Abortion, schmortion. Really, I do ont understand the argument. Call me close minded, but hey, I thought all humans had control of thier own bodies. Yes, I am aware that a tiny shriveled fetus is technically a body, however, it's also a body without a mind to think yet. So we're going to stop mothers from killing small undeveloped children? What next? No more meat? We can't eat chicken, pork, or steak? RIDICULOUS.
"Bush’s court-packing pays off, and Democrats who voted for Scalia and Roberts get their comeuppance. In upholding the ban, the Supreme Court overturned a critical legal principle that's guided courts for almost two decades: that any restriction on abortion must have an exception for the life and health of the pregnant woman."--By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted April 18, 2007.
I'm confused - are you for or against?
pro choice
Insert Shameless Self-Promotion Here -- http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ada-castellon
So we're going to stop mothers from killing small undeveloped children?
^that bit sounded a bit more pro-abortion.
ack, meant anti-abortion.
completely pro-choice! excuse me, I'm late for my abortion appt.
Insert Shameless Self-Promotion Here -- http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ada-castellon
...who said that this was an "alarming" decision, that flew quite literally in the fact of more than thirty years of consistent precedent. Even taken out of the context of abortions in general, this decision contradicts the idea (and established precedent) that the Law can declare a medically justifiable proceedure illegal in such an artitrary manner. Even more frightening was the statement in the majority decision that it was okay for the Court to use its "voice" to influence the decisions of women.
Of course, this is no surprise. This is why Alito and Roberts were chosen by Bush to sit on the High Court in the first place. I suspect that this will be a short-lived decision. The significance of this decision effectively overturns literally dozens of previous decisions, which will logically return to the Court as new challenges arise. New Justicies tend to step away from party politics the longer they are in office, and I think that the Court will come to regret this kind of plainly political decision. We are in for a turbulent decade in the Court, I think.
percivale
good for you.
Insert Shameless Self-Promotion Here -- http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ada-castellon
I totally agree with you pro choice 100 percent but also i think that mommys should atleast consider adoption and options~
Em <3
adoption and foster care should always be options, however, I am more or less speaking about mothers with no choice. thsnk though!
Insert Shameless Self-Promotion Here -- http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ada-castellon
Abortion = murder. It needs to be made illegal ASAP.
your ignorance. get educated.
:)
Insert Shameless Self-Promotion Here -- http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ada-castellon
The supreme court's ruling wasn't that shocking. We all knew it was going to happen when Altio and Roberts were put on the court, but I also don't think this will be short lived. Which is sad. I'm pretty sure most of us here don't agree with Partial Birth Abortion, but that isn't what is wrong with this ban. It is so vague it could ban abortion after the first 12 weeks and it is the stepping stone of getting rid of Roe V.
Wade.
This decsions will by statistical inevitability eventually result in a situation where a woman wants the now illegal procedure, has a less safe procedure perfomed because of the law, has complications relating to the proceedure, and dies. Her family sues, and bang...you have a case that will fast-track all the way to the High Court that challenges the change in precedent in a most poignant way.
percivale
just make it legal forever.
Insert Shameless Self-Promotion Here -- http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ada-castellon
Yes, a medical procedure that involves delivering an entire child (except it's head), and then sucking out the child's brain should be legal. That sort of procedure would be struck down by the courts if it was attempted on criminals on death row.
By any standards, childern in the third trimester are as human as any of us. They can live outside of the womb, they have mental functioning, etc. Roe vs Wade is judicial activism; this is not.
"Let it first of all be emphasized that neither of these writers [Darwin and Marx] were of the first class. They were neither of them illuminating or creative thinkers; they were neither of them original; they were both of them inordinately lengthy, prosy, and dull."-Hilaire Belloc
> Yes, a medical procedure that involves delivering an entire
> child (except it's head), and then sucking out the child's
> brain should be legal. That sort of procedure would be
> struck down by the courts if it was attempted on criminals
> on death row.
I think you are forgetting the obvious...this ruling does not in any way prevent a woman from having an abortion. Instead, it merely makes a specific medical procedure illegal. Forget for a moment your emotional attachement to the issue of pro- vs. anti-choice and think. If you presume that it is legal for a woman to have an abortion at the age in question, what rational purpose is served by making some but not all of the available procedures illegal?
As there is very little (at best) evidence that suggests that a fetus being subjected to the partial birth procedure suffers any more or less than with any other procedure (or at all, for that matter).
> By any standards, childern in the third trimester are as
> human as any of us. They can live outside of the womb, they
> have mental functioning, etc. Roe vs Wade is judicial
> activism; this is not.
What does a child in the third trimester have to do with this decision? The decision does not alter the timeline for determining the legal acceptability of an abortion in any way.
Your argument in this case relies on the unsupportable presumption that a fetus at the relevant stages of development where this procedure is performed is a fully formed human person with all of the associated rights.
As this is not the case, the decision lacks any objective merit, and is clearly nothing more than the very activism which you deny. In fact, considering that both Alito and Roberts were chosen by the President quite openly for their anti-choice positions, it seems rather silly for you to suggest that politics did not play a part in this decision.
This decision will not stop a single abortion, and instead will only result in more women dying as the result of having more dangerous procedures performed on them.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that this decision will actually harm the pro-life position in the long run, when people begin to witness the deaths that will inevitably result from this wholly inconsistent ruling.
percivale
"A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion -- an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing deliveryof the dead infant -- is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessaryand should be prohibited." 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Bill
Here is another article-read bottom of page three:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/RusePBAonTrial.pdf
It is a painful procedure; just like dismembering a fetus and "evacuating" it from the womb.
You might want to go to page five of the article, and read the trial transcript-it made me a little sick.
Page eleven talks about excruciating pain-it would seem a baby that is 20-30 weeks old has heightened pain sensitivity.
"Let it first of all be emphasized that neither of these writers [Darwin and Marx] were of the first class. They were neither of them illuminating or creative thinkers; they were neither of them original; they were both of them inordinately lengthy, prosy, and dull."-Hilaire Belloc
"A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion..."
In order to smell the horseapples piling up. Here are a few responses to this decision from some of the most prominent professional associations in the relevant specialties...
From the ACOG Statement on the US Supreme Court Decision Upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003...
Despite the fact that the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States—the US Supreme Court today upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
"We have seen a steady erosion of women's reproductive rights in this country. The Supreme Court's action today, though stunning, in many ways isn't surprising given the current culture in which scientific knowledge frequently takes a back seat to subjective opinion," he added.
This decision discounts and disregards the medical consensus that intact D&E is safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions that make the potential complications of non-intact D&E especially dangerous. Moreover, it diminishes the doctor-patient relationship by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience and judgment.
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr04-18-07.cfm
From the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP)...
“ARHP members, board, and staff are deeply concerned about the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a dangerously misguided ban on abortions while also eliminating any health exception protections for vulnerable women. This action hinders evidence-based clinical practice, and disregards the health and safety of US women. This is a dangerous precedent for all Americans who believe that the government must not interfere with private medical decisions. Today’s ruling tells women that politicians, not health care providers, will make medical decisions for them.
The health exception has been the cornerstone of abortion law in the United States since 1973. By ignoring 30 years of established law, this new Supreme Court puts women’s lives in jeopardy and disregards best practices for health care providers.
http://www.arhp.org/media/pressreleases/99-163.cfm
Then of course, there is the American Medical Association's official statement of policy, which says...
"According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient.
http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.982.HTM
Heck, there's not even a consensus about this on the Court. This is taken directly from the Justice Ginsberg's dissent in the case...
Seven years ago, in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914 (2000), the Court invalidated a Nebraska statute criminalizing the performance of a medical procedure that, in the political arena, has been dubbed "partial-birth abortion."1 With fidelity to the Roe-Casey line of precedent, the Court held the Nebraska statute unconstitutional in part because it lacked the requisite protection for the preservation of a woman's health. Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 930; cf. Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U. S. 320, 327 (2006).
Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.
I dissent from the Court's disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380#dissent1
Indeed there is a "moral, medical, and ethical consensus" on this issue...it just isn't the one that the Court upheld.
percivale
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! [lowers voice] You know the ones I mean." ~ Hedonism Bot
"Let it first of all be emphasized that neither of these writers [Darwin and Marx] were of the first class. They were neither of them illuminating or creative thinkers; they were neither of them original; they were both of them inordinately lengthy, prosy, and dull."-Hilaire Belloc
Dude, you linked to an article, not to the actual transcript of the trial. And, I'm sorry, but the NRLC (National Right to Life Campaign isn't a particularly credible source to look to for a neutral treatment of the facts.
I have no contention with the idea that a graphic description of a D&E procedure is disturbing. But none of that changes the facts relevant to the case, nor dispels the fact your claim that there the Court's decision reflects a current medical consensus is a out-right lie.
Here is a quote from the original (and for now at least still standing) decision in Roe...
We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.
In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.
Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113
Why is this concept so foreign to you?
If you have to lie to make your case, then there's something wrong with your positon, and the "pro-life" crowd is notorious for trying to cloud the facts behind a cloud of emotional appeals, half-truths and yes lies.
The only reason that this case was decide as it was is because Bush was able to appoint two Judges who are "in on" the deception.
percivale
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! [lowers voice] You know the ones I mean." ~ Hedonism Bot
you guys are throwin down.
Insert Shameless Self-Promotion Here -- http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ada-castellon
if you dont want a baby, then dont get pregnant. its very easy..
and of course since i am on progressiveu there will be people to write about rape victims and all other situations. I think that in special cases special consideration should be made by social services and a doctor....that means an early (prior to 12 weeks) abortion, or simply adoption.
i feel that people have to learn to take responsibility for their actions
It's very easy??
No, it's not "easy". If it was "easy' there would be no unwanted pregnancies. How can you be so incredibly ignorant? O.o
an unwanted pregnancy most of the time is a case of people being irresponsible......other than those special curcumstances.
if you do not want to get pregnant...dont have sex....or at least use latex.....and if the condom breaks read the package which says it prevents pregnancy 99% of the time.
so if you 100% dont want a child, which would be the case if you had an abortion, then you should have never had sex in the first place.
that is simple
Actually, in most cases it's one of the following (or a combination):
1. The girl doesn't know about birth control or doesn't have access to it, thinks that pulling out will work, or stuff like that. That's VERY common.
2. The girl is unable to use a condom because her boyfriend or husband refuses to wear one. Or, she is unable to take the pill because her boyfriend/husband forbids it.
First, if a woman/girl does not know about sex, contraceptives, etc. then it is her parents fault. they should then take care of the child or give it up for adoption. making an error in judgement does not give anyone the right to take the life of a human with a heartbeat.
for your second point, i think you just sent women back to the middle ages. when in 2008 does a man/boy have the power to force unprotected sex, unless it is rape?
1. It's not necessarily her parents fault. What if they don't know, either? And why should the girl be punished for her parents ignorance/irreponsibility?
2. Um, in most of the world women can't choose who to marry. In most of the world, raping your wife is legal, or even raping your live-in girlfriend or your fiance. In all of the world, including USA, rapes are rarely prosecuted and generally socially acceptable, unless you are referring only to violent, forcible rape (ignoring, for instance, that most teen girls who get pregnant are pregnant from far older men who would be guilty or statutory rape). Also, a distinction must be made between direct force (threats or violence) and indirect force (pressure from society, friends, family, and most of all the boyfriend/husband). Even "mere" indirect force can still force a girl, particularly a young and naive and vulnerable girl, to have unsafe sex without wanting to.
i dont think that parents dont know about sex, and prevention.
ALSO you are talking about special circumstances.......around the world....i am talking about AMERICA....where teenage girls see models of what it is to be sexy everyday........where they grow up trying to mimic those models......I can understand all special cicumstances, but what i cant understand is running away from responsibility...when you brought it upon yourself......
are you going to let convicts go free because they say they didnt know what they did was illegal?
Assuming you're responding to me (try and remember to use the reply button to make it clearer):
I'm not talking about special circumstances. I'm talking about the average girl who decides to get an abortion, the average girl who gets pregnant at a young age. Even in the US, 70% of girls who had sex before the age of 16 say they didn't want to. Even in the US, huge amounts of girls - and guys - are completely ignorant about basic sex education.