Recent Decision

[sinmantyx]

Story here

"

The legal sticking point was that the law lacked a "health exception" for a woman who might suffer serious medical complications, something the justices have said in the past is necessary when considering abortion restrictions.

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key swing vote in these divided appeals, said the federal law "does not have the effect of imposing an unconstitutional burden on the abortion right." He was joined by his fellow conservatives, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Roberts.

"

WHAT THE FUCK.

This morning, on the radio: a doctor was talking about this. He said that he had only performed a type of procedure (which is now banned) once in his very long career. The one time he did this: was to protect the life of the mother.

Some dip-shit pundent said - right before I got out of the car - "...but in that case there is an exception for the life of the mother."

So, does this thing mention: life but not HEALTH? So, you have to somehow be able to prove that the mother would have DIED and not just had health problems for the rest of her life?!

What the hell are people thinking? I was pissed when this first came down in 2003 and I'm still pissed.

This law was *marketed* as some sort of ban on late-term abortions. IT IS NOT. It bans a procedure that is sometimes used in the second trimester - about 50 times a year across the entire country.

So, let's say I found out that my fetus has no brain. If I wish to end my pregnancy, my options for the safest way to do that are limited by a federal ban that basically says: "YOU CAN KILL IT AS LONG AS NONE OF IT IS ON THE OUTSIDE"

I cannot articulate how stupid I think this law is.

I can either assume two things:

People aren't as stupid as I think they are and they are trying to ban abortion procedure-by-procedure

OR

People ARE REALLY STUPID.

"

Three federal appeals courts had ruled against the government, saying the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional because it does not provide a "health exception" for pregnant women facing a medical emergency. The outcome of this latest challenge before the court's new ideological makeup could turn on the legal weight given past rulings on the health exception.

"

Well, I guess the baby might be a boy...so it's life is more important than the mother. Anybody watch "Pan's Labyrinth"?

It's like that.

[Msterbeau]

Ditto.

[BrassFusion]

ok. i'm assuming this is about intact evacuations, or... "partial birth" procedures.

it's so incredibly sad. second trimester abortion is gonna result in the death of the fetus whether it's intact or scrambled like an egg in the uterus. one way is just a lot safer than the other, in many cases. when i first read some wikipedia stuff on the controversy, i felt like i'd been SO brainwashed by those assholes.

[sinmantyx]

ok. i'm assuming this is about intact evacuations, or... "partial birth" procedures.

it's so incredibly sad. second trimester abortion is gonna result in the death of the fetus whether it's intact or scrambled like an egg in the uterus. one way is just a lot safer than the other, in many cases. when i first read some wikipedia stuff on the controversy, i felt like i'd been SO brainwashed by those assholes.

Yes.

Even one of the CNN articles that popped up when I was trying to find the recent one had a headline about tackling "late term abortion" issues.

I watched C-span during some of the initial debates (a long time ago). Believe it or not, it was Kerry that offered an amendment that would basically do everything the Republicans and the Catholic Bishops (who can also kiss my ass) have been saying this bill WOULD do...it was rejected, of course.

Instead, you have a law that has NOTHING to do with the term of the abortion and lacks an exception for the HEALTH OF THE MOTHER....and how did this get passed.....by somehow convincing the public that the law would actually decrease the number of later term abortions...

....which it will not do....

However, graphic emotionally manipulative tactics were used by the proponents of this law (such as the Catholic Bishops who I really really hate) while reasonable people are mentioning:

What about this case? How about this one? How can you in good conscience take choices away from pregnant women and doctors in these situations?

That answer to these serious questions: Let's parade around a bunch of dead fetus parts on street corners!!! Let's characterize the women who face these horrible decisions; as vacuous nymphs that just want to fit into their prom dresses!!! (Those statements based on REAL tactics.)

God...is America actually this stupid?! Are the majority of the "Christian Right" actually this malleable?

YES THEY ARE! Do you know how I know: I used to be one of them. I trusted the church and the church leaders so much that whatever the fuck came out of their misinformed mouths from the pit of their small closed-minded brains: I took on faith.

Well, fuck them.

Seriously. I've had enough of this crap.

I mean, do we really have to parade around the corpses of dead women to get people to understand what's going on here? Is the only thing that people respond to is shock tactics, guilt trips and brainwashing?

"Critical thinking skills" aren't just educational buzz words.

[sinmantyx]

ok. i'm assuming this is about intact evacuations, or... "partial birth" procedures.

it's so incredibly sad. second trimester abortion is gonna result in the death of the fetus whether it's intact or scrambled like an egg in the uterus. one way is just a lot safer than the other, in many cases. when i first read some wikipedia stuff on the controversy, i felt like i'd been SO brainwashed by those assholes.

At the very least they ruled that this didn't include D&E's (which a few years ago, it certainly seemed like that is what they were going for as well)...still, the precedent is very frightening to me....and the way this all went down and the tactics used to "accomplish" this are becoming much too familiar.

[BrassFusion]

you have to wonder how many people writing and voting on these measure have actually researched what the procedures involve, much less seen any performed...

just more anti-intellectual bullshit, thanks for ruining my otherwise good day

[sinmantyx]

you have to wonder how many people writing and voting on these measure have actually researched what the procedures involve, much less seen any performed...

just more anti-intellectual bullshit, thanks for ruining my otherwise good day

During the deliberations, one of the senators passed around a plastic model of a second trimester fetus and asked doctors on the panel if they knew what a fetus looked like and asked them how they could live with themselves.

When Mosley-Braun mentioned the instance of a "mole" (basically a fetus whose cells are not differentiating properly) -- the Senators in favor of the law claimed -- "That's not what we are talking about."

What really gets me is that the only legal argument to allow this law is that it is so ineffectual and meaningless that they claim it won't hinder a woman from her right to an abortion.

You know, now that I'm pregnant --- I'm actually MORE pissed about this. It's like some people are in absolute La La Land...I guess they are from the generation who was embarrassed to buy maxi-pads and where the father hung out in the waiting room smoking cigars when his wife was in labor.

I've been watching animals be delivered, hatching eggs, etc. since I was a kid. Only recently have I really started to understand the whole human-reproduction thing; but I at least had a clue. Sometimes I wonder if half the United States has a 3rd grade understanding of sexual reproduction.

You know -- the view that (if you do everything right) nothing bad happens, that pregnancy is just a 9 month period between sex and birth, and that all fetuses are created in the womb perfectly by God.

Then you find out that half the time your own body rejects the fetus in the first month or so because it has genetic defects, the reason that the fetus has a higher chance of defects when you're older is because your body is less likely to spontaneously abort it, that pregnancy is very hard on your body and in some cases can kill you, and sometimes (regardless of how perfect you are or how perfect you act) your fetus may not be able to continue living once it is outside your body...then, because we abhor infanticide so much...you can sit there and watch your baby suffer unspeakably for a few weeks before it dies.

I want to quiz the senate: Define "placenta" and "mucous plug" and "tubal pregnancy"; Approximately how many days AFTER sexual intercourse can conception occur?

If you were unable to answer any of those questions correctly: please refrain from weighing in on shit you don't understand.

[BrassFusion]

ding ding ding

[Steven]

I would suppose....

that people are thinking....

that you are taking a very developed baby, that definately is able to feel pain, and subjecting it to a breif but horrific death.

and so they see that would be child as a human being, worthy of life, and valued inasmuch, and have a hard time with the clinical understanding of what is being done in the taking of a childs life to save someone elses.

I dont know that that is dumb.

you may not agree with that degree of sensitivity based on your own moral compass and value system. But that does not equate to ignorance.

I agree with the ban.

[BrassFusion]

I would suppose....

that people are thinking....

that you are taking a very developed baby, that definately is able to feel pain, and subjecting it to a breif but horrific death.

and so they see that would be child as a human being, worthy of life, and valued inasmuch, and have a hard time with the clinical understanding of what is being done in the taking of a childs life to save someone elses.

I dont know that that is dumb.

you may not agree with that degree of sensitivity based on your own moral compass and value system. But that does not equate to ignorance.

I agree with the ban.

no offense steven, but that just shows you have no idea what the ban actually covers.

it doesn't cover all second trimester abortions, just the one called an intact dilation and extraction. that's where they dilate the woman and remove the fetus legs first, and pierce the skull before it can pass the cervix, killing the fetus.

sorry for the graphic language, but anyone who opposes this needs to know about it.

so, that's what the ban COVERS. what the ban does NOT cover is a non-intact dilation and extraction, where a doctor dilates the woman as before and goes inside and literally dismembers the fetus and removes it piece by piece. this procedure is usually more dangerous because there's a greater chance the uterus could be pierced by bone or other sharp parts of the fetus.

now which of these sounds more humane to you?

[Steven]

no offense steven, but that just shows you have no idea what the ban actually covers.

it doesn't cover all second trimester abortions, just the one called an intact dilation and extraction. that's where they dilate the woman and remove the fetus legs first, and pierce the skull before it can pass the cervix, killing the fetus.

sorry for the graphic language, but anyone who opposes this needs to know about it.

so, that's what the ban COVERS. what the ban does NOT cover is a non-intact dilation and extraction, where a doctor dilates the woman as before and goes inside and literally dismembers the fetus and removes it piece by piece. this procedure is usually more dangerous because there's a greater chance the uterus could be pierced by bone or other sharp parts of the fetus.

now which of these sounds more humane to you?

Dude - your missing my point entirely.

I agree with the ban, because your taking a living, breathing, feeling fetus, and killing it.

I choose to place more value in the unborn and leave the risk with the person who has lived their life. Its not an easy choice, but that is mine.

[sinmantyx]

Dude - your missing my point entirely.

I agree with the ban, because your taking a living, breathing, feeling fetus, and killing it.

I choose to place more value in the unborn and leave the risk with the person who has lived their life. Its not an easy choice, but that is mine.

Exactly: you agree with the ban because you put the mother's life second to the life of the fetus. You also can't fathom that a fetus might not be viable in the second trimester, or that a second trimester fetus growing inside a woman does have the potential of killing her.

Don't tell me what my sensibilities are or are not. One of my mother's friends (a very long time ago) allowed herself to die because she refused to end her pregnancy.

This law does not do what you want it to do. It does nothing. It takes one choice away that is almost never used. It will not stop ANY abortions what-so-ever. All it does is allow a PRECEDENT for banning procedures WITHOUT an exception for the health of the mother.

THAT is wrong.

If you told me that bringing my baby to term would kill me, I think I have a right to my own decision as to how I should procede...instead of someone else imposing a death sentence on me. If I knew that my baby would be born dead because it didn't have a brain, I don't want someone telling me that I have to go through the emotional anquish of bringing the baby to term...feeling it moving inside me for three months just to watch it die. (One of my sister's friend made that decision. She brought her baby to term just so the baby would be big enough to bury.) If a mass of hair and teeth and bone were growing inside me instead of a baby, I want the right to have it removed.

FOR FUCKS SAKE some people don't even want me to have the right of removing a tubal pregnancy that does NOT have the potential to become a child and has a very likely chance of seriously harming or killing me.

That's what NOT having an exception for the health of the mother is all about: not giving a fuck about the woman involved or the difficult choices she might face.

I'm certain that if I ever heard of a woman who would have a late term abortion for convenience or vanity; I would certainly think that she was an awful human being. Proponents of laws like this one see women this way. They have this STUPID idea that a vacuous psychopathic woman is the rule and not the exception. What I see CONSTANTLY are women willing to put their health on the line to bring a fetus to term...gestational diabetes (they deal with it)...bleeding due to the placenta being misplaced (I dodged that bullet, but was prepared to deal with it)...extreme swelling and water-weight gain, pain, tearing, etc (they live through it)... Now, our male dominated government is saying: by the way, if you might actually DIE, well -- you can go fuck yourself, we're going to do all we can to take choices away from you without consideration for your life...because fetuses are CUTER and more innocent than you are.

It will be about 60 days now before I deliver. Don't you DARE tell me that I have less "sensibility" about considering a late-term fetus as a living being...that can feel, hear and react. I could feel the fetus "fluttering" around at about 19 weeks, and now he moves around so much that he keeps me up at night. He reacts to sounds such as music and voices. He seems to move around a lot when I eat or drink something cold. I have a picture of him on my refrigerator at about 20 weeks. After trying for 6 years and going through the grieving process of believing we were infertile; we're now planning on having a baby...picking out furniture, looking at day-cares and figuring out our options, preparing for the new arrival. If anything took a turn for the worst: if I found out that bringing my baby to term could seriously effect my health: don't think I wouldn't take into account the life of my unborn child.

If I found out that it might be either him or me: that would be one of the most difficult decisions I would probably ever face. Doesn't help that some people would want to impose some unrealistic feel-good policy on me: as if the law would prevent the horrible situation for occuring in the first place.

Even if the decision was between having BOTH of us die or just one of us! I guess some people would call me a heartless murderer for ending the pregnancy instead of letting "nature take it's course" and BOTH of us dying.

Did my mother's friend's fetus survive? I'm sure self-righteous shit-heads would just assume that she gave up her life for her baby instead of REALIZING she died for nothing...because her church told her abortion was a sin. As far as I'm concerned, the church might as well have put a bullet in her head.

Didn't think of that huh? Yeah, believe it or not, a second trimester fetus cannot live outside of the mother. The earliest it has ever happened was at 26 weeks...and that was considered absolutely bizarre and even controversial. If the mother dies...so does the fetus.

You might say that: well usually there is only a particular CHANCE that she might die...like a heart attack or blood clots. Well, I suppose you can go look at her medical records and impose your own opinion on her...which, apparently is always "leave the risk with her"...I mean, she already lived her life: she can just go and die and her fetus can live for one more week before it dies too: good choice...glad you were there to stand up for what is right.

The extreme majority of people who wish to end their pregancies because they do not wish to carry the child or do not wish to become mothers: do so early in their pregnancies. The implication that somehow there is this horrific problem of women bringing their pregnancies into the second trimester and then flippantly "throwing it away" with the help of some soulless doctor...is insulting. The emotionally charged impact of this idea is being used for political control; at the expense of respecting all life, and the personal choices people make about life.

That's really what your implying: that somehow because you are for this ban: you are somehow more sensitive to human life.

YOU AREN'T.

I apologize for being so brash: but this is certainly an issue I have strong opinions on.

[Scary Guy]

Abortions send babies to God faster

[sinmantyx]

Abortions send babies to God faster

*sigh*

Thanks for the defuse-ment.

After all this talk of worst-case scenarios, here is a picture of Gabe alive and well:

He totally has his father's nose.

I'm trying not to think of what CAN go wrong, but even last night I had a really bad dream. I think that when you know that those (all-be-it generally uncommon) situations are real possibilities for you; they become more difficult to dismiss or idealize.

[Steven]

Exactly: you agree with the ban because you put the mother's life second to the life of the fetus. You also can't fathom that a fetus might not be viable in the second trimester, or that a second trimester fetus growing inside a woman does have the potential of killing her.

Don't tell me what my sensibilities are or are not. One of my mother's friends (a very long time ago) allowed herself to die because she refused to end her pregnancy.

This law does not do what you want it to do. It does nothing. It takes one choice away that is almost never used. It will not stop ANY abortions what-so-ever. All it does is allow a PRECEDENT for banning procedures WITHOUT an exception for the health of the mother.

THAT is wrong.

If you told me that bringing my baby to term would kill me, I think I have a right to my own decision as to how I should procede...instead of someone else imposing a death sentence on me. If I knew that my baby would be born dead because it didn't have a brain, I don't want someone telling me that I have to go through the emotional anquish of bringing the baby to term...feeling it moving inside me for three months just to watch it die. (One of my sister's friend made that decision. She brought her baby to term just so the baby would be big enough to bury.) If a mass of hair and teeth and bone were growing inside me instead of a baby, I want the right to have it removed.

FOR FUCKS SAKE some people don't even want me to have the right of removing a tubal pregnancy that does NOT have the potential to become a child and has a very likely chance of seriously harming or killing me.

That's what NOT having an exception for the health of the mother is all about: not giving a fuck about the woman involved or the difficult choices she might face.

I'm certain that if I ever heard of a woman who would have a late term abortion for convenience or vanity; I would certainly think that she was an awful human being. Proponents of laws like this one see women this way. They have this STUPID idea that a vacuous psychopathic woman is the rule and not the exception. What I see CONSTANTLY are women willing to put their health on the line to bring a fetus to term...gestational diabetes (they deal with it)...bleeding due to the placenta being misplaced (I dodged that bullet, but was prepared to deal with it)...extreme swelling and water-weight gain, pain, tearing, etc (they live through it)... Now, our male dominated government is saying: by the way, if you might actually DIE, well -- you can go fuck yourself, we're going to do all we can to take choices away from you without consideration for your life...because fetuses are CUTER and more innocent than you are.

It will be about 60 days now before I deliver. Don't you DARE tell me that I have less "sensibility" about considering a late-term fetus as a living being...that can feel, hear and react. I could feel the fetus "fluttering" around at about 19 weeks, and now he moves around so much that he keeps me up at night. He reacts to sounds such as music and voices. He seems to move around a lot when I eat or drink something cold. I have a picture of him on my refrigerator at about 20 weeks. After trying for 6 years and going through the grieving process of believing we were infertile; we're now planning on having a baby...picking out furniture, looking at day-cares and figuring out our options, preparing for the new arrival. If anything took a turn for the worst: if I found out that bringing my baby to term could seriously effect my health: don't think I wouldn't take into account the life of my unborn child.

If I found out that it might be either him or me: that would be one of the most difficult decisions I would probably ever face. Doesn't help that some people would want to impose some unrealistic feel-good policy on me: as if the law would prevent the horrible situation for occuring in the first place.

Even if the decision was between having BOTH of us die or just one of us! I guess some people would call me a heartless murderer for ending the pregnancy instead of letting "nature take it's course" and BOTH of us dying.

Did my mother's friend's fetus survive? I'm sure self-righteous shit-heads would just assume that she gave up her life for her baby instead of REALIZING she died for nothing...because her church told her abortion was a sin. As far as I'm concerned, the church might as well have put a bullet in her head.

Didn't think of that huh? Yeah, believe it or not, a second trimester fetus cannot live outside of the mother. The earliest it has ever happened was at 26 weeks...and that was considered absolutely bizarre and even controversial. If the mother dies...so does the fetus.

You might say that: well usually there is only a particular CHANCE that she might die...like a heart attack or blood clots. Well, I suppose you can go look at her medical records and impose your own opinion on her...which, apparently is always "leave the risk with her"...I mean, she already lived her life: she can just go and die and her fetus can live for one more week before it dies too: good choice...glad you were there to stand up for what is right.

The extreme majority of people who wish to end their pregancies because they do not wish to carry the child or do not wish to become mothers: do so early in their pregnancies. The implication that somehow there is this horrific problem of women bringing their pregnancies into the second trimester and then flippantly "throwing it away" with the help of some soulless doctor...is insulting. The emotionally charged impact of this idea is being used for political control; at the expense of respecting all life, and the personal choices people make about life.

That's really what your implying: that somehow because you are for this ban: you are somehow more sensitive to human life.

YOU AREN'T.

I apologize for being so brash: but this is certainly an issue I have strong opinions on.

Relax, its not such a big deal between us. And you've added a whole lot here that I did not say.

One of the reasons I am against this is because of a friend of mine.

who had a "miscarriage" and was told preganancy was out of the question and that she could die from it.

then they wanted her to have a D and C.

she got a 2nd opinion.

they found a faint heartbeat.

he has a daughter.

but before that - it was called "tissue".

I respect your opinions, I do. And I'm not at war with you.

[Steven]

Abortions send babies to God faster

your a dumb ass.

[BrassFusion]

Relax, its not such a big deal between us. And you've added a whole lot here that I did not say.

One of the reasons I am against this is because of a friend of mine.

who had a "miscarriage" and was told preganancy was out of the question and that she could die from it.

then they wanted her to have a D and C.

she got a 2nd opinion.

they found a faint heartbeat.

he has a daughter.

but before that - it was called "tissue".

I respect your opinions, I do. And I'm not at war with you.

What the hell does that have to do with banning ID&Es? I think Sinmantyx said everything that needed to be said, yet you ignore her logic and continue to defend the horrible court decision that could affect any one of us in the future...

[sinmantyx]

Relax, its not such a big deal between us. And you've added a whole lot here that I did not say.

One of the reasons I am against this is because of a friend of mine.

who had a "miscarriage" and was told preganancy was out of the question and that she could die from it.

then they wanted her to have a D and C.

she got a 2nd opinion.

they found a faint heartbeat.

he has a daughter.

but before that - it was called "tissue".

I respect your opinions, I do. And I'm not at war with you.

I am very happy for her and I am extremely glad that she had a second opinion and everything went well. Her situation is not the only one: and her choice should be her own.

I think there is a practice in the health profession to NOT refer to a late term fetus as a "baby" or "child" in order to make the loss easier in case of still-birth or miscarriage; or a situation where ending the pregnancy is highly advisable. I don't agree with that either. One regret that my aunt has alway had is that she didn't give her still-born son a name. They told her it would be easier for her if she didn't: she would disagree.

We probably agree on a great many things.

However, this particular law - how it is written - and the implications of the precedent it sets are extremely upsetting to me. Even to call it anti-abortion is not characterizing it properly. To say it is a call to be humane (as Brassfusion pointed out) is also not characterizing it properly. It is purely anti-choice...in that it takes choice away while doing absolutely nothing to stop what proponents *claim* that it would be stopping.

In fact, this ban doesn't even address the particular situation your friend was in. It just bans one particular procedure. It wouldn't change the fact that the first opinion wasn't as valid as the second.

Don't discount the possibility that in some situations the outcome is different. Every situation is different; and I would rather the government avoid playing doctor.

[Scary Guy]

your a dumb ass.

Actually I think the correct term is smart ass.

Just because you don't agree with my point of view doesn't make it any worse than yours. Opinions are exactly that...

Mine just happen to be right usually.

[Steven]

Actually I think the correct term is smart ass.

Just because you don't agree with my point of view doesn't make it any worse than yours. Opinions are exactly that...

Mine just happen to be right usually.

"abortions send babies to god faster"

your an even dumber ass now.

[Steven]

I am very happy for her and I am extremely glad that she had a second opinion and everything went well. Her situation is not the only one: and her choice should be her own.

I think there is a practice in the health profession to NOT refer to a late term fetus as a "baby" or "child" in order to make the loss easier in case of still-birth or miscarriage; or a situation where ending the pregnancy is highly advisable. I don't agree with that either. One regret that my aunt has alway had is that she didn't give her still-born son a name. They told her it would be easier for her if she didn't: she would disagree.

We probably agree on a great many things.

However, this particular law - how it is written - and the implications of the precedent it sets are extremely upsetting to me. Even to call it anti-abortion is not characterizing it properly. To say it is a call to be humane (as Brassfusion pointed out) is also not characterizing it properly. It is purely anti-choice...in that it takes choice away while doing absolutely nothing to stop what proponents *claim* that it would be stopping.

In fact, this ban doesn't even address the particular situation your friend was in. It just bans one particular procedure. It wouldn't change the fact that the first opinion wasn't as valid as the second.

Don't discount the possibility that in some situations the outcome is different. Every situation is different; and I would rather the government avoid playing doctor.

I understand what your saying.

I have in the past posted that I am both pro choice and anti abortion.

it IS your right to choose.

and of course there ARE exceptions to the rule. there are exceptions to every rule.

and there are right and wrong choices to be made, of free will.

I'm simply against it because I dont beleive we need yet another method of killing fetuses. We're allready quite creative and advanced in doing so. We allready have plenty of baby killing techniques and choices. For example we dismember them. Or, we burn them with saline solutions. Or, we scrape them out of the womb with metal instruments. And I DO beleive, absolutely, that we kill far more fetuses out of convenience (or inconvenience) than we do for strictly medical reasons or for rape case situations. In this country - we want what we want - and we quickly dispose of what we do not want. We do it with far too little forethought. Over time the issue itself becomes trite. I beleive in a woman's right to choose. I also belevie in an unborn child's right to live. And I beleive in my right, to beleive in what I do. And I beleive that most of the time, most of the time....we kill babiues because we simply do not want them.

and I also dont beleive that we actually NEED another provision at our disposal to kill them. To me, to add to the numbers and to stick strictly to the rhetoric of the procedure itself inserts a clinical slant to the fact that you are killing a child that will feel what you are doing to it. May I also add that I'm not interested in a more "humane" way to kill the unborn. To me to use the word "humane" in a sentence along with abortion is a waste of breath.

these sorts of things....are upsetting to me Syn.

I think we're about even.

[BrassFusion]

intact dilation and extraction is not new. it's probably the original method, in fact. by far the least complicated and cruel.

[sinmantyx]

I understand what your saying.

I have in the past posted that I am both pro choice and anti abortion.

it IS your right to choose.

and of course there ARE exceptions to the rule. there are exceptions to every rule.

and there are right and wrong choices to be made, of free will.

I'm simply against it because I don't believe we need yet another method of killing fetuses. We're already quite creative and advanced in doing so. We allready have plenty of baby killing techniques and choices. For example we dismember them. Or, we burn them with saline solutions. Or, we scrape them out of the womb with metal instruments. And I DO beleive, absolutely, that we kill far more fetuses out of convenience (or inconvenience) than we do for strictly medical reasons or for rape case situations. In this country - we want what we want - and we quickly dispose of what we do not want. We do it with far too little forethought. Over time the issue itself becomes trite. I beleive in a woman's right to choose. I also belevie in an unborn child's right to live. And I believe in my right, to beleive in what I do. And I beleive that most of the time, most of the time....we kill babiues because we simply do not want them.

and I also dont beleive that we actually NEED another provision at our disposal to kill them. To me, to add to the numbers and to stick strictly to the rhetoric of the procedure itself inserts a clinical slant to the fact that you are killing a child that will feel what you are doing to it. May I also add that I'm not interested in a more "humane" way to kill the unborn. To me to use the word "humane" in a sentence along with abortion is a waste of breath.

these sorts of things....are upsetting to me Syn.

I think we're about even.

Late term abortions are most likely not abortions of convenience and can very well be abortions of necessity. I come to this conclusion because it makes no sense for someone who does not want to be pregnant to wait for months on end, allowing her body to go through the changes that pregnancy brings you, and THEN bother to end the pregnancy.

This idea makes me believe that practically ALL late term abortions are done on women who wanted to be mothers; but something has gone wrong. Second trimester abortions are very rare: most likely for this reason.

I'm sure the Catholic Bishops or whomever else has a political stake in this: will certainly find some woman somewhere that doesn't fit this mold and plaster her as a poster-child for how horrible women are who have abortions.

I may be putting words into your mouth: but you are doing what I mentioned earlier: characterizing people who makes these decisions as selfish and "inhumane".

The bottom line is this: if there is a situation where both the mother and fetus will die if an abortion is not performed - choices have been taken away from doctors and patients to deal with that particular situation. If continuing the pregnancy may be extremely inadvisable, this law takes certain specific choices away.

You are still dodging the fact that this law only outlaws a procedure and doesn't actually disallow any abortions. A long time ago, when the bill was first presented, an amendment was drafted that would disallow late term abortions of viable fetuses unless the health of the mother was at risk.

The republicans rejected it and kept going with this shit-for-a-law; which every federal court said was unconstitutional until it got to the Supreme Court -- who basically only allowed it due to O'Connor retiring.

I had the flu. I watched C-span. I hate to politicize this more, but this law IS a political issue. That was the moment I really started to HATE the republicans and realize that they WERE as bad as many people said they were. In all the dry uncensored glory of debates and voting and what-have-you: They rejected the real "sensibilities" of the public and the medical realities of human reproduction and obscured the true face of this bill with infantile barbarous ignorant rhetoric:

...and at the end of it all: you get this law.

It doesn't protect unborn children AND it denies the value of the life of pregnant women. The two things the proposed amendment to this bill DID DO...but alas...how could the republicans allow the democrats to look like humans and how dare sensational talking points be taken away from them. How could they keep getting political capital out of the abortion issue if they couldn't find that one woman who aborted her 21 week fetus because of that job offer or to make her new boyfriend happy --- and plaster it all over and claim righteous indignation to get elected?

The only value this law has is as a political tool for the Republicans: just like gay marriage and flag burning. This law is NOT a product of caring about the sanctity of life or trying to decrease the number of abortions - it's a HUGE republican SNOW JOB.

I wouldn't be saying this if I didn't see it happen. Frankly, I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't see it with my own eyes.

btw: If, in the future one of those uncommon but horrible situations happen to me and I choose to end a pregnancy: you better believe I'm going to give a shit about how the procedure may cause the fetus to suffer. Sometimes the most humane ways of killing are not the most pretty: and sometimes killing is necessary. If you don't *get* that - you're in denial.

I killed a litter of baby mice once, that had been half-eaten by their mother. I put them in a piece of tissue and smashed their heads in with a hammer: not because that was the most painless method for me, but because it was the most painless method for them. Some wouldn't have the "heart" to do that and let them suffer horrible before they died. Those type of people are the selfish ones. They don't really care about reality or the suffering around them: they just want to feel good about themselves and avoid tough decisions.

[Steven]

Late term abortions are most likely not abortions of convenience and can very well be abortions of necessity. I come to this conclusion because it makes no sense for someone who does not want to be pregnant to wait for months on end, allowing her body to go through the changes that pregnancy brings you, and THEN bother to end the pregnancy.

This idea makes me believe that practically ALL late term abortions are done on women who wanted to be mothers; but something has gone wrong. Second trimester abortions are very rare: most likely for this reason.

I'm sure the Catholic Bishops or whomever else has a political stake in this: will certainly find some woman somewhere that doesn't fit this mold and plaster her as a poster-child for how horrible women are who have abortions.

I may be putting words into your mouth: but you are doing what I mentioned earlier: characterizing people who makes these decisions as selfish and "inhumane".

The bottom line is this: if there is a situation where both the mother and fetus will die if an abortion is not performed - choices have been taken away from doctors and patients to deal with that particular situation. If continuing the pregnancy may be extremely inadvisable, this law takes certain specific choices away.

You are still dodging the fact that this law only outlaws a procedure and doesn't actually disallow any abortions. A long time ago, when the bill was first presented, an amendment was drafted that would disallow late term abortions of viable fetuses unless the health of the mother was at risk.

The republicans rejected it and kept going with this shit-for-a-law; which every federal court said was unconstitutional until it got to the Supreme Court -- who basically only allowed it due to O'Connor retiring.

I had the flu. I watched C-span. I hate to politicize this more, but this law IS a political issue. That was the moment I really started to HATE the republicans and realize that they WERE as bad as many people said they were. In all the dry uncensored glory of debates and voting and what-have-you: They rejected the real "sensibilities" of the public and the medical realities of human reproduction and obscured the true face of this bill with infantile barbarous ignorant rhetoric:

...and at the end of it all: you get this law.

It doesn't protect unborn children AND it denies the value of the life of pregnant women. The two things the proposed amendment to this bill DID DO...but alas...how could the republicans allow the democrats to look like humans and how dare sensational talking points be taken away from them. How could they keep getting political capital out of the abortion issue if they couldn't find that one woman who aborted her 21 week fetus because of that job offer or to make her new boyfriend happy --- and plaster it all over and claim righteous indignation to get elected?

The only value this law has is as a political tool for the Republicans: just like gay marriage and flag burning. This law is NOT a product of caring about the sanctity of life or trying to decrease the number of abortions - it's a HUGE republican SNOW JOB.

I wouldn't be saying this if I didn't see it happen. Frankly, I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't see it with my own eyes.

btw: If, in the future one of those uncommon but horrible situations happen to me and I choose to end a pregnancy: you better believe I'm going to give a shit about how the procedure may cause the fetus to suffer. Sometimes the most humane ways of killing are not the most pretty: and sometimes killing is necessary. If you don't *get* that - you're in denial.

I killed a litter of baby mice once, that had been half-eaten by their mother. I put them in a piece of tissue and smashed their heads in with a hammer: not because that was the most painless method for me, but because it was the most painless method for them. Some wouldn't have the "heart" to do that and let them suffer horrible before they died. Those type of people are the selfish ones. They don't really care about reality or the suffering around them: they just want to feel good about themselves and avoid tough decisions.

No no no. I'm not doging anythign, I dont dodge. You should know me better than that allready if you've spent any time on my posts.

You need to (you dont have to) understand something about me to understand the way I post and what I decide to post about: most of what I'm addressing comes from slices of my past.

When you introduce needless rhetoric about the Catholic church I think:

A) Im not catholic and I dont make personal decisions based on church hierchy and never have - in fact I have many times been an outcast within my own spiritual peer group for having a mind of my own. Give me a wee bit of credit and a smidge of the benefit of the doubt.

B) You will choose to draw from what you feel is "credible" evidence and will aso choose to seek out and introduce a fallible counter point of view. But I dont live in the magazine you pulled it from. And I personally , me, have seen late term abortions within my young social circle based on convenience and rooted in fear. Even in my unscrupulous past, it did disturb me greatly. You may be suprised to find that these thgins take place with regularity in inner city throwaway zones and in generally depressed areas. or you may decide I'm full of it. By the way the most disturbing late term abortion I saw came from a blue eyed blond california girl who was not broke and not in any danger and who was living with her boyfriend in a nice apartment that Laura and i used to play pictionary in. She simply didint want to have a baby. So she didint. Her method of birth control had been a quick douche after sex. She didint deal with things, she put them off. Including her abortion. About 6 months later she took a bunch of pills and tried to kill herself because of what she did.

C) I'm also against baby dumping, something else were seeing in alarming rates nowadays in our post modern utopia. To me it further exemplifies a much larger problem.

D) and I agree with you on certain things making no sense. But that is how this world is now, a great deal of it makes no sense and we make great efforts to desensitize even that.

[sinmantyx]

No no no. I'm not doging anythign, I dont dodge. You should know me better than that allready if you've spent any time on my posts.

You need to (you dont have to) understand something about me to understand the way I post and what I decide to post about: most of what I'm addressing comes from slices of my past.

When you introduce needless rhetoric about the Catholic church I think:

A) Im not catholic and I dont make personal decisions based on church hierchy and never have - in fact I have many times been an outcast within my own spiritual peer group for having a mind of my own. Give me a wee bit of credit and a smidge of the benefit of the doubt.

B) You will choose to draw from what you feel is "credible" evidence and will aso choose to seek out and introduce a fallible counter point of view. But I dont live in the magazine you pulled it from. And I personally , me, have seen late term abortions within my young social circle based on convenience and rooted in fear. Even in my unscrupulous past, it did disturb me greatly. You may be suprised to find that these thgins take place with regularity in inner city throwaway zones and in generally depressed areas. or you may decide I'm full of it. By the way the most disturbing late term abortion I saw came from a blue eyed blond california girl who was not broke and not in any danger and who was living with her boyfriend in a nice apartment that Laura and i used to play pictionary in. She simply didint want to have a baby. So she didint. Her method of birth control had been a quick douche after sex. She didint deal with things, she put them off. Including her abortion. About 6 months later she took a bunch of pills and tried to kill herself because of what she did.

C) I'm also against baby dumping, something else were seeing in alarming rates nowadays in our post modern utopia. To me it further exemplifies a much larger problem.

D) and I agree with you on certain things making no sense. But that is how this world is now, a great deal of it makes no sense and we make great efforts to desensitize even that.

How does any of what you just said have ANYTHING to do with this particular law?

I was talking about how ineffectual this law is: how much it's a snow-job: and how the Catholic Bishops and the Republican party used ridiculous and deceptive and insulting tactics to get it passed in the first place.

The first case you mentioned was about a misdiagnoses and the second case you mentioned was about a woman who (for whatever reason) remained completely ignorant and irresponsible concerning her own body and whose boyfriend apparently was just as ill-informed.

Neither of these issues has anything to do with this law.

The only reason I mention motivation is because many of those who pushed for this law have painted women who may make the choice to have this procedure performed with the same wide brush of judgment. I have no doubt that if certain groups were to hear about your friend's personal story: it would be plastered all over their newsletters and put on posters and mentioned at their fake "clinics" to scare the shit out of the women who go there: edited, of course.

With all the explanations: I still have no idea why you support this ban.

It would not effect either of the case studies you mentioned; you simply assert that the "risk should be with the mother" so that a health exception is not needed because a woman has already lived her life so her life doesn't mean as much AND that since there are other ways of performing an abortion, subtracting one procedure is no big deal.

All other arguments and examples have been completely irrelevant to this law.

Answer to argument one:

1) Who are you to decide whose life is more valuable, and what about cases where both the fetus and the mother will likely die if a similiar procedure is not performed? Doesn't this law set a dangerous precedent since it is the first abortion restriction that doesn't include a health exception?

2) The particular procedure that is being banned (as Brassfusion pointed out) could actually be the safest for the mother and inflict the least suffering on the fetus: so why ban it?

The only possible real effect this decision and this law could possibly have is to allow abortion restrictions that do not have an exception for the health of the mother...which South Dakota has actually tried already. THAT has everything to do with tying the hands of doctors and patients in extreme situations.