Woo HOO!! Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban!!!!

[anonemouse 1]

And if the child is horribly deformed or severely retarded or facing other massive problems, the probability that he or she will be adopted is extremely remote. People don't want the healthy kids that are currently available in foster care because they are the wrong race or are too old. Do you honestly think that the vast majority of kids facing massive deformation or defect would have a snowball's chance in hell of being adopted? Please. They'd live out their lives in foster care (if they were lucky), group homes (again, if they're lucky), or institutions.

[marjon9 6]

If a woman is pregnant, and is at the 9th month, and does not want the baby...you are saying it is better to kill it as it is being born rather than put it up for adoption? How about this....they don't really kill the baby, but they tell her they did. then they take the baby and put it up for adoption. What harm is there in that? the baby lives and grows up happy and healthy. and the woman doesn't need to deal with the baby she didn't want. Does that work as an alternative for you?

You talk about this fetus in the 9th month as if it were normal and healthy. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about an infant that is provably severely abnormal for one reason or another. Sorry, not everyone agrees that a happy little adoption is in the cards for such a baby. And again, thank our lucky stars, it is not your decision to make.

[anonemouse 1]

Sorry, not everyone agrees that a happy little adoption is in the cards for such a baby.

Exactly. Adoption costs so much today that the vast majority of people just aren't willing to spend the money to adopt a severely deformed or mentally handicapped or ill child, which would eventually cost them an incredible amount of money in extra expenses. As sad as it is, people aren't that altruistic.

[Alexandra 55]

If a woman is pregnant, and is at the 9th month, and does not want the baby...you are saying it is better to kill it as it is being born rather than put it up for adoption? How about this....they don't really kill the baby, but they tell her they did. then they take the baby and put it up for adoption. What harm is there in that? the baby lives and grows up happy and healthy. and the woman doesn't need to deal with the baby she didn't want. Does that work as an alternative for you?

Where are you getting that anyone is saying it's "better" to have a late-term abortion than whatever alternatives there might be? The point is that no one, NO ONE, except the mother and her doctors are in a position to make the appropriate decision for whatever heinous situation is at hand.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

One thing that surprises me is that the same group of people who would fight to the death for one person who has differences, be it mental or physical, to have every option available to them once born and living amongst our society....yet these same people are so quick to kill it off if it is still within the womb.

The majority of abortions, either early or late term, are a result of inconvinience to the mother. Not a problem with the child. The percentage of abortions that happen due to malformation of the baby is very small. Studies have been done all over this country. Did you know that the number of abortions that happen because of the genetic predisposition to obesity is far greater than the abortions that happen because of Down Syndrome? A mental affliction that does not shut down a person. Yet more people would rather kill off the fat kid than kill off the retarted kid? Give me a break. The example that is used so widely (rape and malformation) happen on such a small scale, and it allows others to abort an unfashionable baby, which is criminal.

Are you all aware that there are a lot of groups that adopt mentally and physically retarded children to give them the best lives possible? And again....who decides if the affliction is bad enough to warrant death?

[FunnyDuddies 6]

Where are you getting that anyone is saying it's "better" to have a late-term abortion than whatever alternatives there might be? The point is that no one, NO ONE, except the mother and her doctors are in a position to make the appropriate decision for whatever heinous situation is at hand.

That was in response to BJ and he post stating that abortion was a better alternative.

so here is a hypothetical, to go along with your stance. My daughter is being born, and her arm is paralyzed. While half of her body is still inside of me I make the decision that her paralysis is too much for me to bear with mentally, and i ask the doctor to kill her before she is fully born. should that be legal?

[marjon9 6]

The percentage of abortions that happen due to malformation of the baby is very small.

That may be true, but those are the ones we are talking about now. I can understand why you would not want to continue with the discussion, because your position on the matter is impossible to sustain. But changing the subject does not support your point of view. Your suggestion that it would be so easy to put these unfortunate malformed children up for adoption is just not valid.

For some reason, the position that you maintain leaves no room for compassion for a woman faced with the sure knowledge that she is going to deliver a child that is, for one reason or another, gravely abnormal. Your response always favors the "rights" of the "child," and seems to contain no compassion at all for the position of the woman. You suggest that it would be as easy as dropping off the dry cleaning to put such a baby up for adoption. That is really quite ridiculous. Your next response is to point out that most abortions don't involve gravely abnormal children. But that is clearly beside the point. When there is a gravely abnormal child, the woman must have the choice to do what she believes is the right thing to do. She must have that choice without legislative interference from people who believe, like you, that the woman's rights in such a situation are worth nothing at all, and the only thing that matters is the "rights" of the deformed, suffering infant with half a brain that nobody wants.

[Alexandra 55]

That was in response to BJ and he post stating that abortion was a better alternative.

so here is a hypothetical, to go along with your stance. My daughter is being born, and her arm is paralyzed. While half of her body is still inside of me I make the decision that her paralysis is too much for me to bear with mentally, and i ask the doctor to kill her before she is fully born. should that be legal?

An ethical physician would not do such a thing. If your full-term, fully viable baby is in the process of being born and you are suffering no medical emergency, there is no doctor worthy of the name who would do what you suggest.

But if you were absolutely determined to end such a baby's life, and you had a "doctor" to help you do it, no law would stop you.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

Marjon, I have posed many questions to you, and you still have yet to answer them. You just go on about how I am changing the subject, which I am not. Lets stick with the rules of debate shall we?

Now that Alexandra has answered one of my questions, I shall continue.

The creator of the procedure that we are all talking about has come forth and stated that of all the partial birth abortions he has completed, 80% of them were not medically necessary for either the mother or the child. The other 20% were medically necessary, based on his interpretation. To which he added that none of these were life threatening. they included mental stress, the mother having bouts of vomiting, the child having a cleft lip or palatte. I understand that the law allows this, but how is this right?? You say "But if you were absolutely determined to end such a baby's life, and you had a "doctor" to help you do it, no law would stop you." Does that make it right? and if it is not right, shouldn't we change the law??

[FunnyDuddies 6]

Marjon, I am not sure if you are aware of it or not, but within the first week of a baby being born, no matter what the issue might be, the mother can "just drop it off like drycleaning" and not have to deal with it any longer.

If a baby is gravely abnormal, then its chances of living are almost nil to begin with. why is it we have all decided it was ok to just not give that child a chance to live? Why take that chance away? I know....its so mentally hard on a woman who has given birth and doesn't want to spend the time to pull for her little kid to try and make it to the stable stage. its such a time waster. that is what it really comes down to here. If the baby is being born, and the mother is not in any danger (which it never is at this point) then let the kid be born. Give it a freaking chance!

[marjon9 6]

Marjon, I am not sure if you are aware of it or not, but within the first week of a baby being born, no matter what the issue might be, the mother can "just drop it off like drycleaning" and not have to deal with it any longer.

If a baby is gravely abnormal, then its chances of living are almost nil to begin with. why is it we have all decided it was ok to just not give that child a chance to live? Why take that chance away? I know....its so mentally hard on a woman who has given birth and doesn't want to spend the time to pull for her little kid to try and make it to the stable stage. its such a time waster. that is what it really comes down to here. If the baby is being born, and the mother is not in any danger (which it never is at this point) then let the kid be born. Give it a freaking chance!

That's an interesting concept, and you should feel free to argue for it to everyone who will listen to you. But the question is, who gets to make the decision, the woman or the legislature? That's the issue. No matter how much you think that the woman should "give it a freaking chance," it is not your decision to make. That is the whole issue with respect to abortion. We all know people disagree, there is nothing new there. The issue is, who gets to decide, the woman or the legislature.

[Alexandra 55]

The creator of the procedure that we are all talking about has come forth and stated that of all the partial birth abortions he has completed, 80% of them were not medically necessary for either the mother or the child. The other 20% were medically necessary, based on his interpretation. To which he added that none of these were life threatening. they included mental stress, the mother having bouts of vomiting, the child having a cleft lip or palatte. I understand that the law allows this, but how is this right?? You say "But if you were absolutely determined to end such a baby's life, and you had a "doctor" to help you do it, no law would stop you." Does that make it right? and if it is not right, shouldn't we change the law??

This particular doctor may be proud of himself for offering a procedure that pushes the boundaries of legality. Jack Kevorkian found notoriety in the same way. I am not saying that either of them are "right," but that's not the point. The law is a blunt instrument. Outlawing procedures only because they can be abused is going to assure that others' civil rights will be curtailed. The choice, of whether to end one's life or one's fetus' development, must remain in the hands of the full-grown adult in question. Especially in this country, which claims to value self-determination so much.

If a baby is gravely abnormal, then its chances of living are almost nil to begin with. why is it we have all decided it was ok to just not give that child a chance to live? Why take that chance away? I know....its so mentally hard on a woman who has given birth and doesn't want to spend the time to pull for her little kid to try and make it to the stable stage. its such a time waster. that is what it really comes down to here. If the baby is being born, and the mother is not in any danger (which it never is at this point) then let the kid be born. Give it a freaking chance!

We have not "all" decided it's OK not to give a child a chance to live. Many people feel as you do, as you know. However, that is purely opinion and emotion speaking, and that's not a rational basis for law. While I'd venture to say that the vast majority of people in this country agree with you, there are always going to be those marginal situations that the law will push into an untenable corner.

The answers lie in education and medical arts, not laws. Prevent the unwanted pregnancies, have the prenatal tests as early as possible, and allow doctors to do their jobs.

[marjon9 6]

Marjon, I am not sure if you are aware of it or not, but within the first week of a baby being born, no matter what the issue might be, the mother can "just drop it off like drycleaning" and not have to deal with it any longer.

In this statement you demonstrate how far removed you are from compassion for the woman involved. The question is not whether a woman "can" drop it off like drycleaning. The issue is whether it is right to force a woman to go through the emotional nightmare of doing so if she chooses not to. I know, I know, you will point out that the baby will have an even worse nightmare if it is dead. I know you think that. But when we are talking about a gravely abnormal child, the woman should have the choice of avoiding the horror of dropping off her gravely abnormal child to the dry cleaner.

In your mind, the horror should be worse for the woman to have the abortion. I understand that you think that. But it is not your life, and not your choice to make if a woman feels differently.

[anonemouse 1]

Marjon, I am not sure if you are aware of it or not, but within the first week of a baby being born, no matter what the issue might be, the mother can "just drop it off like drycleaning"; and not have to deal with it any longer.

Not in all states. Women in Alaska, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Nebraska are just shit out of luck.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

Once that baby is born, if the mother did not want it and planned to kill it, at that point the woman's emotional stature does not play into this. My father made me emotional and crazy and was awful to be around. Doesn't mean I have the right to kill him. And this boils down to just that. Death. No one's inconvinience can trump another's life. Yes, our laws are the way they are right now and so it is legal, but it should not be. Of course the bigger nightmare is for the baby that will be killed. How can you, as a human who lives and breathes and walks among other humans, have so little stock in human life? i think it speaks volumes to what our culture and our society has become. And it is sickening.

If the law can state that one person cannot kill another person, then the law should state that unborn and partially born babies be included in that "thou shall not kill" category. Inconvinience and stess are not reasons to punish an innocent life. No matter how much you think the mother would be stressedor inconvinience.

And it is my choice to make. As a voter I have every right to band together with those that feel the same way I do and try to prevent further deaths of innocent children. With the ban on partial birth abortions being upheld it seems the govt is starting to come around and see it our way.

Alexandra, Preventing unwanted pregnancies would happen more often if people would start taking responsibility for their actions. The reason they do not is because our society has made them out to be victims. Which is a bunch of hogwash. If people had to face their responsibilities then they would choose their actions more appropriately. Taking away a cop-out such as abortion would make more and more people look twice at having unprotected sex with someone they are not ready to raise a family with.