US Federal judge says partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional

[Goober Mcfly]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001944256_webabortion01.html

In the banned procedure — known as intact dilation and extraction to doctors, but called partial-birth abortion by opponents — the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.

Justice Department attorneys argued that the procedure is inhumane, causes pain to the fetus and is never medically necessary.

Abortion proponents, however, argued that a woman's health during an abortion is more important than how the fetus is terminated, and that the banned method is often a safer solution that a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.

Okay, we've had an intelligent discussion on abortion before, and I hope we can again. I can respect people's opinion that a baby in the first trimester isn't actually a baby, although I vehemently disagree, but partial-birth abortions are performed in late pregnancy, often times when the baby could very well survive outside of the womb. This makes me sick.

Why do activists have to take things always one step further. Although I see it as abhorrent, I can see how some would defend first-trimester abortion. Now they want late-term abortions. The obvious next step would be infanticide after birth.

I'm sick to my stomach at the thought of this.

Your thoughts? (hopefully in a respectful, intelligent discussion. No "Call me when you get a uterus" comments please....)

 

[onthebottom]

I find it disgusting as well.

I find it interesting that people I know are against capital punishment (the killing of murderers) but for abortion. Seems to me a warped sense of values.

I think the one bit of logic supporters of this procedure use is the “slippery slope” argument (that banning this procedure could lead to broad bans). The same argument that the NRA uses against handgun laws.

Ah the idiosyncrasies of liberals.

OTB

 

[Mr. K]

I'm not "for" abortion, I just don't believe that I have the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body.

 

[wrong hole]

I'm for making the 'right choices'

I can't say in absolutes whether it is right or wrong since each person's situation is different

 

[tompeepin]

I'm not "for" abortion, I just don't believe that I have the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body.

I'm for making the 'right choices'

I can't say in absolutes whether it is right or wrong since each person's situation is different

These views seem balanced to me. I do not believe that I am in a position to tell a woman what she can do with her body either.

However, it seems to me that after a certain time she should have decided what she wants to do with her body. Therefore emotionally I find late term abortion abhorrent. My view would be to remove the child via c-section and then put it up for adoption, with the mother not having any rights to the child after that. If the child wanted to find the mother later ... well that would be another matter. If the child cannot survive well then it would fall in the class of many miscarriages and stillbirths and within the realm of being part of the mother's body and not an entity on it's own.

But that is just IMHO.

 

[tolkienreader]

Some insight from the past & a few things to ponder:

The Romans did not consider a newborn child a "real person" until some time after their birth (how long, I'm not sure, I'm a roman fan not a true historian).

As such, newborn could be exposed or would otherwise die without typical funeral rights.

The real question we must ask ourselves is, when is a person a person? The romans would have put it sometime after birth. I myself put it at conception. Is viability a fair point at which to make a person a person? The age of viability is getting younger and younger.

 

[Talerion]

Interesting paradox at work here. A discussion that is inherently about a woman's right to control her body draped against the backdrop of a board that is essentially about exactly that right to control.

Besides what is the basis of the discussion here? Simply personal opinions as to what is right or there is some basis being presented here as to why it is supposedly wrong?

T.

 

[Morgan Ellis]

I'm not "for" abortion, I just don't believe that I have the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body.

I wasn't clear about this last time this came up, mainly because I was cranky and not feeling well, but this is precisely my argument, as well.

I'm not 'for' abortion. Instead, my feelings are exactly what Mr. K said above - I'm for the *right* of the individual woman to choose. I can't ever presume to tell any woman what she can or cannot do with her body, or with her reproductive rights.

I do, however, find it interesting when men argue against choice.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, let's assume the condom broke when you were with your favorite SP, and she wasn't on any other form of birth control. She's now pregnant, and would prefer to have an abortion. You, the hobbyist, are against abortion. Would you then be willing to step up and support this child for life, possibly even be willing to adopt it and bring it into your home, if she can't care for it?

If not, what do you suggest she does? After all, you don't want her to get 'rid' of it, right?

Just curious,

Morgan

 

[The Shake]

If not, what do you suggest she does? After all, you don't want her to get 'rid' of it, right?

I would suggest that she not wait until the third trimester to make her choice and thus subject the fetus/baby/whatever you want to call it to such a barbaric and inhumane procedure.

I support a woman's right to decide what happens to her body (duh), but I have yet to see any non-health related justification for choosing to commit such a horrible act. Just because someone should have the right to make a decision doesn't mean that both choices are moral ones.

 

[oldjones]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001944256_webabortion01.html



…edit…
Why do activists have to take things always one step further.
…edit…

Before the activists took things one step further, there was a Constitution which the highest Court in the land interpreted as leaving abortion to be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. The activists—supported by the President—had to take it one step further, and thought they could stay on the right side of the Constitution with a limited definition of a particular abortion situation. The Court said no; it's still a matter for a woman and her doctor. I agree with you, Goober: Why do activists have to take things always one step further?

But, just for discussion's sake: suppose the state does have a right or duty to step between those two people. If the state proves that the mother's conduct—she's a a dialysis-refusing, alcoholic, 5 pack a day, crack 'ho—endangers the baby, does that right or duty extend to forcing treatment* on the mother as if she was a criminal, though convicted of no crime? (and a convicted criminal would likely be legally protected from such 'assaults') What would protect the mother from a zealous state functionary arguing for a court-ordered C-section? When would that state duty supersede the mother's rights?

There was a time when that question was easily answered: as soon as the pregnancy's known. On both sides of the border, we long ago decided that offended against our rights, and got the situation changed. Now if only those activists would leave things alone.

*Yes, I know forced treatment has been done. And will be again. The infrequency of such action speaks to its questionable legality, and the good sense of officials and mothers both.

 

[Morgan Ellis]

I would suggest that she not wait until the third trimester to make her choice

OK, so let's assume she didn't - let's assume she's still in the first trimester.

Now what?

Look, I've always had the view point that those who are firmly and morally against abortion for any reason, at any time, need to step up and put their money where their mouthes are.

See that crack addict on her way into the clinic? The one with three kids at home already, who's been on the dole all of her life? Well, instead of waving a placard in her face, and telling her God hates her, offer to adopt her unborn kid. Hell, offer to adopt all of her kids. I mean, we don't want her to have an abortion, and everyone hates the proverbial welfare momma, so do something about it - take that baby she wants to get rid of.

No? Don't want to do that? Then please shut up.

Thank you.

[size=-5]PS: I'm torn on the issue of 3rd Tri abortion, by the way, in case anyone assumes I'm advocating it. I can't even conceive of it being done unless there are strong, compelling medical reasons for it, such as a mother who must undergo chemo, or something along those lines. Just wanted to clarify this, before I re-hijacked the topic.[/size]

-- Morgan

 

[The Shake]

OK, so let's assume she didn't - let's assume she's still in the first trimester.

Now what?

I've said in previous abortion threads that I defer to the individual's choice as to what should happen to their body.

[size=-5]PS: I'm torn on the issue of 3rd Tri abortion, by the way, in case anyone assumes I'm advocating it. I can't even conceive of it being done unless there are strong, compelling medical reasons for it, such as a mother who must undergo chemo, or something along those lines. Just wanted to clarify this, before I re-hijacked the topic.[/size]

That was basically my point.

 

[Morgan Ellis]

I've said in previous abortion threads that I defer to the individual's choice as to what should happen to their body.

Yeah, your opinion doesn't count on this, since it's likely to be all boring and rational n' stuff.

Now, you go do TOTW, and I'll try to manage to respond to my 9 million PMs. How's that for a deal?

Oh, and I'll throw in a gang bang.

-- Morgan

 

[onthebottom]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, let's assume the condom broke when you were with your favorite SP, and she wasn't on any other form of birth control. She's now pregnant, and would prefer to have an abortion. You, the hobbyist, are against abortion. Would you then be willing to step up and support this child for life, possibly even be willing to adopt it and bring it into your home, if she can't care for it?

If not, what do you suggest she does? After all, you don't want her to get 'rid' of it, right?

Just curious,

Morgan

That's called taking responsibility for your actions, and while it's not always fun it is what adults do.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

.......
See that crack addict on her way into the clinic? The one with three kids at home already, who's been on the dole all of her life? Well, instead of waving a placard in her face, and telling her God hates her, offer to adopt her unborn kid. Hell, offer to adopt all of her kids. I mean, we don't want her to have an abortion, and everyone hates the proverbial welfare momma, so do something about it - take that baby she wants to get rid of.

No? Don't want to do that? Then please shut up.



-- Morgan

Is there a shortage of parents in Toronto that want to adopt, I know down here they are standing in line.

There are two issues here, if you think it's right and if you think the government should be involved. I think you can hold the view that abortion is terrible but the government should not be involved. I run out of rational however when it comes to this procedure.

OTB

 

[tompeepin]

... When would that state duty supersede the mother's rights?

When does the state or society step in and supersede an individual's rights? That is the core question up for debate. And ...

The real question we must ask ourselves is, when is a person a person? ... Is viability a fair point at which to make a person a person? The age of viability is getting younger and younger.

This is another philosophical question fundamental to any abortion debate.

That's called taking responsibility for your actions, and while it's not always fun it is what adults do.

OTB

Yes certainly in an ideal world OTB. But this is not Utopia so we must deal with things in a practical way that is often less than desirable. Once you have adopted and raised a child with fetal alcohol syndrome OTB, then I will give credence to your preaching.

 

[tompeepin]

Is there a shortage of parents in Toronto that want to adopt, I know down here they are standing in line.

Yeah right, maybe for new born babies, but what about all those other kids who are in foster care for years. Again if prospective adoptive parents were not looking for babies (an emotional response) there would not be a line up.

 

[Morgan Ellis]

if prospective adoptive parents were not looking for babies (an emotional response) there would not be a line up.

I'm having a hard time believing there's a line up of parents waiting to adopt babies born crack addicted, either.

I mean, let's be honest here - even if you're firmly in favour of abortions, can you really say it's better to have addicts giving birth, if they'd prefer not to go through with it?

I've seen babies in ICU going through withdrawal. I could live happily without ever seeing it again.

-- Morgan

 

[oldjones]

…edit…- but killing a viable human being and I describe that as Goober did - one in which can live outside the womb is just wrong. When the baby can survive on it's own it ceases to be part of the woman's body and should be given full rights as a human being. I think the court made a mistake in it's decission.

Well you could be right about the decision; she was only a District Court Judge, so the last word isn't in yet.

That choice of words:"…ceases to be a part of the woman's body", they are the nub of the problem aren't they? Because it doesn't actually, "cease…etc"; unless there is an abortion, or an early, and risky C-section that woman's still going to be carrying for another three months. Could be as you say, but it's still in her body so, as the judge affirmed, current law says no one can compel the woman to keep it, anymore than they can compel her to have that C-section.

I think it's long overdue that we stop the simple-minded, knee-jerk response of outlawing everything we personally find abhorrant and work on tolerance, intelligence and cultivating personal ethical standards for a change. Was the US really facing such a flood of third trimester abortions that it needed a Federal law against them? Law or not, does anyone suppose a desperate woman and an outlaw doctor wouldn't have found an unmonitored way around it?

The constitutional right the court upheld is simple, easy to grasp and universal; instead of fighting (not to mention killing), wouldn't those who believe it wrongly endangers births be better spreading their moral and ethical message, so people make better decisions? I'm absolutely positive that most late-abortion consults with physicians do not result in abortions of viable babies. Why would they? These women and their Doctors aren't monsters; they're just like us. And would benefit more from general ethical and moral support than threats.

But if she's just getting around to her first doctor's visit six months into the pregnancy…? Well, I'd hope the doctor is wise enough to give very good counsel, because thinking of her likely parenting skills is scary. And they'll be, oh so improved by forcing her to have the baby, won't they?

But again, a proposal: In spite of the woman's right, after a certain point(a bit like: free speech until you tell the bomb joke on the plane) we say she must carry to term any viable foetus that doesn't endanger her life or health—ooh, so many judgement calls! More expert witnesses, More Lawyers! More judges and courtrooms! More taxes! But her right to choice is recognized by taking the baby, and all responsibility for it from her as soon as it's delivered, just as if it had been aborted. Respects the law, respects the woman, respects the child; what could be wrong with that? (see "more taxes", above)

 

[Talerion]

I agree with you 100% on the most part - but killing a viable human being and I describe that as Goober did - one in which can live outside the womb is just wrong. When the baby can survive on it's own it ceases to be part of the woman's body and should be given full rights as a human being. I think the court made a mistake in it's decission.

The problem with the viabiilty discussion is it falls into that tiresome 'slippery slope' and semantics argument.

If viability is the deciding factor then using either technology or semantics can push that date to an absurd point. 1st trimester abortions were considered 'less evil' simply because that was natures primary abortive time frame, (although it is not at all uncommon for it to occur up unti the 6th month). A 2nd trimester premature birth was essentially a death sentence up until 15 years ago and even now for as much as the anti-choice people praise the merit of medical science nearly all 2nd trimester births resolve to all sorts of long term medical problems and serious questions regarding quality of life. However medical science will not be abated and at some, possibly via concurrent cloning efforts, will be able to harvest an egg moments after impregnation.

One must be very careful about letting science dictate a human freedom since the two do not necessarily meet at the end of the journey.

Not to mention that this topic, (late term abortions), is a grossly exploitive way to undermine reasonable abortion rights. One would expect most people to be displeased with the concept of late term abortions but how real is the issue itself? Are there line ups of women at clincis deciding at month 8 gestation "nah I think I'll pass?" Just how big an issue is this in practical terms or is it in fact simply an effort by the anti-choice forces to attempt to open Pandoras Box and see what can happen while we're there.

In a perfect world there would not be abortions. Tell me when you find that world. The right denounces abortion in the US while turning a blind eye in a country that has the world's most advanced medical technology while simultanesouly having an urban infant mortality rate of a third world nation, (only western nation on the planet to have that claim to fame). To add insult to injury try to punish States or cities that promote birth control.

And again as I said before in my first post. I find it amazing that on this board people would take the position that there are situations where the authorities have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.

Got to watch that slippery slope and semantics because it has a bad habit of coming back to bite you in the ass.

T.