Today the SCOTUS came down with a decision banning the technique known as Partial Birth Abortion.

Supreme Court OKs Abortion Procedure Ban

Apr 18 01:46 PM US/Eastern
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court's conservative majority handed anti-abortion forces a major victory Wednesday in a decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure and set the stage for further restrictions.
For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific abortion method, labeled partial-birth abortion by its opponents.

The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.

Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison.

Kennedy's opinion, joined by Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, was a long-awaited resounding win that abortion opponents expected from the more conservative bench.

The administration defended the law as drawing a bright line between abortion and infanticide.

Reacting to the ruling, Bush said that it affirms the progress his administration has made to defend the "sanctity of life."

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how—not whether—to perform an abortion.

Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although Kennedy said alternate, more widely used procedures remain legal.

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

"I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation's laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them." She had argued that point before the justices.

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday's ruling. The Guttmacher Institute says 2,200 dilation and extraction procedures—the medical term most often used by doctors—were performed in 2000, the latest figures available.

Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.

"Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

Ginsburg said that for the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, "the court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."

She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method—dismembering the fetus in the uterus—is available and, indeed, much more common.

In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortions. Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Justice Breyer said the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion decision in part because it lacked a health exception.

The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a federal law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. That statement was designed to overcome the health exception to restrictions that the court has demanded in abortion cases.

But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law was unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme Court accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up Wednesday's ruling.

Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that few court watchers expected him to take a different view of the current case.

Kennedy acknowledged continuing disagreement about the procedure within the medical community. In the past, courts have cited that uncertainty as a reason to allow the disputed procedure.

"The medical uncertainty over whether the Act's prohibition creates significant health risks provides a sufficient basis to conclude ... that the Act does not impose an undue burden," Kennedy said Wednesday.

While the court upheld the law against a broad attack on its constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain a challenge in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on a patient suffering certain medical complications.

The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman's life is in jeopardy.

The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.

they should make a law that says abortions can only happen for legitimate medical reasons only. that would eliminate 95-99% of all abortions that were had by "choice". Abortions should be prescribed by an MD. Women should not be able to just one day decide they don't like being pregnant and kill off the kid. If we are going to keep hearing the medical card brought out in defense of partial birth abortions lets go all the way say medical reasons only for all abortions, period.

The problem with banning all abortions is that you then put the state in the position of literally forcing women to give birth.

And it would not end the practice anyway.

I have no problem with banning partial birth abortions since it is only about 1% of all abortions anyway.

Dharmabum,

Women always have the option of not getting pregnant.

Abortions should be performed only to save the life of the woman, not for any other reason.

It seems the biggest argument for partial birth abortion is medical. pro partial birth abortion activists say a law banning PBA takes the power away from doctors and gives it to government. If the power for PBA should be in the hands of doctors why not just make doctors the only ones who can recomend and perform an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy? I am guessing most women who have abortions are not doctors.

Dharmabum,

Women always have the option of not getting pregnant.

Abortions should be performed only to save the life of the woman, not for any other reason.

Except in the case of rape. Then the woman does not have the option of not becoming pregnant. She is forced by the illegal action of the rapist to become pregnant.

Oh, and the Supreme Court, in this decision, specifically noted that this did not include an exception to preserve the life of the woman, and found that acceptable.

Here is an interesting link to a reasonably factual story that will give more information on what the issues are, and how the procedure is used currently.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5168163

Women always have the option of not getting pregnant.

Even in the case of rape or incest? That is complete nonsense.


Abortions should be performed only to save the life of the woman, not for any other reason.

And now we get back to my point about the morally dubious position of forcing women to give birth.

rape or incest pregnancys are less then 1% of all pregnancy. perhaps you should alien artificial insemination to the list too.

The unborn child is truely innocent, even in cases of rape or incest, yet it is the unborn child that is being forced to make the supreme sacrifice, its life. I do not agree with abortions in the case of rape or incest, only to save the life of the mother.

I am more concerned with the welfare of the already living women and children. Frankly I don't care that much about an unborn clump of cells.
Banning all abortions makes the state an intrusive beheamoth that forces unwilling women to give birth.

they should make a law that says abortions can only happen for legitimate medical reasons only. that would eliminate 95-99% of all abortions that were had by "choice". Abortions should be prescribed by an MD. Women should not be able to just one day decide they don't like being pregnant and kill off the kid. If we are going to keep hearing the medical card brought out in defense of partial birth abortions lets go all the way say medical reasons only for all abortions, period.

They pass that law and I'm buying stock in coat hangers.

rape or incest pregnancys are less then 1% of all pregnancy. perhaps you should alien artificial insemination to the list too.

You still have the issue of when is the fetus considered alive.

Dharmabum,

Women always have the option of not getting pregnant.

Abortions should be performed only to save the life of the woman, not for any other reason.

oh and the man is off scott free of getting the woman pregant.
what an ass.
I mean a guy can get laid and take off never to be heard of again and the woman is left to deal with the pregnacy.

and sure you say force woman to have children they do not want and when the child is neglected and abused an ends up on the system you are more than happy to cut the social programs for these childen.

Dumbass!!

rape or incest pregnancys are less then 1% of all pregnancy. perhaps you should alien artificial insemination to the list too.


Alien artifical inseminsation as in how JESUS was made?

The unborn child is truely innocent, even in cases of rape or incest, yet it is the unborn child that is being forced to make the supreme sacrifice, its life. I do not agree with abortions in the case of rape or incest, only to save the life of the mother.

it is not a child. Use the proper terms. It is not a baby. It is a fetus.

I hope you are born as a woman in the next life and have to birth a baby of the father who raped you. YOu deserve it.

partial birth abortions should be banned, bravo to the court. Semantics aside - it's basially an issue of womens rights to commit murder. I for one do not believe they have any such right.

The unborn child is truely innocent, even in cases of rape or incest, yet it is the unborn child that is being forced to make the supreme sacrifice, its life. I do not agree with abortions in the case of rape or incest, only to save the life of the mother.

That's just about the dumbest position I've ever seen.

womans rights to commit murder.. Hmm
we murder innocent blood every day. I mean we eat animals. We have no need to eat animals anymore. our technology makes it possible that we can live without consuming meat? So it is not our survial that lets us murder millions of animals every day just our taste buds and our convience. Animals are put down every day because we do not want to house and feed them. That is murder... those living things are already here and born and yet you cry for a fetus not even able to breath air yet or live on its own.
typical.

Warrior, I thought you agreed with the partial birth abortion ban. Why are you now arguing against it? DrewM said nothing about any other abortions.

I'm indifferent to the partial-birth abortion ban. In general, they were used only in extreme, life-threatening cases, as far as I can recollect. So on that hand, I don't see why we should take the choice away from doctors. On the other hand, if this was an abortion of convenience, then I don't think a partial-birth abortion can be reasonably defended. An abortion in the first trimester is fine by me—an abortion after that point is suspect at best. That's where I draw my personal moral line, anyway. Obviously, I'd like to avoid the possibility of an abortion altogether (my girlfriend is on the pill), because the whole issue is contentious not just to society in general, but even I'm not totally sure about the issue.

That said, I think the partial-birth abortion ban won't really affect much. It was probably unnecessary. But I don't disagree with it.

womans rights to commit murder.. Hmm
we murder innocent blood every day. I mean we eat animals. We have no need to eat animals anymore. our technology makes it possible that we can live without consuming meat? So it is not our survial that lets us murder millions of animals every day just our taste buds and our convience. Animals are put down every day because we do not want to house and feed them. That is murder... those living things are already here and born and yet you cry for a fetus not even able to breath air yet or live on its own.
typical.

That argument makes no sense. We eat animals therefore murdering humans is ok?

Plus, suspending common sense for a moment & lets say you have a valid issue. Well, even if you did - what have animmal rights have to do with partial birth abortions? - er....nothing at all. That's a separate issue and just because I didn't start my post with a shout out to animals rights, doesn't invalidate the on-point subject matter.

Warrior, I thought you agreed with the partial birth abortion ban. Why are you now arguing against it? DrewM said nothing about any other abortions.

no I am pro choice but only against partial birth abortions because the fetus now has human consciousness. It is aware of it dying or being killed.

I thought she was talking about abortion in general not not late abortions.

That argument makes no sense. We eat animals therefore murdering humans is ok?

Plus, suspending common sense for a moment & lets say you have a valid issue. Well, even if you did - what have animmal rights have to do with partial birth abortions? - er....nothing at all. That's a separate issue and just because I didn't start my post with a shout out to animals rights, doesn't invalidate the on-point subject matter.

you genrealized and said abortions not partial abortion.

pro lifers claim that you are killing life when you kill a fetus. Well we kill life all the time. Animals for food and over population. Why is a fetus who has no human consciousness which makes us above animals any different than those lives?

The only difference between Me and You and your dog is human awareness. A fetus does not have that and is as expendable as a dog. Sorry.

I am against partial abortion because the abortion is late term and baby has enough brain waves at this point to become consciously aware of itself.

Let me know how you are so certain of the point at which human consciousness arives. I doubt any unborn baby is consciously aware of itself (Many adults are not so even fewer babies are), that doesn't mean it isn't alive and without conciousness, and it certainly is not without human potential.

Your whole position revolves around this point of human conciousness so therefore you must have some fairly solid information to back it up.

Myself I'd prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to human life. For me, all abortion is murder. The issue is only one of different arguments as to how people justify murder in the case of an unborn life. That is a complex and valid argument sure. One thing sorely lacking in the whole abortion argument is honesty.

As for animals - I couldn't care less to be honest. I'm human, Call me stupid, but I value human life more than I value a dog a cat or a chickens life.

Abortion after the second trimester is wrong. Before that, it is a fetus not a child. Thus, the women deserves the right to choose if she wants to abort it or not.

Wow - and I thought the issue was complex. Thanks for making it all so simple.

you genrealized and said abortions not partial abortion.
No, he did not. Check your reading comprehension.

partial birth abortions should be banned, bravo to the court. Semantics aside - it's basially an issue of womens rights to commit murder. I for one do not believe they have any such right.

Wow - and I thought the issue was complex. Thanks for making it all so simple.
Your welcome!

it is not a child. Use the proper terms. It is not a baby. It is a fetus.
You have to be careful. As Drew said, why don't we err on the side of caution.

How has this fetusbaby's humanity been altered after it travels one foot south of the vagina?

You have to be careful. As Drew said, why don't we err on the side of caution.

How has this fetusbaby's humanity been altered after it travels one foot south of the vagina?
It is no longer inside the mother, therefore its state has changed and it is now an independent human, and citizen of the country.

If independence and citizenship mean humanity to you, then okay I guess.

If independence and citizenship mean humanity to you, then okay I guess.
That is but a component of being a member of society and a person yourself. However, they are the components that are most important when dealing with this issue.

oh and the man is off scott free of getting the woman pregant.
what an ass.
I mean a guy can get laid and take off never to be heard of again and the woman is left to deal with the pregnacy.

and sure you say force woman to have children they do not want and when the child is neglected and abused an ends up on the system you are more than happy to cut the social programs for these childen.

Dumbass!!

There you go again, Dumbass. I never said, or indicated the man should not take responsiblity if he fathers a child. See, this is the crap that goes on when a noob comes onto a site spouting off. My views on abortion, the woman's responsibility, the man's responsibility, society's responsibility have already been posted here.

None of what I feel is even remotely like what you have posted. Maybe you should know what you are talking about before you continue posting and making yourself even more a dumbass.

No, he did not. Check your reading comprehension.

yes I saw that but if you saw here second post to me she clearly believe abortion in general is murder.

calling it murder was a clue that she was against abortion no matter what stage.

Misunderstanding one sentence is not a problem of comprehension it is a problem of misreading as mispelling is not the same thing as bad grammer.

Thank you.:drive:

Evakian: That is but a component of being a member of society and a person yourself. However, they are the components that are most important when dealing with this issue.

I think the line-in-the-sand with this issue is life.
Actually, it used to be life. In the case of partial birth abortion, the true believers have retreated to when it is a person (or a baby).

I don't think citizenship or independence enters into it.
One is ill defined and the other is a municipal term.

It is no longer inside the mother, therefore its state has changed and it is now an independent human, and citizen of the country.


agreed it is no longer part of the mothers body and no longer needs the mothers body to sustain itself.

I'm indifferent to the partial-birth abortion ban. In general, they were used only in extreme, life-threatening cases, as far as I can recollect.

2,200 last year, Borg, and I don't think a single one can be defended as necessary to save the woman's life.

Evakian: That is but a component of being a member of society and a person yourself. However, they are the components that are most important when dealing with this issue.

I think the line-in-the-sand with this issue is life.
Actually, it used to be life. In the case of partial birth abortion, the true believers have retreated to when it is a person (or a baby).

I don't think citizenship or independence enters into it.
One is ill defined and the other is a municipal term.


Do you mean the line in the sand this issue of human awareness or consciousness or what is considered life.

I believe that once conception occurs it is life but as a plant or dog or cat or any other life form what makes that life more important than the other.

THe only reason humans are higher than a dog and a cat is human awareness or I dare to say soul.

Sorry but a clump of cell do not have that. Even a developed fetus with a non functioning brain is not aware. Somewhere in the 2nd trimester the fetus electrical charges light up in the brain and it becomes aware and thus is more than just cells and organs.

I know for a fact that this does not happen until the 2nd trimester when exactly I do not not know.

yes I saw that but if you saw here second post to me she clearly believe abortion in general is murder.

calling it murder was a clue that she was against abortion no matter what stage.

Misunderstanding one sentence is not a problem of comprehension it is a problem of misreading as mispelling is not the same thing as bad grammer.

Thank you.:drive:
Alright, perhaps you should read more carefully to avoid misreadings.

By the way, it's spelled "grammar". A pet peeve of mine... please excuse me.

I know for a fact that this does not happen until the 2nd trimester when exactly I do not not know.
How do you know that it's a fact? Do you have a source? Saying that it's a fact without backing it up gives you little credibility.

Alright, perhaps you should read more carefully to avoid misreadings.

By the way, it's spelled "grammar". A pet peeve of mine... please excuse me.


well get used to my bad spelling because I am a terrible speller and I do not use spell check unless I am writing a paper for my college class. I love Microsoft word.
You are more than happy to correct me but I probably wont take it in.

When did Drew get the sex change?

Frogger, it's not her fault she hasn't seen our past writings.

New people here often think I'm a smarmy right-winger who supports Bush and Israel no matter what they do and who will often derail a good thread in order to pound a trivial point.

But eventually they see the real me.

Brooks,

I know it is not her fault she has not seen our, (my) past writings. It is her fault though that she has made pronouncements and assigned positions to me to which I am diametrically opposed.

She is behaving like a troll.

How do you know that it's a fact? Do you have a source? Saying that it's a fact without backing it up gives you little credibility.
28-36 weeks they can measure brain waves

http://www.abortiontv.com/Growth/BabyBrainWaves.htm

Frogger, it's not her fault she hasn't seen our past writings.

New people here often think I'm a smarmy right-winger who supports Bush and Israel no matter what they do and who will often derail a good thread in order to pound a trivial point.

But eventually they see the real me.


YOu have not done a warrior bashing yet for my views you are not a right-winger. You are obviously a moderate. Anytime you have disagreed with me you have always done it in a respectful and honorable way.

Brooks,

I know it is not her fault she has not seen our, (my) past writings. It is her fault though that she has made pronouncements and assigned positions to me to which I am diametrically opposed.

She is behaving like a troll.

yes I am a troll. I find that funny because the moment you start posting on this threat you start attacking me.

I never said anything about you here?

DarkFantasy,

Warrior says many things with no citations. She speaks in absolutes. According to Warrior, Christians have never had an original thought, no Jews, Buddhists, Atheists or Muslims are Republicans.

Warrior is one of those annoying, activist types who knows everything.

When did Drew get the sex change?
After having crossdressed continuously for thirty years, she finally decided to bite the bullet.

1. Do you mean the line in the sand this issue of human awareness or consciousness or what is considered life.
I believe that once conception occurs it is life ....
2. Sorry but a clump of cell do not have that.
3. I know for a fact that this does not happen until the 2nd trimester when exactly I do not not know.
1. This is what I'm talking about when I say the true believers are retreating.
The issue used to be "when does life begin". Now with partial birth abortion, with the line so blurred, the latest thing is "consciousness" or "humanity" or "when is it a baby".

I can still remember when one side called itself pro-abortion before a marketing genius came up with pro-choice.
And soon "life" will be replaced by "humanity" or "consciousness".

2. This discussion was abouit partial birth abortion, not a "clump".

3. For the sake of this discussion, I'll assume you do know that.
But before we know for sure when these things do start, shouldn't we err on the side of caution?

You are obviously a moderate. Anytime you have disagreed with me you have always done it in a respectful and honorable way.Actually, I was being sarcastic, I'm pretty far right.
But good for you for not jumping to conclusions.

DarkFantasy,

Warrior says many things with no citations. She speaks in absolutes. According to Warrior, Christians have never had an original thought, no Jews, Buddhists, Atheists or Muslims are Republicans.

Warrior is one of those annoying, activist types who knows everything.

I never said I know everything. That is in itself and absolute. I got called on the christain never have a original thought and I apologized and recanted but of course you will not mention that because as all repugs do you give half of th truth about things and spin it to get people to take your side. I also recanted my thoughts that no jews or muslims were accepted in republican party of course not mention of this.

I admit when I am wrong... Can you?

It is no longer inside the mother, therefore its state has changed and it is now an independent human, and citizen of the country.

So, now it has a social security number application in the mail it is suddenly human & worth the full protection of the law.

Basically what you are saying is post birth - even 1 second post birth any killer of the baby is going to end up on death row, yet a matter of just a few weeks earlier it' murder is solely at the whims of the mothers evaluation of convenience. And you are saying that is reasonable.

The issue of the date of brain waves yada yada is nothing but a red herring of vast proportion, to hide the real issue that abortion is an issue of a woman's convenience to have or not have the baby and the real question is does the womans rights overrule the baby's right to live. I say the babies life is vastly more important. She made her choices.

Nobody can ever say with 100% conviction when a fetus is conscious or could be considered "human", but we can say with 100% certainty that it is alive, and it is of humanity. It is a human life. That may be inconvienient for some and makes then search for some straws of validity behind the cold reality that murder is murder.

I never said I know everything. That is in itself and absolute. I got called on the christain never have a original thought and I apologized and recanted but of course you will not mention that because as all repugs do you give half of th truth about things and spin it to get people to take your side. I also recanted my thoughts that no jews or muslims were accepted in republican party of course not mention of this.

I admit when I am wrong... Can you?
Don't let them get to you. They're good at ganging up on people. They feel secure in big numbers.

You use the term Repugs when referring to Republicans but you're not a liberal, right, Warrior.:lolhit:

They? OD, I have called out warrior a few times on her errors because she jumps to conclusions and is downright rude. I am not advocating "ganging up" on anyone.

You use the term Repugs when referring to Republicans but you're not a liberal, right, Warrior.:lolhit:
Plenty of non-liberals hate the Republican Party, to be fair. I'm not fond of it myself, and I certainly don't call myself a liberal.

1. This is what I'm talking about when I say the true believers are retreating.
The issue used to be "when does life begin". Now with partial birth abortion, with the line so blurred, the latest thing is "consciousness" or "humanity" or "when is it a baby".

I can still remember when one side called itself pro-abortion before a marketing genius came up with pro-choice.
And soon "life" will be replaced by "humanity" or "consciousness".

2. This discussion was abouit partial birth abortion, not a "clump".

3. For the sake of this discussion, I'll assume you do know that.
But before we know for sure when these things do start, shouldn't we err on the side of caution?

yes I agree with you on all points. I was defending the all abortion is murder notion not the partial abortion. I am completely against all abortion notion.

I am for putting people in suffering down. be it old people or termanly ill people. I see no point in letting them suffer because simply it is life. We do it for animals to be humain but not for humans. I am not for that.

being and unwanted child myself I was born in 1972. I was forced to grow up with a raging alcoholic mother who neglected me and left me in the hands of pediphiles most of my childhood and became a rager around age 10 and suffered severe emotional and physical abuse. Thus the PTSD that I have and being one welfare and being disabled and on the tax payers dollars and I am one of the lucky ones..many unwanted children end up killing peoople or become pediphiles themselves or abusng children themselve and repeating the whole cycle.

I simple don't think anyone has the right to force me into a life like that because it is my life! what quality of life did I have? What good am I to society. Even if I graduate from college and get a job there is no way to be sure I can function properly at that job and keep that job and end up back on disability because of my behavior problems and conflict needs. My biggest down fall is letting things go. We all have the gossiper or the boss who abuses his authority but we do nothing about it because we make too many waves the boss thinks you are not a team player and could decide to get rid of you. I wont put up with the gossiper or the boss who is abusing the authority and I verbally challenge them. If a Jugdge abused his authority I would tell him to go fuck himself. Well even though I am right morally..the judge can make me pay for my independent thinking and as humans do they use thier power to make you pay for not playing thier games.

Forcing woman to have unwanted children is just putting more criminals, welfare reciepiant, mentally ill and pediphile into society.

That may be inconvienient for some and makes then search for some straws of validity behind the cold reality that murder is murder.
The world's population is growing at an alarmingly fast rate. Perhaps this murder is, in fact, murder, but as situations change, so do morals.

You use the term Repugs when referring to Republicans but you're not a liberal, right, Warrior.:lolhit:
I noticed that too.

Don't let them get to you. They're good at ganging up on people. They feel secure in big numbers.

yes I know. I have been debating for years on message boards. After a while they stop trying and then it gets boring LOL.

I like a good knock down drag out fight.:drinktoth

Plenty of non-liberals hate the Republican Party, to be fair. I'm not fond of it myself, and I certainly don't call myself a liberal.
You don't call them "Repugs" either. :p

You use the term Repugs when referring to Republicans but you're not a liberal, right, Warrior.:lolhit:

Just because I do not feel like spelling out republicans does not mean I am a liberal.

God you are seeing liberals everywhere..yes they are out to get you and ruin americans way of life and take god away from everyone LOL>

Libs..repugs...whats the diff...:cat:

If you just didn't feel like spelling out Republican you would be more likely to type repubs. Although maybe you didn't know that "repuglican" implies the word repugnant.

Just because I do not feel like spelling out republicans does not mean I am a liberal.

God you are seeing liberals everywhere..yes they are out to get you and ruin americans way of life and take god away from everyone LOL>

Libs..repugs...whats the diff...:cat:
I like you already. :p

Basically what you are saying is post birth - even 1 second post birth any killer of the baby is going to end up on death row, yet a matter of just a few weeks earlier it' murder is solely at the whims of the mothers evaluation of convenience. And you are saying that is reasonable.

I think that is perfectly reasonable.

We have to draw the line somewhere.
I think you merely disagree on where that line should be drawn.

Problem is that once you outlaw all abortions you put the state in a position of literally forcing women to give birth against their will.

If you just didn't feel like spelling out Republican you would be more likely to type repubs. Although maybe you didn't know that "repuglican" implies the word repugnant.

Personaly I perfer "Cons", as in Convicts and Con-artists. :)

Problem is that once you outlaw all abortions you put the state in a position of literally forcing women to give birth against their will.

Yes, seems reasonable to me. Why not just draw the line at murder is murder if you want to draw a line & although the state is not wholly successful at stopping it generally, I don't hear you whining that the state has laws against it.

Yes, seems reasonable to me.

Glad we agree. :)

Why not just draw the line at murder is murder if you want to draw a line

If you want to call it "murder" then you have to define exactly when it becomes "murder".

Is a clump of a dozen cells the day after conception a "life" qualifying for "murder"?

Is it at the second trimester? The third?

Is sperm "life", as the Buddhists believe? Sperm are "alive."

Yeah, it should be a crime for guys to jack off.

::laughing hysterically:: We'd have some violent crime problems then, lemme tell ya...

Yeah, it should be a crime for guys to jack off.

::laughing hysterically:: We'd have some violent crime problems then, lemme tell ya...
:eek:

Glad we agree. :)
If you want to call it "murder" then you have to define exactly when it becomes "murder".

Is a clump of a dozen cells the day after conception a "life" qualifying for "murder"?

Is it at the second trimester? The third?

Is sperm "life", as the Buddhists believe? Sperm are "alive."

Yes, a clump of cells that is actively growing into a human baby qualifies for murder.

Yes, sperm are alive, but they are not a new unique human being anymore than the flaky skin on your arm is. You, I, everybody was once a clump of cells. Being murdered now is no different than being murdered 1 week after conception, your life would still have been taken by another. You might say that a full grown human is more valuable, yet it's subjective and in many cases the miracle of growing from a few cells to a baby is the peak of their achievement on this planet.

Yes, a clump of cells that is actively growing into a human baby qualifies for murder.

Yes, sperm are alive, but they are not a new unique human being anymore than the flaky skin on your arm is. You, I, everybody was once a clump of cells. Being murdered now is no different than being murdered 1 week after conception, your life would still have been taken by another. You might say that a full grown human is more valuable, yet it's subjective and in many cases the miracle of growing from a few cells to a baby is the peak of their achievement on this planet.
you're confusing murder with homicide, murder is unlawful.

other than that, i agree with you whole heartedly. fetus, infant, toddler? when does it get to the point that any minor can be terminated by their parents?

when does it get to the point that any minor can be terminated by their parents?

When can they terminate a minor?!?!...........Never.

When can they flush a blastocyte down the toilet?!?!?!.........any old time they fucking (no pun intended) please.

When can they terminate a minor?!?!...........Never.

When can they flush a blastocyte down the toilet?!?!?!.........any old time they fucking (no pun intended) please.
remember that when your doctor is trying to convince your wife that you're brain dead and to pull the plug as you drool on your pillow, can hear every word, but can't react.

Yes, a clump of cells that is actively growing into a human baby qualifies for murder.

Ok then, every time a woman has a miscarriage a Homocide Investigation has to ensue to ensure that the Mother did not Murder her fetus through malnutrition or drug use.

That is what logically has to follow that conclusion, otherwise it is naked hypocrisy. Otherwise, You are saying abortion is "murder" but miscarriages are not so all you are going to do is start a trend of women running out and getting drugs to induce miscarriages.


Yes, sperm are alive, but they are not a new unique human being anymore than the flaky skin on your arm is. You, I, everybody was once a clump of cells. Being murdered now is no different than being murdered 1 week after conception, your life would still have been taken by another. You might say that a full grown human is more valuable, yet it's subjective and in many cases the miracle of growing from a few cells to a baby is the peak of their achievement on this planet.

The Biblical and Historical point at which a life is considered viable has always been Birth. What you propose is a radical change to the way humans have always looked at the beginning of life.

The Biblical and Historical point at which a life is considered viable has always been Birth. What you propose is a radical change to the way humans have always looked at the beginning of life.And the medical test for death just two hundred years ago was a mirror held in front of a mouth.

Medical technology now shows that heartbeat and brainwaves (the current signs determining medical and clinical death) exist prior to birth.

There's progress for ya'.

Ok then, every time a woman has a miscarriage a Homocide Investigation has to ensue to ensure that the Mother did not Murder her fetus through malnutrition or drug use.

That is what logically has to follow that conclusion, otherwise it is naked hypocrisy. Otherwise, You are saying abortion is "murder" but miscarriages are not so all you are going to do is start a trend of women running out and getting drugs to induce miscarriages.

A misscarraige is not murder. Having somebody vacuum out the fetus, or pull it out and crush the skull is.

I didn't say that early stage abortions shouldn't be allowed - it's a complex issue, I am saying that it is still murder of an unborn life, to say it is anything else is pure dishonesty

A misscarraige is not murder. Having somebody vacuum out the fetus, or pull it out and crush the skull is.

I didn't say that early stage abortions shouldn't be allowed - it's a complex issue, I am saying that it is still murder of an unborn life, to say it is anything else is pure dishonesty


Murder is the malace intent to kill out of anger or revenge unless a pychopath is involved.

Abortions have no malious feeling toward the fetus. The doctor simply vacuming out a fetus with no ill will feelings toward the fetus.

In the bible and the ten commandments they have changed the wording. It is supose to be thou shall not murder not thou shall not kill.

There is a big differnce between killing something and murdering it.

I love when people use this kind of language to make something look worse than it is.

Your murdering a baby!
NO your not..
you are killing a fetus! Use proper terminology anything other than that is emotional manipulation.:rolleyes:

Abortions have no malious feeling toward the fetus. The doctor simply vacuming out a fetus with ill will feelings toward the fetus.

I can hear the abortion doctor now.

"Hi, sweetie. How you feeling today. Don't worry, I'm just gonna stick this powerful suction tube into your body and suck you out like you were jello. No hard feelings though."

I can hear the abortion doctor now.

"Hi, sweetie. How you feeling today. Don't worry, I'm just gonna stick this powerful suction tube into your body and suck you out like you were jello. No hard feelings though."

The fetus cannot comprehend the doctor or his motives and not even aware of itself. The fetus has no idea that it is dying or going to die and before the 2nd tri it can't even feel pain because the nerves under the skin have not even developed yet.

The fetus cannot comprehend the doctor or his motives and not even aware of itself. The fetus has no idea that it is dying or going to die and before the 2nd tri it can't even feel pain because the nerves under the skin have not even developed yet.

A new born wouldn't be able to comprehend it either - the argument is dumb.

Murder is the malace intent to kill out of anger or revenge unless a pychopath is involved.

Abortions have no malious feeling toward the fetus. The doctor simply vacuming out a fetus with no ill will feelings toward the fetus.

In the bible and the ten commandments they have changed the wording. It is supose to be thou shall not murder not thou shall not kill.

There is a big differnce between killing something and murdering it.

I love when people use this kind of language to make something look worse than it is.

Your murdering a baby!
NO your not..
you are killing a fetus! Use proper terminology anything other than that is emotional manipulation.:rolleyes:

What difference does it make? It's killing a life, murdering it because it's not convenient.

A new born wouldn't be able to comprehend it either - the argument is dumb.



What difference does it make? It's killing a life, murdering it because it's not convenient.

there you go using emotional manipulation again. It wont work because it is not murder. Getting rid of life because it is inconvient. We do this all the time. Innocent cats and dog are put to sleep every day simply because it is inconvient to have them around.

If it is murdering to kill a fetus so the mom can have a better chance of life in this country than it is murder to kill the millions of dogs and cats simply to save Americans money.

Defintion of murder

MURDER - This, one of the most important crimes that can be committed against individuals, has been variously defined. Hawkins defines it to be the wilful killing of any subject whatever, with malice aforethought, whether the person slain shall be an Englishman or a foreigner. Russell says, murder is the killing of any person under the king's peace, with malice prepense or aforethought, either express or implied by law. And Sir Edward Coke defines or rather describes this offence to be, " when a person of sound mind and discretion, unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in being, and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought either express or implied."

This definition, which has been adopted by others has been severely and perhaps justly criticised. What, it has been asked, are sound memory and understanding? What has soundness of memory to do with the act; be it ever so imperfect, how does it affect the guilt? If discretion is necessary, can the crime ever be committed, for, is it not the highest indiscretion in a man to take the life of another, and thereby expose his own? If the person killed be an idiot or a new born infant, is he a reasonable creature? Who is in the king's peace? What is malice aforethought? Can there be any malice afterthought?

According to Coke's definition there must be, lst. Sound mind and memory in the agent. By this is understood there must be a will, and legal discretion. 2. An actual killing, but it is not necessary that it should be caused by direct violence; it is sufficient if the acts done apparently endanger. life, and eventually fatal The party killed must have been a reasonable being, alive and in the king's peace. To constitute a birth, so as to make the killing of a child murder, the whole body must be detached from that of the mother; but if it has come wholly forth, but is still connected by the umbilical chord, such killing will be murder. Foeticide would not be such a killing; he must have been in rerum natura. Malice, either express or implied. It is this circumstance which distiuguishes murder from every description of homicide.

In some of the states, by legislative enactments, murder has been divided into degrees. In Pennsylvania, the act of April 22, 1794, makes "all murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of wilful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, rape, robbery, or burglary, shall be deemed murder of the first degree; and all other kinds of murder shall be deemed murder of the second degree; and the jury before whom any person indicted for murder shall be tried, shall, if they find the person guilty thereof, ascertain in their verdict, whether it be murder of the first or second degree; but if such person shall be convicted by confession, the court shall proceed by examination of witnesses, to determine the degree of the crime, and give sentence accordingly.

pleadings. In an indictment for murder, it must be charged that the prisoner "did kill and murder" the deceased, and unless the word murder be introduced into the charge, the indictment will be taken to charge manslaughter only.
--b--

It has to be done with Malace!!! Abortion doctors have no malace against the fetus nor the mother.

It has to be done with Malace!!!


malice
One entry found for malice.
Main Entry: mal·ice
Pronunciation: 'ma-l&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin malitia, from malus bad
1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse


Abortion IS done with malice because it is done to cause an injury *and death* of another.

The only excuse which would be deemable would be if the mother's life is at risk and miscarriage is a natural way of getting rid of an unborn.



There are plenty of alternatives the woman can take to make sure she doesn't become pregnant in the first place, therefore putting her in a spot to bear an unwanted child.
It is her responsibility NOT to get pregnant.

Through the use of micro-cameras they have shown that the unborn child does react to the abortion instruments. It tries its best to get away from the instruments. There have even been pictures showing a silent scream.

When it comes to partial birth abortion it is even more probable that the baby feels pain. It is a fully formed child. Remember, there are premature children much younger than those killed in partial birth abortions who are alive and well today.

malice
One entry found for malice.
Main Entry: mal·ice
Pronunciation: 'ma-l&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin malitia, from malus bad
1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse


Abortion IS done with malice because it is done to cause an injury *and death* of another.

The only excuse which would be deemable would be if the mother's life is at risk and miscarriage is a natural way of getting rid of an unborn.



There are plenty of alternatives the woman can take to make sure she doesn't become pregnant in the first place, therefore putting her in a spot to bear an unwanted child.
It is her responsibility NOT to get pregnant.

when someone performs an abortion thier disire! and the key word here is desire to cause pain. The doctors do not desire to cause pain or kill the fetus they do it because it is thier job not because they take pleasure or desire in it.

The fetus does not feel pain before the 2 trimester because the nerves have not developed yet. so you point is mute on both parts.

"It is her responsiblility not to get pregnant."
that is the most sexist statement I have ever heard.

It take two to get pregnant... TWO!!

It is clear not murder.. if you want to call it manslaughter be my guest but murder is not the correct definition of the death of a fetus.

Through the use of micro-cameras they have shown that the unborn child does react to the abortion instruments. It tries its best to get away from the instruments. There have even been pictures showing a silent scream.

When it comes to partial birth abortion it is even more probable that the baby feels pain. It is a fully formed child. Remember, there are premature children much younger than those killed in partial birth abortions who are alive and well today.

what you do not say is that this is mention to happen in like the 12th week of pregnancy.

Yes silent screen the ultimate propagand of emotional manipulation.

The doctors do not desire to cause pain or kill the fetus

Of course they desire to kill the unborn child. That is what abortion is all about, killing the unborn child before it is born.

Of course they desire to kill the unborn child. That is what abortion is all about, killing the unborn child before it is born.

Main Entry: 1de·sire
Pronunciation: di-'zI(-&)r, dE-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·sired; de·sir·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French desirer, from Latin desiderare, from de- + sider-, sidus heavenly body
transitive verb
1 : to long or hope for : exhibit or feel desire for <desire success>
2 a : to express a wish for : REQUEST <they desire an immediate answer> b archaic : to express a wish to : ASK
3 obsolete : INVITE
4 archaic : to feel the loss of
intransitive verb : to have or feel desire
synonyms DESIRE, WISH, WANT, CRAVE, COVET mean to have a longing for. DESIRE stresses the strength of feeling and often implies strong intention or aim <desires to start a new life>. WISH sometimes implies a general or transient longing especially for the unattainable <wishes for permanent world peace>. WANT specifically suggests a felt need or lack <wants to have a family>. CRAVE stresses the force of physical appetite or emotional need <craves sweets>. COVET implies strong envious desire <covets his rise to fame>.


disire implies that thier soul purpose is to want to kill the fetus or harm it.

Disire in this context means that you want to hurt and kill the fetus for your own self satisfaction and pleasure.

This is not the case in the abortion. The doctor is simply preforming an act to end the life of a fetus that is not wanted.

There is no emotion attached to his work. The doctor does not have ill will or disire to hurt the fetus or kill it. This is not revenge killing or anything.

keep trying to twist it. it will not work.

disire implies that thier soul purpose is to want to kill the fetus or harm it.

What do you think they want to do with those instruments, tickle it? Their soul purpose is to kill it.

disire here means they want to do it for pleasure or self gradification. U can not use the word disire here because the doctor perfoming the abortion has not negative feeling toward the fetus.

Nno it doesn't. Desire refers to the wanted outcome. The doctor desires the death of the unborn child.

it is not an unborn child. a child can breath air and live without it's mothers body.

death of a fetus.

Your going to turn it into whatever you want. It is not true. The doctor doe not have a desire to hurt and kill the fetus for his own satifaction and gradification. It is procedure nothing more.

there you go using emotional manipulation again. It wont work because it is not murder. Getting rid of life because it is inconvient. We do this all the time. Innocent cats and dog are put to sleep every day simply because it is inconvient to have them around.

If it is murdering to kill a fetus so the mom can have a better chance of life in this country than it is murder to kill the millions of dogs and cats simply to save Americans money.

I have no clue why you keep talking about cats & dogs. I couldn't care less about cats & dogs, clearly you think cats & dogs are equal to humans and maybe that's the root of your problem.

You are being completely dishonest with yourself. Get rid of the smoke screen you have created for yourself. Crushing an unborn babies skull is murder, destroying a life purposely is murder. These murders are committed simply because it's the most convenient solution for the mother. It doesn't matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise, this is still true & unless you do not value human life, then you cannot say it is not wrong.

Now forget cats & dogs. We are talking about humans, not cats & dogs. They can put every cat & dog in existance to sleep and I couldn't give 2 craps about it (so long as my dog got a pass :))

I have to laugh when a liberal accuses someone of emotional propaganda. Liberals have been using that for years, in fact its pretty much thier bread and butter. I dont understand why warrior thinks its OK to show an old lady eating cat food in some dingy crack house so she can afford her medication but showing what really happens in a late term abortion is over the line.

Abortion is a tough subject for me. I'm pro-choice and I think that early-term abortions should always be legal, but I'm completely repulsed by the idea of abortion and I think it's morally wrong.

I still don't know exactly where I stand on the abortion. I can see both sides of the issue. When I was younger I was pro-choice, but the older I get the more I question this.

I have no clue why you keep talking about cats & dogs. I couldn't care less about cats & dogs, clearly you think cats & dogs are equal to humans and maybe that's the root of your problem.

You are being completely dishonest with yourself. Get rid of the smoke screen you have created for yourself. Crushing an unborn babies skull is murder, destroying a life purposely is murder. These murders are committed simply because it's the most convenient solution for the mother. It doesn't matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise, this is still true & unless you do not value human life, then you cannot say it is not wrong.

Now forget cats & dogs. We are talking about humans, not cats & dogs. They can put every cat & dog in existance to sleep and I couldn't give 2 craps about it (so long as my dog got a pass :))

Cats and dogs are equal to a fetus I say not a born human being or a full grown human being. I feel this way because the reason a human is different from animal is human awareness and consciousness and before the 2nd trimester the fetus does not qualify.

I am agains partial abortin.I do not think crushing a fetus notice I use fetus here brain after birth I think it is discusting.

It is not only convient for the mother (abortion not late abortion) it is convient for the fetus for when it is born in an unwanted world you put it through years of suffering, neglect and abuse and sent to our society the next generation of drug addicts, pediphiles, killers and mentally ill. This is not just about the mothers convience by far.

yes of course you don't care about animals just humans you are selfish and self rightious to this world thinking humans are the only things important to the planet.

I have to laugh when a liberal accuses someone of emotional propaganda. Liberals have been using that for years, in fact its pretty much thier bread and butter. I dont understand why warrior thinks its OK to show an old lady eating cat food in some dingy crack house so she can afford her medication but showing what really happens in a late term abortion is over the line.

I am not a liberal I am a centrist. I have issues all over the board so stop trying to tell me I am something I am not.

It is emotional manipulation to sway people to think the way you do.

again I am against late term abortion. I am for abortion before the 2nd trimester. Quit putting words in my mouth.

watching a homeless woman suffer is different than watching the mutilation of a fetus.

People do not make you watch the vet put your dog to sleep because they are afraid you emotions will stop you from doing what is best for your pet.

why is this any differet. If the mother cannot raise this kid properly and god knows foster care is not a good place for the kid to be. Why is it not in the fetus's best interest to be put down?

god knows foster care is not a good place for the kid to be.

Yet another stupid statement from Warrior. We have a poster who participates on this site who has said foster care is the best thing that has happened to him. I have two foster brothers and a foster sister I am still close with even though they have been out of the system for decades. My one brother just turned sixty, the other is fifty two and my sister is fifty one. I call them my brothers and sister because though they were foster children my parents always treated them as their actual children and I always treated them as my siblings.