Another thing you can sign if you want to do more:
Abortion Ban
by Schism 21 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
jaguarbass
Well, you know everything the idiot George is involved with is shyte. The world would be a better place if he was an abortion.
-
jeanniebeanz
Jaguar,
Your comment about my president disgusts me. In fact, the ignorant paranoia on this thread is pretty disgusting as well.
Jean
-
buffalosrfree
I agree with Jeaniebeanz
-
zeroday
Your comment about my president disgusts me.
This is the hate America bunch JB what else would you expect.
We need to stay awake, otherwise our basic human rights will be swept away before our very eyes.
Yea, like the right to destroy 1.5 million babies a year. Hitler could never have dreamed this up...
-
PrimateDave
I admit that I haven't followed the abortion issue in the United States courts.
From what I do understand, this is not about saving healthy babies from murderous doctors.
That is a "straw man" argument used by those with an agenda to manipulate public opinion.
I have followed a rather heated discussion on another forum. I learned a lot.
Here is a quote from one of the posters. I can't provide a direct link because one has to be a
registered member to read postings. The Derrick Jensen ForumJustice Ruth Bader Ginzburg, the only female on the Supreme Court, angrily dissented from the majority opinion. The decision made no exception for saving the life of the mother. It formally placed females lower on the hierarchy of social value than an already dead or nonviable fetus. The court framed the issue in terms of the protection of the fetus, rendering females completely invisible. ...
...It is a characteristic of a patriarchal society that values males more than females. ...
Justice Ginzburg wrote a dissent and went to the extreme length of reading it out loud. As the only female on the court, Ginzburg was trying to say, "I am here. Listen to me." But to the majority, Ginzburg was invisible, as are all females. Males have made a reasonable decision based on what they claim is the necessity of drawing a line between abortion and infanticide, and they decided that infanticide can occur before there is an infant--that if they call a fetus an infant, it is therefore an infant. They reached into the womb of the mother to draw that line (privacy, anyone?), and made no exception for cases when it would be the only way to save the life of the mother, because the mothers are female and therefore invisible to them. The unborn fetus, in many cases already dead, and in most cases with current technology, nonviable, meaning that it has no possibility of surviving, was visible to them, and was said to be the basis for their decision, but the mothers, being female and therefore lower on the hierarchy were invisible and were not taken into consideration as any harm to them, such as their deaths, is not considered relevant or important to the issue at hand.
...
As for my strong language, this is a ruling that will result in the deaths of females, but not just any females. Females with the capacity to bear children, often have have had previous pregnancies, and if allowed to live will have future pregnancies, and if the children born of their previous pregnancies are alive, such females are called mothers. Reaching into the wombs of these mothers to draw a line between abortion and infanticide that will deny these mothers lifesaving medical procedures, is really screwing them over. You can't fuck with somebody much worse than making a law that will result in their death. ...
...Many females, mothers in particular, are so compassionate that they would gladly sacrifice their lives so that someone else could life. But the Supreme Court did not rule that the mother should only die if there is a chance of the fetus surviving. It made no exceptions. If the fetus is already dead or has no possible chance of surviving, the mother must still die.
And, quoting an editorial in The New York Times:As far as we know, Mr. Kennedy and his four colleagues responsible for this atrocious result are not doctors. Yet these five male justices felt free to override the weight of medical evidence presented during the several trials that preceded the Supreme Court showdown. Instead, they ratified the politically based and dangerously dubious Congressional claim that criminalizing the intact dilation and extraction method of abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy — the so-called partial-birth method — would never pose a significant health risk to a woman. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has found the procedure to be medically necessary in certain cases.
Justice Kennedy actually reasoned that banning the procedure was good for women in that it would protect them from a procedure they might not fully understand in advance and would probably come to regret. This way of thinking, that women are flighty creatures who must be protected by men, reflects notions of a woman’s place in the family and under the Constitution that have long been discredited, said a powerful dissenting opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer.
Dave -
crownboy
As others have pointed out on the thread, this ban only affects one method of late term abortion, and infact there is an exception if the life of the mother is at stake.
As would characterize myself as moderately pro-choice; I think there can be some restrictions on abortion without eliminating it (or virtually banning it like in the case of the repealed law from South Dakota). I don't think this ban is quite the assault on abortion rights that some view it as. The overall "right to choose" is still very much here.
-
purplesofa
page 11).What is a partial-birth abortion?
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accurately described the partial-birth abortion method in his dissent in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000): "After dilating the cervix, the physician will grab the fetus by its feet and pull the fetal body out of the uterus into the vaginal cavity. At this stage of development, the head is the largest part of the body. . . . the head will be held inside the uterus by the woman’s cervix. While the fetus is stuck in this position, dangling partly out of the woman’s body, and just a few inches from a completed birth, the physician uses an instrument such as a pair of scissors to tear or perforate the skull. The physician will then either crush the skull or will use a vacuum to remove the brain and other intracranial contents from the fetal skull, collapse the fetus’ head, and pull the fetus from the uterus."
An eight-page instruction paper on how to perform this type of abortion, written by an abortionist in 1992, in a sense began the national debate about partial-birth abortion. It is posted on a congressional website: www.house.gov/burton/RSC/haskellinstructional.pdf.
Most partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy (20-26 weeks). At this stage, an infant who is spontaneously prematurely delivered is usually born alive. There is abundant medical evidence that a human baby at this stage is extremely sensitive to pain – whether she is inside the womb, fully born, or halfway between.
Some partial-birth abortions are performed in the seventh month and later – and not only in cases of fetal disorders or maternal distress. It is noteworthy that in Kansas, the only state in which the law requires separate reporting of partial-birth abortions, abortionists reported in 1999 that they performed 182 partial-birth abortions on babies who were defined by the abortionists themselves as "viable," and they also reported that all 182 of these were performed for "mental" (as opposed to "physical") health reasons. See: www.kdhe.state.ks.us/hci/99itop1.pdf (on
-
uninformed
zeroday wrote: (comments in red)
Your comment about my president disgusts me.
This is the hate America bunch JB what else would you expect.
We need to stay awake, otherwise our basic human rights will be swept away before our very eyes.
Yea, like the right to destroy 1.5 million babies a year. Hitler could never have dreamed this up...Thank you also purple sofa for standing up for what is right.
Where do these baby slaughterers come from?
U
-
zeroday
Hitler in his wildest dreams could never have dreamed up "WOMENS RIGHTS". Think of it. Something as simple as womens rights to destroy over 20 times the number of Jews he destroyed. I mean he would not fathom such a scheme. And yet NO ONE FLENCHES at the thought. We destroyed Nazi Germany for their genoside and yet we MAKE IT LAW.....................