Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on June 01, 2004, 02:23:52 PM
-
isn't this the state that outlawed tanning beds for teenagers but allows a 13 year old to get an abortion without parental consent?
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about/pr/040601_abortionbanwin.html
left coast ... :rolleyes:
-
Recent studies show that abortion is good for you...
-
I thought you conservative types were FOR the Constitution?
-
I smell troll bait....
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I thought you conservative types were FOR the Constitution?
We are, and for everyone...even the unborn.
-
"Today's ruling is a landmark victory for medical privacy rights and women's health," PPFA President Gloria Feldt said. "The Ashcroft Department of Justice can no longer threaten Planned Parenthood doctors with the daunting specter of criminal prosecution for putting their patients first."
Perfect. There is such a thing as a right to privacy.
I'm not sure what this has to do with California state laws. The ruling was made by a federal court.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
We are, and for everyone...even the unborn.
Exactly. We conservative types need live babies so we can raise dead soldiers.
Duh.
::sniff, sniff::
-
Is there absolute truth? are there any moral absolutes?
-
Originally posted by storch
Is there absolute truth? are there any moral absolutes?
Here's one.... unborn people are not yet born.
-
How about this?
A parasite's rights do not supercede those of the host. ;)
-
wow
make points, tell ur 3 month pregnant wife she looks great considering she is "hosting" a stinking "parasite"
dems should know what a real "parasite" looks like .. many of them only have to look into a mirror
-
WTG indeed. Nice to see Asscroft trying to dig through the medical records of private citizens though.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
We are, and for everyone...even the unborn.
The unborn have no rights. If you cannot survive on your own then you are not a person yet.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
How about this?
A parasite's rights do not supercede those of the host. ;)
Its a sad day when people are refferring to unborn children as parasites
-
Originally posted by Sandman
How about this?
A parasite's rights do not supercede those of the host. ;)
Well at least we are making progress. So then there are somethings which are absolutely true. Good. Are you sure? Could that be a relative truth?
Also I asked a two part question, Are there any moral absolutes?
-
If you cannot survive on your own then you are not a person yet.
Good deal, Stabidiot, I guess we can pull the plug on all those people on life support, the mentally retarded and paralyzed. Anyone else you want to get rid of? the Jews, the ******s?
-
Originally posted by Lizking
If you cannot survive on your own then you are not a person yet.
Good deal, Stabidiot, I guess we can pull the plug on all those people on life support, the mentally retarded and paralyzed. Anyone else you want to get rid of? the Jews, the ******s?
I made sure that if I am in a comma and on life support for more then 3 months that they will pull the plug. That kind of life is not life.
-
That is fine for your own personal choice, just don't presume to make it for anyone else.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Its a sad day when people are refferring to unborn children as parasites
par·a·site ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
-
Some people say that carrying your genes foward is the ultimate expression of survival and life itself. To say nothing of the fact that it is not a parasite if you invite, no, create it of your own volition. No need to get into the semantics of "in a different organism", I pretty much always consider babies to be human, just like their mother(excuse me, their host).
-
Originally posted by Sandman
par·a·site ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
so they stop becoming "parasites" once they are born? Don't they still depend on the "host" for survival?
-
Youre missing the point here Gunslinger... the irresponsbile teenager who cant think before she acts is more important that the child she is willing to kill so she doesnt have to live with her decision (or lack of one).
Victims rights!
-
Can a minor have any other voluntary medical procedure done on them without consent of the parent/guardian?
-
They can't get an asprin from the school nurse without parental approval.
-
Well guys take heart. Clear channel announced today that Howard Stern is indeed cancelled. I for one was not personally affected by Mr. Stern and his BS show but I'm glad he is off of the air none the less. There is no need for such course behavior on the airwaves. Kudos to the Bush administration and it's FCC. Mr. Stern commented that the religious right is involved in a cultural war and that the religious right was winning. Go ahead you lefty types try to subvert the culture, most people totally disagree with you. Recent outrageous acts of folly not the least of which is homosexual marriage are stirring the sleeping giant. As I have stated before the pendulum is swinging to the right once again.
You may yet see Roe v Wade and other forms of Judicial activism rolled back. This is the reason why it is imperative that Mr. Bush be re-elected. We need to appoint good God fearing men to the Federal bench.
-
You guys are missing the point. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of those women undergoing partial birth abortions are women who have planned their pregnancies and have been subjected to medical conditions beyond their control- this is a procedure reserved where the woman is in danger of losing her life, not as a commonplace birth control technique. The law struck down had no provisions for safety of the mother.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Here's one.... unborn people are not yet born.
Here's another: Killing unborn people is still killing people. I saw my son being born, and I'm pretty sure that he was alive, by any non-monsterous definition, before his head passed through the magical barrier.
This is just like a soap opera. I turn it on after six months and I don't feel like I've missed a thing!
-
Originally posted by storch
Well guys take heart. Clear channel announced today that Howard Stern is indeed cancelled. I for one was not personally affected by Mr. Stern and his BS show but I'm glad he is off of the air none the less. There is no need for such course behavior on the airwaves. Kudos to the Bush administration and it's FCC. Mr. Stern commented that the religious right is involved in a cultural war and that the religious right was winning. Go ahead you lefty types try to subvert the culture, most people totally disagree with you. Recent outrageous acts of folly not the least of which is homosexual marriage are stirring the sleeping giant. As I have stated before the pendulum is swinging to the right once again.
You may yet see Roe v Wade and other forms of Judicial activism rolled back. This is the reason why it is imperative that Mr. Bush be re-elected. We need to appoint good God fearing men to the Federal bench.
LOL, Roe v Wade was judicial activism? Beautiful. But forget that, I decided I'm with you fully, and we should just ****can that constitution thingie and run our country stictly by what the bible says. Which denomination gets to elect the ruler of our country though?
-
Storch, the more you post - the more I'm convinced you can't use your brain.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Gaylord
.... The law struck down had no provisions for safety of the mother.
BS
have you even read it or did you hear this on Dr Phil?
-
Originally posted by SOB
LOL, Roe v Wade was judicial activism? Beautiful. But forget that, I decided I'm with you fully, and we should just ****can that constitution thingie and run our country stictly by what the bible says. Which denomination gets to elect the ruler of our country though?
What was Roe v Wade? it was a Supreme Court decision, without precedent and the commencement of what we now see as routine.
Storch, the more you post the more I'm convinced you can't use your brain
If you are an example of proper brain usage then I'll take that as high compliment. Eg. thank you very much. Don't worry November is coming. The Liberals cannot keep Mr. Bush from appointing judges for four more years.
Does anyone even care that the deadlocked Senate has prevented Mr. Bush from appointing judges to the Federal bench? His nominees don't even make it to the floor for a vote by the full Senate! Unprecedented! The liberals know that the bench is so far to the left as to be out of touch with what we the people want our country to be be like. Since the liberals are thwarted by the people at the poll booths time and again the strategy has been extreme left policy making at the hands of black robed tyrants that answer to no one. The judiciary should not be making laws. The most recent example of this dangerous trend was evidenced by the four black robed liberal criminals called the Massachusetts Supreme Court which inspite of the clear wishes of the people of Massachusetts have made homosexual marriage the de facto law of the land.
And in keeping with liberal tradition when you can't argue facts you resort to name calling. WTG AKSVVulfe, exhibit A liberal thinking.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Youre missing the point here Gunslinger... the irresponsbile teenager who cant think before she acts is more important that the child she is willing to kill so she doesnt have to live with her decision (or lack of one).
Victims rights!
ahhhh I get it now. I can go back in the bedroom and off my whole family cause they are a financial drain on me....IE parasites
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
The unborn have no rights. If you cannot survive on your own then you are not a person yet.
Stabby, do you have any clear notion of what this procedure is, and at what point in a child's development it is performed? We're talking about a very specific procedure here, not about abortion in general. This practice is barbaric, plane and simple. It is truly sad when so many in our society are more concerned with the humane treatment of our worst criminals than they are with a child litterally a breath away from birth. Furthermore, everything I've read about PBA is that it almost never involves less risk to the mother (yes, the mother) than simply completing the birthing process. The baby is, after all, partially delivered before it's skull is punctured and the brain suctioned out. In those few cases where the mother's life is truly in dangered if normally delivery is attempted, a C-section would work just as well.
As has been stated before regarding the constitutionality of abortion in general, Roe v Wade went against all precident. So chronologically, when exactly was the constitution "thrown out?"
-
Originally posted by storch
And in keeping with liberal tradition when you can't argue facts you resort to name calling. WTG AKSVVulfe, exhibit A liberal thinking.
First of all, there were no facts in that post you made... only one reference to a past case and a reference to Stern being fired, but again, no facts - only opinions -were presented by you to make any of your points.
Second of all, I'm no liberal - but keep calling me that, its quite funny to see you throw around that label like its derogatory.
And third, you just made my point. I did not call you any names. You, OTOH, appeared to be typing that sentence while staring in a mirror.
-SW
-
Originally posted by storch
. Go ahead you lefty types try to subvert the culture, most people totally disagree with you.
More Americans wanted the other guy to be President.
-
As of 11-2003 53% of Americans want to keep the decision to abort or not in the hands of the mother and her doctor.
And just to pre-empt the lib-poll bashing
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
This was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. You know that left wing rag.. the WSJ.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
As of 11-2003 53% of Americans want to keep the decision to abort or not in the hands of the mother and her doctor.
And just to pre-empt the lib-poll bashing
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
This was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. You know that left wing rag.. the WSJ.
I don't think that % is that high for the late term murder this law pertained to...
sadly, there are "degrees" to this madness...from the same survey:
"As you may know, President Bush and the U.S. Congress recently approved a new law that prohibits a procedure commonly known as a 'partial-birth abortion.' Do you favor or oppose this new law?"
---- Favor Oppose Not Sure
11/03 47% 40% 13%
-
Now go check the numbers a little further down the page that ask tyhe same question and adds "the life or health of the mother" to the mix.
-
There are two viable alternatives for defining when life begins: conception or birth. Any other standard would be arbitrary and capricious in practice. The hard core pro-choice camp knows this and that is why they are fighting so hard against the prohibition of PBA.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
That is fine for your own personal choice, just don't presume to make it for anyone else.
Perfectly said. Your rights stop at my daughters skin...
-
Originally posted by Silat
Perfectly said. Your rights stop at my daughters skin...
if her boyfriend understands this, then the doctor will not have to ...
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
More Americans wanted the other guy to be President.
50,000 military absentee ballots from our servicemen overseas were not admitted by the mostly Dem run Dept of elections in various counties. but why confuse anyone with facts.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
They can't get an asprin from the school nurse without parental approval.
Do you even know why this is the case?
-
stabby... my guess is that you couldn't survive on your own but no one is saying you need to be aborted. Well... not in so many words and no one that isn't your family.
lazs
-
Morality is relative...repeated for 40 years...has undermined the ethos of the nation.
If abortion is acceptable because it eliminates an unwanted parasite perhaps it should be made retroactive. You know, to eliminate those in our society who are a needless burden on their families. If we can justify one we can justify the other. Think of all the money needlessly wasted paying the medical costs of brain-dead people on life-support. Or think of those healthy adults who have never held a job who sponge up government checks each month. Aren't they, by definition, parasites, living off the "host" of taxpayers and productive citizens. What right do they have to exist? The only difference between them and the unborn is that they have a "voice," both as individuals or as members of political constituencies. But, why should that matter?
Besides, if we are not held accountable for our midless sexual escapades, it makes it a lot easier to get a little n--ky, doesn't it?
Shuckins/Leggern
-
Originally posted by storch
50,000 military absentee ballots from our servicemen overseas were not admitted by the mostly Dem run Dept of elections in various counties. but why confuse anyone with facts.
Even if that was true, which it isn't, you're still short by around 450,000 votes.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
As of 11-2003 53% of Americans want to keep the decision to abort or not in the hands of the mother and her doctor.
And just to pre-empt the lib-poll bashing
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
This was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. You know that left wing rag.. the WSJ.
As of 11-1998, over 50% of Minnesotans wanted Jesse Ventura as their governor.
-
Why is it illegal for a woman to dump her newborn baby in the trash but legal for her to kill that baby 10 minutes before if she requested an abortion?
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
Even if that was true, which it isn't, you're still short by around 450,000 votes.
Just in Florida alone. Extrapolate that number halved by 50 States and the territories. And it is 100% true. But again why confuse you guys with facts?
And even if it weren't I thank God Almighty for Mr. Bush and his steady hand at the helm during these times. I shudder to think what would have happened to the nation after the homicide plane crashes by islamic terrorist on Sep. 11, 2001 had Mr. Gore won the election.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why is it illegal for a woman to dump her newborn baby in the trash but legal for her to kill that baby 10 minutes before if she requested an abortion?
It isn't legal, but you knew that.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why is it illegal for a woman to dump her newborn baby in the trash but legal for her to kill that baby 10 minutes before if she requested an abortion?
Because in your first example she didn't contribute $295.00 to leftist doctors or planned nonparenthood allowing them to contribute $ millions to the DNC.
-
Originally posted by Mathman
Do you even know why this is the case?
Because some people are sensitive to aspirin or may have bad drug intereactions. Basically even something as simple as aspirin may have serious health consequences that a young person may not always be aware of.
Thankfully abortions dont hurt anybody, and the procedure is foolproof.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
It isn't legal, but you knew that.
:rolleyes:
You mean the government placed evil restrictions on how late a woman can habe an abortion?
Do tell what is that limit?
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
There are two viable alternatives for defining when life begins: conception or birth. Any other standard would be arbitrary and capricious in practice. The hard core pro-choice camp knows this and that is why they are fighting so hard against the prohibition of PBA.
Actually LSB, you had the answer in your post and didn't know it.
Viability. That is the key.
When the unborn child can live outside of it's host, it IS a person. Non-viable infants cannot be persons because they cannot survive, despite all human efforts, outside of the womb. This criteria rests on a standard which is constantly changing: the capability of technology to sustain a child. The normal point of viability has been slashed by more than ten weeks in the last thirty years and may one day be the moment of conception.
vi·a·ble
adj.
1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.
-Lute III/JG26 9th ST WidowMakers
-
some of these responses are truely sad
no wonder the world is an overflowing septic tank...
-
Originally posted by Sandman
How about this?
A parasite's rights do not supercede those of the host. ;)
Now..THAT'S a troll! :aok :lol
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
so they stop becoming "parasites" once they are born?
Yes.
physically, an infant has everythig it needs to survive on its own, where true parasites don't. I wouldnt go as far as calling a ferus a parasite...but I'm not comfortable with calling it a person.
You can't be an alum until you've graduated:)
-
Well, let's see. By the second month of pregnancy the fetus has both a heartbeat and a brainwave. By the fourth month, it has control of movement in arms and legs. By the fifth month, it is sucking its' thumb.
The only thing it cannot do that a full-term fetus can do is breathe on its' own. It is evident then that it is a non-viable infant that cannot live outside of its host and therefore cannot be a person.
Thanks for clearing that up.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Because some people are sensitive to aspirin or may have bad drug intereactions. Basically even something as simple as aspirin may have serious health consequences that a young person may not always be aware of.
Thankfully abortions dont hurt anybody, and the procedure is foolproof.
Grun, on which side of the abortion issue do you think I stand?
-
Originally posted by flyingaround
Actually LSB, you had the answer in your post and didn't know it.
Viability. That is the key.
When the unborn child can live outside of it's host, it IS a person. Non-viable infants cannot be persons because they cannot survive, despite all human efforts, outside of the womb. This criteria rests on a standard which is constantly changing: the capability of technology to sustain a child. The normal point of viability has been slashed by more than ten weeks in the last thirty years and may one day be the moment of conception.
vi·a·ble
adj.
1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.
-Lute III/JG26 9th ST WidowMakers
I will respectfully disagree with you. Indeed, I will posit that what you suggest is: (1) completely arbitrary; (2) unmeasurable, with any degree of certainty; and (3) bizarre and more than a little bit scary.
As to (1), what is so significant about viaiblity? As to (2), how do you determine in any given case, whether a child is viable at the point its (un)mother wants to abort it? As to (3), how can the threshold of life be such that it is constantly changing, depending upon the state of technology?! Surely, a child/mass of tissue is either a life or it is not and, just as surely, that determination does not depend on the state of anything other than the child/mass of tissue.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Yes.
physically, an infant has everythig it needs to survive on its own, where true parasites don't. I wouldnt go as far as calling a ferus a parasite...but I'm not comfortable with calling it a person.
You can't be an alum until you've graduated:)
HA HA HA HA HA HA H
OMFG LMAO ROFL
HA H HAAA HA HA HA
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
I'd pay money to see a newborn get its bellybutton up at 2AM open the fridge and make him/her/self a formula bottle while half asleep.
OH YEA physically they do have everything they need. Food, water, air, medication if sick.
HELL what are these newborns doing unemployed....they should be out looking for jobs allready.
I dont get HALF the arguments in this thread. The ban they are talking about is "partial birth abortion" Now by some of your definitions if a baby is partially born it is partially alive. There for you are partially killing it. OH I'M SORRY I MEANT TO SAY YANKING IT OUT AND CRUSHING ITS SKULL BEFORE IT TAKES ITS FIRST BREATH. But we can just call it a termination.....that way some of you librals that condone this practice as woman's rights can sleep at night.
-
PBA has and is only used in extreme circumstances where the health or life of the mother is at risk...
But you cons would happily take that life or health away from that woman... don't know how you can sleep at night.
-
Less than 10% of all abortions are performed because of threats to the mother's life.
Try again MT.
-
And what percent of all abortions are PBA?
-SW
-
AK,
The last figures I saw for that procedure were less than 1%. I'm not a doctor, so I do not know what circumstances would merit something so drastic. A true life-threatening situation is entirely different from abortion for the sake of convenience.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Less than 10% of all abortions are performed because of threats to the mother's life.
Try again MT.
You try again... PBA's comprise about 0.24% (60 out of 25,000 in the State of Virginia) of all abortions. Almost all are done due to the following:
The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Now..THAT'S a troll! :aok :lol
Ya think?
-
MT,
Go back and read my post again, please. I said less than 10% of ALL abortions were done as a result of threats to the mother's life. Nothing was said about PBA's, except for my statement that I did not fully understand the circumstances that would warrant the use of the procedure.
Later I said that, according to the last figures I could remember, PBA's made up less than 1% of all abortions. After rechecking your figures, that is dividing 60 by 25,000, I found that PBAs do indeed make up .0024 percent of all abortions.
I freely admit that you were right. I apologize for being so completely out in left field with my figures on this issue. I wouldn't want anyone to draw the wrong conclusions from my erroneous estimates.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Do I sense sarcasm?
You replied to my post which was all about PBA's with a "Try Again".
And it isn't .0024% it is .24%.
-
Whip out your calculator MT. 60 divided by 25,000 equals .0024. That is less than 1%. Two percent of 25,000 is 500.
-
Whoops. I meant 50.
-
Ah Hell...forget it...
Anyway 60 is slight over 1% of all abortions...
-
But what the dolts arnt seeing is the fact that PBA Ban is what was overturned.....AND YES...It did have provisions in it for when the mother's health is at threat.
WAAHHH CRY CRY RESIGN when iraqi prisoners are abused but OMG THAT'S A WOMAN'S RIGHT to have her fetus yanked out of her body and it's skull crushed before it's born!
A woman should not have the RIGHT to choose not to be pregnent after she has done so....she DOES have the right to keep her leggs closed.
I can see Grun's new line:
HATE AMERIKA BOOSH IS HITLER KILL ALL PARASITES!
-
hmmmm....let's see now...
...25,000 x .24 - 6000 ... therefore .25 is 24%...
... (scratches head) that means .024 is 2.4%...
... and 2.4% x 25,000 = 600...
... now...(nibbles pencil) .0024 MUST be 24 one thousandths...
...so (pulls ear) .0024 x 25,000 = 60
DAAYUMM!!! I had it right the first time!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
PBA has and is only used in extreme circumstances where the health or life of the mother is at risk...
.
Shuckins - Less than 10% of all abortions are performed because of threats to the mother's life. Try again MT.
MT - You try again... PBA's comprise about 0.24% (60 out of 25,000 in the State of Virginia) of all abortions. Almost all are done due to the following.....(note extreme circumstances go here)
Shuckins - Yea so?
MT - Nuh uh!
Shuckins - Yo Momma!
MT - Oh yea!
Shuckins - Yea!
(.0024 is the dividend of 60 and 25000. This equates to .24%. 1% would be 250, 2% = 500 etc. )
-
Truce...
Been a long time since I got that D- in algebra.
The 0 in front of the .24 threw me.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
reguardless......if this get's overturned mothers can still have their baby's yanked from them and their skulls crushed before they get their first breath reguardless of weither thier life is in danger or their baby's are deformed.
Just cause it rarely happens doesnt make it right
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
reguardless......if this get's overturned mothers can still have their baby's yanked from them and their skulls crushed before they get their first breath reguardless of weither thier life is in danger or their baby's are deformed.
Just cause it rarely happens doesnt make it right
When you get a womb of your own, you can do whatever you think is right. Promise.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
When you get a womb of your own, you can do whatever you think is right. Promise.
so If me and my wife or G/F consent to sex to create a child and 3 months into she changes her mind I have no right to stop her from killing my child? She certainly has the right to child support from me if she gets pregnant with out my wishes
Seriously you libs are goin for a stretch here. PBA is disgusting. If the numbers for it are so low why do you care if it's banned?
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
I will respectfully disagree with you. Indeed, I will posit that what you suggest is: (1) completely arbitrary; (2) unmeasurable, with any degree of certainty; and (3) bizarre and more than a little bit scary.
As to (1), what is so significant about viaiblity? As to (2), how do you determine in any given case, whether a child is viable at the point its (un)mother wants to abort it? As to (3), how can the threshold of life be such that it is constantly changing, depending upon the state of technology?! Surely, a child/mass of tissue is either a life or it is not and, just as surely, that determination does not depend on the state of anything other than the child/mass of tissue.
Where have you been. Ok, I'll give this another try. (with much thanks to cut/paste)
Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 case legalizing abortion, made fetal viability an important legal concept. The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot put the interests of a fetus ahead of the interests of the pregnant woman until the fetus is "viable."
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in a 1983 decision that Roe was on a "collision course with itself." She said that improvements in technology would continually push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy, allowing states greater opportunity to regulate the right to an abortion.
Despite important Supreme Court decisions since 1973 modifying the doctrine of Roe, the court's thinking about fetal viability has remained fairly constant. The only significant revision came in the Casey decision (1992), which made viability even more important. The court said that state laws could require a woman and her doctor to perform tests to prove that a fetus is not viable before she obtains an abortion.
As to (1), what is so significant about viaiblity?
Uhhh...hmmmmmmm..... This is (has been) a MAIN issue re. abortions.
As to (2), how do you determine in any given case, whether a child is viable at the point its (un)mother wants to abort it
Read the def. I gave of viable. I had THOUGHT it pretty sefl explanitory. A fetus being able to survive out of the womb IS viable. Do let me know what part of the definition is holding you back.
As to (3), how can the threshold of life be such that it is constantly changing, depending upon the state of technology?! Surely, a child/mass of tissue is either a life or it is not and, just as surely, that determination does not depend on the state of anything other than the child/mass of tissue
Lost me here. We're not talking threshold of life, we are talking about fetal viablilty. And the determination of a fetus being viable IS based on medical technology. That is why in the U.S. some states consider 20 weeks viable. While a 3rd world country would consider, (guess) say 28 weeks viable. All based on their level of medical technology. It's not cut and dry, because what can be achieved in the medically advanced countries, is not even remotly possible elsewhere.
ROFL what's so significant about viability. (sigh)
-WMLute III/JG26 9th ST WidowMakers
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
so If me and my wife or G/F consent to sex to create a child and 3 months into she changes her mind I have no right to stop her from killing my child? She certainly has the right to child support from me if she gets pregnant with out my wishes
Seriously you libs are goin for a stretch here. PBA is disgusting. If the numbers for it are so low why do you care if it's banned?
Actually, it sucks that your girlfriend can do what she pleases. Something to consider when you're out shopping for mates.
As for the PBA, it's not a pro-life or pro-choice issue at all. It's a privacy issue. It's also a medical issue. The government has no business stepping in and saying which procedures are legal and which are not. These decisions are best left to the doctors and their patients.
-
so if my son is a retard and I do not feel like raising him that way you are saying the GOVT has no right to tell me I cant have him put to sleep or somthing?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
so if my son is a retard and I do not feel like raising him that way you are saying the GOVT has no right to tell me I cant have him put to sleep or somthing?
I'm pretty sure that you can't put your child down (even if they are developmentally disabled).
Yeah... I know... the thought of retroactive abortion is sometimes attractive. :D
-
Originally posted by flyingaround
Where have you been. Ok, I'll give this another try. (with much thanks to cut/paste)
Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 case legalizing abortion, made fetal viability an important legal concept. The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot put the interests of a fetus ahead of the interests of the pregnant woman until the fetus is "viable."
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in a 1983 decision that Roe was on a "collision course with itself." She said that improvements in technology would continually push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy, allowing states greater opportunity to regulate the right to an abortion.
Despite important Supreme Court decisions since 1973 modifying the doctrine of Roe, the court's thinking about fetal viability has remained fairly constant. The only significant revision came in the Casey decision (1992), which made viability even more important. The court said that state laws could require a woman and her doctor to perform tests to prove that a fetus is not viable before she obtains an abortion.
As to (1), what is so significant about viaiblity?
Uhhh...hmmmmmmm..... This is (has been) a MAIN issue re. abortions.
As to (2), how do you determine in any given case, whether a child is viable at the point its (un)mother wants to abort it
Read the def. I gave of viable. I had THOUGHT it pretty sefl explanitory. A fetus being able to survive out of the womb IS viable. Do let me know what part of the definition is holding you back.
As to (3), how can the threshold of life be such that it is constantly changing, depending upon the state of technology?! Surely, a child/mass of tissue is either a life or it is not and, just as surely, that determination does not depend on the state of anything other than the child/mass of tissue
Lost me here. We're not talking threshold of life, we are talking about fetal viablilty. And the determination of a fetus being viable IS based on medical technology. That is why in the U.S. some states consider 20 weeks viable. While a 3rd world country would consider, (guess) say 28 weeks viable. All based on their level of medical technology. It's not cut and dry, because what can be achieved in the medically advanced countries, is not even remotly possible elsewhere.
ROFL what's so significant about viability. (sigh)
-WMLute III/JG26 9th ST WidowMakers
(Just so you know, your condescension is misplaced. [I edited out what I wrote in a moment of weakness--I'm sorry for having written it.])
The fact that some have made "viability" the main issue with respect to abortion is of little moment. What 5 of 9 that wear black robes and sit in Washington, D.C. think is important means even less. If you are looking to the Supreme Court for truth, then you surely will never find it. If you want to discuss the current state of the law, that won't be a particularly interesting conversation, as the answer is readily apparent. But if you want to discuss right and wrong, my question remains: why is viability the sine qua non of life? (Hint: "Because S. D. O'C said so" is not the correct answer.)
Far from rebutting my point about the practical problems with using viability as the threshold for permitting abortion, your circular reasoning only reinforces the ponit I was making: If one cannot test viability until the child is outside the womb and given a chance to survive on its own, it's not much good as a test of whether or not an abortion should be permitted, is it?
Your response to my third point illustrates that you don't get it. If you think that whether or not an unborn child/fetus is "alive" depends on the current state of medical technology, where one happens to be located in the world, or what year it is, you've gone over the edge, as far as I'm concerned.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm pretty sure that you can't put your child down (even if they are developmentally disabled).
Yeah... I know... the thought of retroactive abortion is sometimes attractive. :D
let's ask your mom if she agrees. If she aquiesced to having the proceedure performed then I would be forced [shudder] to try to save you because even your life is precious to God, no matter how much that concept eludes me it's an absolute truth. :)
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Just so you know, your condescension is misplaced, as I likely have forgotten more about constitutional jurisprudence than you will ever know.
The fact that some have made "viability" the main issue with respect to abortion is of little moment. What 5 of 9 that wear black robes and sit in Washington, D.C. think is important means even less. If you are looking to the Supreme Court for truth, then you surely will never find it. If you want to discuss the current state of the law, that won't be a particularly interesting conversation, as the answer is readily apparent. But if you want to discuss right and wrong, my question remains: why is viability the sine qua non of life? (Hint: "Because S. D. O'C said so" is not the correct answer.)
Far from rebutting my point about the practical problems with using viability as the threshold for permitting abortion, your circular reasoning only reinforces the ponit I was making: If one cannot test viability until the child is outside the womb and given a chance to survive on its own, it's not much good as a test of whether or not an abortion should be permitted, is it?
Your response to my third point illustrates that you don't get it. If you think that whether or not an unborn child/fetus is "alive" depends on the current state of medical technology, where one happens to be located in the world, or what year it is, you've gone over the edge, as far as I'm concerned.
If someone kills an expectant mom and the unborn child dies it's a double homicide. This is now also the law. This new law's potential impact on Roe v Wade is evident to me.
-
Originally posted by storch
If someone kills an expectant mom and the unborn child dies it's a double homicide. This is now also the law. This new law's potential impact on Roe v Wade is evident to me.
Sadly, that law will have no (direct) impact on Roe v. Wade. Roe may have an adverse impact upon it, though I doubt it, but water won't run uphill (but I do expect its constitutionality will be challenged as soon as somone is prosecuted under it). Your law is encouraging, however, precisely because its inconsistency with the (a)moral underpinnings of Roe is stark and unequivocal. To quote one of my favorite posters: "Ascent through dissent."
-
Originally posted by Sandman
As for the PBA, it's not a pro-life or pro-choice issue at all. It's a privacy issue. It's also a medical issue. The government has no business stepping in and saying which procedures are legal and which are not. These decisions are best left to the doctors and their patients.
I'm sorry, but that is just wrong. IF the unborn child/fetus is alive, that trumps everything. IF not, then there is no issue. Thus, it's a life/no-life issue, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with privacy. That was one of the Court's biggest all-time stretches, and I've got to give the lawyer who thought of that one an A for concocting it and an A+ for selling it.
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Thus, it's a life/no-life issue, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with privacy.
You do realize that Ashcroft subpoenaed medical records?
Medical records are included in the Privacy Act of 1974.
The courts made the right call.
Oh... and in case you hadn't noticed, abortion is LEGAL in this country.
-
Just so you know, your condescension is misplaced, as I likely have forgotten more about constitutional jurisprudence than you will ever know.
Interesting how your so superior to all. Obviously (per. you) your vastly above the members of the U.S. Supreme Court (what do they know right?) , and myself, in regard to intellectual thought as to be liken unto a God.
Seriously... try a Philosophy 101 course. MOST of what we are delving into here is covered first couple weeks. You, being so tremendously smart, (although you seem to be a tad. forgetfull) will have no problem with the course, and MIGHT be better equipped for this discussion.
I'll go slow this time... k? Wouldn't want you to forget any more constitutional jurisprudence.
The fact that some have made "viability" the main issue with respect to abortion is of little moment. Some? OMG this is one of the hotest debated arguments, and viability is one of the (if not the) MAIN issues in the abortion debate. Essentially your saying that the vast multitude of better minds on this planet (dunno which one your on), who have hotly debated this issue counts as SOME in your book. Amazing! Please do just a LITTLE bit of research on this topic. It has been covered in countless books, articles, and journals by many far greater men and women than you or I. Oh wait. I'm so calloused, what was I thinking. That would cause you to lose some more jurisprudence. You can just Google it.
What 5 of 9 that wear black robes and sit in Washington, D.C. think is important means even less.
Incredible. I refer you back to my what planet ref. Good to know your so above the law as to consider the Supreme Court trivial.
my question remains: why is viability the sine qua non of life?
ok..i'll take this one. (not that i havn't covered it, quite well i might add, already twice)
Is a fetus a human until it can exist seprate from the woman. Or better even (must respect your superior knowledge and understanding here) take the fetus out of it. If I bake a cake, and instead of letting it cook for an hour, I pull it out at 20 min. Is it a cake? Viability is reached when a "thing" becomes that which it will be. Until it reaches that point, it isn't. Until it cooks for an hour, it's just a bunch of batter, not a cake. Until a fetus can exist outside the womb, it has not become a human. That is the argument of viablity re. abortion. If it is not a human, it is not murder.
If one cannot test viability until the child is outside the womb and given a chance to survive on its own, it's not much good as a test of whether or not an abortion should be permitted, is it?
This was a joke right? Seriously, it's not even well thought out. We know when a fetus is viable, because that comes up fairly often. Pre-mature births are not uncommon, nor are accidents etc. that cause labor, or emergency deliveries rare. Due to advances in medical technology (please see prev. post. mr. forgotten more than) we can push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy. So we have a pretty good idea at which stage of fetal development we are able to keep it alive outside of the womb.
If you think that whether or not an unborn child/fetus is "alive" depends on the current state of medical technology, where one happens to be located in the world, or what year it is, you've gone over the edge, as far as I'm concerned.
Alive and viable are not synonyms. (already coverd this, but maybe if it's repeated it will help you) The abortion debate is not whether a fetus is alive, but human. If it's not a human, it's not murder. Nobody is debating whether or not a fetus is alive. Ref. back to my Philo 101 suggestion. Perspective should also be covered. What we thought 200 years ago about flight is different from what we think about it today. Why? Perspective. What was considered viable 30yrs ago, is different from today. Why? Perspective. At 28 weeks a fetus was considered viable. Then we gained medical knowledge, and it was 27. Then 25 and so on. It's all hand in hand. Some day, (as was prev. covered AHEM) conception will be considered viable. Localitly is directly connected with the point of viability. If the Sudan is 10yrs behind the U.S. at what gestational week they are able to sustain a fetus, then the point of viability is lower in the Sudan than in the U.S.
From reading your posts, you appear to be fairly knowledgeable about law, but you sure are at the kiddy table re. philosophical debate. Stick with what you know.
-WMLute III/JG26 9th ST WidowMakers
-
Originally posted by flyingaround
Just so you know, your condescension is misplaced, as I likely have forgotten more about constitutional jurisprudence than you will ever know.
Interesting how your so superior to all. Obviously (per. you) your vastly above the members of the U.S. Supreme Court (what do they know right?) , and myself, in regard to intellectual thought as to be liken unto a God.
Seriously... try a Philosophy 101 course. MOST of what we are delving into here is covered first couple weeks. You, being so tremendously smart, (although you seem to be a tad. forgetfull) will have no problem with the course, and MIGHT be better equipped for this discussion.
I'll go slow this time... k? Wouldn't want you to forget any more constitutional jurisprudence.
The fact that some have made "viability" the main issue with respect to abortion is of little moment. Some? OMG this is one of the hotest debated arguments, and viability is one of the (if not the) MAIN issues in the abortion debate. Essentially your saying that the vast multitude of better minds on this planet (dunno which one your on), who have hotly debated this issue counts as SOME in your book. Amazing! Please do just a LITTLE bit of research on this topic. It has been covered in countless books, articles, and journals by many far greater men and women than you or I. Oh wait. I'm so calloused, what was I thinking. That would cause you to lose some more jurisprudence. You can just Google it.
What 5 of 9 that wear black robes and sit in Washington, D.C. think is important means even less.
Incredible. I refer you back to my what planet ref. Good to know your so above the law as to consider the Supreme Court trivial.
my question remains: why is viability the sine qua non of life?
ok..i'll take this one. (not that i havn't covered it, quite well i might add, already twice)
Is a fetus a human until it can exist seprate from the woman. Or better even (must respect your superior knowledge and understanding here) take the fetus out of it. If I bake a cake, and instead of letting it cook for an hour, I pull it out at 20 min. Is it a cake? Viability is reached when a "thing" becomes that which it will be. Until it reaches that point, it isn't. Until it cooks for an hour, it's just a bunch of batter, not a cake. Until a fetus can exist outside the womb, it has not become a human. That is the argument of viablity re. abortion. If it is not a human, it is not murder.
If one cannot test viability until the child is outside the womb and given a chance to survive on its own, it's not much good as a test of whether or not an abortion should be permitted, is it?
This was a joke right? Seriously, it's not even well thought out. We know when a fetus is viable, because that comes up fairly often. Pre-mature births are not uncommon, nor are accidents etc. that cause labor, or emergency deliveries rare. Due to advances in medical technology (please see prev. post. mr. forgotten more than) we can push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy. So we have a pretty good idea at which stage of fetal development we are able to keep it alive outside of the womb.
If you think that whether or not an unborn child/fetus is "alive" depends on the current state of medical technology, where one happens to be located in the world, or what year it is, you've gone over the edge, as far as I'm concerned.
Ref. back to my Philo 101 suggestion. Perspective should also be covered. What was considered viable 30yrs ago, is different from today. Why? Perspective. At 28 weeks a fetus was considered viable. Then we gained medical knowledge, and it was 27. Then 25 and so on. It's all hand in hand. Some day, (as was prev. covered AHEM) conception will be considered viable.
First of all, I edited out the inappropriate comment in my post before you posted this, and as I wrote there, I'm sorry for having written it. Really, I am.
Second, have you actually read Roe? In it, the majority claims that there are three choices for when life begins--conception, viability, and birth--and admits that it cannot, indeed won't even try, to decide which of those three view is correct. It sidesteps the issue by claiming that the unborn child's "potential life" is enough to ultimately countervail the latent "right to privacy" in the penumbra of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of substantive due process (another concept, like the right of privacy, that the Court invented). Aside from the considerable question of whether that analysis is flawed, the more fundamental point is that if there is, as the Court admits, a possibility that life begins at conception, mustn't we protect that possiblity by erring on the side of caution? Shouldn't the Court have excluded that possiblity in order to justify its holding? We make the state prove that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before sending him to jail for six months. If there is a non-neglible possiblity that he is innocent, he walks. Shouldn't similar reasoning apply here, given the dire consequence of being wrong? It certainly seems so to me.
Third, I don't know what you think isn't even well thought out. I know from personal experience that even after a baby is born at 25-26 weeks, the doctor cannot tell whether it is viable until it actually lives or dies. He certainly could not have made that determination in utero. Medicine, obviously, is not an exact science. And even if it were true that we have a "pretty good idea," since when is that a solid enough basis to decide to terminate that which may be a life?
And, finally, I actually do understand the argument re: viability. I just don't buy it. Here it is in the words of the Roe Court:
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.
I'm sorry, but I just don't find that compelling.
In any event, if you're willing to analogize an unborn child to a half-baked cake, there really is no point in continuing this "discussion" (which, with the admitted indiscretion of my edited-out comment, I tried to maintain at a civil level).
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You do realize that Ashcroft subpoenaed medical records?
Medical records are included in the Privacy Act of 1974.
The courts made the right call.
Oh... and in case you hadn't noticed, abortion is LEGAL in this country.
I don't disagree with what you've written here, but I don't see how it's relevant. Not trying to be contrary, I just don't see your point.
-
The PBA was struck down on privacy issues. That's it. That's all there is. The court isn't revisiting Roe v. Wade. It's not going to happen any time soon.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The PBA was struck down on privacy issues. That's it. That's all there is. The court isn't revisiting Roe v. Wade. It's not going to happen any time soon.
Ok, fine. I don't remember suggesting that the court was going to revisit Roe; if I did I didn't mean to. (I really haven't thought about it, but I'd imagine that it depends on the next appointee or two.)
Oh, I see. I just re-read your post. I'm sorry, it's late and I misinterpreted it and wrote a response to a non-existent argument. I'm not having a great night :) Please accept my apologies.
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
First of all, I edited out the inappropriate comment in my post before you posted this, and as I wrote there, I'm sorry for having written it. Really, I am.
Second, have you actually read Roe? In it, the majority claims that there are three choices for when life begins--conception, viability, and birth--and admits that it cannot, indeed won't even try, to decide which of those three view is correct. It sidesteps the issue by claiming that the unborn child's "potential life" is enough to ultimately countervail the latent "right to privacy" in the penumbra of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of substantive due process (another concept, like the right of privacy, that the Court invented). Aside from the considerable question of whether that analysis is flawed, the more fundamental point is that if there is, as the Court admits, a possibility that life begins at conception, mustn't we protect that possiblity by erring on the side of caution? Shouldn't the Court have excluded that possiblity in order to justify its holding? We make the state prove that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before sending him to jail for six months. If there is a non-neglible possiblity that he is innocent, he walks. Shouldn't similar reasoning apply here, given the dire consequence of being wrong? It certainly seems so to me.
Third, I don't know what you think isn't even well thought out. I know from personal experience that even after a baby is born at 25-26 weeks, the doctor cannot tell whether it is viable until it actually lives or dies. He certainly could not have made that determination in utero. Medicine, obviously, is not an exact science. And even if it were true that we have a "pretty good idea," since when is that a solid enough basis to decide to terminate that which may be a life?
And, finally, I actually do understand the argument re: viability. I just don't buy it. Here it is in the words of the Roe Court:
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.
I'm sorry, but I just don't find that compelling.
In any event, if you're willing to analogize an unborn child to a half-baked cake, there really is no point in continuing this "discussion" (which, with the admitted indiscretion of my edited-out comment, I tried to maintain at a civil level).
Just a guess, but you seem to be a pro-lifer of the opinion that it's a baby at conception, and hey... that's ok. To each their own. I'm personally pro-lifer, but vote pro-choice. Doubt you'll agree w/ me and vice. versa.
You MUST be in the law field. So far, you have said alot, without really saying anything. You also seem to have a penchant for twisting words. I never compared a fetus with a cake. Took the fetus out of the equasion. Was explaining a concept.
btw. what's your solution? You are decent at telling me what you think is NOT correct. Let's hear a better idea. Give me YOUR opinion. Solve this thing, or at least go out on a limb and take a stab at it. Everybody is a good armchair quarterback. Get in the game. And don't pull the "won't debate you whaaa" crud because it's your turn. Let's hear your take on it.
Not buying viability? Ok fine. What DO you buy. Enlighten us. Quit saying we are all wrong. Tell me WHY we are wrong.
BTW apology accepted, and one given out mysefl. Last post WAS a bit rough. unfort. i'm far 2 lazy to edit it, so consider anything i said that was mean edited out.
-Lute III/JG26 9th ST WidowMakers
-
Originally posted by flyingaround
btw. what's your solution? You are decent at telling me what you think is NOT correct. Let's hear a better idea. Give me YOUR opinion. Solve this thing, or at least go out on a limb and take a stab at it. Everybody is a good armchair quarterback. Get in the game. And don't pull the "won't debate you whaaa" crud because it's your turn. Let's hear your take on it.
Not buying viability? Ok fine. What DO you buy. Enlighten us. Quit saying we are all wrong. Tell me WHY we are wrong.
Sure, I'm never shy about telling folks what I think.
To me, it 's very simple. Black and white. I do believe that life begins at conception and therefore I see no alternative but to conclude that abortion is wrong. (As to why I choose conception over viability, see my criticism of the Roe decision.)
I understand that there are competing interests and that the mother has an interest in maintaining control over her own body. Nonetheless, if you accept that the fetus she is carrying is a life, that trumps any interest that the mother has that doesn't rise to the same level. Which leads me to . . .
I will admit to struggling with the case of the life of the mother being in jeopardy, but there I think it's best to leave it to her (or the father, if she is unable to make a decision at the critical moment).
I will take issue with your assessment that I didn't really say anything in my post. I think that I explained, fairly succinctly, why, in my estimation, the Roe Court got it wrong. That you disagree with my argument doesn't mean that it isn't there.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The PBA was struck down on privacy issues. That's it. That's all there is. The court isn't revisiting Roe v. Wade. It's not going to happen any time soon.
Why do you think the liberals are going to such unfettered extremes to prevent this president from having his judicial nominees even come before a full senate vote? His nominees thus far have been for appointments to the federal courts at a time when there is a shortage of judges and an abundance of cases. The backup is reported to be colossal and yet the liberal demagogs are blocking every nominee with only one test, what is the apointees stance on Roe v Wade. Every nominee the Bush administration has presented has been given a "well qualified" rating by the American Bar Association (it's highest rating) and none of them have been permitted to go before the senate for a yes or no vote. This is a first in our history. But none the less the pendulum is swinging. Most people have had their fill with you liberals and your social experimentation. Expect all your Icons to be revisited. November is coming. Maybe you'll lose a few more senate seats.
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Ok, fine. I don't remember suggesting that the court was going to revisit Roe; if I did I didn't mean to. (I really haven't thought about it, but I'd imagine that it depends on the next appointee or two.)
Oh, I see. I just re-read your post. I'm sorry, it's late and I misinterpreted it and wrote a response to a non-existent argument. I'm not having a great night :) Please accept my apologies.
No worries, sir. :)