SCOTUS agrees to hear abortion case - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SCOTUS agrees to hear abortion case (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 2/21/2006 11:50:40 AM EDT

[#1]

Wheeee this thread has turned into another abortion debate.

Posted: 2/21/2006 11:53:55 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Medically there's no such thing as a "partial-birth abortion." This is merely a term invented by the anti-abortion crowd to make it sound scary and horrifying. Just like the anti-gunners did with terms like "assault weapon," "Saturday Night Special," and "cop killer bullets."

Congratulations - you anti-abortionists have stooped down to the same level as Sarah Brady. How does it feel?

How does it feel being a Hitlery Klinton social agenda supporting dipshit?

www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA5.BMP

www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm
www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

Of course you know that posting the graphic truth might get this thread locked.

Posted: 2/21/2006 11:58:33 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Well... I'm also not sure, but feds can intervene if for instance a state decides that killing latinos is no longer murder and can be freely done by anyone without punishment as long as you do it by jabbing a hole into their head and ripping the brains out. Perhaps this is along those lines.

You're correct. Abortion could be handled as a civil rights issue. However, in that case, the baby would have to have standing. This would bring up the debate as to when is a person a person - which is a debate I want to see.

Posted: 2/21/2006 11:58:40 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
How does it feel being a Hitlery Klinton social agenda supporting dipshit?

www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA5.BMP

www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm
www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

Of course you know that posting the graphic truth might get this thread locked.

Sweet Lord......

Posted: 2/21/2006 12:04:26 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How does it feel being a Hitlery Klinton social agenda supporting dipshit?

www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA5.BMP

www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm
www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

Of course you know that posting the graphic truth might get this thread locked.

Sweet Lord......

Damn, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Posted: 2/21/2006 12:12:46 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Well... I'm also not sure, but feds can intervene if for instance a state decides that killing latinos is no longer murder and can be freely done by anyone without punishment as long as you do it by jabbing a hole into their head and ripping the brains out. Perhaps this is along those lines.

You're correct. Abortion could be handled as a civil rights issue. However, in that case, the baby would have to have standing. This would bring up the debate as to when is a person a person - which is a debate I want to see.

When a person is a person is irrevelant in the abortion debate. When life begins is irrevelant. A woman's right to choose is irrevelant.

The only revelant issue is when the state's compelling interest in the preservation of "potential life" overrides the mother's right to privacy.

Posted: 2/21/2006 12:22:38 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

When a person is a person is irrevelant in the abortion debate.
Actually, that is the only relevant issue in the debate.

Some important facts worth remembering:
1. Among the industrialized nations it was the Nazis that made abortion legal in Germany for the first time in it's history, and the Communists in Russia that made abortion legal for the first time in Russian history.
2. The founder of Planned Parenthood was a Nazi sympathizer who wanted to eliminate all people of color.
3. At no time in the history of man has the humanity of something been attributed to that which was not in fact a human being. No medical doctor ever stated that a tree, or a rock, or a lung, was a human being.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that the are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these is life."

Posted: 2/21/2006 12:27:43 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
The only revelant issue is when the state's compelling interest in the preservation of "potential life" overrides the mother's right to privacy.

It is not "potential life". It is a HUMAN life, in an earlier stage of development than you and I are at. That is a scientific fact.

As such, the woman's "right to privacy" has no more bearing than my "right to privacy" to kill my dog in my own home.

Posted: 2/21/2006 12:29:18 PM EDT

[#9]

This one will pass the muster but it will not be a major victory for prolife either but reaffirming common sense laws that prevent skirting intent.

At the time of Roe v Wade the accepted norm was if they child could breathe on its own. It wasn't as long as the child is in the woumb. Killing a child that could breathe outside the woumb is murder not an abortion of a fetus. This will not settle the what is a fetus argument but reaffirm an old standard.

For those that support partial-birth abortion, I highly suggest you read up on the topic rather than cloud your mind with politics. This isn't nor should be an accepted practice regardless of your stance on abortion in general. Simply put a child that can live outside the woumb being take all but his head from the woumb and then its brains sucked out through a tube to prevent it from taking a breath is skirting the law and common decency.

This is actually more of a human rights issue than technically an abortion issue.

Tj

Posted: 2/21/2006 12:31:44 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well... I'm also not sure, but feds can intervene if for instance a state decides that killing latinos is no longer murder and can be freely done by anyone without punishment as long as you do it by jabbing a hole into their head and ripping the brains out. Perhaps this is along those lines.

You're correct. Abortion could be handled as a civil rights issue. However, in that case, the baby would have to have standing. This would bring up the debate as to when is a person a person - which is a debate I want to see.

When a person is a person is irrevelant in the abortion debate. When life begins is irrevelant. A woman's right to choose is irrevelant.

The only revelant issue is when the state's compelling interest in the preservation of "potential life" overrides the mother's right to privacy.

But it does matter in a federal civil rights case. You must be a citizen or covered under the umbrella of the constitution to have a right to action, yes? So it would then matter if you were actually considered a "person" with legal rights. I'm afraid that's going to be hard to sell when the contitution says "born" not concieved.

Posted: 2/21/2006 12:37:02 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The only revelant issue is when the state's compelling interest in the preservation of "potential life" overrides the mother's right to privacy.

It is not "potential life". It is a HUMAN life, in an earlier stage of development than you and I are at. That is a scientific fact.

It is "potential life" when you are talking about legalized abortions.

Originally Posted By Roe vs Wade:
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life...

Quoted:
As such, the woman's "right to privacy" has no more bearing than my "right to privacy" to kill my dog in my own home.

ETA: The state can override your right to privacy if you are not treating your dog humanely.

A woman's right to privacy is the foundation of the Roe vs Wade decision. Ruling within Roe or overturning Roe will be based upon a woman's right to privacy.

Originally Posted By Roe vs Wade:
On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.

www.roevswade.org/Decision.html - Full text of Roe vs Wade

Posted: 2/21/2006 12:39:42 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
A woman's right to privacy is the foundation of the Roe vs Wade decision. Ruling within Roe or overturning Roe will be based upon a woman's right to privacy.

Unless they find (as they should) that the basis upon which Roe v. Wade was decided was legally flawed.

Besides, just because the SCOTUS says it doesn't make it irrevocably TRUE, does it?

Posted: 2/21/2006 12:43:03 PM EDT

[#13]

In this paticular instance the right to privacy is a lame argument.

It may have merit if the child can not live outside the mother but after that the right to privacy doesn't out weigh the right to life.

Its the same as saying I can shoot my neighbor for peeking in my window.

To another point, no a victim does not have to be a US citizen to have his civil rights violated. The glow stick in the ass terrorists weren't US citzens.

This one will pass. The real crime here was not hearing it and allowing state courts to over ride federal law.

Tj

Posted: 2/21/2006 12:47:51 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
In this paticular instance the right to privacy is a lame argument.

It may have merit if the child can not live outside the mother but after that the right to privacy doesn't out weigh the right life.

You'll get no argument from me. I think that abortion is a great stain on this nation.

I am simply pointing out that when you burn away the chaff, the argument has nothing to do with when life begins or a right of a woman to choose or any of the other stuff we argue about when discussing abortion.

The point of the argument is right to privacy. All SCOTUS rulings will be within that context.

Posted: 2/21/2006 12:52:38 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well... I'm also not sure, but feds can intervene if for instance a state decides that killing latinos is no longer murder and can be freely done by anyone without punishment as long as you do it by jabbing a hole into their head and ripping the brains out. Perhaps this is along those lines.

You're correct. Abortion could be handled as a civil rights issue. However, in that case, the baby would have to have standing. This would bring up the debate as to when is a person a person - which is a debate I want to see.

When a person is a person is irrevelant in the abortion debate. When life begins is irrevelant. A woman's right to choose is irrevelant.

The only revelant issue is when the state's compelling interest in the preservation of "potential life" overrides the mother's right to privacy.

But it does matter in a federal civil rights case. You must be a citizen or covered under the umbrella of the constitution to have a right to action, yes? So it would then matter if you were actually considered a "person" with legal rights. I'm afraid that's going to be hard to sell when the contitution says "born" not concieved.

You are assuming incorrectly that the legalization of abortion hinges on whether the fetus has rights under that constitution. That is irrevelant. Most states perscribe rights to the fetus. If the mother uses drugs and the baby dies, she can be found guilty of a crime. If a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman, he can face two charges.

However, with all of that said, the states are prevented from preventing abortions based upon Roe vs Wade which says that the privacy rights of the mother override the states compelling issue of "potential life".

Posted: 2/21/2006 12:55:12 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If killing a 9-month-old baby is wrong, killing a 1-day-old baby is wrong.

That depends on your definition of "baby..." I'd love to see a scientific debate on viability instead of the hysterics you see on both sides.

Scientifically, it's alive at conception.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:13:44 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well... I'm also not sure, but feds can intervene if for instance a state decides that killing latinos is no longer murder and can be freely done by anyone without punishment as long as you do it by jabbing a hole into their head and ripping the brains out. Perhaps this is along those lines.

You're correct. Abortion could be handled as a civil rights issue. However, in that case, the baby would have to have standing. This would bring up the debate as to when is a person a person - which is a debate I want to see.

When a person is a person is irrevelant in the abortion debate. When life begins is irrevelant. A woman's right to choose is irrevelant.

The only revelant issue is when the state's compelling interest in the preservation of "potential life" overrides the mother's right to privacy.

But it does matter in a federal civil rights case. You must be a citizen or covered under the umbrella of the constitution to have a right to action, yes? So it would then matter if you were actually considered a "person" with legal rights. I'm afraid that's going to be hard to sell when the contitution says "born" not concieved.

You are assuming incorrectly that the legalization of abortion hinges on whether the fetus has rights under that constitution. That is irrevelant. Most states perscribe rights to the fetus. If the mother uses drugs and the baby dies, she can be found guilty of a crime. If a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman, he can face two charges.

However, with all of that said, the states are prevented from preventing abortions based upon Roe vs Wade which says that the privacy rights of the mother override the states compelling issue of "potential life".

I see what you are saying there. That makes sense.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:20:40 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
A woman's right to privacy is the foundation of the Roe vs Wade decision. Ruling within Roe or overturning Roe will be based upon a woman's right to privacy.

How Tyranny came to Amercia
by Joseph Sobran

"...Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.

Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the current liberal agenda? Come now.

It gets crazier. In 1993 the Court handed down one of the most bizarre decisions of all time. For two decades, enemies of legal abortion had been supporting Republican candidates in the hope of filling the Court with appointees who would review Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court finally did so. But even with eight Republican appointees on the Court, the result was not what the conservatives had hoped for. The Court reaffirmed Roe.

Its reasoning was amazing. A plurality opinion — a majority of the five-justice majority in the case — admitted that the Court’s previous ruling in Roe might be logically and historically vulnerable. But it held that the paramount consideration was that the Court be consistent, and not appear to be yielding to public pressure, lest it lose the respect of the public. Therefore the Court allowed Roe to stand.

Among many things that might be said about this ruling, the most basic is this: The Court in effect declared itself a third party to the controversy, and then, setting aside the merits of the two principals’ claims, ruled in its own interest! It was as if the referee in a prizefight had declared himself the winner. Cynics had always suspected that the Court did not forget its self-interest in its decisions, but they never expected to hear it say so.

The three justices who signed that opinion evidently didn’t realize what they were saying. A distinguished veteran Court-watcher (who approved of Roe, by the way) told me he had never seen anything like it. The Court was actually telling us that it put its own welfare ahead of the merits of the arguments before it. In its confusion, it was blurting out the truth."

www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:24:03 PM EDT

[#19]

Don't you find it funny that the Democratic Party is the only major political party in this country who advocate killing off their future voting base?

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:26:28 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
LTA's suck but then I feel those likely to seek an abortion probabaly shouldn't be reproducing in the first place. I'm inclined to let it be the woman's decision. I don't think I want the .gov wasting my time and tax dollars on this and I don't want to see political battles on this subject taking time and resources away from more important issues.[/quote]

Could you please cite a more important issue than murdering humans? You can call them fetuses, or you can call them babies, or you can call them just about anything you desire to help ease the moral shock....doesn't change the fact that they are humans and they are being slaughtered.

Did you notice what incident totally KILLED debate on Alito's percieved threat to abortion rights?
Cheney's shotgun accident.
I don't see much hope for this country focusing on anything important.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:31:17 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
A woman's right to privacy is the foundation of the Roe vs Wade decision. Ruling within Roe or overturning Roe will be based upon a woman's right to privacy.

How Tyranny came to Amercia
by Joseph Sobran

"...Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.

Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the current liberal agenda? Come now.

It gets crazier. In 1993 the Court handed down one of the most bizarre decisions of all time. For two decades, enemies of legal abortion had been supporting Republican candidates in the hope of filling the Court with appointees who would review Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court finally did so. But even with eight Republican appointees on the Court, the result was not what the conservatives had hoped for. The Court reaffirmed Roe.

Its reasoning was amazing. A plurality opinion — a majority of the five-justice majority in the case — admitted that the Court’s previous ruling in Roe might be logically and historically vulnerable. But it held that the paramount consideration was that the Court be consistent, and not appear to be yielding to public pressure, lest it lose the respect of the public. Therefore the Court allowed Roe to stand.

Among many things that might be said about this ruling, the most basic is this: The Court in effect declared itself a third party to the controversy, and then, setting aside the merits of the two principals’ claims, ruled in its own interest! It was as if the referee in a prizefight had declared himself the winner. Cynics had always suspected that the Court did not forget its self-interest in its decisions, but they never expected to hear it say so.

The three justices who signed that opinion evidently didn’t realize what they were saying. A distinguished veteran Court-watcher (who approved of Roe, by the way) told me he had never seen anything like it. The Court was actually telling us that it put its own welfare ahead of the merits of the arguments before it. In its confusion, it was blurting out the truth."

www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml

Ok, and what does that have to do with Roe's privacy ruling?

IMO, the South Dakota law will be struck down by the SCOTUS. What SD should have done is ban abortions after the second trimester with provisions for life of mother, rape and incest. That is a ruling that the current court would approve to shrink the span of Roe. Then other states could ban abortion after the first trimester.

Roe needs to be chipped away leaving only the foundation of the ruling. It is all there:

Originally posted in Roe vs Wade:
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb.

The court could say that viability is when a premature baby could survive. My son was born at 28 weeks (a full 3 months early). He is fine. Other babies routinely survive at 22 weeks.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:35:39 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

are you serious, man? a baby that is killed in late term is viable. Hell, babies that are born premature are growing it to healthy kids. WTF, over

Except that late term abortions are generally reserved for instances where there is a problem with the fetus that would make it important to still have this option available. Its not like a pregnant woman can waltz in at 8 months and demand a late term abortion for no reason, as much as the anti-abortion crowd makes it sound that way. I wonder how many of you would step up and adopt an infant that was born with some medical problem that the mother was forced to deliver because you guys were in favor of taking away her ability to choose. I am willing to bet the line would be pretty short, because lets face it: that would cut into your shooting budget and free time.

As for making it a states rights issue, thats like making voting a states rights issue, and we all know how far some states went in the last 100 years to make sure that some of their residents were denied THAT as well.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:40:22 PM EDT

[#23]

Originally Posted By Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:42:08 PM EDT

[#24]

Do you think it is ok that the govenment can suspend your right to privacy to determine if you are beating your dog, but can't suspend your right to privacy to prevent you from killing your unborn child of 8 months.

Oh, and viable children are terminated at 8 months.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:50:12 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
So tell me, do you think it is ok that the govenment can suspend your right to privacy to determine if you are beating your dog, but can't suspend your right to privacy to prevent you from killing your unborn child of 8 months.

Oh, and viable children are terminated at 8 months.

Says who? Some anti abortion group?

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:57:34 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Except that late term abortions are generally reserved for instances where there is a problem with the fetus that would make it important to still have this option available.
Actually, in sworn court testimony recently regarding the pain felt by the unborn child, an abortionist testified under oath that of the 1,200 or so late term abortions, less than 15% were for that reason.

Its not like a pregnant woman can waltz in at 8 months and demand a late term abortion for no reason, as much as the anti-abortion crowd makes it sound that way.
Actually in many cases that is exactly what happens, despite what the Nazi butchers at Planned Parenthood would lead the moronic brainless sheeple to believe.

I wonder how many of you would step up and adopt an infant that was born with some medical problem that the mother was forced to deliver because you guys were in favor of taking away her ability to choose. I am willing to bet the line would be pretty short, because lets face it: that would cut into your shooting budget and free time.
I would imagine that since you are a member of this forum you support the right to keep and bear arms. So how many children have you adopted who have lost their parent to gun violence.
Yeah, that's what I thought.

Posted: 2/21/2006 1:58:54 PM EDT

[#27]

Can you hear yourselves???

Anti-abortion groups?

Because we are against killing babies we are these wierdo outcasts of society?

Pro-Choice?
Who the fuck are you to make the choice to kill your child?????

Sometimes I wonder what type of fucked up country I live in when a mother can choose to KILL her unborn baby.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:04:22 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So tell me, do you think it is ok that the govenment can suspend your right to privacy to determine if you are beating your dog, but can't suspend your right to privacy to prevent you from killing your unborn child of 8 months.

Oh, and viable children are terminated at 8 months.

Says who? Some anti abortion group?

How about the surgeon general in testomony before congress:

But in reality, as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other eminent medical authorities told Congress: "Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect the mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both."

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:06:04 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:

are you serious, man? a baby that is killed in late term is viable. Hell, babies that are born premature are growing it to healthy kids. WTF, over

Except that late term abortions are generally reserved for instances where there is a problem with the fetus that would make it important to still have this option available. Its not like a pregnant woman can waltz in at 8 months and demand a late term abortion for no reason, as much as the anti-abortion crowd makes it sound that way. I wonder how many of you would step up and adopt an infant that was born with some medical problem that the mother was forced to deliver because you guys were in favor of taking away her ability to choose. I am willing to bet the line would be pretty short, because lets face it: that would cut into your shooting budget and free time.

As for making it a states rights issue, thats like making voting a states rights issue, and we all know how far some states went in the last 100 years to make sure that some of their residents were denied THAT as well.

I am shocked at how fucking callous you 'pro-choice' pricks can be.
What his her ability to choose? What a pretty way to say she wanted to kill the baby she was carrying.

And for making it seem that ar15.com members who do not support a woman's right to kill her baby, Im sorry, I mean her right to CHOOSE, are peices of shit. Fuck you, whats the last thing you did to help society? Support a woman's right to choose?

Come on man, don't fucking act like abortion isnt murder cause you are just fooling yourself.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:10:43 PM EDT

[#30]

No matter what your stance on the when life begins, any "abortion" past the time for viability=infanticide.

If you can be charged with fetal murder if you cause the death of a viable fetus, why then is late term abortion legal?

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:12:18 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
No matter what your stance on the when life begins, any "abortion" past the time for viability=infanticide.

If you can be charged with fetal murder if you cause the death of a viable fetus, why then is late term abortion legal?

Once again. When life begins is Irrevelant to the abortion debate. See page 3.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:13:11 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

are you serious, man? a baby that is killed in late term is viable. Hell, babies that are born premature are growing it to healthy kids. WTF, over

Except that late term abortions are generally reserved for instances where there is a problem with the fetus that would make it important to still have this option available. Its not like a pregnant woman can waltz in at 8 months and demand a late term abortion for no reason, as much as the anti-abortion crowd makes it sound that way. I wonder how many of you would step up and adopt an infant that was born with some medical problem that the mother was forced to deliver because you guys were in favor of taking away her ability to choose. I am willing to bet the line would be pretty short, because lets face it: that would cut into your shooting budget and free time.

As for making it a states rights issue, thats like making voting a states rights issue, and we all know how far some states went in the last 100 years to make sure that some of their residents were denied THAT as well.

I am shocked at how fucking callous you 'pro-choice' pricks can be.
What his her ability to choose? What a pretty way to say she wanted to kill the baby she was carrying.

And for making it seem that ar15.com members who do not support a woman's right to kill her baby, Im sorry, I mean her right to CHOOSE, are peices of shit. Fuck you, whats the last thing you did to help society? Support a woman's right to choose?

Come on man, don't fucking act like abortion isnt murder cause you are just fooling yourself.

If you can't keep your posts Civil, please don't post.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:18:51 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
If you can't keep your posts Civil, please don't post.

The pit is closed, and I had an opinion.
If you didnt like it, well tough luck, I cant make everybody happy.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:35:29 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
No matter what your stance on the when life begins, any "abortion" past the time for viability=infanticide.

If you can be charged with fetal murder if you cause the death of a viable fetus, why then is late term abortion legal?

This procedure is rarely used but is one of the focal points of the abortion debate because the fetus is mostly developed. Uses for it vary and include operations dealing with a child with hydrocephalus or other threats to the woman's health. That is why this law should CONTINUE to be struck down as long as it has no exception for the woman's health.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:38:16 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
late term is outright murder.

All abortion is outright murder

+1

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:38:42 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
No matter what your stance on the when life begins, any "abortion" past the time for viability=infanticide.

If you can be charged with fetal murder if you cause the death of a viable fetus, why then is late term abortion legal?

Once again. When life begins is Irrevelant to the abortion debate. See page 3.

Once again, it is only irrelevant to the pro-abortionists, to the pro-lifers, it is all that matters.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:42:14 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
No matter what your stance on the when life begins, any "abortion" past the time for viability=infanticide.

If you can be charged with fetal murder if you cause the death of a viable fetus, why then is late term abortion legal?

This procedure is rarely used

And what is "rarely" to you. I would bet that at this very moment you have no idea. 20,000 times a year, 50,000?

It was the Nazis and Communists that first made abortion legal in Germany and Russia. God forgive us for allowing their barbaric murderous filth into the United States.

Posted: 2/21/2006 2:58:01 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No matter what your stance on the when life begins, any "abortion" past the time for viability=infanticide.

If you can be charged with fetal murder if you cause the death of a viable fetus, why then is late term abortion legal?

This procedure is rarely used

And what is "rarely" to you. I would bet that at this very moment you have no idea. 20,000 times a year, 50,000?

It was the Nazis and Communists that first made abortion legal in Germany and Russia. God forgive us for allowing their barbaric murderous filth into the United States.

noone has any real idea how many D&X's are performed each year, due to differeing reporting requirements in each state.

Estimates vary from 2000 to 6000 per year.

Personally, I have not much problem with the ban, but it achieves nothing. They will simply use another procedure where they chop up the fetus inside the womb and remove the pieces. This ban doesn't affect that procedure at all.

Posted: 2/21/2006 3:00:16 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No matter what your stance on the when life begins, any "abortion" past the time for viability=infanticide.

If you can be charged with fetal murder if you cause the death of a viable fetus, why then is late term abortion legal?

This procedure is rarely used

And what is "rarely" to you. I would bet that at this very moment you have no idea. 20,000 times a year, 50,000?

It was the Nazis and Communists that first made abortion legal in Germany and Russia. God forgive us for allowing their barbaric murderous filth into the United States.

About 0.2% of abortions according to what I've read.

Posted: 2/21/2006 3:16:28 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
That depends on your definition of "baby..." I'd love to see a scientific debate on viability instead of the hysterics you see on both sides.

Scientifically, it's alive at conception.

I said a debate on viability. A sperm is "alive". An egg is "alive". A zygote is "alive". But I wouldn't call any of them a "baby." I would call a four month old fetus a "baby," but then again, I'd like to see that debate.

Posted: 2/21/2006 3:18:52 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That depends on your definition of "baby..." I'd love to see a scientific debate on viability instead of the hysterics you see on both sides.

Scientifically, it's alive at conception.

I said a debate on viability. A sperm is "alive". An egg is "alive". A zygote is "alive". But I wouldn't call any of them a "baby." I would call a four month old fetus a "baby," but then again, I'd like to see that debate.

Well, viability is dependant upon technology. What debate did you have in mind?

Posted: 2/21/2006 4:29:39 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well... I'm also not sure, but feds can intervene if for instance a state decides that killing latinos is no longer murder and can be freely done by anyone without punishment as long as you do it by jabbing a hole into their head and ripping the brains out. Perhaps this is along those lines.

You're correct. Abortion could be handled as a civil rights issue. However, in that case, the baby would have to have standing. This would bring up the debate as to when is a person a person - which is a debate I want to see.

When a person is a person is irrevelant in the abortion debate. When life begins is irrevelant. A woman's right to choose is irrevelant.

The only revelant issue is when the state's compelling interest in the preservation of "potential life" overrides the mother's right to privacy.

Yes, so far as it goes.

There certainly is a compelling state interst in preserving the life of a viable fetus--what would otherwise be a child outside of the womb that would survive, perhaps with life support, outside of the womb.

There is a compelling state interest in preserving the life of any live person outside of the womb. Then, if the fetus is viable outside of the womb, but is not yet outside of the womb, then why would there not be a compelling interest in saving that life? Is the womb/stomach/abdomen barrier the only measure of whether there is an interest in preserving that life?

The entire debate is essentially a corrupt logical argument.

Don't be fooled, the "pro-choicers" are really pro-death. There is nothing inherently fair or just in killing an unborn child.

THAT is the interest our government has--to protect life.

Posted: 2/21/2006 4:43:46 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well... I'm also not sure, but feds can intervene if for instance a state decides that killing latinos is no longer murder and can be freely done by anyone without punishment as long as you do it by jabbing a hole into their head and ripping the brains out. Perhaps this is along those lines.

You're correct. Abortion could be handled as a civil rights issue. However, in that case, the baby would have to have standing. This would bring up the debate as to when is a person a person - which is a debate I want to see.

When a person is a person is irrevelant in the abortion debate. When life begins is irrevelant. A woman's right to choose is irrevelant.

The only revelant issue is when the state's compelling interest in the preservation of "potential life" overrides the mother's right to privacy.

Yes, so far as it goes.

There certainly is a compelling state interst in preserving the life of a viable fetus--what would otherwise be a child outside of the womb that would survive, perhaps with life support, outside of the womb.

There is a compelling state interest in preserving the life of any live person outside of the womb. Then, if the fetus is viable outside of the womb, but is not yet outside of the womb, then why would there not be a compelling interest in saving that life? Is the womb/stomach/abdomen barrier the only measure of whether there is an interest in preserving that life?

The entire debate is essentially a corrupt logical argument.

Don't be fooled, the "pro-choicers" are really pro-death. There is nothing inherently fair or just in killing an unborn child.

THAT is the interest our government has--to protect life.

You know, if those with the "compelling state interest" argument really applied that to issues outside of abortion, they'd be libertarians instead of democrats.

Posted: 2/21/2006 5:03:32 PM EDT

[#44]

Formally neutral, here. But you might call me pro choice or pro abortion because I for one will not presume to tell a woman what to do with her body and its contents.

Heck, if I set my mind to it, I could crank out a few hundred pages' worth of people that I think would
best serve mankind by becoming retroactively aborted.

Abortion will never stop. As long as there are women who are pregnant and really don't want to be
pregnant, they will find a way to terminate the pregnancy. A pencil is all the tool that is needed.
Or a stick.

Knowing that it will never be stopped, the only RATIONAL thing to do is provide a
way to give such determined women an available avenue for getting an abortion under safe and
sanitary circumstances and in competent hands.

But I don't really expect much in the way of rational behavior or thought out of the radical religious right.

CJ

Posted: 2/21/2006 5:07:47 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Formally neutral, here. But you might call me pro choice or pro abortion because I for one will not presume to tell a woman what to do with her body and its contents.

Heck, if I set my mind to it, I could crank out a few hundred pages' worth of people that I think would
best serve mankind by becoming retroactively aborted.

Abortion will never stop. As long as there are women who are pregnant and really don't want to be
pregnant, they will find a way to terminate the pregnancy. A pencil is all the tool that is needed.
Or a stick.

Knowing that it will never be stopped, the only RATIONAL thing to do is provide a
way to give such determined women an available avenue for getting an abortion under safe and
sanitary circumstances and in competent hands.

But I don't really expect much in the way of rational behavior or thought out of the radical religious right.

CJ

Posted: 2/21/2006 5:21:45 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Formally neutral, here. But you might call me pro choice or pro abortion because I for one will not presume to tell a woman what to do with her body and its contents.

Heck, if I set my mind to it, I could crank out a few hundred pages' worth of people that I think would
best serve mankind by becoming retroactively aborted.

Abortion will never stop. As long as there are women who are pregnant and really don't want to be
pregnant, they will find a way to terminate the pregnancy. A pencil is all the tool that is needed.
Or a stick.

Knowing that it will never be stopped, the only RATIONAL thing to do is provide a
way to give such determined women an available avenue for getting an abortion under safe and
sanitary circumstances and in competent hands.

But I don't really expect much in the way of rational behavior or thought out of the radical religious right.

CJ

Why do I keep seeing this theme that the only objection to abortion is of a religious nature?

Posted: 2/21/2006 5:29:25 PM EDT

[#47]

Because that's the way it looks, maybe? To me, anyway.

CJ

Posted: 2/21/2006 5:31:40 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Because that's the way it looks, maybe? To me, anyway.

CJ

Posted: 2/21/2006 5:32:43 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Formally neutral, here. But you might call me pro choice or pro abortion because I for one will not presume to tell a woman what to do with her body and its contents.

Heck, if I set my mind to it, I could crank out a few hundred pages' worth of people that I think would
best serve mankind by becoming retroactively aborted.

Abortion will never stop. As long as there are women who are pregnant and really don't want to be
pregnant, they will find a way to terminate the pregnancy. A pencil is all the tool that is needed.
Or a stick.

Knowing that it will never be stopped, the only RATIONAL thing to do is provide a
way to give such determined women an available avenue for getting an abortion under safe and
sanitary circumstances and in competent hands.

But I don't really expect much in the way of rational behavior or thought out of the radical religious right.

CJ

LOL, CM buddy I think you must have had a bad day. Of all the arguments you have made on this issue this is the weakest.

Its like saying there will be crime always so we should legalize it. You might want to try again.

Tj

Posted: 2/21/2006 6:08:52 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Formally neutral, here. But you might call me pro choice or pro abortion because I for one will not presume to tell a woman what to do with her body and its contents.

Heck, if I set my mind to it, I could crank out a few hundred pages' worth of people that I think would
best serve mankind by becoming retroactively aborted.

Abortion will never stop. As long as there are women who are pregnant and really don't want to be
pregnant, they will find a way to terminate the pregnancy. A pencil is all the tool that is needed.
Or a stick.

Knowing that it will never be stopped, the only RATIONAL thing to do is provide a
way to give such determined women an available avenue for getting an abortion under safe and
sanitary circumstances and in competent hands.

But I don't really expect much in the way of rational behavior or thought out of the radical religious right.

CJ

Why do I keep seeing this theme that the only objection to abortion is of a religious nature?

YEAH!!!!! I have to go find a bible to thump!!!!!!!!!
Oh....... wait......... I don't own one. I don't attend any churches.......... I don't have any affiliation with a reigious group....? Damn??? My mother-in-law is certain I'm going to hell because I don't believe?

How did I get in the 'religious right' again????????

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SCOTUS agrees to hear abortion case (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us