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

marjon9 · May 21, 2007

They are....but you have done the same, only in reverse. Your comments repeatedly refer to the fraction of abortions (presumably early abortions) performed so that a woman can "fit into a bikini". You ignored the issue at hand.....partial birth abortion.

My own personal view on late term abortions is that they should not be allowed once the fetus is viable - BUT, there must be an exception where the life of the mother is at risk. I also believe that a late term abortion should be permitted where it can be demonstrated to a medical certainty that the fetus is in a condition where it faces a life of pain, or a life with no brain, or a terminal illness, or something of that nature.

I have not studied the issue, but my understanding of the current ruling is that there are no exceptions, regardless of the risk to the mother or the health of the fetus. If that is true I can't support that.

Alexandra · May 21, 2007

My own personal view on late term abortions is that they should not be allowed once the fetus is viable - BUT, there must be an exception where the life of the mother is at risk. I also believe that a late term abortion should be permitted where it can be demonstrated to a medical certainty that the fetus is in a condition where it faces a life of pain, or a life with no brain, or a terminal illness, or something of that nature.
I have not studied the issue, but my understanding of the current ruling is that there are no exceptions, regardless of the risk to the mother or the health of the fetus. If that is true I can't support that.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the procedure as well. But there are so many exceptions and extraordinary circumstances that it seems to me it MUST be left up to the medical profession and the patients to decide. Sweeping laws banning procedures in all cases just don't make any sense.

FunnyDuddies · May 21, 2007

Well, I guess then your view on it does not mean much, because that situation would never happen. This procedure kills the baby as it is being delivered. If the baby can be delivered enough to where they can stab it in the skull and scramble the brains then it can be delivered fully. The effect on the mother would be exactly the same, physically. The baby still gets delivered, whether it is killed or not. If it is being delivered whatever issue there is with the mom physically is being taken care of by the delivery of the baby. why kill it in the process? there is no reason other than to just kill it. The mother's health, at this point, is no issue and should not be used as a determining factor in whether the baby dies or not.

FunnyDuddies · May 21, 2007

Oh, and on the life of pain side....

Who is that decision left up to? Who decides what level of pain is enough or not to warrant death? What level of imperfection decides if a child lives?

My daughter was born with a paralyzed arm. She will never be able to do ballet, or swing on a jungle gym, or play baseball. It will cause her problems for the rest of her life. Should she have died because of this?

marjon9 · May 21, 2007

Oh, and on the life of pain side....
Who is that decision left up to? Who decides what level of pain is enough or not to warrant death? What level of imperfection decides if a child lives?

My daughter was born with a paralyzed arm. She will never be able to do ballet, or swing on a jungle gym, or play baseball. It will cause her problems for the rest of her life. Should she have died because of this?

A child being born with a paralyzed arm does not even come close to the type of condition I am talking about that would justify a late term abortion. And of course I can't set out every possible scenario in this post as the final answer in all situations. There will certainly be difficult choices that have to be made to establish the standards, but difficult choices are made all the time in the law. I think it would be possible to establish standards that cover 98% of all situations with relative certainty. And in general, when it comes to close calls, in my view the rules should err on the side of the mother's choice. But I think you can establish rules that cover 98% of the circumstances with a good degree of clarity.

And as for the life or health of the mother never being an issue, I have not studied the question but I do know that a very large number of people believe that there is an issue here. I am not ready to accept your explanation that there is no difference to the mother between late term abortion and full childbirth. It is hard for me to believe that so many would believe otherwise if it really were all that simple. Remember, I do not agree with your view that all pro-choice people are callous, frivolous, heartless baby killers. I feel quite confident that the vast majority of pro-choice individuals are caring, thoughtful and compassionate human beings. That is why I cannot simply accept at face value your description that the whole "heath of the mother" issue is false.

FunnyDuddies · May 21, 2007

To you the issue of my daughter's arm could not be that big of a deal. But there are others that would argue that if she is not wholly intact or healthy then she will not lead a happy productive life. That is the issue. Who determines who is in enough pain to die? What if one person would gladly live with the pain just to live? You would take that away from someone??

As for the mother issue...think about it. i am not making an argument towards barbaric practice or anything. I am simply stating a fact. If the baby is being delivered, any issue that is being caused to the mother will end when that baby is delivered. So why kill it when it is partially delivered? Why not deliver it fully and see if it lives? Any issue going on with the mother is at an end the moment the baby's body leaves the mother's, whether it is alive or not. The only reason to kill the baby at this point would be for emotional reasons, or to eliviate the need for the mother to care for a baby. If there is a medical condition causing the mother to be sick due to the pregnancy, killing the baby during the delivery does nothing to change the effect that the delivery would have on the mother. There is just no reason to do it.

BJean · May 21, 2007

How can anyone defend or condone the practice of taking some sissors to the brain of an unborn baby?

My point is that it is not for me to say when or if that practice should be done in an extreme circumstance. Or in any circumstance. It is quite simply a decision that should be made by the people involved with the help of educated medical professionals. It is not something that should be decided by or even judged by people who only have an interest in imposing their will upon others.

The reason my comments seemed to address abortion in general is because my belief is that partial birth abortion is just the same as any abortion... not the business of the public in general, and not the business of our government. It is a personal medical problem and any course of treatment should be decided by the people affected personally. Everyone else, BUTT OUT.

Thanks for understanding Mark. Emotionally charged buzz words can really spin everyone up. If only there were more vocal proponents of a woman's right to choose what happens to her body here too - they could use some extremely graphic scenarios to make their point as well. They just don't choose to play that game.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned we have a whole lot more to worry about than a ban on partial birth abortions. I refuse to go into graphic detail, but I feel just as strongly about this as those of you who believe that bringing a scrambled brain, severely disabled chid into the world is the proper course of action.

(No, having a paralyzed arm shouldn't be considered severely disabled as far as this argument is concerned - although I am very saddened to hear of FunnyD's daughter's arm. It sounds as if FunnyDuddy provides a great support system for her, thank God.)

FunnyDuddies · May 21, 2007

Emily is a perfect example actually. when she was born her brachial nerve was torn, and the doctors told us she would never be able to use it. they wanted to amputate it. We refused, and continued to work with it. She now has limited mobility, and some strength. Her arm will never be the same as her right arm, and she will never be able to participate in a lot of sports and activities.

But the docs said her arm was doomed. that nothing could be done. What about the babies that the doctors feel will never lead a happy life because of mental retardation or deformity? Who knows how that child will develop? Who knows if that child will exceed all expectations? Why should we make that call before birth? And why should we be allowed to kill something that has a chance to be something great?

marjon9 · May 21, 2007

Emily is a perfect example actually. when she was born her brachial nerve was torn, and the doctors told us she would never be able to use it. they wanted to amputate it. We refused, and continued to work with it. She now has limited mobility, and some strength. Her arm will never be the same as her right arm, and she will never be able to participate in a lot of sports and activities.
But the docs said her arm was doomed. that nothing could be done. What about the babies that the doctors feel will never lead a happy life because of mental retardation or deformity? Who knows how that child will develop? Who knows if that child will exceed all expectations? Why should we make that call before birth? And why should we be allowed to kill something that has a chance to be something great?

So, what you are saying is that a woman must have a child who is very likely to be deformed or retarded or worse, and spend the rest of her life taking care of that child, and sacrificing every dream she had for her own life, in order to protect the small chance that the baby will have a better life than most doctors would expect. Sorry, that is just not your decision to make.

People speak about how abortion is killing babies, but no matter how hard you try you can't get away from the fact that abortion is a unique situation where the fate of two entities is intertwined. There is simply no way around the fact that choices made on behalf of one are going to effect the other. This is an inescapable reality. So, choices have to be made. You cannot escape making the choice. Doing nothing and having the baby is also a choice. One way or another, the choice is going to have to be made.

You take the position regarding that choice that in every single possible situation, no matter how sick the baby appears to be, or whether an x-ray shows that it has no brain, or whatever, the tiny shred of a chance that the baby will have some sort of a life must, in every single case, override every need of the mother. Sorry, FunnyDuddies, this is simply not your choice to make. It is inconceivable to me why you can't see that.

BJean · May 21, 2007

Perfectly well said, Mark. Thank you.

FunnyDuddies · May 21, 2007

actually, not well said. it is all based on the fact that the woman will be stuck with the child. In this country we have the right to give up our children. I could walk into the courts tomorrow and give up my two kids. If she is giving birth to the child, instead of killing it, why not take it away and let someone who will want to care for the child do so? There are many out there who do this sort of thing. But instead you want the woman to make the choice of killing the baby? Is it more shameful to give it up?

If the baby is being born, let it be born. The woman is not trapped. she can walk away if she chooses.

FunnyDuddies · May 21, 2007

You take the position regarding that choice that in every single possible situation, no matter how sick the baby appears to be, or whether an x-ray shows that it has no brain, or whatever, the tiny shred of a chance that the baby will have some sort of a life must, in every single case, override every need of the mother. Sorry, FunnyDuddies, this is simply not your choice to make. It is inconceivable to me why you can't see that.

How many ultrasounds have you been privy to, or blood test have you seen taken, that shows abnormalities but end up being wrong? Heck, both of my kids were identified as being the wrong sex. LOL You would rather they suck the brains out of the baby as it is being born rather than let it be born and assess the situation after? Besides, most of the abnormalities you speak of would not subject the mother, or guardian, to raise a baby for years. The child would pass shortly after birth if it had such traumatic issues. For instance, while we might find that most of the people we deal with in life seem to not have a brain, when a baby is born "without one" medically speaking it is already dead. Nothing survives without its brain.

But again, its little life is not trumping anyone elses. The mom can walk away. The little one's life is on its own, and has a right to try and survive.

BJean · May 21, 2007

What Mark said was truthful and correct. You're working with a set of conditions that not everyone agrees is a viable, preferable or right plan of action. Sorry, just because you think adoption is always the answer to a woman's (or a child's) problems just doesn't make it so. It may be a decent thing to do in theory, but it is just not always the answer.

FunnyDuddies · May 21, 2007

If a woman is pregnant, and is at the 9th month, and does not want the baby...you are saying it is better to kill it as it is being born rather than put it up for adoption? How about this....they don't really kill the baby, but they tell her they did. then they take the baby and put it up for adoption. What harm is there in that? the baby lives and grows up happy and healthy. and the woman doesn't need to deal with the baby she didn't want. Does that work as an alternative for you?

marjon9 · May 21, 2007

actually, not well said. it is all based on the fact that the woman will be stuck with the child. In this country we have the right to give up our children. I could walk into the courts tomorrow and give up my two kids. If she is giving birth to the child, instead of killing it, why not take it away and let someone who will want to care for the child do so? There are many out there who do this sort of thing. But instead you want the woman to make the choice of killing the baby? Is it more shameful to give it up?
If the baby is being born, let it be born. The woman is not trapped. she can walk away if she chooses.

Clearly there is no way we will see eye to eye on this point, but the bottom line in all of this (which you don't like to talk about) is that it is not your decision to make. You might believe that it is just a minor inconvenience for a woman to give birth to a deformed, suffering infant with half a brain and then just drop it off somewhere for somebody else to take care of for the next twenty years. But, actually, this might be something that would cause quite a bit of distress, don't you think?

I know, I know, you will argue that "whatever inconvenience it is for the mother, death is an even greater inconvenience for the 'baby.'" Yeah, whatever. But the bottom line, again, is THIS IS NOT YOUR DECISION TO MAKE. And so many women out there are so very greatful that this is true.