HIlary Clinton said "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito,”
Health of the mother? Right and lives of women? What about the heath of the unborn child? What about the right that child has to live and be a part of society? How can you justify the murder of your unborn child? The thought that someone could actually believe that killing your own child is best for you is shocking. Sure there are those extenuating circumstances that you can not correctly have or carry your child, but what about everyone else. Just because it is not a good time for you to have a child it deserves dying? You were the one who got yourself into this position yet you let the child take the fall. For all we know the child you have aborted could have been the next President or could have made a cure for cancer. The future that that child could have had is endless, yet you decide to cut it short for your own benefit. The world we used to know and love it falling to pieces...
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Did we read the same statement?
Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother.
Yeah, it sounds like she was talking about those 'extenuating circumstances' you referred to in your blog. That's how you can justify it. I'd rather live than die because I carried a child. But that's just me.
~C
Visit my blog.
Xyxgotes, embryos, and fetuses are not 'children'.
However disturbing I may find partial-birth abortions, what if both the mother and child were going to die? Or even just the mother? Would you have her sacrifice her life for her unborn un-child?
Teen pregnancy is bad, mmmkay?
Are you talking to me? Do you know my stance on abortion? I've been pretty vocal about it... I don't think it should be banned (perhaps moderated, say in the form of a law that would require counseling for elective, non-medically related abortions, so that the parents do know their other choices), because I think that it is something in some cases (where the mother will die, for instance).
I was simply arguing that she (the blogger) was overlooking a huge part of Hilary's argument, and then claiming that abortion is completely wrong, except in the case that Hilary pointed out.
I'm not sure about partial birth abortions, though, because it doesn't seem to me that the mother will be 'saved' by performing this procedure instead of another. I don't know enough about it in order to make a definitive stance, though.
~C
Visit my blog.
Was referring to the OP, should've been clearer about that.
...and I concur with your point about partial-birth abortions. x.x
Well, you commented under me, so I wasn't sure... Thanks for clarifying :-)
~C
Visit my blog.
Anyone that would ask that question does not have children. I have a 4 year old little boy. I would die a hundred times to let his life continue. Just because he happens to be a little older than the "fetus" doesn't mean that my unborn child doesn't deserve the same chance at life. I think everyone that is reading my message needs to take a little time to read about partial-birth abortion. It's very sad to me that in this day in age a person will get arrested for causing a dog harm, however someone can consider legally sticking a sharp instrument in the back of a baby's head and sucking his brains out. I love animals and I love children. I couldn't be that cruel to either one. Abortion of any sort is wrong. Everyone can justify it in their own heads all they want. ABORTION IS WRONG!
Partial birth abortions are nasty and I believe they are only done to save the life of the mother.
I have five younger siblings who I love. They cannot be compared to a xygote, embryo, or fetus. How can you compare a child to a thing that doesn't even have organs or self-awareness? O.o
> the heath of the unborn child? What about the right that
> child has to live and be a part of society? How can you
> justify the murder of your unborn child?
Its easy. A "child" in the second trimester of pregnancy does not have legal rights. No matter how much this may gall you, it is a legal fact.
The fact is that this decision DOES in fact contradict a rather significant body of precedent, and it is clearly political (after all, this is exactly why both Alito and Roberts were chosen to sit on the Court by Bush).
And, its important to note that this decision will not prevent even a SINGLE abortion. All it does is limit doctors in the types of procedures they can perform. The remaining procedures still result in an abortion, but are more dangerous to the mother. In fact, the number of abortion-realted deaths will only increase instead of decrease, as there will now be more mothers who lose their lives as a result of the reliance on chancier procedures.
This is a decision that the Court will come to regret, I think, and will eventually reverse (or should I say, re-reverse). The decision to ignore the lack of provisions for the health of the mother effectively overturns literally dozens of previous decisions, and each of the situations in those cases is not once again open to challenge. As the flood of re-trails increases, I suspect that the Court will have little choice but to correct its course back towards the existing body of precedent.
percivale