It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michigan's Partial-Birth Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Whilst I appreciate your point, TL, the pictures you've used carry a pretty blatant agenda. Not that this renders the point moot by any means; but rather they're produced as a sort of "scare tactic"; if those pictures were genuinely intended to be a clinical guide, they wouldn't be using such inflammatory terminology (clinical: the use of "doctor" or "surgeon". Agenda'd: "abortionist").

This is going to come down to, basically, "you say tomaytah, I say tomartyr", if you will - you call it a baby, I call it a fetus. Neither is more "right" than the other, realistically.

It's clear that neither "side" of this is going to agree with the other's perspective; the thing that troubles me though isn't the argument of whether it's a baby, a fetus or something else entirely, but rather the legal ramifications involved.

What I'm most afraid of is this ban leading to other forms of abortion becoming unavailable. It's a very slippery slope. Where will it stop? Will RU486 become unavailable too?




posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Whilst I appreciate your point, TL, the pictures you've used carry a pretty blatant agenda. Not that this renders the point moot by any means; but rather they're produced as a sort of "scare tactic";


Not a scare tactic, rather your intrepretation of it. Let's not play semantics, the issue at hand is partial birth abortion, for those that don't know how the procedure is performed they can use those diagrams as a guide.
I didn't know the whole procedure myself as I've forgotten about it over time.


you call it a baby, I call it a fetus. Neither is more "right" than the other, realistically.


Again we're playing semantics here, I want to use a dictionary to see what the definitions are.

Fetus: In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

So at the end of the 8th week, what word would you like to use to describe the 'thing'?

ps: where's the moral concern for the unborn? this is truly disheartening.

[edit on 16-9-2005 by TrueLies]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
ps: It's a baby ... not a fetus.


I don't care if you name it Charlie and set up a college fund; Not the point.

What part of "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" don't you understand my Constitutionalist Libertarian friend?

The ruling wasn't PBA's are cool, get you some.

It was this ban was written poorly. You want to ban PBA's? Fix the law, and quit letting anti-all reproproductive right's people try to squeak in their agenda with backdoor bogus legislation.

The Constitutional issue:


In a ruling dated Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Page Hood (search) in Detroit ruled the law places an "undue burden" on women's right to choose an abortion. The parties in the lawsuit learned of the ruling Wednesday.

Hood also said the law is confusing and vague, and its exceptions for the health or life of the mother are meaningless and unconstitutional.

"The act does not describe any specific procedure to be banned," Hood wrote. "The act also does not distinguish between induced abortion and pregnancy loss."



Notice nowhere does the opinion teeter on whether or not PBA's are gross or unfortunate. No issue of "life" whatsoever. All that's resolved. The same people that want to ban PBA's however and use your logic and emotive propaganda want to ban the morning after pill too. Some even want to ban contraception! So who's side are you on here?

The Constitution and reason or sweeping and abusively vague authoritative declarations based on personal emotion?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
Not a scare tactic, rather your intrepretation of it. Let's not play semantics, the issue at hand is partial birth abortion, for those that don't know how the procedure is performed they can use those diagrams as a guide.


Let's be honest. If it were truly to serve as a reminder of the clinical procedure, there would be no mention of 'baby', 'abortionist', and the like. They're nothing more than propaganda tactics.





Fetus: In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

So at the end of the 8th week, what word would you like to use to describe the 'thing'?


I'm confused - your own paragraph states that "fetus" applies from the end of the eighth week to the moment of birth.

So the term is "fetus".



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I don't agree with pba's. I don't have a problem with the morning after pill, or abortion up to 4-5 weeks.

I pba's are practiced on unborn human beings that have developed their senses, the ability to hear and feel pain because they are beyond the development phase of a fetus.

I just can't agree with the procedure, the practice, and the time frame allowed to abort, at 5 months I personally render it murder.

Sorry if you don't like it but it's my op, despite my political party affiliation.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I don't "agree" with D&X either!

But I don't want the government telling someone else - who might, for example, be carrying a dead fetus - that she can't have one.

I truly hate that the procedure is performed at all; but that's my personal opinion, and it should never become the basis of overturning a matter which has already been addressed in the courts.

Now if there's a genuine legal basis for such a matter to be overturned, that's a different thing entirely.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
I don't "agree" with D&X either!

But I don't want the government telling someone else - who might, for example, be carrying a dead fetus - that she can't have one.


well, that clears that up...

I don't understand however the dead fetus part... what do you mean the government tells people who carry a dead fetus around that they can't have an abortion?

Is this legal currently? pardon my ignorance but i've never heard of such a thing, and if it's true, then I would have to object to that.



I truly hate that the procedure is performed at all; but that's my personal opinion, and it should never become the basis of overturning a matter which has already been addressed in the courts.


I thought Bush signed the pba act back in 2003 to make it illegal?
and now michigan over turned the state law? what government superceeds the other? state?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Well, if you remember the Supreme Court overruled 11 states laws when it came to the laws on Marijuana so the federal goverment has demonstrated it's belief (rightly so in most cases) it's preemenance (spelling?) on who trumps who.
Mayhaps what is needed is that the gov needs to reword the law so that it will just ban the D&E procedure except for use in the most extreme cases where there IS NOT a viable alternative.
The procedure itself as per DR. Koop and the OB-GYN community is not a procedure that is needed.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
I don't understand however the dead fetus part... what do you mean the government tells people who carry a dead fetus around that they can't have an abortion?


In-utero death is another reason why D&X is performed. More info here



I thought Bush signed the pba act back in 2003 to make it illegal?
and now michigan over turned the state law? what government superceeds the other? state?


He had no right to sign such a bill to start with...that's what I was saying, really


The procedure should never have been made illegal (whether or not I like the idea).



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
He had no right to sign such a bill to start with...that's what I was saying, really

The procedure should never have been made illegal (whether or not I like the idea).


Alright then. I can't talk about this anymore, it's making me dizzy.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Mayhaps what is needed is that the gov needs to reword the law so that it will just ban the D&E procedure except for use in the most extreme cases where there IS NOT a viable alternative.


This in itself could leave itself open to controversy; ask any two doctors and you could easily get a 50/50 split over who believes there's no alternative, and who doesn't.



The procedure itself as per DR. Koop and the OB-GYN community is not a procedure that is needed.


That's not exactly what they said...


The policy statement noted that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman


(emphasis mine)

I read that to mean something a little different....that being, it might actually be the best option, which could very easily be intrepreted as "The option which carries the best chance of a positive outcome". Sometimes, the 'last option' isn't the safest, or the best.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join