Recent Decision

[sinmantyx]

such Ego, Love.

Molech the Idol, in the land of Cannan, had arms made of brass with a fire pit directly beneath it. You would place said child in the arms of Molech as a human sacrifice.

and your not power hungry enough to be a Demon.

Thanks for the explanation because that totally went over my head.

[Steven]

Thanks for the explanation because that totally went over my head.

well then I'm flattered. I imagine its pretty tough to get anything to fly over your head. And I went there since you "sorta" quoted some Old Testament out of context at Tina.

[sinmantyx]

I forgot to comment on this part:

1) they dont understand because they have been misled..... I think your wrong here.

They understand completely, but they latch onto a point of view that differs from your own conventional logic, which is rooted in your desire for your own personal sense of decency and order. In other words they are doing what you are doing. But because you dont like what they are doing, well then they must be mentally ill or otherwise just ill informed. The sad part about that mindset, is that it presents itself in an elevated manner. Sort of like if I posted that you were all heathens who were going to hell because you obviousy don't get it. I'm assuming if I came across that way you'd feel belittled and disrespected. And I may even have some sort of worthy bit of information worth considering, but it would be lost in translation simply because I reduced you upon delivery. I respect your logic Syn, I do. Except when it demands that I must be lesser than.

2) they see it as a first step to further restrictions.....

that is much closer to the truth, yes.

3) making them feel good about themselves.....

Im assuming that somewhere somebody or a group of somebody's did you some hurt in the name of god. Because within the course of your arguments you have a tendency to introduce just a lilt of disrespect and rancor. Hint: your use of the word "icky". I beleive that earlier you complained about broad brushtrokes?

Y'know the only way we could REALLY get to the bottom of "number one" is to do a poll of people that are for the ban. That would actually be very interesting to me.

All I tended to hear was: this is horrible, this is horrible: etc, so forth, ad nauseum; with a healthy disregard for any extreme circumstance case-studies they are presented with. (Not to mention the whole: you can't be a Christian and have a different opinion.)

It would be interesting to me to see how true-to-the-facts public opinion is on the matter.

In my experience on other issues (such as BOTH prop 2's) MANY people who were firm proponent of the amendments had very little understanding of the true implications of the amendments. (Don't think I'm implying that this is ONLY an issue with conservatives or Christians ...it's a human frailty, I know.)

Yeah, I'm certainly not bending over backward to be overly civil about this one. (I'm pretty sure my pregnancy is making that physically impossible.) I do apologize if you've gotten the brunt of the friendly-fire. Trust me, I've putz around on this message board long enough to realize that your faith does not include the corollary of believing everything the church/sect/denomination tells you to believe devoid of your own critical analysis. I wish I could say that you represented the rule - however, in my experience you certainly represent the exception in that regard.

If it makes you happy: my sister makes you look like a pot-smoking open-minded hippy.

[sinmantyx]

you see the problem with this particular argument is that it leaves huge openings for personal definitions.

Sure does.

That's actually the most reasonable argument against the various exceptions. They make it very difficult to convict anyone of a crime when "health" can be defined in many different ways. This problem can certainly be dealt with through well-written legislation and the over-sight of ethics boards, etc.

If there is any real philosophical difference between us, it is this: I can deal more with the idea that a needless destruction of a fetus may occur (because of relatively broad exceptions) than deal with the certainty that an increase in suffering (for mother and/or fetus) will definitely occur and in much greater frequency.

Ironically, I think my relatively strong inclination to end suffering and not necessarily prolong life comes directly from my family's brand of religion...and extreme pragmatism.

[Steven]

Ironically, I think my relatively strong inclination to end suffering and not necessarily prolong life comes directly from my family's brand of religion...and extreme pragmatism.

I sort of figured this, which i respect and understand. although I do not neccesarily adhere to every christian peice of dogma, overall it greatly influences my line of thinking, which you often see posted here.

[Steven]

Y'know the only way we could REALLY get to the bottom of "number one" is to do a poll of people that are for the ban. That would actually be very interesting to me.

All I tended to hear was: this is horrible, this is horrible: etc, so forth, ad nauseum; with a healthy disregard for any extreme circumstance case-studies they are presented with. (Not to mention the whole: you can't be a Christian and have a different opinion.)

It would be interesting to me to see how true-to-the-facts public opinion is on the matter.

In my experience on other issues (such as BOTH prop 2's) MANY people who were firm proponent of the amendments had very little understanding of the true implications of the amendments. (Don't think I'm implying that this is ONLY an issue with conservatives or Christians ...it's a human frailty, I know.)

Yeah, I'm certainly not bending over backward to be overly civil about this one. (I'm pretty sure my pregnancy is making that physically impossible.) I do apologize if you've gotten the brunt of the friendly-fire. Trust me, I've putz around on this message board long enough to realize that your faith does not include the corollary of believing everything the church/sect/denomination tells you to believe devoid of your own critical analysis. I wish I could say that you represented the rule - however, in my experience you certainly represent the exception in that regard.

If it makes you happy: my sister makes you look like a pot-smoking open-minded hippy.

I understand what your saying here.

I can only add that in return, often there is a great misunderstanding on the part of secular humanists in terms of WHY we Xtians are so motivated in our own beleif systems. they often refute dogma with dogma, which is the antithesis of a healthy relationship between man and his creator. they also often like to cite examples from well known christian leaders, yet they have a hard time beleiveing that there is any form of indipendence within the ranks. Part of the problem is within our core group itself; we must learn to speak our minds and take our own risks.

I also know that I seem to represent a minority among my bretheren and in many cases that may be true.

however, the fact that someone like me exists at all and the fact that I have personal relationships with any of you indicates that I have been influenced by like minded beleivers...I did not just pop out this way, therefore somehwere somehow there is a remnant of other indipendents. I can only suggest, without the burdon of proof, that there are more out there like me than you realize.

When you study the model of Christianity in and of itself, it was/is all about an individually unique calling upon followers of Christ. look at the diversity he gleaned from to build his core group, and look at the efforts he made to shatter legalism. Those are the types of thigns that I wish more secular people investigated when summerizing christians. There is a big difference between being a Christ follower and being a part of the machine that is christendom. you will find that which yoru seeking. if its religiosity and hypocracy your searchign for well then its certainly there in droves. If there is sincerity your seeking there, it also exists - but you'll be ridiculed for recognizing it or even being attracted to it.

you have a very potent mind, very linear and systematic. it has its place, and I would say that you are gifted in this area and that that gifting itself comes from God. that is not my gift, although I sometimes whish it was. I am a scatterbrained person, prone to pride. But I have a great deal of passion for truth and basic justice and I tend to beleive that most agendas and people can be whittled down to a very common essence that's quite repetitive throughout our history. There are times when you will see me hold a position simply because its good enough for me.....I beleive I recognize enough value in it to stand on it, which is one of the reasons I seldom yeild in the face of all this "data' that is sometimes thrown at me. Data and facts are important and I dont disregard them. But I also beleive in looking at the end result and the biproducts of certain acceptable trends. Where has it led us? Have we really improved ourselves? What is the effect on the generation following after us?

Oh, as for your sister, her calling is her calling, hopefully she understands it with depth so that she's able to stand when under fire. I used to spend a great deal of time being frustrated at other christians and what i saw as a lack of depth in their walk with God. As I've gotten older, i've come to realize that its nto my place to do that. All I can do - is carry on with what I know I've been called to do. thats hard enough as it is.

[BrassFusion]

The difference between believers and secular humanists is that we secular humanists can't support harmful legislation if we only "feel" it's the right thing to do. We realize that our feelings don't matter compared to the lives of the affected. Some of us, in some cases, fail to see the complete effects of a system, or may occasionally blinded by our own self-interest, but that happens to everybody. In general, we try to be more open minded than people who are told what to believe at weekly conferences.

[Steven]

The difference between believers and secular humanists is that we secular humanists can't support harmful legislation if we only "feel" it's the right thing to do. We realize that our feelings don't matter compared to the lives of the affected. Some of us, in some cases, fail to see the complete effects of a system, or may occasionally blinded by our own self-interest, but that happens to everybody. In general, we try to be more open minded than people who are told what to believe at weekly conferences.

you didint read a thing I said.

[BrassFusion]

you didint read a thing I said.

actually, i read all of it. i just continue to misunderstand why you're so motivated in your belief system, I guess.

[Steven]

actually, i read all of it. i just continue to misunderstand why you're so motivated in your belief system, I guess.

new one: you didint understand a thing I said

[BrassFusion]

and i guess i never will.

[Steven]

and i guess i never will.

well....I supppose that as long as my ass is still pleasing to the eye then we'll be ok....

[Blackmail]

Thomas, in his concurrance, seems to suggest that the ban violated the Commerce Clause or that the Court should at least address such a Commerce Clause challenge when it is raised.

I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of

Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it.

Thomas believes that Roe was wrongly decided on federalism grounds (a position I share) which would also suggest that this federal law is unconstitutional on federalism grounds (a position I also share).

2. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who voted for the ban, apparently said at a news conference that "I would only say that this is the only decision a lot of us wish that Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there." So is he saying that he wished O'Connor was on the bench to overturn a law he supported? I hope the report took him out of context as he basically would be admitting he voted for something in the hopes it would be overturned.

Anyway -

I guess Symantix didn't actually read the decision and is hyperventalating because she only read the reaction of her pro-choice friends.

Sure, the Court is all set to rebalance the interests, but that doesn't mean you've got 5 votes willing to let a state require a woman carry a 3-week old zygote to term or go to jail. At least so long as Kennedy is around, that is.

So here you go Synmantix, please actually read on the subject boefore replying - and note that many Democrats voted in favor of the partial birth abortion ban.

and then go here:

http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1162980316595

Read half way down.

Then read this opinion piece:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editor...ok/4735346.html

and:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

[BrassFusion]

it's not "partial birth abortion." reactionary politicos (NOT medical professionals) invented that term to mobilize their fan base.

and it has nothing to do with three week old zygotes. it's probably not even possible to perform it till the second trimester.

[sinmantyx]

"So here you go Synmantix.....etc, so forth."

Blackmail. Please realize I am not going to "engage" with you, because it is my opinion that anyone who would send the private messages to me that you did is not well. At least you stopped when I asked you to. I appreciate that.

-

So, everyone else please don't interpret my silence as "implied consent" or "avoiding the conversation" - I'm simply avoiding him as an individual and therefor choose not to respond when he addresses me.

At some point, it just stopped being amusing.

Thanks.

[Marblez]

it's not "partial birth abortion." reactionary politicos (NOT medical professionals) invented that term to mobilize their fan base.

and it has nothing to do with three week old zygotes. it's probably not even possible to perform it till the second trimester.

Partial birth abortion is the name that I choose to use, just because the medical professionals do not want to call it that doesn't mean that the term is not appropriate.

I would rather not call it that if I were making money by pulling babies out by their feet and drilling holes in their heads until I know that they are dead either.

[sinmantyx]

Partial birth abortion is the name that I choose to use, just because the medical professionals do not want to call it that doesn't mean that the term is not appropriate.

I would rather not call it that if I were making money by pulling babies out by their feet and drilling holes in their heads until I know that they are dead either.

Regardless: it doesn't have a definite meaning. D&X is a particular procedure that has been defined. Doctors can actually comply with a ban on it. It would be impossible to comply with a ban on "partial birth" abortion because it doesn't exist. It's just an emotionally charge set of words used to help the ban get through: like the "Healthy Forest Initiative" that expanded logging operations.

"Partial Birth" implies that a birth is possible: it puts the vision into the minds of people that the fetus is viable. When you think of "birth" you think of a fully formed baby who is able to survive. That's the image that proponents want in your head. That may not be the reality.

I really don't understand why people think this is some sort of money-making issue. If the doctors wanted money they would be doing elective cosmetic surgery: not as many bomb/death threats and the money is good. Very very few of these procedures happen every year. If someone wanted to make a living off of it - they would be extremely hard-pressed to do so.

[Steven]

Regardless: it doesn't have a definite meaning. D&X is a particular procedure that has been defined. Doctors can actually comply with a ban on it. It would be impossible to comply with a ban on "partial birth" abortion because it doesn't exist. It's just an emotionally charge set of words used to help the ban get through: like the "Healthy Forest Initiative" that expanded logging operations.

"Partial Birth" implies that a birth is possible: it puts the vision into the minds of people that the fetus is viable. When you think of "birth" you think of a fully formed baby who is able to survive. That's the image that proponents want in your head. That may not be the reality.

I really don't understand why people think this is some sort of money-making issue. If the doctors wanted money they would be doing elective cosmetic surgery: not as many bomb/death threats and the money is good. Very very few of these procedures happen every year. If someone wanted to make a living off of it - they would be extremely hard-pressed to do so.

Syn, no disrespect, but abortions in general are indeed profitable. If you'd like i can dig up some links and materials for you to research. You seem to be making a choice based on your own emotional basis here...I mean, why are there proctologists? Because they love ass? Why dont they instead specialize and train as elective cosmetic surgeons? Surely they have the werewithall to improve themselves. There is $$ in many different specific medical fields, people find their niche, and set up business. And I doubt many people nowadays would argue how much medical care in general is ruled by a corporate business mentality.

You opend up your response to Tina with "Regardless"..... yet she gave you what seemed to me to be a sound statement, which was quickly brushed aside and then you added your point about an emotionally charged set of words....yet I've seen a great deal of emotion in this thread allready from many people, including you.

YES partial birth implies the plausibility of a baby (notice I did not use the word fetus - its my emotionally charged option) being able to survive outside the womb. That very well may indeed be the reality. For example how many preemies do we see that make it? In fact science has upped the odds for that specific situation, which has made the news recently.

[BrassFusion]

second trimester IDX's aren't "preemies" being "born" too soon. it's fetuses being pulled from the womb before they can grow to viability and do more damage than they already have.

and it's not "drilling a hole in its head till you know it's dead," it's drilling a hole in the skull to compress it and pull it through the cervix. believe me, they don't have to kill it before they extract it.

from wikipedia:

Intact dilation and extraction (IDX or Intact D&X also known as Intact Dilation and Evacuation or Intact D&E or Dilation and Extraction or D&X), is a surgical abortion wherein an intact fetus is removed from the womb via the cervix. The procedure may also be used to remove a deceased fetus (due to a miscarriage) that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction.

Though the procedure has a low rate of usage, representing 0.17% of all abortions in the US in 2000 according to voluntary responses to an Alan Guttmacher Institute survey,[1] it has developed into a focal point of the abortion debate.

The medical term Intrauterine Cranial Decompression is also used in reference to the procedure. The term Partial Birth Abortion is another term used in reference to this procedure, at least in the context of federal legislation in the United States.[...]

Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a term coined by abortion opponents used to refer to some late-term abortion procedures.[6] In the United States, "Partial-birth abortion" has been legally defined by federal statute as any abortion in which the fetus is extracted "past the navel [of the fetus] . . . outside the body of the mother," or "in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother[...]"

So to get around the "partial-birth abortion ban" i guess doctors can choose to only extract the fetus as far as just below the umbilical cord. Your new ban's gonna do a shit-ton load of good for the world, isn't it? maybe we should open the debate to include how many angels can dance on the baby's finger, and if it's more than 30, it's too late in the term to abort...

[sinmantyx]

Syn, no disrespect, but abortions in general are indeed profitable.

Yes, they are. The only stats I've found is that about 90% of them are in the first trimester and 9% happen in the second and 1% happen in the third (that number includes all ended pregnancies: even those where the fetus is already dead). The D&X procedure is only used in the 2nd and 3rd trimester and is very rarely used in many of those cases.

If you want to make a living performing abortions, you can certainly do that. Much of your job may consist of giving a women a prescription for drugs and her reabsorbing the pregnancy or having an abnormally heavy period. I didn't think that was the topic here.

It was suggested that doctors make big bucks performing D&X's so that they want to use euphemistic terms in order to cover up the fact that they are nothing more than hired-guns killing babies for profit.

Trying to make a living performing only D&X procedures would be difficult. If you actually wanted to make a living performing only elective D&X procedures of fetuses that actually had a chance to survive: I would think it would be even more difficult.

I did find some late-term elective abortion providers (up to 24 weeks). For some strange reason all their offices were in particular states. I am wondering if those states happen to have more lax laws than others?

It is against medical ethical practice to abort a fetus that is over 20 to 21 weeks with the following exceptions:

-save the life/health of the mother

-abort a fetus that has no chance of survival (usually from hydrocephalus, which sometimes cannot be diagnosed earlier)

The super-premie baby story has no relevance as far as a ban on the D&X procedure. If you were talking about a ban on late term abortions after 20 to 21 weeks. Then, it would be relevant.

The ban (as it stands) does make an exception if the fetus is actually dead. However, it doesn't make an exception (as far as I am aware) if the fetus cannot EVER live outside the womb.

That, and the lack of the health exception, is what concerns me.

Let's see: the numbers I have found are about 2,000 to 4,000 D&X procedures happen every year and about 5,000 babies develop hydrocephalus? - and MOST couples decide to end the pregnancy once the baby is diagnosed. Am I stretching here?

Why do a D&X when the baby has hydrocephalus? The brain swells with fluid - sometimes MANY centimeters in diameter. Inducing a delivery (or bringing the fetus to term and delivering) will kill both the fetus and the mother. Doing a C-section (which is also done) has an increased risk to the mother. The brain has to be drained in order to pull the fetus out.

Yes, you have to "drill holes in their heads" - and I'm sure every doctor who has every performed a D&X procedure on a fetus that has hydrocephalus was laughing all the way to the bank.

-sarcasm here-

Realize: if this were a ban on late-term abortions that included an exception for the life and health of the mother and including an exception for fetuses that will not be able to live outside the mother, unless it was written horribly, I would be in support of it.

Call that anti-choice if you want: but that is the law in many places and such a ban would be in-line with the sensibilities of much of the country - including myself. Currently, most extreme abnormalities can be found during the first ultrasound which is usually done between the 17th and 20th week. The cut-off would not be completely arbitrary - as this is about the time when the fetus is fully formed and it's only job is to become bigger and stronger. Such a law would allow choice, while acknowledging the fact that the only difference between a fetus and a baby at this point is its surroundings. If THAT was what this ban was; I think it would have broad support and actually further a more moderate pro-life agenda.

This is not that law.

It's a ban on the D&X procedure that does not include a health exception.

[sinmantyx]

second trimester IDX's aren't "preemies" being "born" too soon. it's fetuses being pulled from the womb before they can grow to viability and do more damage than they already have.

and it's not "drilling a hole in its head till you know it's dead," it's drilling a hole in the skull to compress it and pull it through the cervix. believe me, they don't have to kill it before they extract it.

from wikipedia:

So to get around the "partial-birth abortion ban" i guess doctors can choose to only extract the fetus as far as just below the umbilical cord. Your new ban's gonna do a shit-ton load of good for the world, isn't it? maybe we should open the debate to include how many angels can dance on the baby's finger, and if it's more than 30, it's too late in the term to abort...

Gosh: I hope that definition of PBA has been replaced by just D&X. I mean: oops! Did I just see the placenta? If so: you lose. If not: it's legal. C'mon people...figure out how define stuff reasonably well. Quit hiring staffers based on how cute their ass is.

[BrassFusion]

Gosh: I hope that definition of PBA has been replaced by just D&X. I mean: oops! Did I just see the placenta? If so: you lose. If not: it's legal. C'mon people...figure out how define stuff reasonably well. Quit hiring staffers based on how cute their ass is.

i don't see how they could better define the practice in hopes of banning it. what would they specifically disallow, the head puncturing part?

and besides all that, in a doctor's office where an abortion shall be performed ANYWAY, who's gonna know whether it's a D&X? the doctor could always "lie" to the patient and record that it was a D&C or something. plausible deniability all the way. who could prove it was a D&X?

also, what's the legal ramifications if a doctor performed it and got narced on and they could prove the procedure took place? would it be a fine? jail time? i can't wait for some doctor to fucking step to it and test this system. someone needs to challenge it

[sinmantyx]

i don't see how they could better define the practice in hopes of banning it. what would they specifically disallow, the head puncturing part?

and besides all that, in a doctor's office where an abortion shall be performed ANYWAY, who's gonna know whether it's a D&X? the doctor could always "lie" to the patient and record that it was a D&C or something. plausible deniability all the way. who could prove it was a D&X?

also, what's the legal ramifications if a doctor performed it and got narced on and they could prove the procedure took place? would it be a fine? jail time? i can't wait for some doctor to fucking step to it and test this system. someone needs to challenge it

I'm not looking forward to it. People are too emotional - and regardless of who is "testing it" - it will certainly throw some vunerable people onto the feet of reactionary, prejudicial public opinion.

It's that what Roe v. Wade was supposed to be about: right to privacy?

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Unfortunately there are too few people involved in politics which is part of the problem. Also, even people that are involved, often don't think to "do" anything until after the fact when its far harder to fix.

This particular decision almost seems like a needless hair splitting of an issue that rarely comes up, if its exactly as intended by the justices final ruling.

But, i think in practice, this is sort of a "chip away at abortion rights" ruling and the language seems to leave open the possibility of a further extending of this concept to even more restrictive rulings in the future. I cant help but think this is part of a larger plan , rather than a end in itself. The case itself almost seems as if its hand picked to deliver this "mild" ruling, but sets itself up as a potential benchmark to use in more invasive rulings in the future.

[Marblez]

But, i think in practice, this is sort of a "chip away at abortion rights" ruling and the language seems to leave open the possibility of a further extending of this concept to even more restrictive rulings in the future. I cant help but think this is part of a larger plan , rather than a end in itself. The case itself almost seems as if its hand picked to deliver this "mild" ruling, but sets itself up as a potential benchmark to use in more invasive rulings in the future.

I concur.