'Partial-birth' abortion ban upheld

[anitram]

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

Abortion will never be banned in the US because it's contrary to the interests of the right wing to do so. They would lose their bread and butter issue - it will never happen.

It would also never happen because the citizens of any state that favoured a complete ban would wake up and smell the coffee really quickly if such a ban had a good chance of becoming a reality. You know, sort of like those loose leftist folks up in South Dakota did.

 

[LemonMelon]

Abortion will never be banned in the US because it's contrary to the interests of the right wing to do so. They would lose their bread and butter issue - it will never happen.

It would also never happen because the citizens of any state that favoured a complete ban would wake up and smell the coffee really quickly if such a ban had a good chance of becoming a reality. You know, sort of like those loose leftist folks up in South Dakota did.

Oh, I agree, it's not going anywhere. Even I admit that a complete ban would be ridiculous.

One interesting thing that came out of this ruling today was that it no longer seems taboo to separate different parts of (or ways of going about practicing) one subject and ban those parts rather than remove the entirety of the subject in question. This is smart; life isn't all black and white.

 

[yolland]

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.

Just wanted to underline this request especially since it comes from the thread starter.

 

[martha]

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?

The man gets to make the choice. The men posting here have made that clear.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Some generalisations are more accepted than others.

 

[martha]

Some generalisations are more accepted than others.

True.

But look at the gender and attitudes of the posters in this thread, and any other thread on abortion.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Look at the background of those against and there does seem to be a stronger correlation to religiousity (or at least one that places this as a sanctity of life issue) than gender.

 

[Liesje]

Look at the background of those against and there does seem to be a stronger correlation to religiousity (or at least one that places this as a sanctity of life issue) than gender.

Religiousity only affects me as far as whether or not I personally would have an abortion (no). The medical decisions that I make as an individual are just that, my own individual decisions, be them based on religion, ethics, practicality, whatever. Regardless of how I feel about abortion, I can't advocate in favor of a government deciding my medical decisions for me. It's not even about abortion at this level, IMO, because you have to consider the precedent this sets. Banning abortions = the government making a medical decision for an individual.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Quite right, I think we need venn diagrams for this

 

[Vincent Vega]

True.

But look at the gender and attitudes of the posters in this thread, and any other thread on abortion.

 

[martha]

Not all of them, thank God.

 

[martha]

Look at the background of those against and there does seem to be a stronger correlation to religiousity (or at least one that places this as a sanctity of life issue) than gender.

They're still mostly guys.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Not all of them, thank God.

That's a relieve.

 

[dazzlingamy]

Look i know we have to tread carefully here, and not say cold hard truths and all that - and im fine with that really. Everyone had differing opinions, including religious people who have differing opinions but the main fact is, no government can tell you to do/not do something they have no right over - My body my choice, end of story.

 

[Irvine511]

Abortion will never be banned in the US because it's contrary to the interests of the right wing to do so. They would lose their bread and butter issue - it will never happen.

this is quite right, and the ruling is an excellent example of the right-wing strategy. they will continue to chip away at the options a woman has available without ever repealing Roe v. Wade -- they can show incremental process, many battles in a very long war, and retain the Darth Vader they so badly need to rally the troops.

 

[INDY500]

Quoting again the language of the bill that was upheld;

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

So a stillbirth is not affected.

In addition there is a clause that allows

a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

In other words, a maternal "life" exemption.

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

this is quite right, and the ruling is an excellent example of the right-wing strategy. they will continue to chip away at the options a woman has available without ever repealing Roe v. Wade -- they can show incremental process, many battles in a very long war, and retain the Darth Vader they so badly need to rally the troops.

This is an interesting theory. Has anyone developed it much, i.e. provided evidence that supports it? Anybody got a link? (not being sarcastic here, I'm actually interested in this idea)
Obviously not something you can prove, but it would be interesting to hear the evidence that leads to this conclusion (other than that it makes sense). Have there been times where we can see the Right tempering their "progress" to maintain room to keep "fighting"?

 

[BVS]

procedure that's neither morally or medically justified.

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

Religiousity only affects me as far as whether or not I personally would have an abortion (no). The medical decisions that I make as an individual are just that, my own individual decisions, be them based on religion, ethics, practicality, whatever. Regardless of how I feel about abortion, I can't advocate in favor of a government deciding my medical decisions for me. It's not even about abortion at this level, IMO, because you have to consider the precedent this sets. Banning abortions = the government making a medical decision for an individual.

Regardless of my stance on the specific issue of abortion, I think I disagree with the logic here. I actually want the government to draw a line on some medical issues. The government tells me I cannot go out and buy a supply of morphine and administer it to myself at home, even if I'm in pain. I like that. I guess I don't consider that "the government making a medical decision" for me, but it is removing an option. And I'd like the government to keep that up. I understand the concern about setting precedent, but I do believe there need to be areas where the government can say "no." But you might be able to change my mind.

 

[BVS]

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.

But can you at least see this is a step backwards? You are banning the one form of abortion that in the overall scheme of things is the most medically neccesary.

This is not the form of abortion one chooses as a means of birth control...

 

[INDY500]

this is quite right, and the ruling is an excellent example of the right-wing strategy. they will continue to chip away at the options a woman has available without ever repealing Roe v. Wade -- they can show incremental process, many battles in a very long war, and retain the Darth Vader they so badly need to rally the troops.

Didn't Democrats narrowly win control of the House & Senate last Fall by running pro-life candidates in "red states" and select House districts?

Or did I just dream that?

 

[Irvine511]

Didn't Democrats narrowly win control of the House & Senate last Fall by running pro-life candidates in "red states" and select House districts?

Or did I just dream that?

which underscores why this is such a winning political issue for red state voters -- they'll switch parties so long as someone states that they are anti-choice.

the Republicans know this. how many Republican politicians have had a "come to Jesus" moment where they suddenly found their opposition to reproductive rights?

and "narrow" isn't quite an accurate adjective -- they blew the doors of the Republicans in the House and they won back the Senate.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Regardless of my stance on the specific issue of abortion, I think I disagree with the logic here. I actually want the government to draw a line on some medical issues. The government tells me I cannot go out and buy a supply of morphine and administer it to myself at home, even if I'm in pain. I like that. I guess I don't consider that "the government making a medical decision" for me, but it is removing an option. And I'd like the government to keep that up. I understand the concern about setting precedent, but I do believe there need to be areas where the government can say "no." But you might be able to change my mind.

This comparison fails on some aspects.
Morphine is highly addictive, and only used as a last resort.
Also, there are many substitutes to morphine available legally, especially because if you had a pain that would need morphine to relieve the pain, you would be sent to the next hospital.

There are no such alternatives to abortion, especially medical necessary ones.

The definition of partial birth abortion provided by Indy: I don't know enough about it, but from what is stated there I would object to that as well. But I'll try to gather some more information about the circumstances surrounding such an abortion.

 

[Kiki]

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

when a lady miscarries and the baby doesnt deliver or isn't able to be delivered......don't you have to go through the same procedure as an abortion? I'm just trying to understand that....I guess it would still be considered an abortion because it's the same techniques and tools and procedures, it's just that something happened to the baby and it died inside...but it has to come out.....so...in that sense you're not killing it, but you do have to medically have an abortion. Right??

 

[Kiki]

and....just for the record...can someone enlighten me as to how old Justin is?

I just get the feeling that there are a few fairly younger members here in this blog, which is great, but I think that could explain alot in the matter of maybe not fully understanding....or sticking to the subject?

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

This comparison fails on some aspects.
Morphine is highly addictive, and only used as a last resort.
Also, there are many substitutes to morphine available legally, especially because if you had a pain that would need morphine to relieve the pain, you would be sent to the next hospital.

There are no such alternatives to abortion, especially medical necessary ones.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that a partial-birth abortion ban is similar to current restrictions on drugs like morphine. I was only saying that I disagree with the logic that the government should never have a say about what medical options are available to me.

 

[Liesje]

when a lady miscarries and the baby doesnt deliver or isn't able to be delivered......don't you have to go through the same procedure as an abortion? I'm just trying to understand that....I guess it would still be considered an abortion because it's the same techniques and tools and procedures, it's just that something happened to the baby and it died inside...but it has to come out.....so...in that sense you're not killing it, but you do have to medically have an abortion. Right??

You're right in many cases. I think a lot of "abortions" are just D&Cs and when my cousin miscarried, she had to have a D&C, like most who miscarry.

 

[INDY500]

which underscores why this is such a winning political issue for red state voters -- they'll switch parties so long as someone states that they are anti-choice.

the Republicans know this. how many Republican politicians have had a "come to Jesus" moment where they suddenly found their opposition to reproductive rights?

and "narrow" isn't quite an accurate adjective -- they blew the doors of the Republicans in the House and they won back the Senate.

Won back the Senate? There are actually more Republicans in the Senate than Democrats. But you know that. And the margin in the House is just that...narrow.

Red state voters, hell, Americans, want common sense abortion laws. As was pointed out earlier, even S.D. said "no" to a ban on all abortion.
However, there is great support for banning partial-birth/late-term abortions, parental consent laws for minors and some form of patient education/waiting period prior to any abortion procedure other than emergencies.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that a partial-birth abortion ban is similar to current restrictions on drugs like morphine. I was only saying that I disagree with the logic that the government should never have a say about what medical options are available to me.

Yes, but there is still the problem with this comparison, as you can substitute morphine with other medicine, hence they restricted your access to morphine.

You can also not exercise an abortion as you could buy some pain killers, but have to attend a hospital and get some introduction and all.

What Liesje means is, she doesn't want the government to tell her, "Your baby won't survive/will be severely damaged, but I don't allow you to decide whether you want to abort."

Of course restrictions have to be made, but not in the kind of abolishing abortion at all.

 

[BVS]

and....just for the record...can someone enlighten me as to how old Justin is?

I just get the feeling that there are a few fairly younger members here in this blog, which is great, but I think that could explain alot in the matter of maybe not fully understanding....or sticking to the subject?

His age is in his name...