Partial Birth Abortion Ban Upheld by SCOTUS

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 19 2007, 08:30 AM) [snapback]425997[/snapback]</div>

Oops! If you are a woman I apologize for using the masculine pronoun. Your strong opinions and forceful way of expressing them led me to the (mistaken?) impression that you were a man. My bad!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 19 2007, 08:28 PM) [snapback]426477[/snapback]</div>

Haha, you suck.. I meant "We the PEOPLE".. not .. "We the women"......

err....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 18 2007, 02:42 PM) [snapback]425474[/snapback]</div>

You're referring to the woman baby? If we can't tell it what to do (like die, when we crush it's head) then the baby will live. So how do we have it both ways? I thought the government tells women & men what to do with their bodys ever day: Don't have sex for pay, don't use your body to kill another body ... or for that matter, don't use your body to run that red light, etc. Guess I'm missing something.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Apr 19 2007, 02:36 PM) [snapback]426351[/snapback]</div>

Hehehe ... I guess I've been married too long! I meant "sexually free" as in "free sex" from the 60's, where only emotional commitments and not inconvenient physical ones tie you together (children, STDs, and other sometimes-unpleasant side effects of sex!)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(saechaka @ Apr 18 2007, 04:41 PM) [snapback]425691[/snapback]</div>

It depends on the state. In California, if you cause injury to a pregnant woman and her baby dies, you can be tried under the appropriate murder statute for that particular type of killing (manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc.) If you kill a pregnant woman, there are two murder charges that can be brought, although it might be first degree for the woman and some other classification for the fetus. The language of the law that exempts therapeutic abortions was listed earlier in the thread.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 19 2007, 08:21 PM) [snapback]426516[/snapback]</div>

There's no need to be nasty. You as good as refered to yourself as a woman, and I apologized for using the masculing pronoun. Apparently, you get angry when someone tries to be polite, as well as when someone disagrees with you. I suppose next you'll be getting angry at the people who agree with you also.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 20 2007, 10:39 AM) [snapback]426707[/snapback]</div>

LOL - it's already happened (gun debates). If he is anything like he is on these forums, then it's rather shocking this guy has guns.

 

I'm pro-choice, but agree with this decision. It's a pretty horrific procedure, and rarely necessary (if ever).

In fact, I wish we could ban all third trimester abortions that did not risk the life of the mother. For me, viability is the point that the right to abortion ceases. But that's me and my opinion only.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 20 2007, 09:39 AM) [snapback]426707[/snapback]</div>

I was being jovial, daniel.. I don't think you suck.

anyway, I don't get angry when someone disagrees with me, I get angry when someone wants to legislate their morality.. I get angry when people think the Constitution is "just a piece of paper".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Apr 20 2007, 10:18 AM) [snapback]426732[/snapback]</div>

I'm not sure what you're referring to.. but yes, I am an avid pro-gun ownership person and find it appauling when someone wants to ban them "for the children".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 20 2007, 08:42 AM) [snapback]426747[/snapback]</div>

KCPrius, who posts here occasionally, posted the following on another message board:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 20 2007, 09:13 AM) [snapback]426776[/snapback]</div>

Note please, that when you write things, people tend to think you mean them.

But thank you for the clarification.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 20 2007, 06:07 PM) [snapback]427043[/snapback]</div>

I figured the "haha" part would be a give-away..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 20 2007, 10:42 AM) [snapback]426747[/snapback]</div>

This ban is for SECOND trimester when the fetus is NOT VIABLE. And there is NO provision for any exceptions regarding health risks of the mother. Not all health problems of the developing embryo or mother manifest themselves in the first 12 weeks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 20 2007, 08:17 PM) [snapback]427078[/snapback]</div>

You're right. They don't. However, there are other means of abortion available. This one procedure is the only one banned, and from what I've read (I'm not an expert), it wasn't used much in the first place.

The ban itself is for the method, not the timing. And if the mother's health is at risk and there's no other option, this one procedure CAN be used. probably doesn't have to be, but can be.

I know people think of this as a "slippery slope," etc., and that it signals the downfall of RVW, but I don't agree.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 20 2007, 08:02 PM) [snapback]427094[/snapback]</div>

Of course you don't agree..

Ever heard the expression, "Give an inch, take a mile"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 20 2007, 05:02 PM) [snapback]427094[/snapback]</div>

You still have other options, and they are necessary for saving women's lives who have been in traffic accidents, etc.

Its hard to describe any of these procedures, but there are other late term abortions that don't seem quite as cruel. I haven't seen stats, but I suspect all of these late term abortions carry at least the same risk to the mother as live birth (which is riskier than an early abortion). I have always suspected the real goal of the "partial birth abortion" was to preserve the baby's body parts for medical use rather than consideration of either the mother or the baby being killed.

We actually don't know how many late term or third trimester abortions there really are; anything after 20 weeks is lumped together by the CDC in their annual survey, so we don't know how many are late in the game in the third trimester (25th week or later, right?)

And we have no idea what the late abortions are for. Wikipedia cites a 1987 questionnaire by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 1900 women in abortion clinics having abortions, and 420 were later than 16 weeks (near the middle of the second trimester). That's 21% of them that are too late for my comfort. None of the 420 said the later abortion was for their health; most said they didn't know they were pregnant, had trouble making arrangements or were afraid to tell their parents. I suspect that the abortions for the mother's help are not done in abortion clinics, but in other settings (ERs, etc.)

Babies are less valuable than mothers, so if you have to kill one to save the other, kill the baby.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Apr 19 2007, 04:38 AM) [snapback]425914[/snapback]</div>

There are a lot of people out their with Cystic Fibrosis, Autism etc.. that have lived fulfilling lives. My friend that you read about above is one. I think the only thing about these diseases that doctors can tell you is that the gene for them is present and the possibility/probability of contracting them. I may be wrong but I don't think any doctor can tell you the severity or the degree of the disease the baby will have or if the baby will have a life full of pain and misery. The quickest way to make this point moot is to find cures. (segway)

Priuschat has a Folding@Home Team which runs a program to mathematically model how proteins fold and even more importantly mis-fold. Cystic Fibrous is one of the diseases they are trying to cure. How about it? Will you join the team so that we never have to have this discussion again? I have been running it for 6-7 years, and I have been working in the computer field for 25 years on and off. I have never had one problem; it doesn’t slow your computer down and always steps aside if you start another program, it takes a couple cents extra a day to run your computer 24/7 but you don't have to. If you install the “Console†version it will start-up automagically and upload work units and download results without user intervention. In fact you will never even know it’s present and running. FAH started in 2000, they have already made some important discoveries which Stanford University intends to share with everyone. But they still need a lot of computing power. How about it? I hope our disagreements in the past are not preventing you from joining.
Check the team stats here.

Wildkow

p.s. You'll want to click on the Autism link above, trust me.