It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


NY Judge Rules 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional - A Fed Judge Agrees

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Bleys
As to medical necessity - the reason the bill did not contain the exception was because PP refused to specify when it was medically necessary. With the polarization between the anti and pro forces unwilling to further define and clarify Roe v Wade - I can see a conservative court outlawing all abortions either outright or subjecting them to severe restrictions.

I see that happening too, but I'm just as ideological on the issue as the opponents to all abortion and just as unwilling to compromise. So is PP. That's why they refuse to get between individual doctors and patients judgements by "spelling out" what constitutes "life threatening" like the anti-choice people want. What is the purpose of giving guidelines for Federal oversee of when a Doctor and patient may make private decisions about protecting the life of the mother? To intrude, oversee and restrict. Plain and simple. Block procedures pending review. And in many cases, probably affect the "Mother's" life.

Do you honestly believe if all these examples were spelled out for the anti-choice people and Judges made it law that would actually clarify anything or rather complicate the HELL out of the right to medical privacy? It would take a new department to oversee all Doctor/patient judgement calls in the life threating issues being presented here (which I applaud for the purposes of discussion) and violate even more rights!

No. In the words of Bruce Campbell it's a trick, get an axe..

They can either add a blanket exemption for the life of the mother and leave it up to the Doctor and woman or have their little ban struck down. That's it. Medicine moves faster than law and no "list" of Federally approved acceptions cuts it in my book, and it shouldn't in anyones. The right to Doctor / Patient confidentiality and a woman's right to determine her own particular level of "risk acceptance" is too important. I won't enforce even a 1% chance of death on any women, and no court should either. It's up to the Doctor and Patient.

posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Bleys

I'm very interested in several of the factors you noted, especially preeclampsya - do you have any links or reference material you are quoting from that I can review?

I'm still curious why, if the fetus is almost completely delivered except for the head, why it is necessary to terminate life function?

Thanks in advance.

I would think that there could be some extraodinarily rare cases where the baby was presenting in an odd position and could not get through the birth canal and the mother was in cardiac arrest. With today's medical capabilities, the baby could most likely be saved during delivery if the doctor was competant (barring extenuating circumstances.) Again, it is important to remember that there are approx. 2000 abortions performed during the third trimester and very few of those occur during delivery. Most of the third-trimester abortions occur in the 12 weeks before delivery and only when the mothers health is too poor to induce labor or go through a caeserian.

I've included some links with some backgound. Hope you find the answers that you are looking for.

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 12:21 AM

Originally posted by RANT
Of course, it's birth control!!! Kind of the whole point. A woman's control of her body. Her reproductive sovereignty. Not my opinion on it. Not yours.

How is it you are so protective of a womans control over her body, yet so adamant on the governments need to spend my money and control my healthcare? Inquiring minds want to know....

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 07:15 PM
a comment on preclampsia. i had it. although i am NOT for gov't regulation of any medical procedure, preclampsia isn't really a reason for partial-birth abortion. the condition sets in in late pregnancy and can be very well controlled with bed-rest and sometimes blood-pressure meds. it can be life threatening but it is usually spotted WAY before labor(which is when it can cause most problems. just thought i'd add some info on this pregnancy related condition for the person who asked.

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 09:24 PM

Originally posted by RedBalloon
....Should women have to sacrifice their own health for the sake of a fetus?.....
[edit on 8-9-2004 by RedBalloon]

Dont mothers already do this? Dont they stay up late caring for the baby, breaking their back in raising a kid? What makes this any different? Its just more excuses to keep abortion legal for women who dont have the sense of responsibility.

Originally posted by deeprivergal
I am pro-life. I believe that an unborn child has just as much right to live as the mother that is carrying it. Strangely enough I just had a debate with my sister on this very subject. She thought she was pro-choice. She's not. She doesn't believe that abortion should be used as a birth control, when in fact 95% of abortions are done as a means of birth control

The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.U.S. Abortion Statistics, U.S. State abortion statistics, by Race, by Age, Worldwide abortion statistics, teen abortion statistics

Excellent point. I must agree, lack of responsibilty and no thought for the murder they are committing.

[edit on 9-9-2004 by TACHYON]

posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 10:18 AM
It's very disappointing to see the tone of "women are irresponsible murderers" that's seeping through this thread. There are men involved, too, and they have a responsibility to consider. It's not all the woman's fault, decision or problem. But it almost always comes down to the woman having to deal with the decision making involved.

And if a woman chooses to die in childbirth, that doesn't really do much for the child as it leaves the child motherless. If the father has taken a walk on his responsibility, it leaves the child parentless altogether. I think a woman has the right to choose her own life over that of her child. However, I am still unclear on exactly why partial birth abortion is necessary. It still seems to me that if the baby is almost out or is viable and can be removed by cesarean, it should be saved and not terminated.

But then, I'm not a doctor so don't know all there is to know about pregnancy and the complications that can arise from it.

posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 03:20 PM
not ALL women who have abortions are murderers. like i have said before. i have 2 children, with both i almost died giving birth, i became pregnant again...even ON birth control, and my dr. and i discussed in great detail my chances of dying during this pregnany...they far outweighed the chance that i would survive. i and my family felt that it was more important for ME to be here to raise my two young children than to take the risk of dying. i am not ashamed of what i did, nor do i care what anyone has to say about it. if you want to be "pro-life", fine. but DON't generalize that everyone(even 95%) are having abortions as birth control. that is NOT always the case. had this procedure been illegal i may not have been here enjoying my two beautiful children.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in