'Partial-birth' abortion ban upheld - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-19-2007, 10:25 AM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Quoting again the language of the bill that was upheld;
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 10:34 AM   #77
War Child
 
Spiral_Staircase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 679
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


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"?
__________________

__________________
Spiral_Staircase is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 10:45 AM   #78
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500



procedure that's neither morally or medically justified.

You couldn't be more wrong.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-19-2007, 10:47 AM   #79
War Child
 
Spiral_Staircase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 679
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje


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.
__________________
Spiral_Staircase is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 10:48 AM   #80
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LemonMelon




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...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-19-2007, 10:49 AM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




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?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 10:51 AM   #82
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 10:54 AM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Spiral_Staircase


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.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 10:57 AM   #84
New Yorker
 
Kiki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: mainly in my fantasy land.....ooooo how I wish it were reality
Posts: 2,716
Local Time: 04:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje


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 is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 10:59 AM   #85
New Yorker
 
Kiki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: mainly in my fantasy land.....ooooo how I wish it were reality
Posts: 2,716
Local Time: 04:24 PM
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?
__________________
Kiki is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:09 AM   #86
War Child
 
Spiral_Staircase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 679
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega


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.
__________________
Spiral_Staircase is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:16 AM   #87
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 05:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Kiki


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.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:16 AM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




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.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:18 AM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Spiral_Staircase


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.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:20 AM   #90
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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?
His age is in his name...
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com