Judge Rules Against Partial-Birth Abortion Law

Because it is performed on, well, a later term? On a much more developed fetus?

Well, I don''t see how anyone can argue with 45000 or so OB/GYNs that belong to ACOG, which has said that the procedure can be necessary (link posted earlier in the thread). So we are equal in our disbelief.

Can you name me one of those reasons? I still haven''t read or heard of one yet. All of the evidence I have seen shows it is much safer to use contraception, abstinence, or emergency contraception following unprotected sex as opposed to any form of abortion, and early abortions are always considered safer than late term or partial birth abortions. The only reason partial birth abortion is considered safer than D&E is because the woman is already dilating naturally to deliver the baby and the baby is just murdered before it is completely delivered. With D&E the woman has to be forced to dilate early and the baby is dismembered and then sucked out rather than just delivered without a brain (which turns out to be easier than D&E).

Women are going to have abortions, whether it be in the regulated environment of a clinic or with a coathanger in the bathtub. So, legalizing abortion is really just a utilitarian solution to this problem. With abortion legal, the process in so much safer for women and it really saves lives in the long run.

I suppose there may be the few women crazy enough to stick a coathanger up inside their body poking around possibly messing themselves or their baby up beyond repair, but I somehow doubt that there would be 1.3 million crazy women each year sticking coathangers up there if abortion were made illegal. And concerning it being legal helping save lives....I don''t think that any surgical procedure today saves as many lives as abortions kill each year, just in America.

"ralcydan" wrote:
Duttybrew, we''re talking not just abortion here -- but late-term or partial-birth abortion. The necessity of this] sort of evil is what is questioned.

I''m not sure why abortion is worse simply because it happens partially outside the womb.

I''m not sure why beheading an american civilian is worse then say, shooting them int he head....

I''m not sure why beheading an american civilian is worse then say, shooting them int he head....

Agreed.

"Strekos" wrote:
"Tobyus" wrote:

I am against abortion all together, but I can''t believe that there are people in this world that think that this procedure is anything but the barbaric murdering of infants at birth. Can anyone out there come up with a single reason this procedure would be necessary?

Well, I don''t see how anyone can argue with 45000 or so OB/GYNs that belong to ACOG, which has said that the procedure can be necessary (link posted earlier in the thread). So we are equal in our disbelief.

As an aside, it surprises me that you can''t believeanyonecan argue with the ACOG - since the 250,000 member American Medical Association supports the ban on parial-birth abortion...

Tomas Sowell give us some perspective on the media''s portrayal of partial-birth abortion.

"ralcydan" wrote:
"Strekos" wrote:
"Tobyus" wrote:

I am against abortion all together, but I can''t believe that there are people in this world that think that this procedure is anything but the barbaric murdering of infants at birth. Can anyone out there come up with a single reason this procedure would be necessary?

Well, I don''t see how anyone can argue with 45000 or so OB/GYNs that belong to ACOG, which has said that the procedure can be necessary (link posted earlier in the thread). So we are equal in our disbelief.

As an aside, it surprises me that you can''t believeanyonecan argue with the ACOG - since the 250,000 member American Medical Association supports the ban on parial-birth abortion...

Not quite. The AMA''s support for the law was contigent on a couple factors, namely, that it provide an exception for the health of the mother, and that the law specifically define the procedure being banned. Two things that the law in question didn''t do.

Not quite. The AMA''s support for the law was contigent on a couple factors, namely, that it provide an exception for the health of the mother

Which seems to be unnecessary, given that abortion providers can''t show any cases where this was the reason for the procedure.

and that the law specifically define the procedure being banned

So in effect they are acknowledging that this procedure is abhorrent but don''t want their members sent to jail? I guess I can understand that, but deciding punishment for doctors who break the law is a matter of policy, not medicine.

Which seems to be unnecessary, given that abortion providers can''t show any cases where this was the reason for the procedure.

I believe that is where patient confidentiality comes into play.

Not quite. The AMA''s support for the law was contigent on a couple factors, namely, that it provide an exception for the health of the mother, and that the law specifically define the procedure being banned. Two things that the law in question didn''t do.

This is the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, which specifically defined the procedure being banned. The reason it did not provide an exception for the health of the mother is because there is overwhelming evidence proving there is never a situation where this procedure would save a mother''s life. In fact, the evidence shows that this procedure is more dangerous to the mother than actually giving birth naturally or having a C-section.

(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child''s body until either the entire baby''s head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby''s trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child''s skull and removing the baby''s brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

And

(13) There exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-birth abortion is not required to contain a `health'' exception, because the facts indicate that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman''s health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. Congress was informed by extensive hearings held during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses and passed a ban on partial-birth abortion in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman''s health, and lies outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, be banned.
I believe that is where patient confidentiality comes into play.

The government was asking for records with names and identifying features redacted. There was no confidentiality issue.

Forgive me again if this is a repost, but I can''t keep up with you guys. I believe the Supreme Court will uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Roe v. Wade gives a woman the unconditional right to abort a fetus for the first trimester.

The Court held:
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

If they can convince the Judges that a partial birth abortion would be ""necessary"" with no reasonable alternatives than the law may need to be written.

Anyway, anyone who supports Roe v. Wade should not have a problem with this law. Unless you believe Roe v. Wade gave women the unconditional right to an abortion? If that is the case you are mistaken. There is no such right.

It appears you guys were approaching this subject from the perspective of the doctors. I thought I''d give my legal opnion for what its worth.

"Lawyeron" wrote:

Anyway, anyone who supports Roe v. Wade should not have a problem with this law.

If the lawmakers had put an exception in for the health of the mother, we wouldn''t even be having this debate. Well at least I wouldn''t have any reason to debate it

""Interestingly, my view on abortion hasn''t changed at all since having my son.""

I am more impressed by the convictions of persons who were adopted that support the abortion of unwanted children.

If the lawmakers had put an exception in for the health of the mother, we wouldn''t even be having this debate.

What mother? To be a mother, you must have a child...and the pro-choice folks tell us repeatedly that a fetus is not a child...

"ralcydan" wrote:
If the lawmakers had put an exception in for the health of the mother, we wouldn''t even be having this debate.

What mother?

Yo mamma.

"ralcydan" wrote:
If the lawmakers had put an exception in for the health of the mother, we wouldn''t even be having this debate.

What mother? To be a mother, you must have a child...and the pro-choice folks tell us repeatedly that a fetus is not a child...

So women whose children died in child birth, or an accident/etc after birth are no longer mothers?

Member''s of MADD need to quit after their kids are killed in drunk driving accident? They aren''t mothers anymore you know!

Your logic is faulty, nice try though.

Your logic is faulty, nice try though.

Not at all. You using really weak analogies is what is faulty. I said you had to have a child to be a mother. The women in the scenarios you listed all went through the event of having a child, and then losing it. You can try to argue that this changes their status, but I wouldn''t. The act of havind a child makes you a parent, even if that child dies.

But a woman who aborts her fetus never does have a child (at least not that one). And according to the pro-choice propagandists, was carrying a clump of cells, not a child.

No child, no mother.

I just noticed something from the classical version of the Hippocratic Oath (my first time reading it):

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
"Tobyus" wrote:

I just noticed something from the classical version of the Hippocratic Oath (my first time reading it):

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

Unfortunately, prospective physicians often refuse to take the Hippocratic Oath, nor are they required to. Unless I am mistaken.

[quote=""Duttybrew"" Women are going to have abortions, whether it be in the regulated environment of a clinic or with a coathanger in the bathtub. So, legalizing abortion is really just a utilitarian solution to this problem. With abortion legal, the process in so much safer for women and it really saves lives in the long run.
[/quote]

To give you another example of your logic applied, We should round up all the people that have AIDS or are HIV positive in order to kill them all, because in the long run it will save lives.

The end never justifies the means. Otherwise we may need to pick only the genetically superior offspring, all the rest must be killed- for the betterment of the world of course.

To give you another example of your logic applied, We should round up all the people that have AIDS or are HIV positive in order to kill them all, because in the long run it will save lives.

The end never justifies the means. Otherwise we may need to pick only the genetically superior offspring, all the rest must be killed- for the betterment of the world of course.

To add to that, since one of the reasons pro-choice people want abortions legal is in cases where the mother''s life is threatened...using the same logic, shouldn''t all convicted murderers be put to death since they have threatened and will continue to threaten people''s lives?

To add to that, since one of the reasons pro-choice people want abortions legal is in cases where the mother''s life is threatened...using the same logic, shouldn''t all convicted murderers be put to death since they have threatened and will continue to threaten people''s lives?

Why stop there? Lets ban cars, knives, guns and swimming. All of these things could kill people!

It''s not about saving the mother, it''s about giving her the choice to decide what happens to her body. If she wants to risk the birth, fine. If she doesn''t, that''s fine too. Her body, her choice.

"Minase" wrote:
To add to that, since one of the reasons pro-choice people want abortions legal is in cases where the mother''s life is threatened...using the same logic, shouldn''t all convicted murderers be put to death since they have threatened and will continue to threaten people''s lives?

Why stop there? Lets ban cars, knives, guns and swimming. All of these things could kill people!

It''s not about saving the mother, it''s about giving her the choice to decide what happens to her body. If she wants to risk the birth, fine. If she doesn''t, that''s fine too. Her body, her choice.

But then why is suicide illegal? Why drugs? because ultimately you are hurting someone else by doing it- physically emotionally ect. Your only arguement is that a fetus is not ""human"" so it a woman''s right to kill it because it grows inside you, in the same way it is your right to remove a fungus growing on your foot- and with the same amount of remorse as that said fungus. if it was ever deemed a ""human"" then killing it would mean the same punishment as killing an adult.
That is why the liberal are against having murderers that kill pregent women get 2 counts on murder, because than the fetus becomes a baby and nobody wants that.
Also try thinking about it this way:
1 child grows to get married and have 2 kids, those kids have 2 kids, ect ,ect. so you are not just killing one child but a world of people (theoritically of course)

It''s not about saving the mother, it''s about giving her the choice to decide what happens to her body.

She had a choice, and it was months before.

"Gorack" wrote:
It''s not about saving the mother, it''s about giving her the choice to decide what happens to her body.

She had a choice, and it was months before.

Amen, who needs to be responable in the heat of the moment when you can have the problem taken care of neatly later on.

She had a choice, and it was months before.

Exactly...maybe the whole issue here is that accountability and responsibility have been thrown out the window and pro-choice people like it that way.

Agree, it comes down to people not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions. Getting pregnant is just an inconvenience that can be remedied at a ""Family Planning"" clinic. Just another example of how relative morality can be when it comes to issues such as Abortion, Crime, and other issues in our society/world.

Why stop there? Lets ban cars, knives, guns and swimming. All of these things could kill people!

None of those thingsalwayskill people though...

But then why is suicide illegal? Why drugs? because ultimately you are hurting someone else by doing it- physically emotionally ect.

Good questions. They shouldn''t be, IMHO. We already have laws against hurting people physically. Emotional pain is tough to measure objectively, so I have trouble with passing laws against causing someone emotional pain.

None of those things always kill people though...

Neither do convicted murderers in Tobyus'' analogy, which was what I was extending. Abortion doesn''t kill anyone either - it kills apotientialperson. Until they are born alive, they aren''t people, they are fetuses (fetii?).

BTW, I certainly do not support abortion as a family planning method. I find it morally repugnant and it should not be done except in extreme cases. But since I don''t have the right to force others to undergo or not undergo surgery, I keep out of their lives. I think the same standard should apply to our government. I draw the line at government intervening on what we do with our bodies. If you believe in a higher power, you can take solace in the fact that they will be punished by your deity of choice.