Judge: Bush Abortion Ban Unconstitutional

[Dedman]

I am still not sure how I fell about this one. I will digest a bit more and post my thoughts later. In the mean time, discuss amongst yourselves.

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - In a ruling with coast-to-coast effect, a federal judge declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Tuesday, saying it infringes on a woman's right to choose.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's ruling came in one of three lawsuits challenging the legislation President Bush signed last year.
She agreed with abortion rights activists that a woman's right to choose is paramount, and that it is therefore "irrelevant" whether a fetus suffers pain, as abortion foes contend.

"The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion," the judge wrote.

The challenge was brought by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the ruling applies to the nation's 900 or so Planned Parenthood clinics and their doctors, who perform about half the 1.3 million abortions done each year in the United States.

Federal judges in New York and Nebraska also heard challenges to the law earlier this year from other abortion-rights forces but have yet to rule.

Planned Parenthood lawyer Beth Parker welcomed the ruling, saying it sends a "strong message" to the Bush administration "that the government should not be intruding on very sensitive and private medical decisions."

In a statement, the Bush re-election campaign said: "Today's tragic ruling upholding partial birth abortion shows why America needs judges who will interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. ... John Kerry's judicial nominees would similarly frustrate the people's will and allow this grotesque procedure to continue."

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee voted to restrict late-term abortions when the measure contained a "clear exception for life or health of women."

"However, George Bush pushed through a different piece of legislation that failed to protect the health of women and that is what the court struck down today," she said. "When John Kerry is president he will appoint judges that are committed to upholding the Constitution, not pursuing an ideological agenda."

Justice Department spokeswoman Monica Goodling said the government "will continue to devote all resources necessary to defend this act of Congress, which President Bush has said 'will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America.'"

The law, signed in November, represented the first substantial federal legislation limiting a woman's right to choose an abortion. Abortion rights activists said it ran counter to three decades of Supreme Court precedent.

It banned a procedure that is known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction, but is called "partial-birth abortion" by abortion foes. During the procedure, the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.

Justice Department attorneys argued the procedure is inhumane, causes pain to the fetus and is never medically necessary. A government lawyer told the judge that it "blurs the line of abortion and infanticide."

Abortion proponents argued, however, that a woman's health during an abortion is more important than how the fetus is terminated, and that the banned method is often safer than a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.

In her ruling, the judge said it was "grossly misleading and inaccurate" to suggest the banned procedure verges on infanticide.

Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, the chief sponsor of the House bill, said the banned abortion method "has no place in a civilized society," and predicted the Supreme Court would decide the outcome.

"Regardless of this decision from San Francisco, partial-birth abortion remains a horrific practice that snuffs out innocent life seconds before the baby takes its first breath," Chabot said.

The measure, which President Clinton had twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's 1973 precedent in Roe v. Wade. Abortion advocates said the law was the government's first step toward outlawing abortion.

Violating the law carries a two-year prison term.
Late last year, Hamilton, a Clinton appointee, and federal judges in New York and Lincoln, Neb., blocked the act from being enforced pending the outcome of the court challenges. They began hearing testimony March 29.

Doctors have construed the Supreme Court's decision in Roe. v. Wade to mean they can perform abortions usually until the 24th to 28th week after conception, or until the "point of viability," when a healthy fetus is thought to be able to survive outside the womb. Generally, abortions after the "point of viability" are performed only to preserve the mother's health.

The Nebraska and New York cases are expected to conclude within weeks. The outcomes, which may conflict with one another, will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The New York case was brought by the National Abortion Federation, which represents nearly half the nation's abortion providers. The Nebraska case was brought by a few abortion doctors.

The U.S. Supreme Court had overturned a Nebraska partial-birth abortion law because it did not allow the banned procedure even when a doctor believes the method is the best way to preserve the woman's health.

Congressional sponsors said the ban would outlaw only 2,200 or so abortions a year.

But abortion providers testified the banned method can happen even at times when doctors try to avoid it, such as when they attempt to remove the fetus from the womb in pieces.

They warned that the law could be used to ban almost all second-trimester abortions, which account for about 10 percent of all abortions in the United States.

[Sergeant Thorne]

"When John Kerry is president he will appoint judges that are committed to upholding the Constitution, not pursuing an ideological agenda."

(My post has nothing to do with John Kerry, that's just part of the quote)

This woman and these people most definately have an agenda, though they try to hide behind this "Constitution" bull****. "The Constitution"... If the people who formed The Constitution were alive to hear about these people trying to make KILLING BABIES FOR CONVENIENCE legal, they would be horrified! The Constitution was made to protect the American way of life, and to keep American democracy from devolving into any oppressive form, not to give people the right to kill their unborn children. Sometimes you need to just slam your hand down on the table and determine to do what's right; I hope that some of the good people in government have the savvy to do that within the boundries of the legal system (I believe they can).. for the good, even the survival of the United States of America.

[Top Gun]

It was expected, but I'm still disappointed. Whether you're against abortion, for it, or indifferent, however, there's one quote that has to send a chill up your spine; I know it did so to me. It was the judge saying that it was "irrelevant" if the fetus feels pain or not. Moving completely away from my religious views for the moment, if you're dealing with something that is, at the very least, a "potential" human life, how can a possibly excruciating amount of pain be written away as "irrelevant"? That, to me, is unbelievably cold.

[Tetrad]

Three points:

"However, George Bush pushed through a different piece of legislation that failed to protect the health of women and that is what the court struck down today,"

1) Is this true? The article didn't go into detail about the specifics on what Kerry says the legislation "failed" to do.

It banned a procedure that is known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction, but is called "partial-birth abortion" by abortion foes. During the procedure, the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.

...

the banned method is often safer than a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.

2) Is this legislation really just drawing a line where there really doesn't need one? I mean, it sounds like it really does nothing more than to inconvenience doctors and provide hazardous situations that the women are in.

3) What are the chances Bush will vow to put even more effort behind his anti-abortion agenda compared to the hypothetical case in which this issue wasn't brought to the table? (See: gay marriage)

[Top Gun]

Tetrad, it's no inconvenience to doctors or health risk to women. What it is is a particularly brutal procedure, in which the fetus is partially delivered, a needle is inserted into the fetus's skull, sucking out the brain, and the skull is collapsed. Personally, I agree with one of the quotes in the article: this is infanticide, and whether you support abortion or oppose it, it's no less horrific.

[Tyranny]

You do know a pregnant woman's life is at risk while being pregnant right? That was the whole reason abortions were legalized so that women had the ability to abort the pregnancy up to a certain point if complications were detected.

The problem has been that some women view abortions almost like a contraceptive or others just don't want to have the burden of the child ruining their lives. Now, before we all get off on a wild ride here (as these topics often do) We can all agree on the fact that if these girls didn't want to get pregnant in the first place they should have avoided having sex of course and that a lot of people agree that now they have an obligation to the child to bring them into this world and care for them.

We've all heard the debates before though. One side argues that if the child can't be sufficiently cared for it just ruins the chance for that child to have a normal healthy life and therefor would be better if it were never born. They also stick to the point mentioned above which warranted the legalization of abortions in the first place.

The other side argues that it is against god or nature and should be against the law to terminate a potential life because in essence it is committing murder.

On both points I agree. Life isn't something that should be so frivolously thrown away. On the other side those with medical complications should be afforded the right to abort for their own safety and truthfully for the safety of the child. Proceeding the pregnancy under complicated circumstances not only endangers the life of the mother, but could cause unforseen harm to the child during birth which could lead to other complications later on in life.

The problem is these women that abort because they're not ready to be a parent are sending the wrong message to young women and bringing unneeded hostile attention to those who have ligit reasons for aborting a pregnancy. The laws that need to be put into place are laws that attend to specific needs such as not allowing girls whom can not provide for the child to abort on those grounds alone unless there is substantial evidence of medical complications.

The children should be born and removed from said parent and placed up for adoption so that they might have the chance to live a happy healthy life. Course, this brings up a whole other set of problems in and of itself. Such as the birth parents being able to prove that they in fact are able to provide for the child later on and may demand for the return of the child which causes headache for both families and trauma to the children etc...

It is indeed a very complicated problem though I imagine that those set in their ways from either side may not really view it as such. However, I don't see it as a black and white issue as I once used to.

[Sergeant Thorne]

It is indeed a very complicated problem though I imagine that those set in their ways from either side may not really view it as such. However, I don't see it as a black and white issue as I once used to.

I believe that it only gets complicated as you move down from the simple, black and white, base issue--having sex outside of marriage. The complications come after the err on the black and white issue, that's where grey areas in this world come from (life was not meant to be so complicated); after you cross that line, trying to find the "right" thing to do becomes increasingly difficult.. peoples' mistake is to view such things as normal life issues, it causes a great deal of confusion. I know that this does not offer a solution to a girl who is already pregnant, but someone needs to say it.

Now, birth complications is a subject I can't really comment on, for the most part. However..

...and truthfully for the safety of the child.

That statement scares me (for lack of a better word coming to mind). I'll tell you why. That's putting oneself in the position of God, to make a choice concerning a human life in that way.

[kurupt]

i'm 100% against someone aborting my baby, but i'm also 100% against telling someone else they can't when it's none of my business.

[Top Gun]

Kurupt, how can you have that stance? I've never understood that particular line. If you would never abort a baby, then obviously you see something wrong with abortion. And if you see abortion as wrong, why wouldn't you want it to be outlawed? Maybe you can explain your position to me, because I don't really know where you're coming from.

[kurupt]

it's hard to explain the way i am. i would kill someone without hesitation if they were trying to kill my child, my sister, my brother, whatever, born or unborn, but i don't care about other people the way i care about my loved ones. i don't know why, i just don't.

[Top Gun]

While I don't agree with your position, I do respect it. I've always looked at abortion as a true slaughter of the future of this planet. Millions of members of my generation have never gotten the chance to live out their lives. Only God knows how many brilliant scientific minds, talented authors and artists, and other great people that the world has lost due to abortion. Some of those "fetuses" could have grown up and found cures for diseases that have plagued humanity for centuries. Heck, one of those abortions could have killed off an unborn girl who would have gone on to become my wife someday. It's for reasons like these that I can't be silent about this, that I will continue to support the pro-life cause until abortion is finally and irrevocably outlawed. The right to life is the most basic of human rights, and we are denying this right on a daily basis. I pray for the day that this will end.

P.S. I've always been particularly sickened by one of the points that Tyranny mentioned. Some will say that families that are abusive or cannot support a child should abort, or that babies with physical or mental deformations should be aborted, because "it would be better for them if they were never born." How could anyone ever say something like this! This is the most cruel, heartless line that I have ever heard. Do you think that there have never been children born into poor or impoverished families that have not overcome their disadvantages and gone on to do great things? Do you not think that mentally challenged individuals have ever made real contributions to this world, even as simple as bringing joy into another person's life? Every child deserves life, no matter what the circumstances. No one is God; we cannot make judgments on a person's future life based on what their present circumstances are. I still believe that the day that society ceased to value human life above all else is the day that human society began its true downward slide. Maybe someday we can reverse that slide; I hope so, for all our sakes.

[Testiculese]

I know how Kurput can have that stance. It's none of his business. He recognizes that. I woulnd't want my child aborted either, in normal circumstances. But it's none of my business if my neighbor does. This "I don't like it so no one can do it" is self-rightious oppression. Leave other people alone.

I think you also give people too much credit. 1%, or some form of tiny number, makes up the minds that go on to cure disease, etc, etc. Very few winners, a whole lot of losers. In a world with 6 billion people, which is 4 billion too many, losing a few thousand a year is nothing. We probably lose more people to food poisoning and bee stings.
I'd like to see stats on the average IQ of people who get abortions. I bet they're all average nobodies. The people who make up the 1% that have the intellect to have a kid that would be smart enough to join that 1%..I bet they dont' have abortions because they're not constantly and mindlessly humping themselves silly. So from where are these 'millions' of genuises you claim we're losing supposed to come? Nowhere. People are dime-a-dozen. Out of 6 billion..there are a million or two that are 'special'. The rest are just living their simple, small lives holding their simple, small jobs. I can meet any one of you, and within a few months, find many that are exactly like you (not in looks, that's harder).

BTW, nobody has a right to life. Tell that to the 60,000 who drowned in India from a tsunami, or the 80,000 or whatever from the last big earthquake in Japan. I'm sure they'd like to cash in on their right to life. And if you're such a believer in right to life, why don't you extend the same courtesy to animals? They're alive, aren't they?

Last thing..I'd hate to break it to you, but humans havne never valued human life. Go read some history books. We've not made it uphill far enough to slide back down.

[Top Gun]

Leave other people alone? When they stop leaving the unborn alone, I'll leave them alone. How's that?

Does it really matter how many of those aborted would have been geniuses? Does it really matter if their parents had high IQ? No. I was just using that as an example, but I think you missed my entire point. People are dying, whether intelligent or average, and that's something you can't ignore. On a side note: since when does the intelligence of the parents determine the intelligence of the child? Were Einstein's parents also world-renowned physicists, or did I just miss something?

Are you trying to equate the life of a cow with the life of a human being? I sincerely hope you're not, because that would be very low. In case you haven't noticed, humans are the only sentient species on this planet. We have an inner essence, a soul, that sets us apart from all other life, and this gift should not be wasted. As to those who lose their lives in natural disasters or accidents, while that is just as regrettable, it is completely different from abortion. One is an occurrence that no one can prevent, a true "act of God;" one is a deliberate murder.

I think that you give humanity too little credit. There was a time in the past when abortion was seen as wrong (see the Hippocratic Oath). There was a time when the birth of a child was valued and celebrated above all else. That time has gone, but I continue to have hope that it will come again.

I'm sorry if I come across as vincictive or flame-inciting, but this is a topic that I cannot let pass by without adding my own personal feelings.

[Testiculese]

Children were valued and celebrated in a time because they were dying in untold numbers. Any that lived past 2yo were considered lucky, and weren't expected to live past 12. The populations of people were in lots of places were hanging by a thread. That was loong, long ago. Also, in the same time period, people threw their babies in the river if they didn't want them. There are stories I've heard from that time period (I think in Japan) where waterways were blocked by the bodies of dead children. So how much credit am I supposed to give? About what's deserved..half.

I'm equating the life of a person with that of a dog, cat, dolphin. What inner essence are you talking about? Personality? That's what we have. Animals with functioning brains also have personalities. I can equate my cat with one of my friends, they're about the same personality. My dad's dog reminds me of a few people. Even cartoons take certain animals and equate them with certain human personalities, it's all blurred. Our brains seperate us from animals, barely, not a mythological fairy tale 'soul'.

On average, the parent's intellect is reflected in the child. It's a freak occurance if two idiots make a prodigy. There are certainly not 'millions'.

Ideology clouds reality. Sure, life is important for the propegation of the species. I'm against convienience abortions as much as the next person, but banning abortions does not solve much of anything. There are other things you can waste your energy on to try to get people to see that they shouldn't be careless.

I probably would be more critical of abortions if this planet wasn't being choked to death by the 6 billion animals that are classified as Homo Sapiens. But I still wouldn't have any say in what one does with one's property. If you're religious, then God will take care of that. In one of those 'mysterious ways' that God acts.

Some kids are probably better off, anyway. Nothing like a shitty childhood with shitty parents who's lives were guttered from having the kid, and blame the child, and do whatever's possible to ruin the rest of it's life. No thanks, I'd be glad to be aborted. Besides, what if the parent's believed in reincarnation? How are you going to counter that?

All in all, "intact dilation and extraction" seems a pretty crappy way of doing things..but isn't that reserved for emergencies? Most abortions are within a few weeks, before the zygote is more than 300-odd cells anyway?

[Genghis]

The topic is "partial birth abortion" and not abortion in general. It's not like anyone is *ever* going change their mind on abortion. Opinions on abortion are for most people dependent on upbringing; you could even say people don't have their own opinions on abortion and that they just inherit them.

So, partial birth abortion. I tried to research it a little, but it was hard to find any impartial information. It appears to be a rather dramatic (i.e. revolting to human sensibilities) method of performing a late-term abortion. The variables seem to be killing the fetus internally vs externally, and accessing the fetus via the birth canal or a C-section. Any way you cut it, however, you have a dead fetus.

On the surface, the legilation is against the method, not the result. I suppose it's against the method because it's fairly grotesque, although I'm not sure it's more grotesque than dismembering the fetus in-utero. However, a partial birth abortion can be less risky to the woman, since there's less chance of accidentally cutting her uterus while they're inside dismembering the fetus, and because going in through the birth canal is less dangerous than cutting open the woman's belly.

So, based on my understanding of the pros and cons presented in the previous paragraph, in my opinion the legislation is counterproductive to the woman's health and doesn't change the fact that you end up with a dead fetus anyway.

[Top Gun]

For the sake of remaining on-topic, I won't continue to argue with you, Testi. It seems as though we are polar opposites on almost every point we brought up. You certainly won't convince me, and I don't think I'll convince you, as Genghis said, so let's leave it at that .

Genghis, most of the people who pushed for this law don't see it as a way to stop the vast majority of abortions. Rather, they see it as a first important step in the overall fight to get abortion outlawed for good. Also, the basic argument remains that the fetus is partially born, partially outside the womb, which changes this procedure from abortion to flat-out infanticide (if you already don't consider abortion to be infanticide, that is). It's along the lines of laws treating the murder of a pregnant woman as a double homicide, or of laws that protect babies that survive abortion from being killed.

[Lothar]

With respect to the idea that partial-birth abortion is safer than internal dismemberment:

by the time you have a fetus large enough to actually *do* a partial-birth abortion, it's viable outside the womb, and it's conscious, and it feels pain, and there's no possible medical condition you could have that would make live birth more dangerous than partial-birth abortion. Partial-birth abortion may be (generally) safer than internal dismemberment, but seriously, if you get late enough in pregnancy to be having a partial-birth abortion you shouldn't be having ANY abortion.

The issue here is not "what's safest for the woman" -- when you get to the point where partial birth abortion is possible, "have the baby" is the safest thing to do. Having an abortion late-term is not about safety of the mother. (With respect to Genghis' line that "the varibles seem to be killing the fetus internally versus externally", as soon as "externally" is a possibility, live birth is a safer possibility, and it involves less killing -- which makes it overall a better option, unless you happen to be the abortionist who makes a killing off of the procedure.)

Here are the facts:
1) Partial birth abortion is a procedure that's NEVER medically necessary to protect the mother (live birth is always safer, since partial birth abortion is essentially live birth with some brain-smashing just before it finishes)

2) Partial birth abortion is only possible well after the point where the fetus/baby is conscious, aware, and feeling pain, and it's therefore extremely cruel

3) Any woman who has a partial birth abortion *could have* had an abortion done several months sooner that would've been much safer

I think pretty much all late-term abortions are an abomination of the worst kind -- when you get past about 6 months, you're dealing with a conscious infant that feels pain and does everything else just like a newborn, only it hasn't happened to pass through the birth canal. I can see why people aren't against earlier abortions, but once you get to the latest stages of pregnancy, it doesn't make sense any more. But at least you can argue that certain other late-term procedures *might* be medically necessary -- there *might* be a case where live birth will be impossibly dangerous, where internal dismemberment might be safer. On the other hand, there's *no* way that live birth would be dangerous and partial-birth abortion would not.

[Top Wop]

If its a crime to murder your neighbor then it should be a crime to murder a fetus, end of story. The hypocracy of this is amazing. They go out of their way to rescue a kitten trapped in a sewer drain yet they abort babies like they were nothing.

I wonder how that judge would like it if I kicked her ass real hard but ignore her cries of pain as "irrelevant" since her apparent stupidity is paramount.

[SSX-Thunderbird]

Last I read about the Roe v Wade ruling, the states have the ability to restrict abortion in any way they wish in the 3rd trimester, and even outlaw it except in cases to save the mother's life.

I generally think of myself as pro-choice, but if you've waited long enough for a partial-birth abortion to be possible, you've waited far too long. And IIRC, most abortions take place in the first trimester.

I'm surprised about this ruling. It seems that it is effectively removing control from the states that Roe v Wade granted for the 3rd trimester, but I do not know if partial-birth abortions are possible in the 2nd trimester (states have the power to restrict it somewhat during this period, but it cannot be banned outright during the 2nd trimester).

[Fusion pimp]

The fact that this issue is even debated makes me eff'ing sick to my stomach.

[DCrazy]

Last I read about the Roe v Wade ruling, the states have the ability to restrict abortion in any way they wish in the 3rd trimester, and even outlaw it except in cases to save the mother's life.

Just because all of the states have the option doesn't mean that it's within the federal government's jurisdiction to legislate it. That is the only reason I could see this verdict making any sense. But apparently the judge's reasoning was far different: apparently it's not infanticide to kill a viable infant. Go fig.

[Top Gun]

Hmmm...one mother comes in, and the NICU spends weeks trying to save the child. Another mother comes in, and the child's brain is sucked out of its skull. If this isn't insanity, I don't know what is...

[Lothar]

T-bird,

initially (Roe v Wade) it was ruled that abortions in the first trimester were OK for any reason, but that in later trimesters abortions were restricted to health reasons. But then, the Supreme court (in Doe v Bolton) decided that "health" meant anything physical, emotional, psychological, social, economic, etc., essentially removing all restriction. As far as I know, this means the only way states can really restrict abortion is to rule that a procedure isn't medically safe.

[Gooberman]

To disagree with Genghis a bit: My belief on abortion is not that of my parents or my siblings.

But it's none of my business if my neighbor does. This "I don't like it so no one can do it" is self-rightious oppression. Leave other people alone. -Testi

Is it none of your (societies) business if a father kills his 20 year old son? Can he kill the grandchildren? Is it none of your business if he kills his 15 year old daughter? What about his one year old? 1 month? 1 day? etc...

I can't draw a line of "the value of life starts here", no one can draw that line. So it should be outlawed by that alone.

The unborn should get the benefit of the doubt.

[Genghis]

I'm finding it hard to believe that either pro-lifers or pro-choicers are as black-and-white as they seem to be. Would I be wrong to assume that most pro-lifers would be willing to consider the option of aborting a fetus during the first trimester if the alternative was to let the woman die? Would I be wrong to assume that pro-choicers would be hesitant about the idea of aborting a fetus late in the third trimester just because the woman changed her mind at the last minute?

I know these are loaded questions, but hopefully it shows that this is not a black-and-white issue. These are not questions either side should be avoiding.

Anyway, I did a little more research on the topic at hand, since Lothar's post actually made a lot of sense (note that Lothar has one of the few well-thought and rationally presented posts herein). I would, however, also consider the cases in which the fetus has severe birth defects as a possible reason to perform a late-term abortion.

I read the entire text of the law, and it looked OK to me - they seemed to be outlawing a particular procedure, and not late term abortions in general. However, a little more reasearch showed me that my judgement of the law is bad and I would make an awful lawyer. By using the non-medical term for the procedure and then defining the procedure imprecisely, the law leaves the door open to interpretations that would lead to restrictions on first and second term abortions as well.

So I might be a little less edgy about the law if it limited its scope a little more. Obviously the law has good intentions, but it's also just as obviously a gateway law. I guess that's the problem with this whole thing, both sides see *any* law that favors the other side as a gateway law and fights it tooth and nail. I wonder if there is any way to outlaw this procedure (late term, viable fetus, brain sucking, etc.) in a more bullet-proof way, but I doubt it.

[Behemoth]

Would it be such a problem to just use a chemical to stop the babies heartbeat then suck his/her brains out?
While i in no way will support killing a child that hasn't been born yet i would say that if it is done outlaw that proceedure.

It is grotesque to think about cutting open a human skull then sucking the brains out,and after reviewing all the information and still making a deciscion to call it uncontitutional it really shows how the supreme judges are as heartless as most of us thought...

[Avder]

Thread necromancy is bad, mm'k?

[Will Robinson]

You do know a pregnant woman's life is at risk while being pregnant right? That was the whole reason abortions were legalized so that women had the ability to abort the pregnancy up to a certain point if complications were detected.

Well then!!!
I have the solution to the abortion debate!!!
Alert the world...Will Robinson has achieved the impossible!

Since they only want to have abortions for their own protection we shall make abortion legal but not elective.

The way it works is, you become pregnant and prepare to have the child, if your doctor decides it's too dangerous then the doctor and only the doctor may recommend an abortion and only to save the mothers health/life.
Otherwise you proceed with your other choices.

If this solution doesn't work for you then obviously you seek to make abortion available as something other than a protection for the mothers health...

edit: necromancy used to describe the rebirth of an abortion debate has a certain dark irony no?

[Stryker]

I think you also give people too much credit. 1%, or some form of tiny number, makes up the minds that go on to cure disease, etc, etc. Very few winners, a whole lot of losers. In a world with 6 billion people, which is 4 billion too many, losing a few thousand a year is nothing. We probably lose more people to food poisoning and bee stings. *snip BS*

Pardon me, but what happened to being kind and considerate to your fellow humans? I know you're not a liberal by definition, but the way you and many liberals can preach this stuff and also yell that conservatives aren't compassionate enough sickens me.

Also, a few thousand abortions a year?

http://www.roevwade.org/rvw1.html

For you who don't click links, the site says that according to records, the total number of abortions in the US from 1973 to 1997 is 36,458,656. This is in a nation of 281,421,906 according to the 2000 census. The average number of abortions per year is approximately 1,500,000. Am I the only one that sees how much damage this is doing to us as a nation?

Testiculese, even if these people that are getting killed aren't geniuses--they support the economy. They'd be making on average $36,764 a year (according to a 2002 count). That's a combined income of approximately $55,146,000,000. Per year. So much for the "few thousand abortions" offing people "who'd never really become anybody".

[Top Wop]

Everybody who talks about the woman's right to "choose" (heh) could consider the unborn's right to life. It is hypocracy and many people choose to live in ignorance. This ignorance is what makes abortion acceptable. People are selfish.

[DCrazy]

Don't resurrect threads. It's bad form.

[Vindicator]

Heh! I was wondering why the Bush camp was still going on about Kerry being evil until I looked at the date

[Tyranny]

[Top Gun]

I know this topic is old beyond reason, but I just wanted to re-emphasize the sickest part of that article...

She agreed with abortion rights activists that a woman's right to choose is paramount, and that it is therefore "irrelevant" whether a fetus suffers pain, as abortion foes contend.

The pain is "irrelevant"? Who the hell do these feminazi bitches think they are? Here, let me try sticking a sharp rod into your skull and sucking out your brains, and you tell me if that's "irrelevant."

Edit: I seem to have already mentioned this point further up, but I had forgotten about it. Regardless, just think about that statement for a while.

[Tyranny]

ahem....
Listen to the deadman and step away from the thread

[Top Gun]

All right, all right.../me yields to the scary sword-wielder