Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

Plainsman

Rear Admiral
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
4,062
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

It bothers me only to the extent that if a mother's life depends on the procedure, how can we in good concience sentence both child AND mother to death?

I'm no fan of abortion, but I am less of a fan of letting a bunch of male blowhards in Washington make decisions for all women.

But if the head is out, why not birth the child insted of killing it? How much at a risk is the mother if the the birth has started? Doesn't the same sized dead baby come out as a live baby? Or once the child is dead do they perform other procedures?

And here's another question I have. If a pregnant woman is murdered, why is the criminal charged with 2 counts of murder? If it's a human in that case, why isn't the child considered a human at all times?
 

Boomyal

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Aug 16, 2003
Messages
12,072
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

Fortunately or unfortunately, this ruling means very little in the whole scheme of things. As the article points out, women will simply choose other legal means of abortion rather than the "partial birth" abortion.

That's ok CJY. If she chooses to break the law, put her life at risk and still murder an unborn child, that is her choice. SHE will pay the price as opposed to requiring the whole society to be her accomplice in this unexcusable, heinous act.

That's one of the differences between a Liberal and a Conservative. We are more than happy to allow an individual to suffer the consequences of their own behavior. You libs want to relieve her of that responsibility and drag us all down in the process.
 

Nos4r2

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
1,533
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

Thats because this is the "Self Righteous Boating Forums for Men". So your suprised by the responses? Where have you been the last 6 years?


:D I migrated...
 

Boomyal

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Aug 16, 2003
Messages
12,072
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

It bothers me only to the extent that if a mother's life depends on the procedure, how can we in good concience sentence both child AND mother to death?

That is a huge crock WBW. It is nothing but a typical liberal feel good appeal to justify an act that is beyond justification and that is very unlikely to occur in the first place. I dare you to produce statistics of how many mother's lives were in jeopardy in all of the late term abortions that have been performed.
 

JRJ

Commander
Joined
Sep 11, 2001
Messages
2,992
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

Just more control, and imo it should be a mother's decision. For instance, Cho was a cull that wouldn't have been missed.
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

Perhaps its the mothers "social" life we are speaking of.
 

CJY

Lieutenant Junior Grade
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
1,242
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

That's ok CJY. If she chooses to break the law, put her life at risk and still murder an unborn child, that is her choice. SHE will pay the price as opposed to requiring the whole society to be her accomplice in this unexcusable, heinous act.

That's one of the differences between a Liberal and a Conservative. We are more than happy to allow an individual to suffer the consequences of their own behavior. You libs want to relieve her of that responsibility and drag us all down in the process.
If you are more than willing to allow a women to suffer the consequences of her choice, then why all the biotching, the picketing, the David Rudolph type bombings and murder?

That does not sound like what you try to describe. As usual, just more propaganda BS from you Boom.

Furthermore, please show me where I said I am in favor of relieving anybody of their responsibilities? You really should read everything rather than read things into the part you do read. Just a thought.
 

ob

Admiral
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
6,992
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

ob, my first sentence simply states fact, not my opinion. It really does mean little. Other forms are still legal, therefore, abortion will continue. It's not by my choice, it's by the courts choice. Get it? I have nothing to do with it. Where did I say it was good, bad, right, or wrong? I think, yes, I think, if you read every word I typed, it says, "fortunately or unfortunately." I specifically stated it this way to keep my opinion on abortion out for reasons already stated.
Well it is my 'Opinion' that this ruling is a step at least in the right direction to begin the abolition of late term abortions.That's what this thread is about .Partial birth abortions are late term abortions and comprise no more than 10% of all abortions performed.Quite frankly I have just as much a problem with the procedure that is the option to what the courts define as partial birth abortions.Hopefully it will be shut down next.How soon?Who knows?Therefore,your comment of other forms of abortion still being legal has little or nothing to do with the topic of partial birth or late term abortions.As I opined above ,your opening comment was just that.Opinion.Nothing more ,nothing less.Get it.
Others may feel that any term abortion is just plain wrong and that is their right.The conception issue is a whole other debate.
 

Haut Medoc

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
10,645
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

And here's another question I have. If a pregnant woman is murdered, why is the criminal charged with 2 counts of murder? If it's a human in that case, why isn't the child considered a human at all times?

I'll answer that.....
Killing a pregnant woman has to be one of the most heinous crimes that I can think of........:mad:
 

Boomyal

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Aug 16, 2003
Messages
12,072
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

And here's another question I have. If a pregnant woman is murdered, why is the criminal charged with 2 counts of murder? If it's a human in that case, why isn't the child considered a human at all times?

I'll answer that.....
Killing a pregnant woman has to be one of the most heinous crimes that I can think of........:mad:


Doesn't hardly get to the heart of the question Haut. Let me re-phrase it. If a murderer kills the mother and the baby in-utero, then gets a double murder charge, why doesn't the mother and the abortion Dr get a single murder charge for killing the same baby in-utero?

Don't give me that 'choice' crap. Killing an unborn child is absolutely no different, regardless of the motive. But then the Libs, of which you are becoming, are wont to fashion circumstance to their/your purpose.

Or maybe we could look at it this way. A way that you could probably get your mind around. If a mother and her abortionist kills an unborn child, it is just murder. If a murderer kills a mother, with unborn child, then it is murder times two. Two for the mother and then two for the baby.

Fits right in with your liberal compatriot's hate crime logic, doesn't it.:p
 

RubberFrog

Rear Admiral
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
4,268
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

I don't think I will ever understand the liberal logic that says it is a womans "choice" to murder a child.
 

PW2

Commander
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,719
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

I don't think I will ever understand the liberal logic that says it is a womans "choice" to murder a child.

FWIW, RF, I'm not a medical expert on this, but I have no problem banning "late term" abortions, except in the case where a mother's life would be unnecessarily put at risk. I don't know in how many cases that would apply, if any, but to put decisions in the hands of a politician, and out of the hands of doctor, is dangerous precedent, IMO.

I hope legislators and the SC have their malpractice insurance paid up, as the first woman that dies because a doctor refuses to save her life, someone is going to get sued--and win--big time.
 

RubberFrog

Rear Admiral
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
4,268
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

I hope legislators and the SC have their malpractice insurance paid up, as the first woman that dies because a doctor refuses to save her life, someone is going to get sued--and win--big time.

Tell me again why they have to saw the babies head off to save the mother?
 

RubberFrog

Rear Admiral
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
4,268
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

And if a doctor says I should saw off your head to cure my gas... you want the courts to stay out of it?

Don't use that worn out "ask the doctor" bs. They are not gods, they're people. And they murder innocent children. They could just as easily let the baby live as it saw its head off.
 

CJY

Lieutenant Junior Grade
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
1,242
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

I think in sorts, it comes down to semantics. Why kill the baby by cutting the head off after partial birth? I think the law may say that the baby has not yet been born. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, life has not yet begun. Hence, it is not called murder and is therefore legal. By law standards, anyway.

If the baby is delivered, then killed, well then the law calls it murder.

I guess the real argument then changes to, when does life begin? Obviously some believe at conception while others believe at birth. Right now, the law says life begins at birth. That will have to change to outlaw abortion.
 

Haut Medoc

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
10,645
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

Doesn't hardly get to the heart of the question Haut. Let me re-phrase it. If a murderer kills the mother and the baby in-utero, then gets a double murder charge, why doesn't the mother and the abortion Dr get a single murder charge for killing the same baby in-utero?

Don't give me that 'choice' crap. Killing an unborn child is absolutely no different, regardless of the motive. But then the Libs, of which you are becoming, are wont to fashion circumstance to their/your purpose.

Or maybe we could look at it this way. A way that you could probably get your mind around. If a mother and her abortionist kills an unborn child, it is just murder. If a murderer kills a mother, with unborn child, then it is murder times two. Two for the mother and then two for the baby.

Fits right in with your liberal compatriot's hate crime logic, doesn't it.:p

I will give you that choice crap...
Someone who kills a pregnant women, is taking away her (& her child's)right to life....
That child gets its 'right to life' through its mother......
By killing the mother he has taken her right to choose her life & the unborn child's......
If a mother has a doctor help her end an unwanted pregnancy, that is her choice........
That's the way I see it........;)
 

Haut Medoc

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
10,645
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure


Or maybe we could look at it this way. A way that you could probably get your mind around. If a mother and her abortionist kills an unborn child, it is just murder. If a murderer kills a mother, with unborn child, then it is murder times two. Two for the mother and then two for the baby.

If a mother & her abortionist end a pregnancy, it is not murder......;)
I know your religious beliefs preclude you from seeing it any other way than murder......
& I can respect that, but I do not agree with it......:)


 

LubeDude

Admiral
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Messages
6,945
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

What are the facts on the partial birth abortion statistics?

The partial-birth abortion ban is a hotly contested current political, legal, and cultural issue. The US Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 760, S. 3) by a wide margin in October 2003 and it was signed into law by President Bush in November. Within hours of becoming law, judges in New York City, San Francisco, and Lincoln Nebraska blocked it from taking force. The ban has yet to be enforced pending legal challenges.

The Justice Department made it clear that it will fight for the federal ban. President Bush stated, "We will continue to defend the law to protect new innocent life" and "affirm a basic standard of humanity, the duty of the strong to protect the weak." Previously, more than 30 states had passed partial-birth abortion ban laws that were subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court in a narrow 5 to 4 decision who disregarded what 30 state legislatures and two thirds of the American people believed was right. This is why the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was written and passed into law.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act banned partial-birth abortions except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother and calls for a two-year jail term for violators. Pro-abortion supporters have argued that the government was determining the safest and best treatment for patients with no knowledge of the medical circumstances. Abortionists have also argued that "according to responsible opinion, there are times when the banned procedure is medically necessary."

But in reality, as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other eminent medical authorities told Congress: "Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect the mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both." Also, Jay Sekulow of the Center for Law and Justice said the "so-called health exception" is a false argument aimed at undermining a "law designed to end (a) horrific procedure."

A partial-birth abortion is performed in the second or third trimester and entails inducing a breech delivery with forceps, delivering the legs, arms, and torso only, puncturing the back of the skull with a scissors or trochar, inserting a suction catheter into the skull, sucking out the contents of the skull so as to collapse it and completing the delivery by removing the collapsed skull.

A January 2003 Gallop poll found that 70% favored a ban on partial-birth abortion with only 25% against it. If the partial-birth abortion procedure would be shown on prime time TV, the current 70% against it would likely climb up into the 90% range. Neither the public nor the women undergoing the procedure are fully exposed to the how horrific the procedure is and how much excruciating pain and suffering the unborn baby experiences.

The pro-abortionists do not have consideration for the welfare of the unborn child in any of their arguments. They use false and unsubstantiated pregnancy health issues as a basis for "on demand" late term partial-birth abortions. The pro-life supporters consider both the mother and the unborn baby in their arguments.

The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) put out a statement commenting on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. This act simply states that babies born alive are persons. The NARAL comments effectively sanction the killing of unwanted (by the mother) babies that survive an abortion attempt. Abortionists are now condoning infanticide.

Why Abortions Are Performed
The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.

Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;

1% because of fetal abnormalities;

3% due to the mother's health problems.

Over 4,000 abortions are performed each and every day in America! 120,000 every month, Nearly 1,500,000 every year.

God forgive us!
 

RubberFrog

Rear Admiral
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
4,268
Re: Supreme Court upholds first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure

I know your religious beliefs preclude you from seeing it any other way than murder......
& I can respect that, but I do not agree with it......:)

Don't try to discredit it by using some anti-religion defense. When you kill a human being, it's murder.
The fact that you lack a conscience or the ability to tell right from wrong does not lessen the fact that babies are murdered by pathetic selfish human beings.
 
Top