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

[gadgetlady 4]

And as I said in the other post, if someone other than your husband can present compelling evidence that you didn't want to be taken off life support, your husband does NOT have the right to kill you. Since no one has asked the babies, I believe others need to speak up for them.

[marjon9 6]

I didn't bring up PAS; someone else did, citing an article that claimed it didn't exist. I was simply presenting evidence that it does.

I have said before -- perhaps you didn't read it -- that whether or not women suffer after abortion is not a reason to outlaw the procedure. The basis for outlawing the procedure is quite simply that it takes the life of a human being. Period. It has nothing to do with religion or with beliefs about contraception or with how much women suffer after abortion (or don't) or overpopulation (or lack thereof) or anything else. It is very simple. Human beings don't have the right to kill other human beings for the sake of convenience.

This is basically just a circular argument that assumes the conclusion you want to reach, but does not answer the question. The whole point is, not everyone agrees that abortion, especially in the early months, is "killing a human being." That's the whole point. So your answer is not an answer at all, it just avoids the question.

Abortion is obviously not as simple as you are stating it. In the first place, not everyone agrees that abortion is killing a human being. And in the second place, there is a pregnant woman involved who may be facing health issues, or other matters that are far more than the flippant "inconvenience" word you repeatedly interject. Women must make a choice that will totally alter their lives, and do it on behalf of an entity that they do not believe is yet a human being.

These are the issues here. So, your "assume the conclusion as part of the question" approach does nothing more than avoid the issues. In light of the true complexity of the abortion issue, the bottom line again is, you do not have the right to force others to live by the particular moral code that makes sense to you.

[anonemouse 1]

And as I said in the other post, if someone other than your husband can present compelling evidence that you didn't want to be taken off life support, your husband does NOT have the right to kill you.

Yes, actually, he does. Remember the Schiavo case? As much as her parents protested that she would never have wanted to be removed from life support, he still had the right to do it. And the courts upheld that right. Once you marry someone, your parents or other loved ones lose all right to make legal and medical decisions for you. Unless they can present legal documents that prove that you didn't suddenly change your mind after talking to them or writing a letter to them, he has the right to remove your life support.

[gadgetlady 4]

The parents were just unsuccessful at convincing the court. There are other cases that ended differently.

[gadgetlady 4]

and do it on behalf of an entity that they do not believe is yet a human being.

In the US, we used to have a law that said blacks were 3/5 of a human being. The law was, obviously, wrong -- but to the people of the time, they simply didn't believe blacks had the same worth as a "full" human being. And laws were made based on that decision. The point is it doesn't matter what people BELIEVE. What matters are the facts.

If you listen to abortionists talk about how they know when they've completed an abortion, they talk about opening the bag (containing what was taken out of the womb) and counting -- two arms, two legs, a head, a torso -- yup, we got it all. What the HECK is it if it's not a human being?

We obfuscate the issue by using words like "fetus" and "product of conception" and "blob of tissue", but the reality is when women abort, they are stopping a beating heart. The baby is a wholly separate entity from the mother, with its own circulatory system, brain waves, blood type, heartbeat, organs, etc.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

if the courts can charge someone with homicide if they hit a woman and she as a miscarriage, then abortion should be outlawed. plain and simple. there cannot be a double standard. and whether you are religious or not, everyone is open to saving a life because in our hearts we know it is right.

it cracks me up that there are so many pro-choice people that belive in saving the lives of people on death row. you would rather pull the plug on an innocent being who has the chance to change the world, but you want to save the life of someone who has taken the lives of others. again, there should be no double standard. saving the lives of innocents is paramount to our society becoming stronger and saner. if you don't want to have a kid, stop having sex until you can get your tubes tied. Its that simple.

[marjon9 6]

In the US, we used to have a law that said blacks were 3/5 of a human being. The law was, obviously, wrong -- but to the people of the time, they simply didn't believe blacks had the same worth as a "full" human being. And laws were made based on that decision. The point is it doesn't matter what people BELIEVE. What matters are the facts.

If you listen to abortionists talk about how they know when they've completed an abortion, they talk about opening the bag (containing what was taken out of the womb) and counting -- two arms, two legs, a head, a torso -- yup, we got it all. What the HECK is it if it's not a human being?

We obfuscate the issue by using words like "fetus" and "product of conception" and "blob of tissue", but the reality is when women abort, they are stopping a beating heart. The baby is a wholly separate entity from the mother, with its own circulatory system, brain waves, blood type, heartbeat, organs, etc.

Your description of the abortion process that is followed by "abortionists" is outrageously offensive and totally lacking in compassion. That's what I was trying to say before, but you insisted I "didn't know you at all."

In any event, all you are doing here is restating your opinion and presenting it as fact. But it is not fact. Enormous numbers of intelligent and loving human beings DISAGREE WITH YOU that a fetus is a human being. You have a right to your opinion. But you do not have a right to force others to live by the particular moral code that makes sense to you.

[anonemouse 1]

The parents were just unsuccessful at convincing the court. There are other cases that ended differently.

And that still invalidates your argument. Obviously, the courts thought he had the right to make that decision. And after all, they are the ones who determine it.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

Your description of the abortion process that is followed by "abortionists" is outrageously offensive and totally lacking in compassion. That's what I was trying to say before, but you insisted I "didn't know you at all."

In any event, all you are doing here is restating your opinion and presenting it as fact. But it is not fact. Enormous numbers of intelligent and loving human beings DISAGREE WITH YOU that a fetus is a human being. You have a right to your opinion. But you do not have a right to force others to live by the particular moral code that makes sense to you.

Abortion is outrageously offensive and totally lacking in compassion, so i think that her description completely fits the bill here.

[marjon9 6]

Abortion is outrageously offensive and totally lacking in compassion, so i think that her description completely fits the bill here.

And you have every right to your opinion. But you do not have a right to force others to live by the particular moral code that makes sense to you.

[gadgetlady 4]

Your description of the abortion process that is followed by "abortionists" is outrageously offensive and totally lacking in compassion.

What is outrageously offensive about it? It's a medical procedure! Why do you care about the description of the medical procedure? Why does the word "abortionist" offend you? Why is compassion needed if what's being removed isn't a baby?

[anonemouse 1]

Abortion is outrageously offensive and totally lacking in compassion, so i think that her description completely fits the bill here.

Really? What about the woman that aborts her severely deformed fetus that would be forced to live in abject pain for the rest of its very short life, if born? I think an abortion is compassionate in that instance, don't you? What about the woman who aborts her fetus because she had to decide whether she died or her fetus died? May not be compassionate for the fetus, but it is compassionate for her.

[marjon9 6]

Why is compassion needed if what's being removed isn't a baby?

Because obviously a fetus is what it takes to some day become a baby. And most men and most women take such issues very seriously, and think about them deeply, and struggle to make the right choice balancing all the factors. Men an women who make these decisions and deal with these issues are people who face difficult challenges and hard choices. They are not "abortionists." That word implies that people have a pro-abortion agenda. Women who seek abortions do not have a pro-abortion agenda. (and please, save the articles about the three feminists for some other time). Calling people abortionists demonstrates a total lack of compassion for the human being faced with a difficult situation. No one denies that abortion triggers difficult moral issues. But they are PERSONAL, and not for someone else to decide for you.

The main point is (which you repeatedly refuse to discuss) is that there are legitimate differences of opinion on what is happening here. Just because you keep repeating over and over again that abortion is killing a baby does not make it true. It is just your opinion. Other people have other opinions. You don't get to decide these personal moral issues for all others based on what you happen to believe.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

when it is a medical procedure it is not murder, but when it is an abortion caused by a woman being beating is it? where is the "opinion" in that? Sounds like a flaw in the law to me. and it is better to err on the side of humanity and innocence.

[gadgetlady 4]

Because obviously a fetus is what it takes to some day become a baby.

Just as an infant is what it takes to some day become a toddler, and a toddler is what it takes to some day become a pre-teen, and so on. They are all stages of life. Not one of those stages is non-life.

Men an women who make these decisions and deal with these issues are people who face difficult challenges and hard choices. They are not "abortionists."

Hello, the word "abortionist" was used to describe the person performing the abortion!

Calling people abortionists demonstrates a total lack of compassion for the human being faced with a difficult situation.

I have never, ever called someone an abortionist unless they perform abortions, as per the definition:

 American Heritage Dictionary

(ə-bôr'shə-nĭst)

n. One who performs abortions.

The main point is (which you repeatedly refuse to discuss) is that there are legitimate differences of opinion on what is happening here. Just because you keep repeating over and over again that abortion is killing a baby does not make it true. It is just your opinion. Other people have other opinions. You don't get to decide these personal moral issues for all others based on what you happen to believe.

Life is not a personal moral issue. The reality is, either the unborn is a baby or it isn't. One of us is right and one of us is wrong. There is no neutral ground. If I'm pregnant and the woman next to me is pregnant, we are both either carrying a child within us or we're not. If she believes it isn't a child and I believe it is, one of us is wrong. Our belief about the humanity of the thing inside of us doesn't bestow that humanity. It is independent of our opinion.