Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vampyroteuthis · 04-18-2007, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian

I predict that the current congress will change the law promptly now that it's been upheld.

Do you really think there is a chance of this? I sincerely hope you are correct.

I never thought Bush could be re-elected or that ID would ever be seriously considered an "alternate theory" to evolution but I was dead wrong on both.

This is where I get my feeling of dread.

tjakey · 04-18-2007, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel00

Any chance the lawyerly types could tell us laypeople what the case is actually about? I could click all the links in the world and probably not understand what's really going on.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think I can tell you what this case is about. It is about having the government and religion dictate how you are allowed to live your life. This from the republican party which claims it wants to keep government out of your life. Of course they lie.

tjakey · 04-18-2007, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian

I predict that the current congress will change the law promptly now that it's been upheld.

And I predict da shrub will veto it...

+or-1 · 04-18-2007, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyroteuthis

I could just cry at this news.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/sc...ion/index.html

Yup, they've managed to outlaw something like .2% of abortions. As the political pendulum continues to swing back toward the liberal this decision will evaporate. Pure political posturing. Not that I necessarily agree with it, mind, but most doctors won't perform partial birth abortions in any case except under extreme circumstances, will they?

James Madison · 04-18-2007, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjakey

I'm not a lawyer, but I think I can tell you what this case is about. It is about having the government and religion dictate how you are allowed to live your life. This from the republican party which claims it wants to keep government out of your life. Of course they lie.

Not quite.

Damian · 04-18-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyroteuthis

Do you really think there is a chance of this? I sincerely hope you are correct.

I never thought Bush could be re-elected or that ID would ever be seriously considered an "alternate theory" to evolution but I was dead wrong on both.

This is where I get my feeling of dread.

Yeah, i think there's a very good chance. However, since, as an above poster mentioned, it's such a small percentage of actual abortions, it might not be the highest priority. The more important thing to consider, though, is the perceived effect on the overall right of abortion. I'm not sure it has any at all.

Underseer · 04-18-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian

It's actually not that complicated of a decision. However, i think it's rather alarmist to paint it as the beginning of the end of abortion rights. The "constitutional right of abortion" is acknowledged throughout the case. However, there has never, ever been an absolute restriction of laws pertaining to abortion rights. The rule is that any law cannot put an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to have an abortion. It's that "undue burden" that is the gray area and is almost always at the center of any abortion law challenge, as it was here. So, the court was absolutely not upholding the legislature's ability to ban abortion, for example. The decision just says that this particular law did not put an undue burden on the acknowledged constitutional right.

I predict that the current congress will change the law promptly now that it's been upheld.

The problem is that late term abortions are almost always done for health reasons, and now those health reasons are illegal. How many women will be harmed just to reinforce conservative Christians' odd definition of life?

blastula · 04-18-2007, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underseer

The problem is that late term abortions are almost always done for health reasons, and now those health reasons are illegal. How many women will be harmed just to reinforce conservative Christians' odd definition of life?

I never understood why Christians think it's better to save the fetus than the woman. It's an easy choice for me if had to choose between my wife and a fetus.

Nitrousoxide · 04-18-2007, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gwen

A: No, a fetus is not a person.

Does that satisfy you?

Unsurprisingly, merely saying that a fetus is not a person does not convince me that it is not a person

Worldtraveller · 04-18-2007, 12:40 PM

Yeah, I predict that the real test of this comes when a doctor performs the procedure anyway, to save a woman's life, or a doctor/hospital tries everything else and the woman dies.

It's pathetic that it's come to this. Someone will either have to lose ther career and potentially face jailtime for doing thier job, or someone will have to die.

Fucking rethugs.

Cheers,
Lane

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-18-2007, 12:40 PM	#30
Worldtraveller Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,834	Yeah, I predict that the real test of this comes when a doctor performs the procedure anyway, to save a woman's life, or a doctor/hospital tries everything else and the woman dies. It's pathetic that it's come to this. Someone will either have to lose ther career and potentially face jailtime for doing thier job, or someone will have to die. Fucking rethugs. Cheers, Lane

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.