Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure
This isn't a Marble Garden thread about your views on abortion. There are multiple topics on the subject in Marble Garden if you'd like to discuss how fetuses are sentinent and how women who have sex are sluts that deserve pregnancy.
I'm incredibly upset right now. Everyone at my office is crying. We've been working for this for decades, for centuries even. We've been fighting for women every day. We receive death threats on a daily basis. We've gotten letters from desperate women, women who don't know what to do. Women who can't afford prenatal care, girls who will have their lives threatened by their fathers/mothers/family members if they're found out to be pregnant. We've really @#%$ worked to defend these women, and now we can't.
It's getting harder to answer the phone and say "We can't help you".
Im sorry, but this was a good move by the Supreme Court. Thats gonna piss almost all the people here off, but oh well.
What's the rules of abortion in canada as that might be the only alternative?
*hugs Astrid*
I'm really sorry. I kind of know how you feel - not with abortion, but with autism. "We can't help you" is a terrible thing to say, a waste of hope.
E-mail me, or IM me if I'm on, if you want to talk about it. 🙁
*Sighs* One word ...Antidisestablishmentarianism...
I really pray this isn't an effort to slowly chip away a woman's right to abortion.
I feel no man should ever, in this life or any other, have the ability to have a say in the matter, and the fact that the article mentioned only one woman involved in the vote makes me very unhappy.
Quote:
"It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice and to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form," Kennedy wrote.
I'm sorry, but how many women go in for an abortion proceedure and "learn, only after the event" that it was going to destroy the fetus, which they apparently "once did not know"? Why the hell do you think she's there in the first place?
I'm sure the decision is extremely hard (and frankly, I don't see how a man could fully understand it), so it's inane to think that someone goes for an abortion and is somehow unaware of what the end result is.
My only thought on that quote is maybe he meant they weren't aware of the procedure or something.
Quote:
There are multiple topics on the subject in Marble Garden if you'd like to discuss how fetuses are sentinent and how women who have sex are sluts that deserve pregnancy.
... I think those views are too separate to be associated with each other. What if someone believes that fetuses are sentient but doesn't think of women who have sex as sluts? What if someone doesn't think fetuses are sentient but thinks of women who have sex as sluts? Not that I'd agree with either set of opinions, and I think of the latter as being more unreasonable... just that I think we should be more hesitant about associating (SP?) such clearly separate opinions with each other.
Anyway, Astrid, what office are you talking about? It seems that you and your co-workers are very committed to your cause. Would I be correct in assuming that your job is connected to abortion, perhaps something along the lines of management at an abortion clinic?
You say they're banning "late term" abortion... would I be correct in assuming that you're referring to the third trimester? Despite my tendencies against the anti-abortion side, I would agree that banning third-trimester abortions is more reasonable than banning them earlier in pregnancy, given how much further along in development the brain is during the third trimester... I think they're going a bit far in terms of the health exception, but then again I don't know much about the laws around abortion, so I'm not sure what exactly that is referring to. I more so wanted to mention these few things...
EDIT: Trans, what do you mean by "here"?
You make it sound like all abortion is banned...
I agree with Tornadot.
I'm actually incredibly surprised they're not banning abortion completely. I mean sure, it doesn't make everybody happy, but at least the option is still there, and for that I am happy.
One hundred years ago, women doing anything other than cooking, cleaning, and pumping out kids was unheard of. It took awhile, but we've come a long way. The journey's not over yet, but we've still come really far.
The same thing will happen with this, I'm sure of it. Bans have been lifted in the past. Bans will continue to be lifted in the future, and I'm confident this will be one of them. For now, I'm going to celebrate this small victory we've made rather than feel bad for what we don't get.
~Shadowed Spirit Sage
So, wait, I'm confused, Sagey. Are you for or against abortion in general?...
By late term, does that infer to the time when the baby is capable of living outside of the mother?
I am for abortion. Every woman should be given the right to her own body and what she should do with it. But that is not what this topic is about, so that is all I shall say about that.
You can look at this in two different lights.
The first way: We worked so hard to legalize abortion everywhere and then THIS happens? We've done so much and gotten so little in return..... Man, this sucks.
The second way: We worked this hard and made a difference! They could have completely banned abortion, but no! They only partially banned it! While it's not a complete win, it's a win nonetheless, and as long as we don't back down, we'll continue to win. Man, this rocks!
I've chosen the second.
~Shadowed Spirit Sage
Quote:
"It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice and to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form," Kennedy wrote.
Translation: Women who get abortions are morons who don't understand medical procedures before consulting a doctor to have them performed. Obviously they must be protected because women are naturally victims. So don't worry your pretty little heads. I studied court rulings from the 1800's so that I could use similar arguments to act like a protector of those poor victimized pedestal-standing women while denying them liberty.
(Seriously, in 8th grade we had reenactments of women's suffrage, etc. and the same nonsense was being used about protecting the women. What, you didn't think they were going around saying HAR HAR WE OPRESS YAY, in public anyway, did you? History classes with direct quotes are considerably more interesting than some teacher or author's summary. They also demonstrate that conservative arguments have prety much been same crap new target for centuries, whether supporting royalty or Bush.)
Note I'm not against banning the procedure if there are the extremely important health exceptions. However the procedure is usually a last resort so such an exception would pretty much make the law meaningless. That's obviously why denying such an exception is so important to the fascists. Killing a bunch of people is nothing if you get an ideological victory, right?
Quote:
I'm incredibly upset right now.
I'm not.
With the exception of danger to the mother's LIFE (which are extremely rare anyways), I don't know why this would be necessary (Warning: graphic image of what PBA is).
Regardless of the moral rights or wrongs of this (I have yet to take a stand on abortion beyond saying that women should be able to abort in health or rape cases without question), I feel the Supreme Court is being swayed by things of little relevance to the law here.
I'm unimpressed by their politicism. It's not part of their supposed judical role at all.
Matt, with regards to your first paragraph: it was a joke. :O
I make no claims as to my knowledge on this issue. My stance is simple.
Abortion is horrible in the context it is used today. Except for rape cases, danger to the child and/or the mother, or other such exceptions, abortion just isn't right. If dumbass teens want a way out, there's always Trojanman to help.
There is no exception in this for the health of the woman involved.
NO EXCEPTION FOR THE HEALTH OF THE WOMAN INVOLVED.
Is it somehow difficult for people to figure out the implications of this? Am I completely insane for even thinking that this may be a huge monumental @#%$ problem?
*Blink*
I hate this country. Bigoted, racist, money grubbing, freedom smashing politicians and lawyers. With the kinda asinine @#%$ these people pull they have to be complete retards to ask why people are going berserk over nothing and blasting schools and campuses.
Sorry Astrid, this is horrific blow to the moniker "Land of the free, and the home of the brave."
~Tobe
Quote:
I hate this country. Bigoted, racist, money grubbing, freedom smashing politicians and lawyers. With the kinda asinine @#%$ these people pull they have to be complete retards to ask wonder why people are going berserk over nothing and blasting schools and campuses.
*blink*
How is saying that a ban on having the heads of babies being opened with scissors is not unconstitutional = "bigoted, racist, money grubbing, and freedom smashing" ?
Quote:
Sorry Astrid, this is horrific blow to the moniker "Land of the free, and the home of the brave."
How?
Go away Ultra, I'm venting. Line the round pieces of my post to the round holes in the topic. The square pieces, I don't care what you do with those, but I can make a few suggestions via pm if you like. o.-
Oh and how is telling a dieing mother she's "Dieing for a good cause" NOT freedom smashing.
~Tobe (Bite my fluffy yellow butt)
Quote:
Oh and how is telling a dieing mother she's "Dieing for a good cause" NOT freedom smashing.
Have any of you guys even read the bill that banned PBA, which the SCOTUS just upheld today?
So...yeah. o.o
Ultra, are you throwing some other bill in here? Because Astrid just said there is no clause like that in the bill that just passed.
~Tobe
That bill is the text for the very same 2003 bill that the article Astrid posted mentioned in the second paragraph. Am I surprised that the Washington Post didn't mention that little subsection? Not really.
Court Ruling Doesn't Ban All Late-Term Abortions
Honestly, I don't know why people are getting in a tizzy over this. I'm certainly glad that this particularly barbaric "procedure" is banned, but the amount of times it actually occurred was infintesimal. Some of the Pro-Lifers quoted in the article are acting as if this is the end of legalized abortion (which it isn't) and the Pro-Choicers are acting as if its the end of women (which it isn't).
This bans the procedure with exceptions for danger to the LIFE of the mother. Not health, which is a term that can be stretched very easily, but LIFE. We're not talking about "So you're throwing up and have stomachaches?", but "OH MY GOD BLOOD ISN'T SUPPOSED TO COME OUT OF THAT ORIFICE!" or the like.
Seriously. Enough with the hyperbole (as if the "all women who have sex are sluts" line wasn't enough hyperbole already. 
).
What's the rules of abortion in canada as that might be the only alternative?
Fortunately, Canada remains one of the few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion, and access is still among the best in the world. However, unless you are a Canadian citizen, you can expect to be asked to foot the bill for the procedure.
Personally, I am all for killing babies. I wonder if Ultra and his carebear friends have any ideas as to where those one million unwanted babies per year are supposed to go, who's supposed to deal with them, and with what money the government is supposed to pay for it all.
Guys, quit it. Astrid specifically said no morality discussions in here. Take it to Marble Garden if you really want to continue such a beaten-to-death discussion.
~Shadowed Spirit Sage
Quote:
Personally, I am all for killing babies. I wonder if Ultra and his carebear friends have any ideas as to where those one million unwanted babies per year are supposed to go, who's supposed to deal with them, and with what money the government is supposed to pay for it all.
Bravo.
And Ultra, you of all people on this forum have no right to tell anyone to drop hyperbole, anywhere, ever.
Quote:
Personally, I am all for killing babies. I wonder if Ultra and his carebear friends have any ideas as to where those one million unwanted babies per year are supposed to go, who's supposed to deal with them, and with what money the government is supposed to pay for it all.
Sorry Sage, but I have to respond to this one post.
I guess I still subscribe to the absurd notion that human life can't really be equated to a monetary cost. 40,000,000 dead? Let's go ahead and calculate how much money was saved! /cynical satire
www.scotusblog.com/movabl...80_All.pdf
That would be the actual decision made by the Supreme Court, not the bill approved by Congress in 2003, which Ultra is refering to.
Take the rest of this to Marble Garden or something. My point was not to spark a debate about abortion, my point was to find some solidarity from those who feel this ruling is negligent to women's lives and are pissed off that it has to come to this.
In all seriousness, the ban on late-term abortions is problematic for a whole passel of reasons. One, it only explicitly bans the IDX procedure (which is only used in second-and-later trimester abortions of infants with massive defects, like hydroencephaly, or when the mother is in serious strife at that stage of pregnancy. 0.17% of abortions, by the way) - sounds bad, but it's actually the safest way to get a malformed or dead infant out. It skates around having no exception for the health of the mother by leaving as an alternative two procedures which are far more dangerous and involved - a C-section, which is a major abdominal surgery, or a similar extraction process that actually dismembers the fetus completely before removal. Apart from leaving nothing mum and dad can say goodbye too, it carries a fair risk of the fetus' limbs perforating the uterus. Considering that the text of the ban waxes poetic about how gross the head-deflation procedure is, that's pretty hypocritical.
They think they can get all abortions banned pretty much. They're just being sneaky this time and not saying stupid things, so it sounds a bit more reasonable. They have simply chosen an attack vector that's much easier to sell to fence sitters. I seriously doubt it will pass, but my god theres some sexist BS in there - "show women ultrasounds of the baby", "force a waiting period of few days", etc.
YES BECAUSE WOMEN GET ABORTIONS AT THE DROP OF A HAT INSTEAD OF USING BIRTH CONTROL...UNLESS YOU TAUGHT THEM ABSTINENCE ONLY EDUCTION, THEN THEY TYPICALLY DON'T BOTHER. FUNNY HOW YOU CAUSED THAT PROBLEM AS WELL.
Finally explained instead of wiggling around it. Thanks Cyke, was getting confused there.
Still say at the rate we're crushing freedom we should edit the song to, "Land of the Christians, and home of Jesus." 
~Tobe
Nuchtos, just because it's a joke doesn't mean it doesn't have a serious message. Astrid's comment associated such clearly separate opinions with each other that I felt I should point out sets of opinions that would contradict that message.
Veckums, I thought the idea with anti-abortionism was more so to protect the fetuses from women than women from "themselves"? Even with what you quoted it seems to me like the idea is that people who get abortions aren't "aware" that abortion supposedly "is" murder. The obvious answer isn't necessarily that opposition to legalized abortion should be associated with sexism, but how the idea that abortion is murder shouldn't be forced on others through law with the extent of uncertainty... with the possible exception of the third trimester since at that point in time the fetus is more like a person than in the earlier stages.
So, here's what I don't get: why IDX in particular? What makes it any different in the grand scheme of things than sucking the thing out whole, or sliding your forceps inside and pulling it out piece by piece, or cutting open the woman's uterus and removing it that way? How does partially emerging from the birth canal suddenly imbue the fetus with the right to life? How is it any less "humane" than the myriad other methods? And if abortion is murder, why is the penalty only a fine or two years?
Quote:
Take the rest of this to Marble Garden or something. My point was not to spark a debate about abortion, my point was to find some solidarity from those who feel this ruling is negligent to women's lives and are pissed off that it has to come to this.
*Points at that* Direct quote what people say here if you want.
*points at Vec's post* You know, that's what's been bothering me the most these last two days as I've watched this topic develop.
It's probably been over a year and half since I last posted on a political topic, I think it's fairly obvious that I have an opinion on this, as the current political climate makes it impossible not to have an opinion on it. It's one of those damned-if-you-do type things in that no matter what you say, someone is going to hate you with a fiery passion. You say one thing, you have the entire anti-abortion movement against you, which is backed by religious organizations that can stir up quite a bit of zeal if neccessarry. You say another, and you have the entire pro-abortion movement against you, which is backed by people who equate abortion rights with women's rates. So in someone's eyes, you're either offending an almighty supreme being, or you're offending all women. Either way, they are going to hate you.
The opinions stated in this topic haven't botherred me. If you can't deal with dissenting opinions, I don't know how you get out of bed in the morning. It's the sentiment Vec just quoted that for the last three days has stuck in my craw like an over-sized nacho.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that idea expressed is that we're going to have our own little thread for a massive pity party, and form an echo chamber so that all we hear are the ideas that are good and right and don't need to think about all those bad people who disagree with us. Those horrible, wicked people whose opinions have no validity. Those horrendous, evil hypocrates who don't deserve a say in the situation to begin with. Here, we can mock them with relative impunity, call them mean and funny names, and not need to worry about having to face down their arguments, because our cause is just and righteous.
Am I the only one seeing it like this? And am I the only one who thinks this is like 3rd grade bullying all over again, where I wasn't allowwed to play soccer, because I was the dork who read comic books on the playground?
I'm glad I got that off my chest, because it's really been bugging me.
Quote:
Still say at the rate we're crushing freedom we should edit the song to, "Land of the Christians, and home of Jesus."
Thank you. I completely agree with that statement.
Now, onto the issue on hand. I it doesn't matter to me if women want abortion or not. If they want it, let them. If not, then that's their choice. I thought that was the premise of America anyway? Land of the free and home of the brave?
Guess not.
Well, I suppose the babies wouldn't be free. I mean, they can't help being created.
Land of the [religious groups, if you so happen to be religious, which it's totally okay if you aren't,] and the home of [the people, who don't have to be brave, because we could get sued for pointing out or celebrating certain types of people.]
I do apologize to Astrid for letting my vent fire off in here, it won't happen again.
Ultra, shut up, no morality debates. This one is on women's rights.
~Tobe
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that idea expressed is that we're going to have our own little thread for a massive pity party, and form an echo chamber so that all we hear are the ideas that are good and right and don't need to think about all those bad people who disagree with us. Those horrible, wicked people whose opinions have no validity. Those horrendous, evil hypocrates who don't deserve a say in the situation to begin with. Here, we can mock them with relative impunity, call them mean and funny names, and not need to worry about having to face down their arguments, because our cause is just and righteous.
Since it's quite possible for somebody to start another topic about it, the opinions can still be heard. Astrid is personally involved in this and started a topic specifically not about debate but support. I kind of went into opinion territory because I didn't quite understand what she meant, but since she made it more clear I think it's fair to ask for debate to go in another topic. Considering media choice is turning media into an echo chamber in general, I understand your point, but people need to be able to start a topic about support without it turning into politics. We could have somebody asking for support because they work for a drug hotline and they don't want it to be a debate about legalization. Any subject could involve opinionated debate.
Quote:
Personally, I am all for killing babies. I wonder if Ultra and his carebear friends have any ideas as to where those one million unwanted babies per year are supposed to go, who's supposed to deal with them, and with what money the government is supposed to pay for it all.
Obviously the solution here is to carry them to term, THEN abort them, process them, and send them to third world countries as SPAM, thus helping with global hunger at the same time! Two problems with one chainsaw swipe =D
Uh.... no thanks.
Quote:
Obviously the solution here is to carry them to term, THEN abort them, process them, and send them to third world countries as SPAM, thus helping with global hunger at the same time! Two problems with one chainsaw swipe =D
Hello, Jonathan Swift. 
But how many here people have actually heard of him?
"A Modest Proposal" was required reading in my high school. Don't know about the rest of the world though.
Soylent Green might be more widely understood.
Strange, I was just reading A Modest Proposal in the school library today.
I'm completely pro-abortion, but I have to agree with the idea of banning it in the third trimester. Technology's now advanced to the point where children're technically able to survive (although what quality of life they have is another story - again, evidence on request) if they're born before even the current deadline for a standard abortion. Again, evidence on request.
To abort a child after six months (and I've actually had friends who've aborted a child pretty much on the UK borderline) does seem past a point of no return, when the mother has had ample time to consider her options. The only justification I could see is if the mother's life was in danger - and if that was the case, there've been cases here in the UK which ruled that a doctor performing a procedure to induce a child to save the mother is trying to save the mother rather than deliberately kill the child, so that's a moot point.
I don't know how that sort of situation's legislated for in the US.
To abort a child after six months (and I've actually had friends who've aborted a child pretty much on the UK borderline) does seem past a point of no return, when the mother has had ample time to consider her options. The only justification I could see is if the mother's life was in danger - and if that was the case, there've been cases here in the UK which ruled that a doctor performing a procedure to induce a child to save the mother is trying to save the mother rather than deliberately kill the child, so that's a moot point.
People's situations change. A mother might have ample opportunity and all the necessary resources to raise and care for the child at first, but something could happen during the next six months to change that.
