Bush's Partial Abortion Ban Unconstitutional

[dowNINit]

CLICK HERE FOR WHOLE ARTICLE

Someone please stop this madman...

[[aNNa]]

it's times like this when i am glad that we have
three branches and some measure of checks
and balances.

[Satchel]

I have to admit being somewhat ignorant on this issue, but the crushing the skull thing doesn't seem righht to me. Can someone please explain to me why this should be legal?

[MysteryMeat]

I abortions should be legal well into the 8th-10th trimesters. Give them a chance to start speaking, then decide if you want the little hellions or not.

[Ryan]

I'm kinda on the fence here. The argument made was "The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion." Now, while I am not personally a big fan of abortion, I have always been a huge proponent for keeping it legal. Having said that, if this is the argument that makes the ban un-Constitutional, I don't see how this can hold up. I can't logically see how this places an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose, unless it is discovered to be medically appropriate at a late stage in the pregnancy.

I will admit that my position is partly a visceral one. If you don't understand what the procedure is, I would encourage you to go read up on it. I think it's difficult for the average person to stomach. I think it's possible to hold a pro-choice position and still be willing to compromise, and this seems like a reasonable place for compromise.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by Ryan
I will admit that my position is partly a visceral one. If you don't understand what the procedure is, I would encourage you to go read up on it. I think it's difficult for the average person to stomach. I think it's possible to hold a pro-choice position and still be willing to compromise, and this seems like a reasonable place for compromise.

Both procedures(patrial-birth or the 'usual' method) are pretty fucking disgusting. In one(partial birth) the baby's skull is fractured, in the other(most common) version the baby is dismembered inside the womb. Neither is pleasant. AT ALL.

Having said that, I'm pro-choice. I don't think it's the government's place to say whether or not a woman is allowed to abort a child, though I would place a caveat for abortions after the so-called 'age of viability' when the baby is able to live outside of the womb. At that point - short of a life-threatening situation for the mother - I don't think abortions should be allowed.

[MysteryMeat]

My problem is thus:

Women that are too dumb or careless that get pregnant, then procrastinate long enough that fracturing their unborn child's skull is the preferred method of excision.

I'm not saying I'm pro-life or pro-choice. I am however saying that busting open the head of a fetus or ripping off its arms and legs is WRONG.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
I'm not saying I'm pro-life or pro-choice. I am however saying that busting open the head of a fetus or ripping off its arms and legs is WRONG.

Unless you're advocating another method of abortion, you've ruled out the two main methods used. Hence, you're against abortion in its current form.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by Dionysos
Unless you're advocating another method of abortion, you've ruled out the two main methods used. Hence, you're against abortion in its current form.

Late-term abortion is what I'm talking about. Post- and day-after douches, Day-after pills and whatnot (including upping BC the day after, which works as well), and early-term is different (although I personally don't advocate anything other than the 1st two, but the late-term and partial birth stuff is barbaric).

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
I abortions should be legal well into the 8th-10th trimesters. Give them a chance to start speaking, then decide if you want the little hellions or not.

Is that not the position of the president of Princeton University? 30 day trial period after birth when you can toss 'em in the ol' dumpster free of criminal liability?


fair warning....hopping on the soapbox.....

Abortion is a despicable thing. However, that is a moral judgment - and although I am perfectly reasonable in condemning the procedure - it should remain legal. Why? It represents a conflict of 2 separate rights: The right of the mother to privacy versus the right of the baby to life liberty and all that jazz. Because only one right can be given recognition we must give way to the life in being - not to the potential person. However, I can find little reason to think partial birth abortion is anything shy of barbaric.

[Satchel]

Originally posted by xiannaix

Abortion is a despicable thing. However, that is a moral judgment - and although I am perfectly reasonable in condemning the procedure - it should remain legal. Why? It represents a conflict of 2 separate rights: The right of the mother to privacy versus the right of the baby to life liberty and all that jazz. Because only one right can be given recognition we must give way to the life in being - not to the potential person. However, I can find little reason to think partial birth abortion is anything shy of barbaric.

I tend to agree with that. I'm generally anti-abortion but also pro choice. I like the idea of the morning after pill as a compromise. IMO the sooner, the better

[MysteryMeat]

IMO those who have late-term or partial birth abortions should be tried for murder, as are those people that have killed pregnant women (being charged with 2 counts of murder).

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
IMO those who have late-term or partial birth abortions should be tried for murder, as are those people that have killed pregnant women (being charged with 2 counts of murder).

I would be willing to consider that past the "age of viability" I mentioned previously, with a caveat. I would only be willing to charge the person that killed the pregnant woman with 2 counts if one could reasonably demonstrate he/she knew she was pregnant. Otherwise it would fit under involuntary manslaughter, at least as far as my understanding of that charge goes.

Originally posted by Dionysos
I would be willing to consider that past the "age of viability" I mentioned previously, with a caveat. I would only be willing to charge the person that killed the pregnant woman with 2 counts if one could reasonably demonstrate he/she knew she was pregnant. Otherwise it would fit under involuntary manslaughter, at least as far as my understanding of that charge goes.

There are 2 elements to a crime 1) act and 2) intent

If you shoot at a person with the intent to kill and miss - it's still attempted murder. If the miss actually killed somebody else it's attempted murder and murder. Does it matter that you knew the second person was there?


However, as a general proposition the unborn child homicide presents a few problems. No, not with abortion - that'll be clearly carved out as an exception. But, killing a woman who is 2 days pregnant is now a double homicide which in many jurisdictions makes you eligible for the DP - if sentenced to death does that feel like a just sentence?

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by xiannaix
There are 2 elements to a crime 1) act and 2) intent

If you shoot at a person with the intent to kill and miss - it's still attempted murder. If the miss actually killed somebody else it's attempted murder and murder. Does it matter that you knew the second person was there?

However, as a general proposition the unborn child homicide presents a few problems. No, not with abortion - that'll be clearly carved out as an exception. But, killing a woman who is 2 days pregnant is now a double homicide which in many jurisdictions makes you eligible for the DP - if sentenced to death does that feel like a just sentence?

Good point, and I should clarify my stance. My 'involuntary manslaughter' aspect only was being applied to the child, not the mother.