
Valerie
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
"Court briefs noted pregnant women having the procedure most often have their health threatened by cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure or risk of stroke."
JMO
I dont think it would be an easy decision for any mother to have to make, I think we all have to take into consideration that most pregnant women who are doing this are not taking it lightly. If a pregnant woman is told she has cancer and will die if she does not start chemo right away, or her heart is too weak to handle the demands of pregnancy I would not blame her if she made the decision to abort, this is her life, she has a right to live too.
Realistically, I am sure that in most of those cases the baby is delivered if he/she is viable in order to relieve the effects of pregnancy on the mother. However, if it was the case that the health of the mother is so fragile that a delivery could not be done, than I don't see why the law should outlaw it, this person is obviously very sick and should have the right to make the decison to live.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 3:58 PM |
| |
|
Woodsy
LIF Infant
Member since 6/05 241 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Ophelia
[do you consider a fetus that has certain fatal birth defects viable? and I am speaking of those in which the child dies quickly after birth?
what about REv. Run's child? they opted to go full term, but should that right be taken from another mother?
should a woman have to go through the pain of delivering a child to term, that has no hope of living past it's stay in the hospital?
I don't know who Rev. Run is...but I am sure that was a very difficult experience for her... Also, I don't believe this issue was discussed in the opinion.
In response to your questions....
Yes, I consider such a baby viable and should be protected by the law. I don't think that because a baby suffers from a horrible illness that they should be subjected to the brutality of a PBA. While I can't phathom how difficult that news would be to a mother, I still think that the baby should be granted the respect of being born, given a chance (perhaps there is a miracle or a mis-diagnosis), and in most cases, ultimately being provided with a proper and dignified burial rather than being torn from limb to limb in a painful procedure and ultimately discarded as medical waste.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:02 PM |
| |
|
SweetTooth
I'm a tired mommy!
Member since 12/05 20105 total posts
Name:
Lauren
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by imagin916
"Court briefs noted pregnant women having the procedure most often have their health threatened by cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure or risk of stroke."
JMO
I dont think it would be an easy decision for any mother to have to make, I think we all have to take into consideration that most pregnant women who are doing this are not taking it lightly. If a pregnant woman is told she has cancer and will die if she does not start chemo right away, or her heart is too weak to handle the demands of pregnancy I would not blame her if she made the decision to abort, this is her life, she has a right to live too.
Realistically, I am sure that in most of those cases the baby is delivered if he/she is viable in order to relieve the effects of pregnancy on the mother. However, if it was the case that the health of the mother is so fragile that a delivery could not be done, than I don't see why the law should outlaw it, this person is obviously very sick and should have the right to make the decison to live.
Well stated.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:04 PM |
| |
|
spooks
So in love!
Member since 6/06 4378 total posts
Name:
Sarah
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
This was such an important ruling - I can't believe there isn't more news coverage on it.
To my knowledge, this decision was about a woman's health and an individual's right to make her/his own health decisions - it shows that Bush's horrific appointees totally disregard a mother's health. This country is so far behind others in considering reproductive rights as human rights.
Now we wait to see the repurcusions of this decision.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:13 PM |
| |
|
Boobobunny
Live in the Present
Member since 5/05 3572 total posts
Name:
Dannielle
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
although I may have replied differently 4 yrs ago...I feel that late term abortions are murder!!! You can hate me all you want for making such a bold statement...but my son was born at 25 wks...and he was a whole little person. He was able to feel every needle that the NICU staf poked and proded him wth. He was able to cry, open his eyes and wrap his teeny tiny hand around my finger....he is now a happy healthy 2 1/2 yr old boy. I can't imagine thinking for a minute that his little life wasn't as important as my own...
ETA...and I did almost die having him...and I argued with everyone to do what was best for James and not to worry about me.
Image Attachment(s):
Message edited 4/18/2007 4:27:54 PM.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:19 PM |
| |
|
jellybean78
:)
Member since 8/06 13103 total posts
Name:
Mommy
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
In response to your questions....
Yes, I consider such a baby viable and should be protected by the law. I don't think that because a baby suffers from a horrible illness that they should be subjected to the brutality of a PBA. While I can't phathom how difficult that news would be to a mother, I still think that the baby should be granted the respect of being born, given a chance (perhaps there is a miracle or a mis-diagnosis), and in most cases, ultimately being provided with a proper and dignified burial rather than being torn from limb to limb in a painful procedure and ultimately discarded as medical waste
I agree 100%.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:30 PM |
| |
|
MrsS2005
Mom of 3
Member since 11/05 13118 total posts
Name:
B
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Boobobunny
although I may have replied differently 4 yrs ago...I feel that late term abortions are murder!!! You can hate me all you want for making such a bold statement...but my son was born at 25 wks...and he was a whole little person. He was able to feel every needle that the NICU staf poked and proded him wth. He was able to cry, open his eyes and wrap his teeny tiny hand around my finger.
This law and the court's ruling isn't about late term abortions. It has to do with a certain type of abortion procedure that the Act banned.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:31 PM |
| |
|
Boobobunny
Live in the Present
Member since 5/05 3572 total posts
Name:
Dannielle
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by MrsS2005
Posted by Boobobunny
although I may have replied differently 4 yrs ago...I feel that late term abortions are murder!!! You can hate me all you want for making such a bold statement...but my son was born at 25 wks...and he was a whole little person. He was able to feel every needle that the NICU staf poked and proded him wth. He was able to cry, open his eyes and wrap his teeny tiny hand around my finger.
This law and the court's ruling isn't about late term abortions. It has to do with a certain type of abortion procedure that the Act banned.
and regardless imo its still cruel and painfull to these babies.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:32 PM |
| |
|
dpli
Daylight savings :)
Member since 5/05 13973 total posts
Name:
D
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Woodsy
I think the problem with that argument is that it creates an incredibly vague standard. Where do we draw the line?? If giving birth is going to bum me out, does that really trump the baby's rights to be protected by law? Because technically, that does fit into the "mental health" exception. We can't forget that this is an incredibly brutal procedure done on VIABLE babies and that the court has to strike a balance between the two. Actually, the recent case discusses in graphic detail how brutal the procedure is...
I think your Andrea Yates example is a poor one. Don't you think we, as a society, should try to prevent that situation through education, mental health treatment, and social services rather than through a brutal procedure that ends the life of a viable baby?
I cut out some of the quotes, so this wouldn't be so long.
I agree that we, as a society could and should do a better job of preventing situations where a woman would have to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy and perhaps my example wasn't the best one.
I do believe at 28 weeks a fetus is a baby and as I said before, I can't imagine terminating a pregnancy at that point. However, I also think that ultimately it is a decision that should be left to me and my doctor. I think there are cases that are exceptions and the law should leave room for the exceptions, whether those exceptions are for physical or mental health reasons (not sure I really get what "social" reasons are either.)
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:34 PM |
| |
|
maybebaby
LIF Adult
Member since 11/05 6870 total posts
Name:
Maureen
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by MrsS2005
Posted by Boobobunny
although I may have replied differently 4 yrs ago...I feel that late term abortions are murder!!! You can hate me all you want for making such a bold statement...but my son was born at 25 wks...and he was a whole little person. He was able to feel every needle that the NICU staf poked and proded him wth. He was able to cry, open his eyes and wrap his teeny tiny hand around my finger.
This law and the court's ruling isn't about late term abortions. It has to do with a certain type of abortion procedure that the Act banned.
I think her point is though that this "procedure" IS being done on fetus's of that age or even older...although I can't speak for her, that is the assumption I get. And the cruelty of it is undeniable.
Message edited 4/18/2007 4:35:11 PM.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:35 PM |
| |
|
maybebaby
LIF Adult
Member since 11/05 6870 total posts
Name:
Maureen
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by dpli
Posted by Woodsy
I think the problem with that argument is that it creates an incredibly vague standard. Where do we draw the line?? If giving birth is going to bum me out, does that really trump the baby's rights to be protected by law? Because technically, that does fit into the "mental health" exception. We can't forget that this is an incredibly brutal procedure done on VIABLE babies and that the court has to strike a balance between the two. Actually, the recent case discusses in graphic detail how brutal the procedure is...
I think your Andrea Yates example is a poor one. Don't you think we, as a society, should try to prevent that situation through education, mental health treatment, and social services rather than through a brutal procedure that ends the life of a viable baby?
I cut out some of the quotes, so this wouldn't be so long.
I agree that we, as a society could and should do a better job of preventing situations where a woman would have to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy and perhaps my example wasn't the best one.
I do believe at 28 weeks a fetus is a baby and as I said before, I can't imagine terminating a pregnancy at that point. However, I also think that ultimately it is a decision that should be left to me and my doctor. I think there are cases that are exceptions and the law should leave room for the exceptions, whether those exceptions are for physical or mental health reasons (not sure I really get what "social" reasons are either.)
Just out of curiosity...why 28 weeks? Is there a reason for that number? Why not 27 or even 22 for that matter..since babies are now being saved as early as that, even I BELIEVE earlier (21 weeks??) but not 100% sure on that. I really am curious. This is where I have a hard time trying to see when/where to draw a line?
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:37 PM |
| |
|
stayandjohn
Our life is complete
Member since 5/05 5909 total posts
Name:
Stacey
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Boobobunny
Posted by MrsS2005
Posted by Boobobunny
although I may have replied differently 4 yrs ago...I feel that late term abortions are murder!!! You can hate me all you want for making such a bold statement...but my son was born at 25 wks...and he was a whole little person. He was able to feel every needle that the NICU staf poked and proded him wth. He was able to cry, open his eyes and wrap his teeny tiny hand around my finger.
and regardless imo its still cruel and painfull to these babies.
I agree with you 1000%
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:37 PM |
| |
|
MrsS2005
Mom of 3
Member since 11/05 13118 total posts
Name:
B
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Boobobunny
Posted by MrsS2005
Posted by Boobobunny
although I may have replied differently 4 yrs ago...I feel that late term abortions are murder!!! You can hate me all you want for making such a bold statement...but my son was born at 25 wks...and he was a whole little person. He was able to feel every needle that the NICU staf poked and proded him wth. He was able to cry, open his eyes and wrap his teeny tiny hand around my finger.
This law and the court's ruling isn't about late term abortions. It has to do with a certain type of abortion procedure that the Act banned.
and regardless imo its still cruel and painfull to these babies.
IMO it's no more cruel or painful than the abortion procedures that continue to be used. However, the procedure that the Act banned can no longer be used even if that procedure causes fewer health risks to the mother than the available alternatives.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:41 PM |
| |
|
dpli
Daylight savings :)
Member since 5/05 13973 total posts
Name:
D
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by maybebaby
Just out of curiosity...why 28 weeks? Is there a reason for that number? Why not 27 or even 22 for that matter..since babies are now being saved as early as that, even I BELIEVE earlier (21 weeks??) but not 100% sure on that. I really am curious. This is where I have a hard time trying to see when/where to draw a line?
I just said 28 weeks because the previous poster said she was 28 weeks pregnant. IMO, life begins before that.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:43 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Woodsy
Posted by Ophelia
[do you consider a fetus that has certain fatal birth defects viable? and I am speaking of those in which the child dies quickly after birth?
what about REv. Run's child? they opted to go full term, but should that right be taken from another mother?
should a woman have to go through the pain of delivering a child to term, that has no hope of living past it's stay in the hospital?
I don't know who Rev. Run is...but I am sure that was a very difficult experience for her... Also, I don't believe this issue was discussed in the opinion.
In response to your questions....
Yes, I consider such a baby viable and should be protected by the law. I don't think that because a baby suffers from a horrible illness that they should be subjected to the brutality of a PBA. While I can't phathom how difficult that news would be to a mother, I still think that the baby should be granted the respect of being born, given a chance (perhaps there is a miracle or a mis-diagnosis), and in most cases, ultimately being provided with a proper and dignified burial rather than being torn from limb to limb in a painful procedure and ultimately discarded as medical waste.
I specifically asked this question b/c it wasn't addressed in the ruling, and it should have been.
quite frankly, what you think another woman should go through is just that...what you think...and if that is the case, if the time ewver comes( and God forbid it won't), you should not do it.
but what you think should not become law for someone else. each circumstance is very personal and unique.
this is usually not the time of "oops my BC didn't work and I'm not ready for this baby" abortion...this is "OMG...the child is in danger...my life is in danger" time.
my feeling is...I don't think I could do it, BUT I cannot and will not take the choice away from you or anyone else. the same as early stage abortion.
I saw the diagrams, heard the expert testimony. I saw it all, and I still say, the option should not be taken away b/c of a moral "right"
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:44 PM |
| |
|
Boobobunny
Live in the Present
Member since 5/05 3572 total posts
Name:
Dannielle
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by MrsS2005
Posted by Boobobunny
Posted by MrsS2005
Posted by Boobobunny
although I may have replied differently 4 yrs ago...I feel that late term abortions are murder!!! You can hate me all you want for making such a bold statement...but my son was born at 25 wks...and he was a whole little person. He was able to feel every needle that the NICU staf poked and proded him wth. He was able to cry, open his eyes and wrap his teeny tiny hand around my finger.
This law and the court's ruling isn't about late term abortions. It has to do with a certain type of abortion procedure that the Act banned.
and regardless imo its still cruel and painfull to these babies.
IMO it's no more cruel or painful than the abortion procedures that continue to be used. However, the procedure that the Act banned can no longer be used even if that procedure causes fewer health risks to the mother than the available alternatives.
let me clarify....the point that I am making is that terminating any life in any manner is cruel...a 2nd trimester baby can feel. I know this for a fact...my son is living proof. I don't care what the actual method is of terminating a late term preganancy...I find it all inhumane.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:45 PM |
| |
|
MrsS2005
Mom of 3
Member since 11/05 13118 total posts
Name:
B
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by maybebaby
Posted by MrsS2005
Posted by Boobobunny
although I may have replied differently 4 yrs ago...I feel that late term abortions are murder!!! You can hate me all you want for making such a bold statement...but my son was born at 25 wks...and he was a whole little person. He was able to feel every needle that the NICU staf poked and proded him wth. He was able to cry, open his eyes and wrap his teeny tiny hand around my finger.
This law and the court's ruling isn't about late term abortions. It has to do with a certain type of abortion procedure that the Act banned.
I think her point is though that this "procedure" IS being done on fetus's of that age or even older...although I can't speak for her, that is the assumption I get. And the cruelty of it is undeniable.
I haven't heard anything about it being done after viability. The Act makes no distinction in terms of viability, and neither does the Court's opinion. The procedure is simply banned regardless of the age/development of the fetus.
ETA: I think late term abortion is an entirely different debate/issue.
Message edited 4/18/2007 4:50:04 PM.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:47 PM |
| |
|
Hi-Fi55
12 years...wow....
Member since 2/06 2984 total posts
Name:
Dianne
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
They start with the partial birth - which I may not feel is right but some may find necessary. Besides live births what are other late term alternatives?
Next they are going to take away all late term abortions and then what? Do they attack Roe vs. Wade?
It's easy to sit back and say - not me, not ever. But unless you are in that position, I don't think people truly know what they would do.
The government should stay out of my body.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:49 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
and just to add...
I myself was a premie. My mom was 30 weeks with me.
so obviously a child is viable.
and can feel pain. and all of the miraculous stuff that is life.
but sometimes a choice has to be made, and sometimes it's not the way you want it to be.
but sometimes it's the only way to go.
if you take the only way....then there is no way.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 4:50 PM |
| |
|
Woodsy
LIF Infant
Member since 6/05 241 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Ophelia
I specifically asked this question b/c it wasn't addressed in the ruling, and it should have been.
quite frankly, what you think another woman should go through is just that...what you think...and if that is the case, if the time ewver comes( and God forbid it won't), you should not do it.
but what you think should not become law for someone else. each circumstance is very personal and unique.
this is usually not the time of "oops my BC didn't work and I'm not ready for this baby" abortion...this is "OMG...the child is in danger...my life is in danger" time.
my feeling is...I don't think I could do it, BUT I cannot and will not take the choice away from you or anyone else. the same as early stage abortion.
I saw the diagrams, heard the expert testimony. I saw it all, and I still say, the option should not be taken away b/c of a moral "right"
I'm just stating my opinion and there's really no reason to get defensive about my posts.
I think what some steadfast pro choicers forget to factor in is that it is not all about the mother. This case underscores that at a certain point, unborn babies are entitled to protection from the law. As far as taking away "choice," what about the baby's choice to not be brutally murdered? They don't have a voice and to an extent, this case finally gives them some protection...though not nearly enough.
Also, as far as the oft repeated argument that if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one..... I seriously do not understand that logic at all. If it is murder, doesn't a person have a duty to object since obviously the baby cannot?
The other argument that you alluded to is that government should not be allowed to interfere with a woman's choice and "that an option should not be taken away because of a 'moral' right." Yet, a moral code is the fundamental origin of virtually all legal systems (and this has nothing to do with separation of church and state.) Government routinely restricts people's "choices" based upon moral factors. A person can't exercise their "choice" to kill their neighbor, burn down a house, etc., etc.
So, the more fundamental question is does an unborn baby have a right to life. Interestingly, the Court noted that neither side disagreed that an unborn baby is a life, even if not viable outside the womb. The Court stated:
"The Act does apply both previability and postviability because, by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 971-972. We do not understand this point to be contested by the parties."
I think this decision is long overdue and I am interested to see what its impact will be on other cases....
|
| Posted 4/18/07 5:02 PM |
| |
|
~Colleen~
my loves...
Member since 5/05 9129 total posts
Name:
guess
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Ophelia
I specifically asked this question b/c it wasn't addressed in the ruling, and it should have been.
quite frankly, what you think another woman should go through is just that...what you think...and if that is the case, if the time ewver comes( and God forbid it won't), you should not do it.
but what you think should not become law for someone else. each circumstance is very personal and unique.
this is usually not the time of "oops my BC didn't work and I'm not ready for this baby" abortion...this is "OMG...the child is in danger...my life is in danger" time.
my feeling is...I don't think I could do it, BUT I cannot and will not take the choice away from you or anyone else. the same as early stage abortion.
I saw the diagrams, heard the expert testimony. I saw it all, and I still say, the option should not be taken away b/c of a moral "right"
Very well put.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 5:07 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Woodsy
Posted by Ophelia
I specifically asked this question b/c it wasn't addressed in the ruling, and it should have been.
quite frankly, what you think another woman should go through is just that...what you think...and if that is the case, if the time ewver comes( and God forbid it won't), you should not do it.
but what you think should not become law for someone else. each circumstance is very personal and unique.
this is usually not the time of "oops my BC didn't work and I'm not ready for this baby" abortion...this is "OMG...the child is in danger...my life is in danger" time.
my feeling is...I don't think I could do it, BUT I cannot and will not take the choice away from you or anyone else. the same as early stage abortion.
I saw the diagrams, heard the expert testimony. I saw it all, and I still say, the option should not be taken away b/c of a moral "right"
I'm just stating my opinion and there's really no reason to get defensive about my posts.
Also, as far as the oft repeated argument that if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one..... I seriously do not understand that logic at all. If it is murder, doesn't a person have a duty to object since obviously the baby cannot?
"The Act does apply both previability and postviability because, by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 971-972. We do not understand this point to be contested by the parties."
I think this decision is long overdue and I am interested to see what its impact will be on other cases....
I am sorry if that is what you call getting defensive, I call it voicing a counter opinion.
In any event, I guess it comes down to how much right the mother has as the vessel of this new life. At least, that is how I view it. until the birth of the child, the lives of child and mother are interconnected in the most intimate of ways.
how do you weigh the rights of two people that are, until birth, physically connected to each other.
Murder is an inciteful word, and it works to the advantage of pro-choicers, but the definition of
MURDER: 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated .malice
Malice, for me, is the operative word. I don't think you could prove malice in these cases, though yes, a life is being terminated.
it's sad all around. I feel for these women that have to make this choice. I do not condemn them. I do not call them murderers. I do not envy their position, but I imagine that they envy mine...
the position of speaking on this subject based on opinion and conjecture, instead of heartwrenching experience.
Message edited 4/18/2007 5:16:29 PM.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 5:15 PM |
| |
|
MrsS2005
Mom of 3
Member since 11/05 13118 total posts
Name:
B
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Woodsy
I think what some steadfast pro choicers forget to factor in is that it is not all about the mother. This case underscores that at a certain point, unborn babies are entitled to protection from the law. As far as taking away "choice," what about the baby's choice to not be brutally murdered? They don't have a voice and to an extent, this case finally gives them some protection...though not nearly enough.
I don't think it's all about the mother, and I think there are already some protections in place for the fetus (i.e. most states have banned late term abortion). My problem with this Act, and the Court's ruling, is that it ignores other Supreme Court decisions which carefully carved out exceptions based on the mother's health. The mother's health is completely disregarded here. If the mother is going to have an abortion anyway, shouldn't she and her doctor be allowed to choose the safest procedure with the least amount of risks to her health? I know you believe the prcoedure is inhumane, but the available procedures (i.e. dismembering the fetus in the uterus) that the Act has not banned are also cruel/inhumane.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 5:19 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 |
