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.

 

Bush's partial birth abortion ban shot down by California Supreme Court Judge.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   
One thing that comes to mind is potential life-threatening problems that can develop in the mother in the later months of pregancy.
Hypertesion, diabetes, etc.




posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   
When did this become a debate about abortion in general. Sheesh.

Anyway, about the "the government shouldn't tell us what we can do with our bodies" arguement, man I have heard this more than anything else. The government certainly does have the right to tell you what to do with your body.

True freedom lies in autonimous use of your body and all things pertaining to it. Unfortunately for you, we don't live with true freedom, because it is a detriment to people as a whole. Even if we eliminated all forms of government in the USA, people would eventually group up (for various reasons) and rules would have to be put in place. True freedom takes a nosedive again.

As a society, we have the right to define what we as a majority believe to be the moral compass we follow while maintaining the MOST amount of freedoms we can for the individual. This is a tricky task as anyone who is interested in politics will tell you.

There are only two camps in reality.

ONE
You believe life begins at birth. Therefore abortion is not murder and justified should the person being subjected to their self-caused affliction want rid of it.

TWO
You believe that life begins at conception (this is the camp I'm in) where abortion would be killing a life that has yet to commit any wrong and is therefore blameless. It is the most innocent of all life.

There is no in between really. All this in the middle crap is just that, crap.

This topic has everything to do with the definition of life, and almost nothing to do with women.

Let me say that again, it has almost nothing to do with the women.

Personally, a well thought out choice, would be whether to risk having sex, knowing the outcome could be disease or pregnancy. It is a risk people take regardless of the safeguards against the two. When you gamble, you have to take responcibility when you lose.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia
One thing that comes to mind is potential life-threatening problems that can develop in the mother in the later months of pregancy.
Hypertesion, diabetes, etc.


Thanks for replying, Parrhesia, it's appreciated.

Why can't the fetus be delivered prematurely? Why does it have to be terminated?



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys

Thanks for replying, Parrhesia, it's appreciated.

Why can't the fetus be delivered prematurely? Why does it have to be terminated?


The fetus is not always viable, and in some cases (such as deformation making the head of the child impassible - can't remember the name offhand) it can not be passed.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
Thanks for replying, Parrhesia, it's appreciated.

Why can't the fetus be delivered prematurely? Why does it have to be terminated?


No problem, Bleys.

As for your other question, I have no idea. Seeing as a fetus can survive outside the womb from 24 weeks or so, I don't see why they wouldn't just remove it (especially in cases of medical reasons for termination), and give it a chance; it may just live.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Personally, a well thought out choice, would be whether to risk having sex, knowing the outcome could be disease or pregnancy. It is a risk people take regardless of the safeguards against the two. When you gamble, you have to take responcibility when you lose.


Lets say you go to a casino and go gambling. You are playing by the rules and using what the books say about odds and things. You may occassionally play on a hunch but for the most part are a safe gambler.

The unbelievable happens and in the morning you are a lot of money in the hole. You owe the casino your lifes plans, a large sum of money in payments over time, and you will need to make some major changes that you do not want or are willing to make.

As you are walking near the cashier booth where you will sign all of these things away, some guy comes up and says that if you do something that is totally legal it will stop all this from happening, but some people have a problem with it and will think you are shirking your responsibilities, what would you do?

Now keep in mind you have given it some thought and dont think it is wrong and don't know or care about these other people.
Also, nobody will ever know that you did this.

What would you do?

[Edited on 2-6-2004 by ashley]



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
The fetus is not always viable, and in some cases (such as deformation making the head of the child impassible - can't remember the name offhand) it can not be passed.


No caesarian could be performed? I used to do volunteer work at a hospital for encephalitic/severe downs/etc kids and the majority of them were delivered C section. Wierd side note, working there actually led me to my pro-choice stance.

Anyway, thanks for all your responses.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashley
Lets say you go to a casino and go gambling. You are playing by the rules and using what the books say about odds and things. You may occassionally play on a hunch but for the most part are a safe gambler.


First off, is there really any such thing as a safe gambler?

Second, I like your parallel, although I think it could use a whole lot of work. Money and a baby are completely different and you know it. Also, living a life in debt with no pay off but a night of fun gambling is also different from the raising of a child (although debt comes with the territory, it is by no means the bulk of the experience).

There's no need to draw parallels here. I'll answer the question I'm sure you want to ask me.

Yes, I have been in the position where abortion for me (I'm a man, so by me I mean the one I'm with) and others would be easiest.

Story One

One of my best friends is going out with another of my good friends. One night, in confidence, they ask me for money to have an abortion and they lay out their whole woeful story on me. I was in the military, and had plenty of money to burn. They on the other hand, one was in college so I don't need to tell you he was fairly poor, and the other was a waitress.

I said NO. They hated me, but screw that, I didn't and still don't care.

Story Two

When I was in college, my girlfriend (who already had a kid of 1) got pregnant by me even though we were careful and used birth control like clockwork. So, I quite college, came home, got a job and got married. She is now my wife and Jack is 10 months old and he kicks major ass.

Mind you we had already planned on getting married, just not as soon as we did.

So, that answer it for you? Personal responcibility, it's going the way of the dinosaur my friend. But is it any secret? It's not your fault that you got fat, or your kids got fat, blame fast food.

It's not your fault, take a pill it'll make your kids better.

It's not your fault, Bush stole all the jobs.

Anything else?



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Well good for you Jethro, you obviously wanted to have a baby and you got one.
Whats wrong with someone that doesn't want a baby to not have one?

As far as personal responsibility. You felt that having a baby that you wanted was being responsible to your person.
I think that not having a baby that you dont want is also being responsible to your person.
I also think that forcing someone that doesn't want a baby to have a baby is irresponsible to the other person.
Only caring about what you feel and not the other person is truly the definition of selfish.

Now how does that fit in with all the selfish name calling going around. Who is really being selfish?

[Edited on 2-6-2004 by ashley]



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashley
Well good for you Jethro, you obviously wanted to have a baby and you got one.


You are so so so so wrong. I DIDN'T want a baby and it screwed up my whole life. Did it work out? Yes. Why? Because I worked my ass off and made it work. Are you happy you did it? Yes, my baby is awesome.


Whats wrong with someone that doesn't want a baby to not have one?


Nothing is wrong with not having a baby if you don't want one. Problem is, is that if your girl is pregnant, you've already crossed that line. You got one.


As far as personal responsibility. You felt that having a baby that you wanted was being responsible to your person.


You misunderstand two things. One, we had a baby we didn't want, but had a loved anyway. And two, responsibility of a man typically does not lie in his need to take care of himself, but others. What people do not get, because they are trained wrong, is that the man is the head of a family/relationship because he is last. It's one of those "the more of a leader you are the more of a servant you should become" things. That is what being a man is about. Doing what needs to be done, not because it is best for me, but because it is best for those I care about. In that, a person is responsible.


I think that not having a baby that you dont want is also being responsible to your person.


Again, you are right, but I'll refer to two parts of the above responce. One, pregnancy means that you don't have the luxury of not having created something on a crashcourse with life. And two, being responsible is to those you love.


I also think that forcing someone that doesn't want a baby to have a baby is irresponsible to the other person.


Well, not rape is a totally different story. I know it's trite, but it's enough to cover all the bases, "two wrongs don't make a right". The whole "you can have an abortion if you are raped" ideal really strikes me as fairly mythological. The sins of the father placed on the child.


Only caring about what you feel and not the other person is truly the definition of selfish.


There you go, now you're getting it. But remember, the child is there too, and as a direct cause of YOUR actions and/or mistakes. Include that in your equation, and you get quite the pickle for a pro-choicer.


Now how does that fit in with all the selfish name calling going around. Who is really being selfish?


Ah, well I don't recall saying anyone was selfish (not in this thread at least). If I'm mistaken, please, point out the error. But I'm pretty sure from my responce, you can guess who is being selfish (since it seems to be on the topic recently).

[Edited on 2-6-2004 by ashley]



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
Could anyone give me any information as to why it is necessary to have a partial birth abortion? Other than it's a right of choice. I mean there had to be a medical reason for this orginally, yes/no?


By Dr. C. Everett Koop in the New York Times on 9/26/96. Dr. Koop was Surgeon General from 1981 to 1989. Received via PK on 9/26/96.
The primary reason given for this procedure -- that it
is often medically necessary to save the mother's life
-- is a false claim, though many people, including
President Clinton, were misled into believing this. With
all that modern medicine has to offer, partial-birth
abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother,
and the procedure's impact on a woman's cervix can put
future pregnancies at risk. Recent reports have
concluded that a majority of partial-birth abortions are
elective, involving a healthy woman and normal fetus.

I'll admit to a personal bias: In my 30 years as a
pediatric surgeon, I operated on newborns as tiny as
some of these aborted babies, and we corrected
congenital defects so they could live long and
productive lives.

Some may be justified. Most I feel is someone deciding in the last months of pregnancy that hey I don't want this and since it's legal to do it they do. There is no stipulation that the baby has to be threatining the life of the mother or that something has to be wrong with it. These babies are alive and fully formed as shown in the pictures. This isn't sucking a mass of cells with a vacumn, it is poisining or stabbing and sucking out brains of a devolped baby.

Our government and our people don't want this as shown by the ban being passed, but one judge basically paved the way for it to be legal nationwide. It is currently banned in these states.

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin

But if a federal supreme court judge declares the ban uncontitutional who knows if it will become legal everywhere. Write your congressman with the link in my first post to complain that you don't want it in your state.

Maybe one day all these pro choice people will see the truth. BLah Blah the government can't tell me what to do with my body my Ahole. Grow up people and look at the pictures of those dead babies and see it for what it really is.

[Edited on 2-6-2004 by Hoppinmad1]



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   
For all you pro choice people on page 4........

Is it not a viable option to adopt?

How can you go through with a termination (killing) of human life, and feel comfortable with that rest of your life, knowing that you could of given that baby a home and a chance to live??

It's called adoption.

There is no need to give a partial abortion if there is the option of adoption out there?
How could you live with yourself?


The only thing I can think of when it comes to partial abortion is the fact that these women truly didn't think it out, the only thing they thought of was themself, and not both parties involved, that being the baby and mom.

It's ok to spare her life the trouble of not having another person to take care, but it's not ok to keep the baby alive and adopt it to a family that couldn't have a biological child??


How the hell is that logical??

And your right namehere, we are living in a self indulgent society, with selfish people who only care about themselves and getting ahead regardless of what obstacle comes their way.
When you have a baby and find out too late opt for adoption, this bill is something I whole heartedly agree with. I don't agree with murder, i don't agree with the mother in this case because their is the adoption issue women can go for...

Giving that baby a chance at life is again the woman's duty, it the humane thing to do, there is more dignity in adoption and she would feel more better doing that then killing it because SHE just couldn't bear the thought of giving it away...

It doesn't make sense, it's not something you can just throw around... It's a life we're talking about here, partial abortion is a nice way of saying murder... It's nice to sugar coat things when you got an agenda isn't it... Makes you feel alot better about yourself... Cuz your not calling it what it really is...butchery and torture for the baby.

[Edited on 2-6-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Truelies-I like to believe that no issue is strictly a black and white one. While abortion is not an option for me, I can imagine times that it would be understandable or necessary. Rape, incest, severe malformation of the fetus, an extremely young child, you get the idea. I also see partial birth abortions to be extremely self serving after reading the posts of others.

Recently a study was done to determine the age at which a fetus begins to feel pain. The study concluded that at 20 weeks the pain receptors are operating. To me this fact is significant and should be studied more. Here's the link. news.bostonherald.com...

Anyway, like I said, I do think there are alot of grey areas in the abortion debate and hope that common ground can be found since it does not appear that the practice will be reversed by the courts.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   
What is unfortunate here is that the partial birth abortion law, written, passed and signed in to law by Republicans was done so with full knowledge the law was, on its face, unconstitutional. And that was done intentionally, as a political sham to create a wedge issue for the 2004 election.

It was brought by the Ashcroft Justice Department (an oxymoron in and of itself), which could have chosen any other federal district in the nations most liberal federal district. The choice of this district was to allow those sweet words those damn activist liberal judges trip off the lips of those running in Republican district in the fall. It made no matter where the case was head, the law was unconstitutional on its face.

Why would the Republicans, who say they are against abortion, do such a thing?
Because they lie. They are not against abortion on a national level because to ban it would be like having a death wish fulfilled.

Writing an unconstitutional law keeps the issue alive; provides the front of were trying our best but those liberal activist judges.. to keep the electorate engaged and not turning on them;

And provides a reason for those letters youll get saying We need your money to fight to save America from..

If you take the time to read the courts decision (just focus on the 4 Issues as presented form page 13) you may then begin to understand.

The law may very well have been written in a fashion (had could have met the courts objections) that would have made the law constitutional. But they did not. AND DID SO DELIBERATELY.

I am opposed to abortion always have; always will.

But more so, I hate deceit. And liars who practice political manipulation on those who trusted them to represent them. These are the folks who deserve God full wrath, more so then the pregnant woman, alone, making a monumental decision which will affect the rest of her life.

They should be first in line to rot in hell well before anyone else.

Courts decision:
us.rd.yahoo.com...=11vt1mh1b/*news.findlaw.com... pash60104ord.pdf



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Venus

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
REPEAT AFTER ME, no time in history has the idea of "right to choose" been confused with "right to murder". Only a twisted mind can tie that in with a right, constitutionally protected or not.

REPEAT AFTER ME, ABORTION IS NOTHING MORE THAN A HUMAN SACRIFICE TO THE GOD OF HUMANISM, WHICH IS THE SELFISH INDIVIDUAL.

Love to stick around and discuss this, but I have to go to work. Responsibility dictates it. My son needs new soccor shoes. He's cramped my style in an immature way, I suppose, but he is still a real gift from God.



I'll pray for you...............you need HELP


Let me get this straight. You are in favor of murdering the children, but I suppose you are not in favor of going ahead and tying a mill stone around your neck and jumping in the sea, yet you are going to pray for me?
Please, maybe you should do a little self reflection.
A right is something that you can excercise and it will affect nobody else. That is obviously not the case here, so it is not a right. Want a right to choose? Choose decaf or regular. There's a choice, and it'll affect nobody else. Rights also have responsibility. Your freedom of speech, for example, comes with the responsibility of telling the truth, and not falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. Abortion, on the other hand, is a flight from responsibility, or at least, the attempt to escape responsibility.

We might as well just say we will not agree. But don't bother praying for me in this case. My position hurts nobody, kills nobody. I'll pray for you.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Or bothered to denounce the dishonesty of the political manipulation that's involved here?

Or does no one really care, other then to have a reason to call each other names?????????????????

I am reminded and to quote Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty
Or bothered to denounce the dishonesty of the political manipulation that's involved here?



Have you? If so what did you come up with.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Narnia

Have you? If so what did you come up with.


Yes. Look back a page or so.............



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hoppinmad1
Oh and if you think partial birth is humane and is a given right go here and take a peek before you say anything else.

www.partial-birth.com...


I am prolife (aka - on your side), but shame on you for posting this Bull# site.

This thing is propoganda from top to bottom.

Here is the email address to the site leaders (the church folks). Please write them and tell them what you think (although even if you are being negative, don't be nasty).

Save My Children Ministries Email - Click Here

I'll put in quotes what I wrote them just now.




SMCM,

While I understand, and agree with the politics of your views on abortion and partial birth, dont you think it wise to rather educate rather than to incite emotional responses to filthy pictures first?

I, myself, have turned people to the truth of the abortion debate, and encouraged them to be not only the most educated, but the most unemotional and methodical killers of the pro-choice stance. Education, facts, and understanding is what will turn the tide. Showing pictures like these will not only incite extreme compassion for the poor children murdered, but when in a situation of strong emotion of compassion for a murder victim (which is what you create) is turned to sadness. Sadness is the precursor to anger more often than not, so it stands to reason that you would be breeding anger, contempt, and hate for the people responsible, which accomplishes nothing. Rather than attack, or design focus, on the women and doctors (which might be unintentional, but happens none-the-less), perhaps the cause might be more to your advantage.

The pictures I understand are a tool, an effective on at that. But perhaps they might be better served at the end of an educational (preferably on not laden with pro-life or anti-choice rhetoric) class, if you will, with regards to abortion and the partial abortion debate, legislation in detail, and the current system in place for women seeking abortions. Emotion is the bane of logic and reason, but it can bolster a base of knowledge. If you prefer the former, please dont change a thing (although I think a few more out of context bible verses might pull the old heartstrings more). I prefer the latter, mainly because it does more for the battle against abortion than an army of emotionally driven zealots without adequate ammo to do the job.

Your site is not Godly, as it is a modern day demagogue for the masses, failing to do proper research.

Thank you


[Edited on 4-6-2004 by KrazyJethro]



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty

Originally posted by Narnia

Have you? If so what did you come up with.


Yes. Look back a page or so.............



My bad, I noticed shortly after I posted. The link, from your post doesn't work however, the access is forbidden.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Narnia]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join