Author Topic: Supreme court to re-visit late term abortion ban (Read 2310 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #15 on:** February 23, 2006, 11:08:43 AM »

Exactly spot on Hang.

Your rights are easy to lose and difficult to regain. The people taking them away aren't going to be overt about it....

"As of today.... no more free speech!!"

That would never fly and we all know it. But, if the people who want to control you whittle away at those rights... attacking the fringes first... then they can succeed.

Freedoms praticed by the mainstream never need defeding. They are accepted without question. When the freedoms are difficult they become endangered. This is why the ACLU is reviled by some folks. They never have to protect aunt Sally for speaking her mind at a town meeting. They need to protect Mustafa Mohammed for speaking his mind near an Airport.

Funny thing is, Mustafa's rights may be taken away by law.... but that just makes it a little easier to go after Aunt Sally later on.

Partial birth abortion is one of those fringe items.... welcome to the whittling bee.

Sandman · « **Reply #16 on:** February 23, 2006, 11:15:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Did I say its? You asked for a definition. I gave it to you.

"Illegal after viability."

Your definition makes no sense.

I asked you what it is. Not whether it should be legal or not.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #17 on:** February 23, 2006, 11:19:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
"Illegal after viability."

Your definition makes no sense.

I asked you what it is. Not whether it should be legal or not.

You asked me what I think it is. Now continue attacking the poster and not the subject.

Sandman · « **Reply #18 on:** February 23, 2006, 11:22:40 AM »

A question is now an attack.

Alrighty then.

Hangtime · « **Reply #19 on:** February 23, 2006, 11:33:18 AM »

look Rip.. here's the deal. regardless of how I PERSONALLY feel about abortion I'm not willing to give up my right of ownership of my body. It's mine, not the governments. Period. And, if I want MY rights to MY body preserved I cannot condone ANY governemnt meddeling in anybody elses rights to THIER bodies.

So.. I want to preserve the chain of custody for my person. My Body. My very existence. I'm NOT about to give governemnet.. any governement, local, state, federal, ANY precedent to interrupt my rights to my own ****ing body. And lemme give yah another clue... just WHAT has the goverments meddeling improved... anything? anybody? You TRUST those dumb corrupt pinheads to 'do the right thing'? In spite of overwhelming evidence that just about anything and everything the government touches becomes by default corrupt and untrustworty? You give the government courts carte blanche to 'decide' for women, your also giving them carte blance to decide for YOU.

Your against abortion? Great. Sponsor education programs. Adoption Programs. Sexual Education Programs. Church programs. Develop and pass legislation ending government sponsorship of abortion doctors and clinics.

Get their noses outta our womens crotches. Get 'em outta the abortion clinic buisness. get em outta the damn hospitals, get 'em outta the welfare business, get 'em outta my gawdamned day to day life. I'll take care of MY women, and I expect everybody else to take care of theirs.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 23, 2006, 11:43:29 AM »

Mid, you speak of Abortion like it is a basic human right to begin with. Yet I see it no where in the Declaration or Constitution. As it stands right now, abortion is only allowed nationwide because of activist judges stepping outside of their constitutional boundaries. This isn't a right.

Therefor, taking it away is not taking away a right and should stop being spoken of like it is.

Hang, while it is your body, does that justify taking the life of another human being only because it is attached to you? Does this mean I can surgically attach myself to people I want to kill?

And since sandman is having trouble understanding 5 syllable words, I'll explain more clearly. If the baby can live outside of the mother, it would be illegal to kill it (barring mother's health and those concerns). Most of the time, a baby just entering the third trimester has a decent chance to live should sudden labor come on. And the further along you go the better chance it has to live.

Sandman · « **Reply #21 on:** February 23, 2006, 11:55:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
And since sandman is having trouble understanding 5 syllable words, I'll explain more clearly. If the baby can live outside of the mother, it would be illegal to kill it (barring mother's health and those concerns). Most of the time, a baby just entering the third trimester has a decent chance to live should sudden labor come on. And the further along you go the better chance it has to live.

Nice. You didn't answer either.

Furious · « **Reply #22 on:** February 23, 2006, 12:02:32 PM »

All of our basic human rights are not defined in our constitution nor in our bill of rights.

Quote

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

...and here's the clue: "special circumstances"

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 23, 2006, 12:07:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Mid, you speak of Abortion like it is a basic human right to begin with. Yet I see it no where in the Declaration or Constitution. As it stands right now, abortion is only allowed nationwide because of activist judges stepping outside of their constitutional boundaries. This isn't a right.

Therefor, taking it away is not taking away a right and should stop being spoken of like it is.

Hang, while it is your body, does that justify taking the life of another human being only because it is attached to you? Does this mean I can surgically attach myself to people I want to kill?

And since sandman is having trouble understanding 5 syllable words, I'll explain more clearly. If the baby can live outside of the mother, it would be illegal to kill it (barring mother's health and those concerns). Most of the time, a baby just entering the third trimester has a decent chance to live should sudden labor come on. And the further along you go the better chance it has to live.

Its not? What part of
"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."
do you not understand?? Why should our homes or our cars be protected from intrusion by the govornment but your BODY isnt?

I dont like the thought of Abortion. It personally makes me ill. But I have to agree with Hangtime here, my body is MINE. I'll do as I wish with it, and anyone else can go to .......... well you get the picture. The argument over abortion started because religious groups had a problem with what they see as govornment funded murder when low income patients were getting abortions and the govt. was footing the bill. It became bigger than that.

As to this current piece of trash thats being considered (again), has anyone even read it, or the case that brought it about? There's a reason why there is no provision for protecting the health of the mother. Because the only time this procedure is ever necessary is to PROTECT the mother. In cases where the fetus itself is a danger to the mother and requires it be removed immediately or SHE WOULD DIE. Otherwise current law already covers third trimester abortion (illegal). Doctors sought an EXEMPTION from Roe V Wade to do late term abortions to protect the mother, and some pinhead politician introduced this garbage. Its politics, pure and simple. They are playing on people's fears about the worst possibilities in abortions rather than mourning the fact that there are times when a doctor has to make a choice between the life of the mother and the life of an unborn child. The fact that we can save even one of them these days says great things about the advances in medical technology. Hopefully someday this will not be an issue, and both can be saved.

Hangtime · « **Reply #24 on:** February 23, 2006, 12:26:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Hang, while it is your body, does that justify taking the life of another human being only because it is attached to you? Does this mean I can surgically attach myself to people I want to kill?

I call Shenanigans. That's a classic 'strawman' argument, and has no place or meaning here.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #25 on:** February 23, 2006, 01:33:07 PM »

Hang, just because you don't like the argument doesn't translate into it being meanless.

The value of human life and whether or not a fetus is a person is the sole point of this entire argument. It's not personal rights, it's not state rights, it's not federal rights.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge this, does not change the fact that it is so. No amount of arguing on your part will change this, ever.

I personally view that ammendment as the decision to allow abortions is a state's right to choose and can only be done so via popular vote.

Silat · « **Reply #26 on:** February 23, 2006, 01:47:16 PM »

Rip let me make this perfectly clear to you:
Your rights end at my daughters skin.........................

Ripsnort · « **Reply #27 on:** February 23, 2006, 01:56:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Silat
Rip let me make this perfectly clear to you:
Your rights end at my daughters skin.........................

The living or the aborted daughter? Do you believe a baby has the right to life when it can grasp, suck its thumb, have eyelashes, nails and sleeps alot? Thats at 2nd term Silat. How would you feel if you were a father where your wife decided to leave you, and not only that, she's decided to abort the 6 month old fetus inside her by letting a doctor puncture the childs' brain and suck out it out, then dismember the child and remove it piece by piece. How would you feel then? Still "her" right?

1st term abortions, I have no problems with. I don't agree with them, but I do think its a womans right. Once that fetus is developed and could potentially live outside the womb (with medical help) I think its murder except in special circumstances where the health of the baby, or the health of the mother is in jepordy.

Seagoon · « **Reply #28 on:** February 23, 2006, 02:04:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Exactly spot on Hang.

Your rights are easy to lose and difficult to regain. The people taking them away aren't going to be overt about it....

That's quite right MT, so can you answer me this one simple question? Who protects the right of a eight month old child to not have his life taken from him? Or does he not have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?"

- SEAGOON

Ripsnort · « **Reply #29 on:** February 23, 2006, 02:05:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seagoon
That's quite right MT, so can you answer me this one simple question? Who protects the right of a eight month old child to not have his life taken from him? Or does he not have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?"

- SEAGOON

In the liberals mind, its a "Fetus", you see, that 3cm of skin makes it have no rights!