NY Judge Finds Partial-Birth Abortion Act Unconstitutional

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Hugenstein
The judge is right an outright ban on Partial Birth Abortions should be unconstitutional. Blame your dumbass Republican Represantives and Senators, they could have easily passed a ban with an exclusion for cases where it is medically necessary. Instead they chose to pass a law they knew was unconstitutional.

Yeah, the right-wing fundies crafting these bits of legislative pollution are nothing if not complete idiots. This happens EVERY SINGLE TIME they omit the exclusion. You'd think they'd learn from their mistakes, but apparently beating their heads against the wall must feel real good.

 

[piasabird]

Partial Birth Abortion is Murder During the Birthing Process. You have to be an animal to support something like that.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Do not confuse "Partial Birth Abortion" with abortion. That is the marketing gimmick that the Pro-Life crowd has created.
Abortions are gruesome, many medical procedures are gruesome. That does not make them something one decides to do casually. "Partial Birth Abortion" is a medical procedure used when a fetus cannot survive birth, the birth will kill the mother or the fetus is already dead. In all of the cases I just said, it still looks gruesome and is not a picnic. However the alternative procedure is a hysterectomy which is also gruesome and not a picnic.

I am not confusing the two. Both are gruesome imo. And as for casually I am not sure where you live. But I knew several girls in highschool who had 6 or more abortions in 4 years. If that isnt casual then I dont know what is. It became a form of birth control for them.

btw most stillborn children are natually aborted. If the fetus is dead then there is little reason to cut the back of the head open and suck its brains out.

But you are confusing the two. I believe a number of other posters have already pointed this out, so I will assume that you understand why 6 or more abortions in 4 years were not "Partial Brith Abortions".

Regarding gruesomeness. Almost any surgery is gruesome, that is hardly a reason to say that it should not be done.

Regarding stillborn children, notice how you said "most" stillborn children are naturally aborted. Some are not, especially the ones that are too big to just slip out. Can you imagine the psychological anguish of having to carry a dead fetus (let alone the health implications)? This is a valid reason to attempt an Intact Dialation and Extraction procedure. The alternative is a hysterectomy, which is at least as gruesome and guarantees that the mother will never give birth to a child.

As a seperate issue, I'd like to point out that many pregnancies, likely, are aborted before the mother is ever even aware that she was pregnant. Not due to any abortive efforts of the mother, but simply because the conception did not find a place in the womb. Many pregnancies are miscarried. For the believers, abortion is clearly a part of God's plan.

 

[NJDevil]

I think it is again necessary to emphasize that this was done because there was no clause that allowed them when there were health concerns for the mother/child.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: tss4

This is clearly a different case from Roe V Wade. At the heart of this matter is a womans right to a life saving procedure. I do believe you can make a case based on current law that it is illegal to deny a woman the right to live.

I agree with you in principle, but at what time do we deem it illegal to deny a child the right to live?

And I as understand it, it's not always a life-or-death decision for the mother. Sometimes there is just a high risk of birth defects, damage to the mother's womb, etc. At what point does it become a life-or-terrible-inconvenience decision?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
"Partial Birth Abortion"
Is a term that is used only because the verbage makes it sound gruesome & evil.

That is NOT the 'Medical Term for it at all, here's the Correct Terminology

Intact Dialation and Extraction

Words can be powerful. But still, in a case of "Intact Dialation and Extraction," a fetus is "partially" born, then "aborted." I don't think it's as much of a political heart-string-tug ploy as it is a "dumbing it down for the masses" move. That's like arguing that "boob job" is gruesome & evil verbage for "a woman's natural expression to better her physical self through breast augmentation." A mouthful of jargon has been condensed to a simpler form. Maybe it's too simple, but not by much.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: tss4

This is clearly a different case from Roe V Wade. At the heart of this matter is a womans right to a life saving procedure. I do believe you can make a case based on current law that it is illegal to deny a woman the right to live.

I agree with you in principle, but at what time do we deem it illegal to deny a child the right to live?

And I as understand it, it's not always a life-or-death decision for the mother. Sometimes there is just a high risk of birth defects, damage to the mother's womb, etc. At what point does it become a life-or-terrible-inconvenience decision?

How about let the mother chooses?

 

[CycloWizard]

But do you know anyone who would put their own life before their mother's? Would you really let your mother die so you could live?

I don't, but I also don't know many mothers that would put their life before their infant's.

The excuse for this procedure is that it protects the life of the mother, yet I've never been able to find a single documented case where a mother's life has been "saved." Proponents argue that it's for the mother's safety, but then refuse to give examples because it would violate the privacy of those mothers - even when asked for anonymous statistics. Even if there is a clause to allow abortions for purely medical reasons, any doctor can easily say that the mother would undergo extreme discomfort during birth (or similar) to generate a reason, thereby bypassing such a weak ban.

Simply put, we have the right to life, then liberty, then the pursuit of happiness -- legal precedent has upheld this hierarchy of rights in every other issue since our courts were founded. Why not here?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I agree with you in principle, but at what time do we deem it illegal to deny a child the right to live?

And I as understand it, it's not always a life-or-death decision for the mother. Sometimes there is just a high risk of birth defects, damage to the mother's womb, etc. At what point does it become a life-or-terrible-inconvenience decision?

How about let the mother chooses?

Well, the libertarian in me wants to agree with that, but not every mother is 'fit" to decide the ultimate fate of her child. Should we let the mothers of 8-year-old "mentally challenged" kids suddenly decide that if it's too much pressure on them, then can legally drown their kids in the tub? I know that may seem like a stretch, but it just goes to show that there has to be a cut-off point somewhere. But is "after ~9 months and a successful birth" the best cut-off point?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: tss4

This is clearly a different case from Roe V Wade. At the heart of this matter is a womans right to a life saving procedure. I do believe you can make a case based on current law that it is illegal to deny a woman the right to live.

I agree with you in principle, but at what time do we deem it illegal to deny a child the right to live?

And I as understand it, it's not always a life-or-death decision for the mother. Sometimes there is just a high risk of birth defects, damage to the mother's womb, etc. At what point does it become a life-or-terrible-inconvenience decision?

How about let the mother chooses?

The 'libertarian' in me agrees completely in the case of PBAs.

PBAs should only be permissible if it is not possible for both the mother and the child to survive child birth. And the decision should be up to the mother, not the state, and not the hospital, and certainly not you or me.

Appealing to the child's right to live isn't necessarily appropriate because a PBA is not an abortion, in the sense that it is not the termination of a viable fetus, based on an emotional or rational preference of the mother.

For heaven's sake, if the mother actually wanted an abortion, why would she wait long enough to have a PBA?

As far as I'm concerned, PBA is a completely different issue from ordinary abortion. While I remain pro-choice, I don't see allowing PBAs as being even remotely related to pro-life/pro-choice battle-lines.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I agree with you in principle, but at what time do we deem it illegal to deny a child the right to live?

And I as understand it, it's not always a life-or-death decision for the mother. Sometimes there is just a high risk of birth defects, damage to the mother's womb, etc. At what point does it become a life-or-terrible-inconvenience decision?

How about let the mother chooses?

Well, the libertarian in me wants to agree with that, but not every mother is 'fit" to decide the ultimate fate of her child. Should we let the mothers of 8-year-old "mentally challenged" kids suddenly decide that if it's too much pressure on them, then can legally drown their kids in the tub? I know that may seem like a stretch, but it just goes to show that there has to be a cut-off point somewhere. But is "after ~9 months and a successful birth" the best cut-off point?

I consider myself pro choice and i am against abortions in the third trimester.

I am actually VERY, VERY, VERY much pro-choice, but this is overdoing it and it breings all abortions into question.

It isn't performed where i live though, i can understand your viewpoint and i agree with it.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: tss4

This is clearly a different case from Roe V Wade. At the heart of this matter is a womans right to a life saving procedure. I do believe you can make a case based on current law that it is illegal to deny a woman the right to live.

I agree with you in principle, but at what time do we deem it illegal to deny a child the right to live?

And I as understand it, it's not always a life-or-death decision for the mother. Sometimes there is just a high risk of birth defects, damage to the mother's womb, etc. At what point does it become a life-or-terrible-inconvenience decision?

How about let the mother chooses?

The 'libertarian' in me agrees completely in the case of PBAs.

PBAs should only be permissible if it is not possible for both the mother and the child to survive child birth. And the decision should be up to the mother, not the state, and not the hospital, and certainly not you or me.

Appealing to the child's right to live isn't necessarily appropriate because a PBA is not an abortion, in the sense that it is not the termination of a viable fetus, based on an emotional or rational preference of the mother.

For heaven's sake, if the mother actually wanted an abortion, why would she wait long enough to have a PBA?

As far as I'm concerned, PBA is a completely different issue from ordinary abortion. While I remain pro-choice, I don't see allowing PBAs as being even remotely related to pro-life/pro-choice battle-lines.

Umm, i don't consider a PBA that saves the mothers life an abortion at all, here we don't call it that, it is a medical procedure that will save the mother period.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
:thumbsup:

Finally some sense brought to this fiasco of a bill!

The whole "Partial Brith Abortion" thing is a marketing gimmick by the pro-lifers. The bill has little to do with preserving life and everything to do with making abortions look gruesome.

Thats because PBA ARE GRUESOME. They take half the baby out of the womb, stick a siringe into the baby's brain and suck its brain out. How that can be legalized I have no idea, it's no different than murder. However, the mother's life takes precidence and therefore if her life was threatened I'd allow it, but only under those circumstances. If you want to get an abortion, get it early, dont wait 5-8 months, its ridiculous...

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Umm, i don't consider a PBA that saves the mothers life an abortion at all, here we don't call it that, it is a medical procedure that will save the mother period.

Exactly - the reason I didn't change the terminology and use 'intact dilation and extraction' is to avoid accusations of trying to argue using semantics (even though it's actually the use of PBA that is twisting things to do this). It isn't necessary to change the name to show the difference.

PBA is not an abortion, and it's absolutely up to the mother if she wants to accept treatment.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
:thumbsup:

Finally some sense brought to this fiasco of a bill!

The whole "Partial Brith Abortion" thing is a marketing gimmick by the pro-lifers. The bill has little to do with preserving life and everything to do with making abortions look gruesome.

Thats because PBA ARE GRUESOME. They take half the baby out of the womb, stick a siringe into the baby's brain and suck its brain out. How that can be legalized I have no idea, it's no different than murder. However, the mother's life takes precidence and therefore if her life was threatened I'd allow it, but only under those circumstances. If you want to get an abortion, get it early, dont wait 5-8 months, its ridiculous...

People are not doing this, at least not on a wide-scale (heck, no one is having PBAs on a wide-scale; they're very very rare).

And I would agree that the decision to have an abortion due to preference rests with the mother, but if it's too late for a normal abortion, the decision has already been made.

Edit - though I disagree with calling it murder.