Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure

[KCFlyer]

Whether die hards believe onr thing or another,the legal definition is the way of the land.And if they're tossing eggs....whats the difference,can't make one without the other yet.

The difference is...they are tossing fertilized eggs. A fertilized egg that will be implanted into a woman so that she can have a baby. A fertilized egg is an embryo. Why is it okay that a couple who wants to have a baby and has 20 eggs fertilized outside the womans body can throw away the 19 lives they created?

 

[Gilding the Lily]

The difference is...they are tossing fertilized eggs. A fertilized egg that will be implanted into a woman so that she can have a baby. A fertilized egg is an embryo. Why is it okay that a couple who wants to have a baby and has 20 eggs fertilized outside the womans body can throw away the 19 lives they created?

I know this is just semantics... but when discussing this stuff, semantics is often necessary. A fertilized egg is usually not considered an embryo until it implants in the lining of the uterus.

Thus, in some people's minds, throwing away the fertilized egg is similar to the "day-after" pill that prevents the fertilized egg from attaching.

 

[delldude]

Well then if it isn't attached there's a huge difference...and anyway,partial has a fully developed fetus,turned around in the womb to meet a legal definition,and then before it is bore into this world, having its brains sucked out.

Cool....

 

[KCFlyer]

Well then if it isn't attached there's a huge difference...and anyway,partial has a fully developed fetus,turned around in the womb to meet a legal definition,and then before it is bore into this world, having its brains sucked out.

Cool....

In the case of my child, there was no brain. But...according to this new law, my ex would have been forced to carry it to term, view the child and then watch it die as they cut it's only true source of life...the umbilical cord.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

The first response to last week's Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth abortion ban:

North Dakota passed a bill prohibiting abortion if the US Supreme Court ever declares that such a move would be constitutional.

The measure, which the Governor is expected to sign, passed the state House and the Senate.

In the event that the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, the bill would subject anyone performing an abortion to a prison sentence of up to 5 years, a $5,000 fine, or possibly both. An exception would be made in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother was in danger.

Article after the jump

 

[delldude]

In the case of my child, there was no brain. But...according to this new law, my ex would have been forced to carry it to term, view the child and then watch it die as they cut it's only true source of life...the umbilical cord.

I can't envision a scenario any worse than what you had to deal with and i'm sorry to hear of what you had to endure.
My beef is this procedure is performed on perfectly normal fetuses more often than not and like I said,theres a market for them which I believe is wrong.
Granted,there are some remarkable things being done with stem cells and other infant items....but where does one draw the line?

 

[local 12 proud]

but where does one draw the line?

You just dont get it dude...what line? <_<

 

[KCFlyer]

You just dont get it dude...what line? <_<

Local...let's substitute "gun ownership" for abortion. Some people own guns to kill other people. Some don't. Do we tighten down the laws on gun ownership because of those who abuse that right? I mean 30 innocent people just lost their lives in Virginia by a guy weilding some guns. Do we outlaw 9mm's? A lot of folks wouldn't like that in the least. Now...the ultimate judge of how the kid in VA used the guns will rest with God...just like the ultimate judgment of a person who has had an abortion will be God. If the government is not good enough to manage the health care for pregnant mothers who WANT to have babies...if the government is not good enough to supply money to mothers who HAD babies but can't afford to feed them...if the governent has no right to limit handguns that people can use to kill other innocent people....then why on earth should the government be involved in determining when a woman may or may not terminate a pregnancy? Don't get me wrong...I wouldn't want tax dollars paying for abortions...but I don't think the government needs to be involved in abortion.

 

[delldude]

You just dont get it dude...what line? <_<

I get it loud and clear...special interests draw the line that we deal with.Depends on how many pro-lifers lobby the government or on the otherhand,how many med companies contribute to campaigns.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

I get it loud and clear...special interests draw the line that we deal with.Depends on how many pro-lifers lobby the government or on the otherhand,how many med companies contribute to campaigns.

Are you suggesting that 'special interest' groups have infiltrated our U.S. Courts?

For the most part, abortion policy is being dictated by the courts. Of course, legislature has attempted to pass various degrees of abortion measures with limited success; but ultimately, it has been the Court that has guided our policy on abortion, for it is the court that has been deciding whether those legislated abortion measures are constitutional (i.e. privacy issue).

If anything, the court was infiltrated by the Pope. The five Justices in the majority in the partial-birth abortion decision also happened to be the Court's five Catholics. OK, I am kidding about this whole pope thing, but it is at very least, parodoxical.

 

[delldude]

Legislate from the bench??

Activist Judges??

Not in this country....

When this decision came down did you happen to notice the left and right sides (prez candidates)comment?

Right was pretty much in support while left was against the ruling....

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Legislate from the bench??

Activist Judges??

Not in this country....

When this decision came down did you happen to notice the left and right sides (prez candidates)comment?

Right was pretty much in support while left was against the ruling....

Ah. We are in agreement here (did you notice my choice of words: policy). I was just a bit curious on your stance on the whole judiciary and special interests (state's rights and bench slap legislation included).

 

[Garfield1966]

This is an interesting twist to the debate. The 17 month old infant has a degenerative nerve disorder. According to the doctors the infant will die, it's just a matter of when and under what conditions. The infant cannot speak, see or eat. With out a ventilator, the infant will die. The mother is fighting the doctor to let the child die of natural causes. The hospital wants to remove the vent and allow the child to die.

Former governor Bush signed into law a bill that allows the Children's Hospital to with hold medical care even against the wishes of the parents. So how is it that Bush will allow a child to be "murdered" outside the womb but not inside the womb? And how exactly does this job with his stance in the Terri Shivo case?


http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/25/baby.emilio/index.html

 

[Gilding the Lily]

This is an interesting twist to the debate. The 17 month old infant has a degenerative nerve disorder. According to the doctors the infant will die, it's just a matter of when and under what conditions. The infant cannot speak, see or eat. With out a ventilator, the infant will die. The mother is fighting the doctor to let the child die of natural causes. The hospital wants to remove the vent and allow the child to die.

Former governor Bush signed into law a bill that allows the Children's Hospital to with hold medical care even against the wishes of the parents. So how is it that Bush will allow a child to be "murdered" outside the womb but not inside the womb?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/25/baby.emilio/index.html

1st response...

How is it a natural death if the child is on a ventilator??? Isn't it a more natural death if the child is not on the ventilator?

 

[local 12 proud]

Local...let's substitute "gun ownership" for abortion. Some people own guns to kill other people. Some don't.

Yes and we call them "Murderer's"...a criminal who commits homicide (who performs the unlawful premeditated killing of another human being) unless of course it is in self defense.

Do we tighten down the laws on gun ownership because of those who abuse that right?

Certain Individuals who meet specific criteria should never be allowed to purchase firearms thats for sure. However keep in mind the criminal will always find a way to commit his/her evil intent.

I mean 30 innocent people just lost their lives in Virginia by a guy weilding some guns.

Yes and if just one person who was in attendance that day would have had a (CCP) that tragedy could have quite possibly been minimized or prevented altogether.

Do we outlaw 9mm's?

Nope!

Now...the ultimate judge of how the kid in VA used the guns will rest with God...just like the ultimate judgment of a person who has had an abortion will be God.

This is true.

If the government is not good enough to manage the health care for pregnant mothers who WANT to have babies...if the government is not good enough to supply money to mothers who HAD babies but can't afford to feed them...if the governent has no right to limit handguns that people can use to kill other innocent people....then why on earth should the government be involved in determining when a woman may or may not terminate a pregnancy?

Ahhhh...but the Government does have the right and indeed does regulate gun ownership by using (background) checks and when possible removes illegal or banned arms from the general populace. obviously a few nut cases slip thru the cracks and this cho fellow is a perfect example , but once again a criminal mind intent on commiting such attrocities like what we've just seen in VA. will find a way!

Don't get me wrong...I wouldn't want tax dollars paying for abortions...but I don't think the government needs to be involved in abortion.

Its not a perfect system by any stretch, but yes Our Government should be in the buisness of protecting Lives, I mean with your flawed "substitute" example we should just abolish the police and military altogether.