Freethought & Rationalism Archive

boneyard bill · 04-20-2007, 02:37 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.

One rarely-used form of abortion that is not medically necessary to save a woman's life was outlawed and the Supreme Court upheld the ban on this one type of procedure only.

In short, it is no longer legal to induce a birth and then, when the baby is nearly out the womb, to kill it, and then complete the delivery. Such a procedure is no longer legally classified as an abortion. It is still legal to kill the child while it is still in the womb and then extract it.

premjan · 04-20-2007, 02:42 AM

This makes some sense - birth is the operational definition for humanhood.

Loren Pechtel · 04-20-2007, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneyard bill

If physicians were concerned about saving lives, they would never perform abortions. A medically necessary abortion only addresses the question of which life to save because the mother's life may be threatened by the pregnancy. You presuppose that an unborn child is not a life. But that question has to be addressed before any other issue can be resolved.

If the pregnancy kills her the fetus has no chance of survival.

Dave Roberts · 04-20-2007, 09:20 AM

Repeating myself

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...&sel=TOC_5802&

Quote:

Eminent medical authorities, including Dr. Watson Bowes and Dr. Pamela Smith, have stated that a partial-birth abortion would never be necessary to save a mother's life. 27

[Footnote] In fact, Dr. Smith told the Constitution Subcommittee that in a situation where a mother's life was in danger, `no doctor would employ the partial-birth method of abortion, which--as Dr. Haskell carefully describes--takes three days!' 28

Catch that?

Make sense?

You see, if the mother's life is so seriously in danger - a three day procedure wouldn't be what one would use to save her life.

Did you all catch that?

This was not a procedure for emergency medical care

ComestibleVenom · 04-20-2007, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by premjan

This makes some sense - birth is the operational definition for humanhood.

Heh, that's always bugged me a little. Contrary to the assumptions of some, it's both because of the high level of development of the baby by that stage, and my support for post-natal abortion.

Nice Squirrel · 04-20-2007, 09:58 AM

There is little or no discussion of the political ramifications. This thread is being moverd to MF&P.

premjan · 04-20-2007, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel

If the pregnancy kills her the fetus has no chance of survival.

Depends right? Some children survive though their mothers die a little prior to childbirth. I'd say that if the child can be kept alive in an incubator and has a reasonable chance of survival then abortion at that stage should not be performed other than to save the mother's life. So maybe a stage at which a baby can be given a normal life with artificial aids is also a stage at which abortion should not be permitted.

Vampyroteuthis · 04-20-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneyard bill

If physicians were concerned about saving lives, they would never perform abortions. A medically necessary abortion only addresses the question of which life to save because the mother's life may be threatened by the pregnancy. You presuppose that an unborn child is not a life. But that question has to be addressed before any other issue can be resolved.

Obviously you didn't read my post about my friend who had to have this procedure.

Hooboy !! · 04-20-2007, 10:19 AM

There is no question that child bearing and birthing is a danger to the mother; and sometimes the mother and the doctor have to make hard choices about who lives and who dies. The operative word in that sentence was "who", not "what". If that who is "born" then this law is basically saying that they have the same protections under the law as any other person.

If you want to kill that certain "who", then don't give birth to it first.

whichphilosophy · 04-20-2007, 10:26 AM

The ban was on a specific type of late term abortion and not a ban on abortion.

However the article did not specify what that late term abortion was, thus the reader would not be so clear of what the article is referring to.

(Judge Kennedy) He said the ban on the controversial method for ending a midterm pregnancy is valid because other abortion procedures are still available.

However it is a ban on a particular method and not on abortion itself.

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

04-20-2007, 02:42 AM	#82
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	This makes some sense - birth is the operational definition for humanhood.

04-20-2007, 09:58 AM	#86
Nice Squirrel Contributor Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Death Panel District 9 Posts: 20,921	There is little or no discussion of the political ramifications. This thread is being moverd to MF&P.

04-20-2007, 10:19 AM	#89
Hooboy !! Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Arizona Posts: 20,817	There is no question that child bearing and birthing is a danger to the mother; and sometimes the mother and the doctor have to make hard choices about who lives and who dies. The operative word in that sentence was "who", not "what". If that who is "born" then this law is basically saying that they have the same protections under the law as any other person. If you want to kill that certain "who", then don't give birth to it first.

04-20-2007, 10:26 AM	#90
whichphilosophy Contributor Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Abu Dhabi Europe and Philippines Posts: 11,254	The ban was on a specific type of late term abortion and not a ban on abortion. However the article did not specify what that late term abortion was, thus the reader would not be so clear of what the article is referring to. (Judge Kennedy) He said the ban on the controversial method for ending a midterm pregnancy is valid because other abortion procedures are still available. However it is a ban on a particular method and not on abortion itself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.