'Partial-birth' abortion ban upheld

[Vincent Vega]

Justin, you've read it's 0.17 per cent of all abortions that are taking place at that stage, and that more or less every of these abortions takes place for serious medical reasons.

No, it's not like shooting someone with a rifle, or killing another person woth anything else.

These are reasons that are much more important, and far away from murder.

It was said again and again, and there in no God involved, and there is no murder involved.

This discussion is soo drowned out, and you bring up the same wrong comparison again and again.
What do you expect? That, all of a sudden, the answer changes?

It's sickening. These women make one of their hardest choices they will probably ever make in life, and they have to deal with this ordeal.
And then there are people equating them to a murderer.

 

[Justin24]

I read that it's 0.17% but I am talking about Abortions in General. If it's such a difficult thing to do, then why not give the baby up for adoption instead of adding to the 45,000,000 aborted fetuses.

I though Humans were intelligent and could figure out ways to stem this sort of thing?? I guess I was wrong. Because in a recent study. Chimpaneez are far smarter than human beings, so I think we should lower ourselfs to Animals and not humans anymore.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11611-chimps-more-evolved-than-humans.html

Chimps 'more evolved' than humans
22:00 16 April 2007
From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Bob Holmes

Human Evolution special report, New Scientist
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
It is time to stop thinking we are the pinnacle of evolutionary success – chimpanzees are the more highly evolved species, according to new research.

Evolutionary geneticist Jianzhi Zhang and colleagues at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, US, compared DNA sequences for 13,888 genes shared by human, chimp and rhesus macaques.

For each DNA letter at which the human or chimp genes differ from our shared ancestral form – inferred from the corresponding gene in macaques – researchers noted whether the change led to an altered protein. Genes that have been transformed by natural selection show an unusually high proportion of mutations leading to altered proteins.

Zhang's team found that 233 chimp genes, compared with only 154 human ones, have been changed by selection since chimps and humans split from their common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

This contradicts what most evolutionary biologists had assumed. "We tend to see the differences between us and our common ancestor more easily than the differences between chimps and the common ancestor," observes Zhang.

The result makes sense, he says, because until relatively recently the human population has been smaller than that of chimps, leaving us more vulnerable to random fluctuations in gene frequencies. This prevents natural selection from having as strong an effect overall.

Now that the macaque genome has been sequenced, biologists will be able to learn more about the differences between the apes.

Human Evolution - Follow the incredible story in our comprehensive special report.

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0701705104)

 

[Vincent Vega]

So you're offtopic, because this is about late-term abortions.
You should indicate it before you ask these questions.

Anyways, look up older threads, same questions, same answers.

 

[Justin24]

Any abortion is wrong period. It's essentionaly Murder with out being prosecuted and being put in jail.

 

[BVS]

Justin, just once try and stay on topic?

Chimps? WTF?

 

[Justin24]

Well if you read my entire wording you would see how it fits into what I am talking about.

 

[Justin24]

Maybe it's my ADD/Dyslexic mind that may confuse all of you????

 

[Vincent Vega]

Rather your oversimplifying of the world.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Justin, that article is about how chimps have evolved more than humans. Not that they are 'smarter'. The changes their species have gone through are more extensive, or evolved, than ours. That is all.

And Justin, do you want someone to break up the legal distinctions between all types of causes of death? I really don't follow where you blur the edges any more than you understand why there's distinctions in some places and not others.

 

[INDY500]

That is a term invented by the religious right in order to do exactly what it's done to you - have an emotional reaction. It means a late-term abortion, but if they can call it partial-birth, well that's just a lot more evocative - who cares if it's a mischaracterization.

So unlike the Left, which uses only medically recognized terms like "choice", "reproductive freedom" and "back-alley abortion" in their rhetoric.

From the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Act:

the term 'partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which --

(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and

(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus

There is no need to be more graphic, only to say that partial birth abortion is, sadly, a very accurate description of a gruesome procedure that's neither morally or medically justified.

Today's decision is some good news in an otherwise terribly sad week.

 

[martha]

a very accurate description of a gruesome procedure that's neither morally or medically justified.

Where did you do your residency?


Afganistan?

 

[Diemen]

Maybe it's my ADD/Dyslexic mind that may confuse all of you????

Gee, ya think?

 

[diamond]

So unlike the Left, which uses only medically recognized terms like "choice", "reproductive freedom" and "back-alley abortion" in their rhetoric.

From the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Act:


There is no need to be more graphic, only to say that partial birth abortion is, sadly, a very accurate description of a gruesome procedure that's neither morally or medically justified.

Today's decision is some good news in an otherwise terribly sad week.

I agree w Indy.

 

[martha]

I agree w Indy.

Then God forbid your precious, beautiful daughters ever needs to have one.

 

[LyricalDrug]

I wonder which 2008 Presidential candidate will benefit most from the public backlash against today's ruling...

 

[A_Wanderer]

I read that it's 0.17% but I am talking about Abortions in General. If it's such a difficult thing to do, then why not give the baby up for adoption instead of adding to the 45,000,000 aborted fetuses.

I though Humans were intelligent and could figure out ways to stem this sort of thing?? I guess I was wrong. Because in a recent study. Chimpaneez are far smarter than human beings, so I think we should lower ourselfs to Animals and not humans anymore.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11611-chimps-more-evolved-than-humans.html

Mutations are advantageous, deleterious or neutral - just because since divergence from a common ancestor these primates have shown more mutations doesn't make the fewer mutations along the human line worthless; they still packed a bigger punch in terms of producing an intelligent social animal (humans).

They are not smarter; Chimps are violent animals with social behaviour (not like those benign bonobos) - our clade just had the luck to get out of the jungle and get smart.

 

[A_Wanderer]

So unlike the Left, which uses only medically recognized terms like "choice", "reproductive freedom" and "back-alley abortion" in their rhetoric.

I have little to do with those statist bastards but in this case they seem to err on the side of liberties for the sentient human beings - when a woman gets knocked up the law shouldn't give her parasite priority.

If you want to stop abortion then invent a means to extract a foetus and raise it ex utero with a relatively standard surgical procedure for reasonably low costs and then have the means to raise these kids of nobody.

 

[Liesje]

I read that it's 0.17% but I am talking about Abortions in General. If it's such a difficult thing to do, then why not give the baby up for adoption instead of adding to the 45,000,000 aborted fetuses.

OK, then lemme ask you this in general, have you EVER seen ANYONE here post that they LIKE abortion? I haven't. Personally, I think that unless it's a case of rape/incest or a medical necessity, abortion at ANY stage is appalling, BUT I simply cannot be in favor of these blanket bans because I don't want anyone but myself, my husband, and our doctors decided when it's OK to abort and when it's not. No one is dancing because babies are being aborted. I think that most people would be against abortions as a form of birth control. However, what pro-choicers are fighting for is the right for us, our spouses, and our doctors to decide when to have an abortion, not George W Bush. I don't trust my country enough to let them make medical decisions for me. This is not the case in ANY other area of life. A cancer patient can refuse chemo, a tumor patient can refuse surgery, a person with a cold can chose not to take Sudafed....Would you let me and everyone else here vote on whether or not you should be allowed to have a vasectomy? Do you even see the point we're all trying to make? Just a simple yes or no will do. Google the term "precedent" while you're at it.

 

[Irvine511]

There is no need to be more graphic, only to say that partial birth abortion is, sadly, a very accurate description of a gruesome procedure that's neither morally or medically justified.

this is completely incorrect, as the example i've elucidated proves.

virtually ALL late-term abortions are performed due to medical necessity.

that is why it must remain legal.

 

[diamond]

Some may want to Google "infanticide" because that's exactly what partail birth abortions are.

dbs

 

[Liesje]

Some may want to Google "infanticide" because that's exactly what partail birth abortions are.

dbs

Or "ancephaly". Can you kill something that's already dead?

 

[Irvine511]

Some may want to Google "infanticide" because that's exactly what partail birth abortions are.

dbs

good God, no it isn't.

come, meet this woman, this mother of 5 who adores her children. she lives in Buffalo, NY. she had a late-term abortion because the baby had ANCEPHALY!

she did not kill that child. the child had died already.

how we demonize women.

 

[martha]

she did not kill that child. the child had died already.

God wants her to give birth to a dead baby. He told these men that He does.

 

[Irvine511]

it really says a lot

when people believe that a woman

who is 8 months pregnant

would suddenly decide to end her pregnancy

because she wants to

not because she has to

 

[Liesje]

This part of the thread is literally making me feel ill, just thinking about it. My cousin lost a baby recently and I know someone who lost a baby to SIDS and then lost another to ancephaly even though there didn't appear to be anything genetically wrong with the parents.

Diamond, do you know anyone who's carried a baby with ancephaly? Have you ever been there to support someone who has, abortion or full term? Just wondering...

 

[diamond]

An incredible story of love and acceptance. You'll love it!!, September 5, 1998
Reviewer: A reader
This is a true story of a little girl, Charity Yorgason, who was born without a brain, and the impact she had on the family who adopted her. The Yorgason's were told that she would never experience emotions, never smile, never love, and would not live past two years. They first took her in their home as a foster child, and were ultimately able to adopt her. She was a hydrocephalic who endured many operations, always surprising even the doctors with her ability to bounce back. But the real story is the story of her ability to love everyone without ever saying a word. Through her smile and her eyes she radiated a love that would touch your soul. This story takes you through the almost 8 years of her all too short life, sharing her experiences, her pain, and the lessons of love that she taught through her smile and her eyes. It is impressive to see, through the eyes of her father, what an impact Charity had on everyone she met, and especially on her adopted family. It was amazing to read of the intense pain she experienced, yet still she seemed to choose to live. This book will make you laugh and cry. It will touch your soul, and renew your faith. Warning: Have a box of Kleenex close by. You'll need them!

(I don't know anybody personally, but do know of people who've adopted special needs kids).

Here's a good book about the very subject :
http://www.amazon.com/One-Tattered-Angel-Touching-Story/dp/1590380967

 

[sue4u2]

Maybe it's my ADD/Dyslexic mind that may confuse all of you????

You can try to blame it on this, but it doesn't explain the Supreme
Court ruling.
Not only are you profoundly wrong you may not even have a right to give an opinion.
I seldom say this to anyone, but I can say unequivocaly, Justin and diamond..
You do not know what you are talking about and you should not comment untill you have truly educated yourself.

 

[dazzlingamy]

must....not....go...off...

I just can't go over this again... i just have to come the place where there are people that listen and people that don't...

there are people who try to guilt trip you, and people who see the facts

 

[Liesje]

(I don't know anybody personally, but do know of people who've adopted special needs kids).

Hydrocephaly is different than anencephaly. We're not talking special needs, we're talking no brain, period. Hydrocephalics have a brain.

"Infants born with anencephaly are usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a rudimentary brainstem, which controls autonomic and regulatory function, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness....Most anencephalic babies do not survive birth, accounting for 55% of non-aborted cases. If the infant is not stillborn, then he or she will usually die within a few hours or days after birth from cardiorespiratory arrest."

So, if your wife was carrying an anencephalic baby who would either die before or during birth (VERY likely), or less than a week after, you'd rather have your wife risk her life giving birth to a baby that has no brain?

I can't say for sure I wouldn't carry such a baby full term (I know someone who did), but I would be very hurt and offended if my husband insisted I risk my own life for the formality of delivering a brain dead baby.

 

[LemonMelon]

there are people who try to guilt trip you, and people who see the facts

This isn't about facts; it's about ethics to many people.

You all know where I stand on abortion..I hate it. I think it's a f***ing abomination, BUT I'm not willing to have it banned entirely. This particular ruling that occurred today means next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. 0.17% is nothing. There's no big "victory" that has been won with this. Not yet. Besides, Pandora's Box has long been opened...and at this point it's next to impossible to close.

Ban abortion for every instance except for health concerns, and that's it. Anything else would be to straddle the fence.

Sorry if you all disagree with me on this, but that's just too bad. I don't want to argue about this. This thread was made so we could discuss the consequences of this ruling, NOT the morality of abortion. There are other threads for that.