Abortion back on the top of the agenda

[glatt]

Speaking of people. These are the people who created the law that doesn't take a woman's health into consideration, signed that law, and overruled two federal courts in order to keep the law on the books.

Which demographic group is missing from these pictures? I'll give the reader a hint, it's the same group who is being controlled by the law.

Think after signing this law and having a few laughs, all the men went into the back room to have a few cigars and tell sexist jokes?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

--snip--There is also a risk of incomplete abortion, meaning that the fetus is not dead when removed from the woman's body.--snip--

You are mixed up here, Bullitt. An incomplete abortion is one where not all of the fetal mass is removed from the uterus. When a not-dead fetus is removed from a woman's body, it's not called an incomplete abortion, it's called birth. Come on.

[bluecuracao]

"Congratulations on your new Not-Dead Fetus!"

[9th Engineer]

Ah yes, because requiring a woman to decided whether or not to carry her baby to term before a certain deadline is the exact same thing as requiring her to sit in a back-ally with a coat hanger up her cooch. Why is it that anyone who wants to actually put some thought into issues like this can't find a spot on either side? This is not "slitting the throat of Roe vs Wade" or any of the stupid crap the sensationalists are pasting on the front-page news. It's saying that there is a point at a child's development before birth at which it has reached a stage of development which we would call human where it outside the uterus.
Abortion, like every issue more important then one's choice in shampoo, must not be allowed to degenerate into an all-or-nothing screaming fest from the extremes. Anyone want to argue from a scientific position rather then an emotional one?

[Ibby]

HEY, HEY, HEY, WHOA NOW!

Don't diss the importance of picking the right kind of shampoo!

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

... Anyone want to argue from a scientific position rather then an emotional one?

You can't. There is no way to prove conclusively when "it" becomes a human.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Just find a few Drs. and nurses that know what is right for young women, surround it with well armed men and women and kill anyone that tries to come in or near who is not invited. Everyone is connects via cell phone and radio.
It will be placed in a ranch, well inside the property, through several gates. The fence-line will be motion sensitive and patrolled. Each open field will have a full grown bull that will not tolerate anything in it's area.
Simple.

If they try to drive in, you take out their car. If they get out of the car... you load their corpses and the car onto a front-end loader and bury all of it somewhere on the property and continue helping young women.
"What car?... who?"

Going back to back-alley abortions and dead girls is NOT an option. Those that want to make it happen will be collateral damage.

Not gonna just shoot 'em?

[duck_duck]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

You can't. There is no way to prove conclusively when "it" becomes a human.

In that case why not assume the fetus is alive as soon as you are able to detect a heartbeat and brainwaves? After all the cervix does not have magic abilities that breathes life into a fetus as it passes through during birth.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by duck duck

In that case why not assume the fetus is alive as soon as you are able to detect a heartbeat and brainwaves?

Just making sure, you do know you can visually confirm a heartbeat and detect brainwaves as early as 5 weeks, which is 3 weeks before it even becomes a fetus. (It's still an embryo until the end of the 8th week.) Women will not even show a positive pregnancy test until the end of the 4th week. So your position is effectively pro-life?

[duck_duck]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Just making sure, you do know you can visually confirm a heartbeat and detect brainwaves as early as 5 weeks, which is 3 weeks before it even becomes a fetus. (It's still an embryo until the end of the 8th week.) Women will not even show a positive pregnancy test until the end of the 4th week. So your position is effectively pro-life?

I wouldn't say I'm pro-life but I don't see the point in a late term abortion unless there is a medical reason for it.

[Clodfobble]

I agree, I think that's a decision that any reasonable person ought to be able to make in the first trimester, barring late-stage medical conditions. But the presence of a heartbeat is not a workable deadline, was all I was saying.

[tw]

Originally Posted by duck_duck

I wouldn't say I'm pro-life but I don't see the point in a late term abortion unless there is a medical reason for it.

The reason for late term abortions were due to medical threats to the mother. What makes the Supreme Court decision so unique? For the first time, the life of a mother is no longer relevant. She must be condemned to death rather than have a late term abortion.

[Bullitt]

"This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

skip that part did we tw?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

skip that part did we tw?

Nothing was skipped. The ruling makes dilation and extraction illegal. Politicians can tell doctors what medical procedure is best - mother be damned. New laws are now possible to restrict good medical care in the name of morality - also called religious extremism.

The decision was quiet clear. Mother's life is secondary to life of a fetus even if the fetus is defective. That one paragraph forgets to include the other requirements and restrictions. Safest procedure is now illegal. To get any other medical treatment, a patient must first file suit in court. And then the fetus must be dismembered inside the woman – cannot be removed intact. This is called morality. “The act expresses respect for the dignity of human life.” IOW morality and ethics are smarter than science, facts and logic? Yes.

Kill the mother; save the world?

Moralists are the last people I want to decide my life for me. But Scalia and his puppy dog Thomas wrote a separate opinion to ban all abortions. No different than wacko Islamic extremisms based in the same moral reasoning.

Moralists somehow know better than a doctor? Wrong. Moralists include a man who said, "A man who marries outside of his religion inherits the devil for a father-in-law”. That exact quote is also moral preaching. A moralist was even told by god to invade Iraq. These are people who want to save me? From what? Clearly only they can be trusted; not I. Reason give: " ...respect for the dignity of human life.” Science, fact, logic, and brutal reality be damned.

Dialate and extract - what spin doctors renamed 'partial birth abortion' - is no longer legal as in that Nebraska law and in 29 other states. Other and more dangerous procedures may be implemented, but only with court approval. Cut up a fetus inside a woman is now the only legal method. Who here is so stupid as to think that is a viable alternative to ‘dialate and extract’? Endanger a woman in the name of morality? Then morality is satanistic. Endanger a woman to save a defective fetus? Clearly morality is more important than common sense, basic human values, and an American's right to decide for himself?

The Supreme Court ruling makes dialate and extract to save a woman’s life illegal in direct contradiction to what Bullitt has posted because he did not provide all facts. New laws will foolishly require more dangerous procedures AND only with court approval.

Morality no different than laws created by another religion – Islam. Funny. Those same moralists attack Islam for laws based in religion – and then impose the same moral extremism on stem cell research and on abortion. A mother’s life is now secondary to a fetus. Why? Because that is more moral.

[duck_duck]

This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html

Doesn't this mean it is legal if the procedure is a medical necessity?