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

marjon9 · May 16, 2007

So if a pregnant woman is killed on the freeway by a drunk driver, the drunk driver is held accountable for two deaths. If she was on the freeway driving to an abortion clinic . . . it seems he should only be held accountable for one, because she intended to kill the other in the first place.

I know you believe that your hypothetical example is clearly logical, but I don't see it that way at all. Just because the Constitution supports a woman's right to privacy and reproductive choice in the context of an early abortion, this does not mean that we should therefore allow a drunk driver to escape the consequences of destroying a fetus. This is not in any way inconsistent, even though you continuously repeat this same example, as if it proves that a fetus is a baby, and abortion is murder. Your example simply does not prove these things. The interests at stake are completely different in the two sets of circumstances.

anonemouse · May 16, 2007

So if a pregnant woman is killed on the freeway by a drunk driver, the drunk driver is held accountable for two deaths. If she was on the freeway driving to an abortion clinic . . . it seems he should only be held accountable for one, because she intended to kill the other in the first place.

Exactly.

so now life is no longer counted by viability, but if it is wanted or not?

No. You asked why the law was like it is. That is my interpretation. You'll have to ask your law-makers if you want a better answer.

gadgetlady · May 16, 2007

Just because the Constitution supports a woman's right to privacy and reproductive choice in the context of an early abortion, this does not mean that we should therefore allow a drunk driver to escape the consequences of destroying a fetus.

Firstly, we could get into a discussion about constitutional issues, but no where in the constitution is "the right to privacy and reproductive choice." Secondly, Roe v. Wade and it's companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, didn't establish abortion "in the context of an early abortion", but rather abortion throughout the entire 9 months of pregnancy for absolutely any reason at all.

It seems the baby's interests are at stake only when the mother wishes them to be so. That, in itself, is wholly inconsistent with the constitution. We do not have the right to life only when others want us.

marjon9 · May 16, 2007

no where in the constitution is "the right to privacy and reproductive choice." .

I know that pro-life people have that point of view, but the Supreme Court found that there was such a right implicit in the Constitution. You can disagree, of course, but that is what the court has found so far.

And, in your previous answer, you did not address the point that there are different interests in different circumstances. Just because a court may find that a woman has a right to choose, that does not mean that a drunk driver has a right to destroy a fetus. In one situation, the mother's right to personal freedom is at stake. In the second situation, there is no such right to protect. Holding a drunk driver responsible for destroying a fetus simply does not mean that "we have a right to life only when others want us." It doesn't mean that at all.

Even if there is a "right to life," that does not mean that a right to life is the ONLY right that exists. Laws always take into consideration a balance of competing interests. In the abortion context, any "right to life" must be balanced by a woman's right to choose. In the context of a drunk driver, the drunk driver has no rights to protect at all, and there is no counterbalance to whatever rights the fetus may have.

marjon9 · May 16, 2007

I know that pro-life people have that point of view, but the Supreme Court found that there was such a right implicit in the Constitution. You can disagree, of course, but that is what the court has found so far.
And, in your previous answer, you did not address the point that there are different interests in different circumstances. Just because a court may find that a woman has a right to choose, that does not mean that a drunk driver has a right to destroy a fetus. In one situation, the mother's right to personal freedom is at stake. In the second situation, there is no such right to protect. Holding a drunk driver responsible for destroying a fetus simply does not mean that "we have a right to life only when others want us." It doesn't mean that at all.

Even if there is a "right to life," that does not mean that a right to life is the ONLY right that exists. Laws always take into consideration a balance of competing interests. In the abortion context, any "right to life" must be balanced by a woman's right to choose. In the context of a drunk driver, the drunk driver has no rights to protect at all, and there is no counterbalance to whatever rights the fetus may have.

And indeed, a fetus may have no rights at all. It is society's rights to be protected from a drunk driver that are at stake, and they win out over the drunk driver's complete lack of all rights.

FunnyDuddies · May 16, 2007

the personal interests of a few should not outweigh an individual's right to life. it should be that right to life comes first. and in most cases it does. but in the abortion ring, the inconvinience of the mother comes before the individual's right to life. it should be cut and dry. if the law recognizes that an in-utero human life is indeed living and worthy of protection enough to charge one person with murder when that life is snuffed out, then it should hold the same weight when that life is snuffed out in other circumstances.

Its the reason it is against the law to assist with suicide. the dead person may have wanted to be dead, but it is not legal for one person to carry out that person's wishes and kill that person. it is still illegal to assist. in abortion, the result is even more traumatic, because the life being snuffed out does not have a say in it. and the person doing the speaking for this life is already biased to get rid of it.

anonemouse · May 16, 2007

I actually somewhat agree with you, Funny. I don't think that someone should be charged with murder if they kill a non-viable fetus. I also think that assisted suicide should be legal.

FunnyDuddies · May 16, 2007

hehehe we agree on one point at least. from that our personal moral questions get in the way.

the best way to solve this is not found in a discussion thread on it, though it does open people up to questions on their stances. rather this is a fight, if you feel strongly about it, that should be taken to the voting booths. put the right people in office, and the laws will be changed to what you agree with. if you don't vote about it, sitting around complaining is a moot point.

I do my part, and i respect everyone's opinion. If you want to see abortion made illegal, write to your state reps and vote early and often. get heard. that is the only way to make things really happen.

anonemouse · May 16, 2007

the best way to solve this is not found in a discussion thread on it, though it does open people up to questions on their stances. rather this is a fight, if you feel strongly about it, that should be taken to the voting booths. put the right people in office, and the laws will be changed to what you agree with. if you don't vote about it, sitting around complaining is a moot point.

Definitely.

marjon9 · May 16, 2007

hehehe we agree on one point at least. from that our personal moral questions get in the way.
the best way to solve this is not found in a discussion thread on it, though it does open people up to questions on their stances. rather this is a fight, if you feel strongly about it, that should be taken to the voting booths. put the right people in office, and the laws will be changed to what you agree with. if you don't vote about it, sitting around complaining is a moot point.

I do my part, and i respect everyone's opinion. If you want to see abortion made illegal, write to your state reps and vote early and often. get heard. that is the only way to make things really happen.

I still maintain that many of these issues are not simply "majority rules." I understand your point that elections have consequences and different judges will make different rulings. But that is actually a somewhat cynical point of view that can come back to bite you. I believe you want to live in a world where some things are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights even if they are out of fashion with the majority at a given moment. You may find yourself on the short end of the stick some day if you think all contitutional rights should be decided by majority rule at the ballot box.

gadgetlady · May 16, 2007

You may find yourself on the short end of the stick some day if you think all contitutional rights should be decided by majority rule at the ballot box.

I agree with you on that. And so does the other 2/5 of that black person we talked about.

Carlene · May 16, 2007

Well, yeah, we kinda do. Like I said in the other abortion post, if you are put on life support and haven't made any advance directives, your husband has the right to remove that life support. It doesn't matter if he is doing it because he doesn't want you to suffer, or because he thinks that you would be an inconvenience to him, he has that right.

Or because he has designs on your caretaker and he's tired of waiting for your sick old ass to die!

Sorry....I couldn't resist.

FunnyDuddies · May 16, 2007

but that is what this country is based on. majority rule. and yes, i want to live in that. when people who were not elected made the decisions for the rest of us, a group of people broke away and created the united states. i want to have a say in the way the rules that govern me are created and put into power. and that is all done by me voting. are you saying you do NOT want to have control over what your government does?

FunnyDuddies · May 16, 2007

Or because he has designs on your caretaker and he's tired of waiting for your sick old ass to die!
Sorry....I couldn't resist.

LOL "ok, pull the plug. hey, what are you doing for dinner tonight?"

Carlene · May 16, 2007

In most states, only if the fetus was viable. And my point stands. A viable fetus can sustain its heartbeat and breathe on its own. Therefore, it is a life and can be murdered.

Many of the babies aborted via the partial birth procedure are viable. I think that should be reason enough to outlaw PB abortions.