Ban on Partial Abortion procedure upheld

[TeleportSandwich]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18174245/

I'm not really sure what to make of this. The only thing that seems interesting here is that it ignores previous rullings on abortions procedures and might signal the SC's willingness to start changing abortion laws. Or maybe this is just an isolated incident. :awesome:

[James_xeno]

Unfortunately this is not a third trimester later term, post viability ban. And it's only a specific procedure ban. IDE or Partial-birth abortion.

Either way though, it's a step in the right and civilized direction.

[JeremyGEE]

This is a step in the right direction...

I am prochoice... But if you wait too long.... Its close to murder..

[Gundampilotspaz]

This is the most disgusting thing I've heard all day.

And I've been watching the Virgina Tech murder on MSNBC.

Either way though, it's a step in the right and civilized direction.

Yes, because it's so civilized to allow poor, unwed mothers no choice between having their lives ruined and having a child.

But hey, maybe the garbage man who finds the baby in the morning will give it a good home.

[Mithrandir]

Well civil liberties take another hit.

That sucks.

[margot]

i think there's some misinformation.

here (from another forum)

"The ban outlaws a rarely-used abortion procedure, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb feet-first before its head is crushed to allow it to fit out of the woman's body. It is only performed later in pregnancy, and is a fairly rare procedure even for the rare abortions that occur later in pregnancy. Basically there are other, more common ways to abort a late-term pregnancy, but this method is occasionally used when it is the safest one. So the ban will not stop abortions after a certain time, only abortions performed in a certain way -- which means that a woman can still abort her child at the time she would have had the ban not been put into practice, but she may not be able to abort the pregnancy in the way doctors believe is safest for her situation."

=x s o really, even if you are pro-life you should be upset about this. it won't stop late abortions, only put the mother in more danger.

[DreamerGirl]

I'm prochoice.

But I still don't see why you would wait so long in the pregnancy to have one. It's not like you don't notice something growing inside of you.

I'd hate to say it, but if she's going to wait she's asking for the danger. I think they should ban them that late in the term anyways. I know there'd still be illegal ones and everything, but being irresponsible once = ok, everyone messes up. Twice on the same thing= That's your problem.

The sad part is that politically they are using this as a stepping stone to ban all abortions, and that upsets me, a lot. So I guess I'm torn in what I think of this?

[No Sad Endings]

I'm prochoice.

But I still don't see why you would wait so long in the pregnancy to have one. It's not like you don't notice something growing inside of you.

I'd hate to say it, but if she's going to wait she's asking for the danger. I think they should ban them that late in the term anyways. I know there'd still be illegal ones and everything, but being irresponsible once = ok, everyone messes up. Twice on the same thing= That's your problem.

The sad part is that politically they are using this as a stepping stone to ban all abortions, and that upsets me, a lot. So I guess I'm torn in what I think of this?

Reasons to have an abortion in late term:

1. Because health issues cropped up that put the mother in danger; she planned to have the child, but now pregnancy is endangering her health and life.

2. Because she didn't know she was pregnant. Yes, it happens.

3. Because birth defects have been discovered that the parents can not afford to take care of, and/or which might make the quality of life for the child pretty abysmal.

4. Because once you start legislating the morality on an issue like this, you're pretending to understand every situation when every situation is different. You're suggesting that the woman should be punished for her actions by being forced to go through with the pregnancy; that's not your place to decide. These decisions should always be between a doctor and the patient. Anything else is compromising the health and freedom of women.

[Mithrandir]

and Vampy pwns the topic.

[Chris C]

This is the most disgusting thing I've heard all day.

And I've been watching the Virgina Tech murder on MSNBC.

Yes, because it's so civilized to allow poor, unwed mothers no choice between having their lives ruined and having a child.

But hey, maybe the garbage man who finds the baby in the morning will give it a good home.

Not allowing people to drill into a baby's head and dran out the brains is humane? Youre logic, saying this is worse than the VT massacere, is entirely unreasonable.

[margot]

ugh guys it's NOT a ban on partial birth abortion, but one very rare procedure of partial birth abortion, a woman can still get one, just the doctor may have to use a different method.

[DreamerGirl]

Reasons to have an abortion in late term:

1. Because health issues cropped up that put the mother in danger; she planned to have the child, but now pregnancy is endangering her health and life.

2. Because she didn't know she was pregnant. Yes, it happens.

3. Because birth defects have been discovered that the parents can not afford to take care of, and/or which might make the quality of life for the child pretty abysmal.

4. Because once you start legislating the morality on an issue like this, you're pretending to understand every situation when every situation is different. You're suggesting that the woman should be punished for her actions by being forced to go through with the pregnancy; that's not your place to decide. These decisions should always be between a doctor and the patient. Anything else is compromising the health and freedom of women.

I agree with pretty much all of what you are saying, but medically it's much more dangerous to do it late term. (No matter the procedure used.)

The best way I can put it is I don't think the government should be allowed to preach on morals. So yes I'm against the law/ban.

But, at the same time though generally I'm against this procedure. It's just not something I would recommend doing unless they are absolutely positive, or it has to be done (like in the cases you mentioned). I mean you are practically giving birth to it. I for one, don't even want to imagine.... It'd just be psychologically hell on a person. You aren't just taking a pill in this case. It's deeper than that.

Granted, there are people out there who could do it no problem and really shouldn't have kids anyways.

But, I'm the type who would probably risk dying first, beacuse I just couldn't deal with it. And thankfully most birth defects can be found earlier now with tests.

ugh guys it's NOT a ban on partial birth abortion, but one very rare procedure of partial birth abortion, a woman can still get one, just the doctor may have to use a different method.

I know, I'm just stretching it to be more generalized.

[Ceraziefish]

and Vampy pwns the topic.

[DreamerGirl]

Vampy always pwns. :wub:

[FaultyClockwork]

I really have only two problems with this:

-It doesn't take into account or allow for health danger to the women, rape or incest.

-It could lead to further action against abortion, being used as a precedent.

Reasons to have an abortion in late term:

1. Because health issues cropped up that put the mother in danger; she planned to have the child, but now pregnancy is endangering her health and life.

2. Because she didn't know she was pregnant. Yes, it happens.

3. Because birth defects have been discovered that the parents can not afford to take care of, and/or which might make the quality of life for the child pretty abysmal.

4. Because once you start legislating the morality on an issue like this, you're pretending to understand every situation when every situation is different. You're suggesting that the woman should be punished for her actions by being forced to go through with the pregnancy; that's not your place to decide. These decisions should always be between a doctor and the patient. Anything else is compromising the health and freedom of women.

And those three. It is not a government's job to enforce morality, it's its job to enforce ethics. Morality tends to conflict with ethics, which is why I'm strongly against moral compasses.

[Gundampilotspaz]

And those three. It is not a government's job to enforce morality, it's its job to enforce ethics. Morality tends to conflict with ethics, which is why I'm strongly against moral compasses.

Would you please explain your definition of "Morals" and "Ethics"?

[James_xeno]

Would you please explain your definition of "Morals" and "Ethics"?

[No Sad Endings]

If I am not mistaken he is probably talking about a Taoist approach to the concept, morals being arbitrary rules enforced because they are supposedly "good", e.g., dogma, and ethics being the higher, more complex (and yet far simpler! yay innate contradictions) concept of what contributes to the greater human good.

"When we lose the Tao, we turn to Virtue.

When we lose Virtue, we turn to kindness.

When we lose kindness, we turn to morality.

When we lose morality, we turn to ritual.

Ritual is the mere husk of good faith

and loyalty and the beginning of disorder."

Morals are what people follow when they have no true ability to distinguish what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' from the standpoint of what is best for humanity.

[Gundampilotspaz]

Morals are what people follow when they have no true ability to distinguish what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' from the standpoint of what is best for humanity.

I don't agree with that.

Morals are personal rules that you follow.

Ethics are the general rules that society believes in.

[No Sad Endings]

I don't agree with that.

Morals are personal rules that you follow.

Ethics are the general rules that society believes in.

By what definition? I don't suppose that everyone has to conform to my notion of ethics and morals, but my definitions are at least something that a notable subset of society follows. Yours is just your own little made up thing. Personal rules are just that, personal rules.

[Gundampilotspaz]

By what definition? I don't suppose that everyone has to conform to my notion of ethics and morals, but my definitions are at least something that a notable subset of society follows. Yours is just your own little made up thing. Personal rules are just that, personal rules.

Ethics, are rules that most civilized cultures follow. Murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, ect.

Morals are more specific, more personalized. I don't think morals come from religion, in that respect I agree with you. People use religion when they don't have the ability to distinguish right from wrong.

But morals aren't so simple, they are specific rules that you follow, which are unique to you. You already know that murder is unethical, but killing someone to protect a person you love is moral; at least in your eyes. Hell, killing ten people to protect one person I love would be moral in my mind.

I think genetic engineering and eugenics are moral... other people believe that are immoral.

People considering what is "best for humanity" before they act is another level of reasoning all together. Perhaps justice or virtue are better words for acts that play toward the greater good.

[No Sad Endings]

Um....

Not that I have such education either, but I think before you go around stating what morals and ethics ARE, as if you were an authority on the subject, you should have at least some background in it? I know a good number of others who share the concept of morals and ethics I outlined; you sound like you're just making this shit up as you go along. You can't do that. Language just doesn't work that way. If it did, no one would understand each other.

[Ceraziefish]

Yup. Like if FC and I were sitting around eating something that had been left in the fridge too long, and we didn't actually know what it was.

"This tastes like chicken!" I say.

"No," says FC. "This tastes like the Immortal Blood of Gothmog the Arbitrator." Then we would get in a huge argument until we would realize that when FC says "Immortal Blood of Gothmog the Arbitrator" he means chicken.

We have to accept certain definitions for words; and while it's not going to be exactly the same for everyone, and you can discuss those differences, you can't just say FC is wrong because he uses a different definition as you -- because, in that case, you're both equally right (or wrong).

[Belial]

We have to accept certain definitions for words; and while it's not going to be exactly the same for everyone, and you can discuss those differences, you can't just say FC is wrong because he uses a different definition as you -- because, in that case, you're both equally right (or wrong).

Wait, people can have different opinions on things and they can both be right?! :blink:

[Gundampilotspaz]

Um....

Not that I have such education either, but I think before you go around stating what morals and ethics ARE, as if you were an authority on the subject, you should have at least some background in it? I know a good number of others who share the concept of morals and ethics I outlined; you sound like you're just making this shit up as you go along. You can't do that. Language just doesn't work that way. If it did, no one would understand each other.

You're offering a single, eastern view point on the subject.

Morals and Ethics have been debated for thousands of years.

Haven't you ever heard of Moral relativism?

This isn't a debate on language... that's a silly notion.. this is a debate on philosophy. Anyone can look in a dictionary and see that "morals" means " of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong"

But that doesn't tell us what morals are, and how we go about development them, and how the effect us. Just as "any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens."

Doesn't describe what a human being is

You can't define morals and ethics in a way that everyone is going to agree, that is a given.